British Columbia Hansard — 31 October 2018, p.m., Issue 174 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20181031pm-Hansard-n174

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday, October 31, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 174 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Third Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Linda Reid Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees.................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ..................................................................Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)...................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)....................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)..................................................... Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ...............................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon. Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Wednesday, October 31, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Statements ................................................................................................................................................................................ 6083 Dyslexia awareness Hon. J.

Horgan Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 6083 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 6083 James Liu A. Kang Merritt Country Christmas Parade J. Tegart Cycling initiative and safety advocacy by North Shore HUB group B. Ma Paul Bennett S. Cadieux Early childhood education work of Kate Toye J.

Rice Oral Questions......................................................................................................................................................................... 6085 Community benefits agreement and workers A. Wilkinson Hon. C. Trevena M. Polak Electric vehicle charging stations and manufacturing A. Weaver Hon. J. Horgan Community benefits agreement and workers J. Isaacs Hon. C. Trevena G. Kyllo Hon. J. Horgan J. Johal S.

Bond Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6090 Hon. M. Mungall Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 6090 Bill 41 — Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act Hon. M. Mark S. Cadieux A. Weaver Hon. M. Mark Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018(continued) On the main motion S. Cadieux C.

Oakes N. Letnick J. Tegart Royal Assent to Bills................................................................................................................................................................ 6103 Bill 36 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2018 Bill 37 — Land Statutes Amendment Act, 2018 Bill 38 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act Bill 42 — Assessment Amendment Act, 2018 Bill 43 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018

Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 6104 Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018(continued) J. Tegart M. Bernier M. Stilwell J. Sturdy J. Y ap D. Clovechok

WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 31, 2018 The House met at 1:35 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Statements DYSLEXIA AW ARENESS Hon. J. Horgan:About a year ago…. Pardon me. About a week ago, I received a letter from an 11-year-old student — it seems like a year ago — from Shawnigan Lake. She wrote me because she’s making a presentation. She’s just discovered that she has dyslexia, and that’s a challenge for her in read- ing, writing, math and spelling. Unfortunately, I am not able to attend her presentation today, because I’m with all of you here in Legislature.

But I wanted to just say that I admire her leadership in bringing this initiative forward in her community to raise awareness about dyslexia and disabilities in classrooms and how important it is for all of us to work together. Even with disabilities, good things can happen. I’m sure all members here know that Albert Einstein was dyslexic, and look at all of the things he was able to accomplish.

For the many British Columbians out there who are strug- gling with dyslexia or any other learning disabilities, know that the people in this Legislature and the people of British Columbia stand with you and will do our level best to make your life a little bit better and make your disabilities a little bit less unfortunate in the classroom. In fact, we’ll celebrate those disabilities and make sure your education is complete. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. For those at Shawnigan Lake elementary in the Cowichan Valley: have a great presentation about the importance of working together.

Introductions by Members Hon. D. Eby: I’m very pleased to introduce a special vis- itor in the gallery here today. Dr. Tilman Ruff is here from Australia. He’s the founding chair of the International Cam- paign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, also known as ICAN. ICAN was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017. He’s the president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and he is speaking this evening at the Royal Jubilee Hospital at 5 p.m. He’s joined by Dr.

Jonathan Down, a developmental pedi- atrician here in Victoria, who is the president-elect of the Canadian affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Will the House please join me in making both of these guests feel welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25B) JAMES LIU A. Kang:Art has the power to transform, to heal, to edu- cate, to motivate and to inspire.

I rise today to pay tribute in this House to Master James Liu, Liu Chang Fu Lao Shi, who passed away on October 20, 2018, but left us with the most beautiful gift of all: his masterpieces, his passion, his teach- ings, both of art and life. Master Liu is a renowned Taiwanese-Canadian artist of our time who has drawn inspiration from Canada’s nature. He has exhibited his art from coast to coast and helped chil- dren and adult students find their interest in painting. My daughter Elizabeth-Anne and I are lucky to have been able to study with Master Liu.

When Master Liu first came to B.C., he was inspired by the beauty of our province, the breathtaking awesomeness of nature, our snow-capped mountains, our meandering rivers and our relationship with the First Nations. He wanted to depict the underlying stories of our beautiful province through his art. He spent time travelling through the forests and wilderness of northern Canada to find inspiration, and I had the honour of displaying his northern Canada collec- tion in my office last year. He also loved to travel to differ- ent islands and coastal communities, the most recent being Galiano Island and Gibsons.

His art is a true appreciation for the land that we cur- rently stand on and reflects our values as British Colum- bians. As I continue my commitment in public service, I will never forget Master Liu’s teaching: the importance of the arts and understanding ourselves better, our inherent nature in treating our neighbours with love and respect, our moral imperative in protecting our surroundings and our duty to inspire others. Thank you, Master Liu, Liu Chang Fu Lao Shi, for painting this one last picture for us. Y ou will be missed. MERRITT COUNTRY CHRISTMAS PARADE J.

Tegart:Although today is all about ghosts and goblins — Happy Halloween, everyone — I would like to talk about a special event that happens in the community of Merritt and kicks off their Christmas season. [1:40 p.m.] I’ve had the honour of participating in Merritt’s annual Country Christmas Parade for the past five years. I want you to get a sense of the magic of an evening parade. It’s a dark night. The weather is cold and crisp. Families line the parade route.

Everyone is excited about the coming holiday season, and people come from all over to experience the twinkling lights on over 60 floats in an incredible Country Christmas Parade. There are cement trucks lit up to look like snowmen; floats with Christmas trees; bonfires; Christmas carols; elves; and, of course, the very special man himself, Santa Claus. It’s hard to describe the excitement and anticipation in the 6083

little ones’ eyes, the feeling of coming together as families and community, the appreciation of all the effort that makes this event so special. It truly is a wonderful way to kick off the holiday season. The Merritt Country Christmas Parade happens this year on Friday, November 23. I would like to invite all members in this House to experience this incredible kickoff to the hol- iday season. Bring your families, your grandchildren, your friends, because once you’ve seen it, you’ll want to be there every year. CYCLING INITIATIVE AND SAFETY ADVOCACY BY NORTH SHORE HUB GROUP B.

Ma: It’s GoByBike Weeks in B.C., and all across the province, thousands of people are riding hundreds of thou- sands of kilometres to and fro, on their bikes. Right here in Victoria, the New Democrat caucus has organized a team every year for staff and MLAs since 2005. What does it take to commute to work by bike? Not much. A little confidence; a basic level of fitness; a bit of planning, for sure — oh yes, and a sense of safety.

While cycling to work won’t work for everyone in every situation — for instance, I personally find it quite difficult to ride my road bike to work in a pencil skirt; not for lack of trying, mind you — many people opt not to cycle to work simply because of safety concerns. Insufficient safe cycling infrastructure, aggressive drivers, a general disregard for the vulnerability of people on bikes. I have personally experienced several close calls commuting on a bike.

And before you ask, yes, I was paying attention; yes, I had lights; yes, I was obeying the rules of the road; yes, I had my helmet on — yes, yes, yes, like so many people on bikes who have had close calls, been injured or even killed just travelling to or from work. People like Lucas Drake, whose last breath I witnessed on Keith Road in North Van- couver last year.

That’s why I’m so grateful for the work that Heather Drugge, Tony Valente, Antje Wahl, Don Piercy, Peter Schol- efield, Fiona Walsh, Dianne Murray, Don McPherson, Dave Perfitt, Martyn Schmoll and Paul Stott do through HUB North Shore, an advocacy group for better roads and con- nections, protected bike lanes and better rules, laws and edu- cation to make cycling safer and more accessible throughout the region. Certainly, there is a lot more work to be done on those fronts by all levels of government. PAUL BENNETT S. Cadieux:Crime is down in Surrey.

Property crime is down 16 percent, auto theft is down 39 percent, and there is 7 percent less violent crime over last year. That’s really good news, but the reality remains that when violent crime does occur, real people get hurt or die. Paul Bennett was a husband, a father and a friend. He was an emergency room nurse at Peace Arch Hospital in White Rock. He was a coach for an atom hockey team in Clover- dale. On June 23, Paul Bennett tragically lost his life when he was shot on the driveway of his Cloverdale home. Initially police believed it was a targeted shooting.

The homicide investigators would quickly conclude that Paul was an innocent victim of mistaken identity. [1:45 p.m.] He leaves behind a family — Darlene Robinson and two sons, Owen and Adam. No one could have imagined that Paul Bennett would die in such a senseless and violent way, and our community is still mourning his death. My husband knew Paul — not well, but they’ d met a few times at the rink over a men’s game. By all accounts, Paul was a great guy, the kind of person that was always thinking of others, from his work as a nurse to his coaching of kids.

On October 13, the Cloverdale Minor Hockey Association announced three tributes to Paul Bennett. Firstly, a tourna- ment has been renamed the Paul Bennet Atom C Blast Tour- nament. Players are going to wear special PB stickers on their helmets this season. A new Paul Bennet Love of Hockey Bursary has been established. These initiatives honour his memory, but a devastated family must grieve. The homicide of Paul Bennett remains an active and ongoing IHIT investigation. The family is appealing to the public for information that could help to solve Paul’s murder.

Tips can be left by phone or email and can be made anonym- ously through Crime Stoppers. The violence is senseless. It will take all of us to stand together against it. So from this House to Paul Bennett’s fam- ily and friends, our deepest condolences. EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION WORK OF KATE TOYE J. Rice: Kate Toye is a champion of early childhood edu- cation in Prince Rupert, and her work in building a family- friendly community is worth recognizing. I recall participating in a community walk in Prince Rupert as a newly elected politician a few years ago.

Kate walked beside me the entire time and feverishly chatted my head off about the importance of the early years of a child’s life. Now, I know this would annoy most politicians, but her passion was so infectious. I was captivated the whole time, and I learned a tremendous amount about the importance of early child development during that community walk. Kate organizes activities like the annual Children’s Day in the Park, which includes culture, literacy, nutrition, child care and children’s play. She works with local First Nations of Lax Kw’alaams, Gitxaala and the Gitga’at.

Through these partnerships, members have taken

part in workshops, dancing, crafts, community dinners, festivals and literacy initiatives. She’s a mother of three who cares about the education of our children in Prince Rupert and the surrounding areas. By working in early childhood development for the past sev- 6084 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, October 31, 2018

en years, Kate has been instrumental in all aspects of early childhood development. I particularly like her advocacy in letting children be children and building resiliency within kids and their families. I’ d like to congratulate Kate Toye on being elected by the voters of school district 52. Her years of work and dedication were reflected in her recent landslide win of trustee. No doubt she will continue to advocate for kids and hold my, and government’s, feet to the fire.

I know she will do well for the students and families of Prince Rupert and the areas around, and I wish her all the best in her new endeavours. Kate truly is a very positive person and an amazing role model. Thank you, Kate. Oral Questions COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT AND WORKERS A. Wilkinson:The British Columbia Construction Asso- ciation represents thousands of employers. They’ve been a respected, non-partisan voice in British Columbia for 50 years.

The association president, Chris Atchison, is here in the gallery today, because he’s deeply concerned about the NDP union benefits agreement that was announced in July. This is starting to hit home, because contractors are hav- ing trouble putting together bids for public sector projects. He says: “The community benefits agreement is a Jekyll-and- Hyde document. It pretends to prioritize local equity hires but conscripts to a union instead. ” To the Minister of Transportation, why is she forcing workers to join unions they do not want to join? [1:50 p.m.] Hon. C.

Trevena:I appreciate the question from the Lead- er of the Opposition, who obviously wasn’t really paying attention yesterday when we were talking about this. We did canvass this very fully, that the community bene- fits agreement has a union workforce. There are 19 building trades unions involved in this, and they are the same 19 building trades unions that were involved in Allied Hydro projects going back to W .A.C. Bennett, up to the Waneta dam and finally, SNC-Lavalin on the John Hart dam. Mr. Speaker:The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. A.

Wilkinson: Well, having lived in Campbell River myself, I would have thought the member was more aware of what was going on in her backyard. The John Hart dam was an open-tendered project. The winning bid happened to use the building trades. The other bids did not. It was up to the bidder, the company, the employer to decide wheth- er to unionize. Instead, what we have is the Minister of Transportation claiming, on behalf of the NDP government, that there is only one true faith, the 19 NDP handpicked trade unions. And thou shalt join or be unemployed. This is completely ridiculous. Let’s listen to the B.C.

Con- struction Association board. What they say is that this is the most dangerous and disruptive industrial policy to be intro- duced by any government in recent memory. “Whether you are a union or an open-shop employer, your basic rights and freedoms as Canadians are being blatantly disregarded. ” Chris Atchison is here. Will the minister tell him why she continues to maintain this fiction that people have free- dom of choice in the workplace when she has required every worker on these projects to join one of 19 NDP-chosen uni- ons, who happen to be the biggest donor base of the NDP for the last decade? Hon. C.

Trevena:Really, I’m very surprised by the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly does not understand what is happening in this province. What is happening in this province is there is a massive skills shortage, and the community benefits agreement is one way that we are going to be dealing with the skills shortage. We’re going to be hiring people through the building trades, as the opposition did when they were in government. Waneta dam, other projects, other Allied Hydro projects — all through the same building trades unions. Y ou know why?

Because the building trades unions have a record of being the best private sector unions to get apprenticeships working. That’s what we need in this province. We need women working. We need Indigenous people working. We need that skills gap filled, and we’re very proud of the com- munity benefits agreements as one way of making sure that skills gap is filled. Mr. Speaker:The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental. A. Wilkinson:It’s really indicative that the B.C. Construc- tion Association held town hall meetings all across the province over the summer.

The minister was invited to attend every one of them — did not appear. No representat- ive showed up. The minister ignored them.

Here are some of the comments the minister missed at those meetings. “Union conscription is against my prin- ciples, and I will not bid. ” Two: “This is an ideological policy that is not rooted in any logic. ” Three: “Eighty percent of employers are going to sit on the sidelines. ” Why is the minister restricting employment on public projects by forcing members, the workers, to join unions which are handpicked by the NDP as the payback to the uni- on bosses for donating to the NDP for the last decade? Hon. C.

Trevena:I do realize that the Leader of the Oppo- sition has his own approach, but we actually are the side, as government, that took big money out of politics. [1:55 p.m.] Wednesday, October 31, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6085

The continued description of this as the NDP union really belies belief when they are the same unions used when that side of the House happened to be in government. They would be, at that time, equally the handpicked unions of the B.C. Liberals. M. Polak:When the minister uses those examples, she knows she’s wrong. She knows she’s wrong because at the end of the day, they weren’t agreements between government and unions. They were agreements between those who had been successful bidders and happened to have affiliations. She knows that. But there’s only one reason why she’s trotting out that example now.

It’s because for weeks and weeks, she didn’t have any good answers, and she’s trying desperately to find one. Well, Minister, this isn’t one. When she chooses to ignore the British Columbia Con- struction Association, she’s choosing to ignore 250,000-plus workers. By the way, that is larger than the population of Burnaby. This is no small organization. They speak for work- ers who deserve to be heard, and here’s what they’re saying.

The workers are saying: “We believe this CBA amounts to conscription of B.C. ’s construction workforce into a desig- nated union. ” Will the minister finally listen to these workers and rethink her policy of forcing workers to join unions they don’t want to join? Hon. C. Trevena:We are very proud of the community benefits agreement. The community benefits agreement approach is on some of our major projects. We are open to any…. Any contractor can bid on them, and I anticipate a number will, because we are investing $15 billion in infra- structure across this province.

When you get to the worksite, it’s a unionized worksite. If the member opposite remembers from when she was in gov- ernment and maybe talking to some of her colleagues and some people in her constituency, many workers in the con- struction industry hold a number of union cards. We’re not forcing anyone to join any union. But this is a unionized worksite. We anticipate that they are going to be joining B.C. Build- ing Trades, because the B.C.

Building Trades, as I have said before — the member may not have been listening, but I have addressed this a number of times in this House — has a great record in dealing with apprenticeships and making sure that we are filling that skills gap that our province needs in a way that is helping the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker:The House Leader for the official opposition on a second supplemental. M. Polak:Well, the minister is dancing around what she really wants to say. She’s trying to be careful not to say what I’m going to reveal, but it’s clear from her answer.

She actually believes that other unions in British Colum- bia somehow do not come up to the standard of the Building Trades. That is what she is dancing around and not saying. It’s why they have changed the way things operate with this agreement. It used to be that a company bids on the project, they win the bid, and if they have an affiliation, then the workers have that affiliation. It goes through the employers. Now it is the government that decrees beforehand that the only unions that are good enough to work on that project are their hand- picked 19 unions. Here’s what the B.C.

Construction Association had to say about that. “The B.C. CBA undermines the role of all employers in our industry, regardless of their labour affili- ation, and will discourage contractors from bidding on pub- lic projects. ” Will the minister stop with this shameful preference for one union over another and admit that workers across Brit- ish Columbia have the right to bid on projects without hav- ing to join a union they don’t want to join? Hon. C. Trevena:Again, I’m surprised by the line of ques- tioning from the opposition, whose record when it comes to construction of public infrastructure is quite amazing.

I mean, let’s look at…. [2:00 p.m.] When the Leader of the Opposition was a deputy minister, the Vancouver Convention Centre was $335 million over budget. The B.C. Place roof, $149 million over budget. The opposition, when they were in government, was irrespons- ible in building infrastructure. We are working to build the real infrastructure of B.C. — not just the bridges and the highways and the hospitals and the schools, as so desperately needed, but the people. We’re investing in the people of Brit- ish Columbia, and I’m proud of that. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS AND MANUFACTURING A.

Weaver:We’ve talked about the last 16 years. We’ve talked about the 1990s. Let’s talk about the future now. In the second quarter of 2018, British Columbians bought 2,564 electric vehicles, more than three times the amount bought in the previous year. Across our province, dealerships can’t keep EVs on their lots. Backlogs and waiting lists vary from three months to a year, even up to 18 months, and the clean growth strategy to be released later this fall will bring in an aggressive ZEV standard to B.C. Charging infrastructure remains a barrier for widespread EV adoption, and B.C.

Hydro, which has installed a few fast- chargers recently, has done so by giving away the electricity for free. This has led to large lineups as locals get electricity for free while those who need it and those who want to pay for it have to wait in line, hoping to get a charge at some point down the road. B.C. manufacturing companies like Electra Meccanica, Envirotech Electric Vehicles and Zero Nox Inc. are looking 6086 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, October 31, 2018

to set up here in British Columbia, manufacturing facilities that want to grow our economy and meet global demand. My question is to the Premier. What is his government doing to encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and EV manufacturing in B.C.? Hon. J. Horgan:I thank the Leader of the Third Party for the question. It’s nice to have forward-looking questions on how we’re going to build a better, stronger British Columbia, how we’re going to meet our objectives with respect to cli- mate action, and I appreciate the question.

First of all, British Columbia does lead the country in charging stations, some 1,500. Now you can travel from Golden…. The member from Golden can travel all the way to Tofino in his electric vehicle and not have to stop and charge. As the member quite rightly says, though, we do have some challenges. That’s why the B.C. Utilities Commission has opened up a review on their own initiative to ensure that we find a way to get electricity into electric vehicles in a way that’s cost-effect- ive, a way that’s fair to the travelling public and allows us to build even more capacity going forward.

Lastly, I would say, with respect to electric vehicle uptake in the economy, we had to increase…. The Minister of Fin- ance found an additional $10 million to put into the clean energy vehicle program in September because it was already oversubscribed from February. That speaks to demand in the economy. That speaks to a responsive government that’s listening to people and putting in place programs and ser- vices that will help them and help all of us meet our climate change objectives. A. Weaver:As the Premier mentioned, obviously there are nearly 1,500 EV charging stations in British Columbia.

Almost all of them give away electricity for free. Some are private; most are not. The free model is rapidly becoming unsustainable as more and more British Columbians move towards EVs. To sell someone electricity in this province, you must be registered as a public utility unless you get some very-dif- ficult-to-get exemption. Oregon, California, Washington, Ontario, New Y ork and a number of other U.S. states have already exempted EV charging from energy regulation. Resale of electricity is permitted, like a gas station, without prior approval, and prices are set by the market.

Of course, safety, consumer protection and other considerations are indeed regulated. My question, then, to the minister is this. The type of approach that encourages private investment in vehicle- charging infrastructure in British Columbia is exactly the direction we want to go. Will the Premier commit his gov- ernment to updating B.C. ’s regulatory environment for EV charging stations immediately after receiving the recom- mendations from the B.C. Utilities Commission report he referred to? Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his interest and passion on this subject.

I also want to say that we are utilizing the B.C. Utilities Commission, unlike the pre- vious government that sidelined this very useful regulatory body. We’re using the B.C. Utilities Commission to determ- ine the best way forward. [2:05 p.m.] The member is quite correct. He has looked into this diligently. We do have some challenges with respect to giv- ing away energy in some places and overcharging in oth- ers, and a regulatory framework that meets the needs of the travelling public and allows us to meet our climate objectives over time is the right way forward.

I look for- ward — as all members, I’m sure, do — to the Utilities Commission reporting back in the next number of weeks, I expect, on their proposals going forward. I also want to touch on another component of the ques- tion that the member asked, and that is: how can we incent and attract the development, the creation, the construction and the implementation of a program that has a clean, green, innovative hinge to it?

That would be left to the member for Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of Jobs, Training and Techno- logy, who appointed the first innovation commissioner in B.C. ’s history so that we can have an economy that works for everybody and looks forward — not backward, like the people on the other side. COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT AND WORKERS J. Isaacs:Control Solutions Ltd. has been an important local employer in Coquitlam for 25 years. Claude Nobauer and his 70 employees can’t work on public projects simply because they don’t want to belong to one of the minister’s handpicked unions.

Why are Claude and the 70 employees of Control Solu- tions not good enough for the minister? Why is she forcing them to join a union they don’t want to join? Hon. C. Trevena:I thank the member for her question. I’ d like to remind the member that — she was not part of the former government — the former government did get a report about the skills shortage. And I’ d have thought that they would have understood then, as government, and now, as opposition, that we do have a skills shortage.

That report actually talks about project labour agree- ments, such as the community benefits agreement, being an excellent way to deal with that skills shortage so we can train Indigenous people and we can train women. We can train those people who don’t usually get opportunities to get into the trades, to get into the trades. We are allowing any contractor to bid on community benefit agreement projects. When people get to work on community benefit agreement projects, as has been the case in hydro projects in the past….

There are 19 unions which people will become the members of, as has been the case Wednesday, October 31, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6087

since W .A.C. Bennett through to the present day. That’s what we’re doing, and we’re very proud of that. Mr. Speaker:Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supple- mental. J. Isaacs:Well, the minister can keep trying to pretend that her scheme isn’t new and there is nothing to see here, but clearly, that’s not the case. Thousands of construction workers, industry groups and labour unions are telling the minister that this is not the same as the past agreement and that discrimination is unacceptable. In my community, those voices include Claude Nobauer and the 70 employees of Control Solutions.

Why can’t Claude and his employees keep working on public projects without being forced to join unions that they don’t want to join? Hon. C. Trevena:As I have mentioned before and will mention again, any contractor can bid on the project. When they get the project, if people are working there for more than 30 days, they’ll be asked to join a union. It’s common in building trades to have union workplaces. It’s common that people hold a number of union cards if they’re moving from place to place. It is common to work in building trades, who are the best placed to be training apprentices.

The opposition did it when they were in govern- ment. We’re doing it. We’re using those 19 unions as part of our agreement because we know that they will help us build the infrastructure of B.C., invest in the people of B.C. — investing in women in trades, investing in Indigenous people in the trades and investing in our future. G. Kyllo:To the minister, to somehow think that the only apprentices that are actually trained in this province are those with the Building Trades is absolutely so wrong. [2:10 p.m.] Y esterday I had the opportunity to meet with a heavy- duty-equipment operator by the name of Ed Lehn.

Ed’s a big, strong guy. He’s been working in the private sector for the last ten years — the last two years, actually, as a member of CLAC. What Ed said to me is: “I have no interest in joining the BTU unions. I am happy with my representation. ” Ed wants know why he is being discriminated against and being forced to join a union to which he does not want to belong. Hon. J. Horgan:I just want to recap here.

I think the opposition doesn’t like the fact that we, on this side of the House, are making choices for British Columbians that will help build capacity for the future, that will invest in local communities and that will put people in local communities at the front of the line. This notion that it’s a payoff to unions…. I need to quote a friend of the member, Doug Parton of the Ironworkers Loc- al 97, who said: “What’s this b.s. about community benefits being a payoff to unions? Do people not remember that iron- workers supported the Liberals in the last election?” This should not be about partisanship.

I realize that the pool is shallow on that side for good, solid questions about what the government is doing because we’re doing such a darned good job. Mr. Speaker:The member for Shuswap on a supplement- al. G. Kyllo:Doug Parton with the Ironworkers is a close friend, and I was very proud when he came out and sup- ported the B.C. Liberals in the last election. But the fact of the matter remains that the building trades are not the only unions that actually provide training. The private sector provides a ton of apprenticeship training programs all across British Columbia.

Going back to my friend Ed, who I met yesterday. Ed said: “I should be able to choose which union to join through a secret ballot, not have the decision imposed upon me by the government through a backroom political deal. ” With 30 years of experience in the construction industry, why can’t Ed choose for himself which union he wants to belong to? Hon. J.

Horgan:I’ d like to keep with the member’s old friend Doug Parton, because he had a lot to say about com- munity benefit agreements, and he had a lot to say about the need to put the partisanship aside and focus on workers and training and building a better British Columbia. With respect to the approach of the previous government, Doug had this to say: “I remember when they were building the Golden Ears Bridge. Those guys brought in temporary foreign workers, and my unemployed members, ” ironwork- ers, “had to bring pizzas down to help support those guys.

They didn’t have enough to eat because they weren’t getting an honest day’s pay. They didn’t get the nutrition because they didn’t get the pay they needed. ” That was Doug Parton — not a supporter of mine, not a supporter of this party but a supporter of that party. He also said, with respect to community benefits agreements: “Where was the training at Golden Ears for the next genera- tion of ironworkers, labourers, carpenters or whatever?” This program will build a better B.C. It’s forward-looking. I don’t know why you guys don’t like it.

Y ou should find another line of questioning, because this one’s going nowhere. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. J. Johal:Cam Reid is a proud member of the Canada West Construction Union in Sooke. Cam says: “I don’t think it’s fair that as a CWU member I cannot work on public projects under my union when my tax dollars help pay for them. ” 6088 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Will the minister allow workers like Cam to choose his union or force him to join a union he doesn’t want to join? Hon. J. Horgan:It feels a bit likeGroundhog Day here — same question, different questioner. I’m delighted to hear that members on that side of the House have found some friends recently, and they want to stand and offer up the opinions of those friends in the Legislature. That’s good news. Apparently, making friends is difficult for some and, apparently, not so much for the last questioner. [2:15 p.m.] Here are the issues before us.

British Columbians support a community benefits agreement because it puts local people first. It puts training at the top of the line. It allows women, Indigenous people and other underrepresented people in the community to get access to the training they need to build a better B.C., which should be in the interest of all members of this House. Mr. Speaker:Richmond-Queensborough on a supple- mental. J. Johal:The Premier can be dismissive, but we’re talking about real people here — 250,000 people. Here’s another example.

Franklin Howe is a proud mem- ber of the Kinetic Employees Association, from the Premier’s riding. Franklin wants to know: “Why should I be forced to join and pay dues to a union I have never chosen in order to work on public projects that are being paid for by my own tax dollars? This discriminatory policy is deeply unfair. ” Why does Franklin have to pay for a project he can’t work on unless he joins a union he doesn’t want to join? Hon. J. Horgan: Well, Franklin in my constituency is probably pretty busy, because it’s the fastest-growing com- munity in the south Island. Construction is going off the charts.

We currently have two projects that have community benefits agreements. One is the Pattullo Bridge in New Westminster, which is a good distance away, at least a ferry ride away, from Langford. We’re going to be hiring local people to build that — local British Columbians, not tem- porary foreign workers but people who want to put down roots in British Columbia so that their families and gener- ations of British Columbians can benefit from developing public infrastructure. I appreciate that on that side of the House, it was just about building something.

The audacity of the Leader of the Opposition to say we’re paying off friends…. When I look at all of the contracts that were given to supporters of the B.C. Liberal Party, it is ludicrous, particularly with our good friend Doug Parton as an example of our approach to this. I don’t care if Doug Parton supports me or not. I want Doug Parton’s members and all British Columbians to bene- fit from public investments when we make them in infra- structure right across the province. Community benefits agreements will do that. It was good enough for W .A.C.

Ben- nett, but the free enterprisers on the other side reject that. S. Bond: Well, that was a very loud answer on behalf of the Premier. Y ou know what’s ironic? Y esterday this Premi- er didn’t have the moxie to stand up and look those workers in the eye and say exactly what he said today. In fact, let’s be clear. We didn’t ask…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. Members, we should hear the question. S. Bond:In fact, this Premier just stood in the House and told everyone that he wants the benefits to be for all Brit- ish Columbians.

Then I suggest that he get his minister in a room and tell her to change the agreement that requires people to belong to a union they don’t want to belong to. So nice speech. It does not benefit all British Columbians. It benefits some British Columbians. In fact, to the Premier, there are thousands and thousands of British Columbians being left out of this agreement. Will the minister, maybe directed by the Premier, elimin- ate the requirement that workers, who apparently aren’t good enough for that side of the House, actually have to join a uni- on they don’t want to join? Hon. J.

Horgan:I have before me a final report that was presented to the then Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, that person who just asked me the question. The foundation of that report said that one of the challenges for apprenticeships is on-the-job training. Apprentices coming out of classrooms do not have jobs to train on. So one of the recommendations was that “government should consider having a minimum number of apprentices on public infra- structure projects. ” That’s exactly what we’re doing.

If only the member had read the report and implemented these programs, perhaps we wouldn’t have a skills shortage. Perhaps we wouldn’t have those people sitting on that side of the House. But I’ve got to tell you that it looks good on you. [End of question period.] S. Gibson: I’ d like to request leave to make an introduc- tion. Mr. Speaker:Members, we shall hear the member for Abbotsford-Mission. Introductions by Members S. Gibson:I’ d like to introduce members of the B.C. Fed- eration of Students who are in the gallery.

It’s a group of highly engaged, enthusiastic individuals who work hard to Wednesday, October 31, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6089

represent post-secondary students provincewide. Would the House please give them a tri-partisan welcome. [2:20 p.m.] Petitions Hon. M. Mungall:I rise to present a petition. The petition of the undersigned, Jean A. Gardiner of the city of Nelson, states that the use of solitary confinement, seclusion, as treat- ment in mental health should be abolished. Solitary confine- ment is a violation of human rights, both internationally and at home. There are 154 people who have signed this petition. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:I call second reading of Bill 41, the Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act.

Second Reading of Bills BILL 41 — ADV ANCED EDUCATION STATUTE REPEAL ACT Hon. M. Mark:I’ d like to begin by acknowledging we’re on the territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people, mem- bers of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. It is my honour to move that Bill 41, the Advanced Educa- tion Statute Repeal Act, now be read a second time. This bill will repeal the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act in its entirety. Portions of this act were struck down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2011. However, those court decisions just dealt with the K-to-12 sector. [L.

Reid in the chair.] Sections of the act that relate to the post-secondary system are still on the books. Repealing this act now will remove the remaining sections of the act. These sections allow public colleges and institutes the right to dictate class size, working hours, the number and length of semesters, professional development time and vacation time, and to make faculty teach distance learning courses. Here’s the catch: these ele- ments can override other acts or collective bargaining agree- ments that have been negotiated in good faith.

Both B.C. ’s highest court and Canada’s highest court rejec- ted these rights at the K-to-12 level. If challenged, this act almost certainly would be found unconstitutional. Fair, equal collective bargaining is good public policy. With parts of the act still left on the books, it prevents each side from coming to the table to bargain in good faith. In fact, it could put government in a precarious situation — the same situ- ation the Ministry of Education was in when challenged in court in 2016. Removing this likely unconstitutional act also reduces the risk of potentially expensive legal action.

Without this unfair and unused act, bargaining can move forward with existing laws and with policies and procedures already in place — most importantly, in good faith. S. Cadieux: I take my place as the opposition critic for Advanced Education in the second reading of Bill 41. I certainly understand the purpose of the act and the pur- pose of the repeal. The content is the same as was previ- ously deemed to be unconstitutional by the courts. I cer- tainly respect that and understand it, and the opposition will be supportive of the act. A.

Weaver:I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act. [2:25 p.m.] As the minister mentioned, this act repeals the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that was brought in under the previous government in 2002. Within the lan- guage of that bill brought in, in 2002, restrictions were removed — in particular, the clause: “Despite any other Act or a collective agreement, an institution has the right to (

a) establish the size of its classes, the number of stu- dents who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member in a semester, a term or an academic year, (

b) assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning, (

c) determine its hours of operation and the number and duration of terms or semesters dur- ing which instruction is offered to students, (

d) allocate profession- al development time and vacation time to facilitate its organization of instruction, and (

e) provide support for faculty members, includ- ing, but not limited to, teaching assistants, senior students, contract- ors and support staff members. ” This legislation, brought to 2002, was fortunately never actually challenged and never actually used, because uni- versities and colleges recognize that the governance style within these academic post-secondary institutions is more of a collegial form of governance, one in which an academic environment is governed by the senate, where there is input from faculty and staff and students in terms of the academic direction of an institution.

What was very troubling, of course, is that when this act was introduced, it also amended sections of the School Act, which stripped teachers’ bargaining rights — or when the prior act was a similar thing — related to class size and composition. Remember the infamous Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, which started major labour dis- putes in our province with health care workers. Again, that was also implemented at the same time. It was rather a clas- sic example of a pendulum that swings, when we have gov- ernments shift from one to the other side of the political spectrum.

If ever there was a compelling testimony as to why pro- portional representation is important, it’s that it limits these kinds of pendulum swings because of the fact that we typically don’t go from one extreme to the other. In this example, we’re going back to legislation coming in, being 6090 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, October 31, 2018

repealed. Of course, this should never have been brought in, in the first place. With the B.C. Teachers Federation, of the examples I just raised, that dispute lasted for a decade and a half. How much money, how many hours lost, how much stress put on teach- ers, how much education was not delivered because of time being put to this because of, frankly, punitive measures that were brought forward by the previous government to the employees within the education sector, whether it be K- to-12 or post-secondary institutions?

The amendments to the School Act that were brought in with the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act were poorly thought out. It was legislation that caused, as I men- tioned, a decade of turmoil, including the longest strike in BCTF’s history, in 2014, when I was sitting on the other side there. It was based, frankly, on ideology that the government of the day doubled down on as it lost decision after decision, until it went to the Supreme Court, which, only for a few minutes, deliberated before they ruled unanimously on the direction that this should take.

I remember, frankly, three years ago standing in this House and speaking about the approach of the previous gov- ernment towards education. At that time, I said that moving the relationship forward between the BCTF and the govern- ment would require trust — mutual trust. It was easy, of course, for me to see why the BCTF and other stakeholders in public education were leery to trust the direction of the previous government. At the time, I was arguing that the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, was a classic example of putting the cart before the horse.

Rather than engaging education stake- holders in meaningful dialogue, the government was provid- ing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint special advisers and issue administrative directives. Needless to say, that was not building trust. It was a classic example of the previous government’s approach.

Instead of working to build trust, the previous adminis- tration spent years fighting the BCTF — and countless dol- lars in doing so — creating labour disputes, court battles and strikes until finally the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the BCTF . [2:30 p.m.] They won their challenge because the legislative changes infringed on B.C. teachers’ freedom of association, guaran- teed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I use this example because the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that this bill is repealing here today — that is, Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act — has very similar language, which I read out earlier, very similar lan- guage in it, which, in theory, could render key sections in collective agreements with post-secondary educators void.

Coming to a specific example in the previous bill, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, which is being repealed, it states here, as well: “Despite any other Act or col- lective agreement, an institution has the right to…assign fac- ulty members to instruct courses using distributed learning, ” and to establish class sizes and “the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total num- ber of students who may be assigned to a faculty member…. ” The total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member — this shows such a fundamental misun- derstanding of how universities operate.

I taught at a university for 25 years before coming here. I had PhD students and master’s students. To think, here, that somehow government was enabling that my institution could tell me how many PhD students I could supervise…. Who’s going to pay them? We have departmental policy that requires us to find money to pay our students. What about if I was no longer active in research, and on and on. It just showed such a fundamental misunderstanding.

But in fact, in 2007, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators noted this, and they stated that this act over- ruled provisions of their collective agreements that dealt with class size. At the same time, their statement read as follows. This is the statement that they read: “ Although we have succeeded in preventing post-secondary employ- ers from using the legislation, today’s decision adds to our case that the legislation should be scrapped all together. ” That was with respect to a ruling, one of the many rulings, that came in the BCTF’s favour.

The Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act has still not been used to this day, thank goodness. But if it were to be used, I cringe to think of the disputes it would cause, and the subsequent legal challenges that could arise. Now, I recognize that this legislation, which is still on the books, is a blight on the previous government, is a blight on the official opposition, which is why it seems that there are no speakers to this at second reading, and that they’ll accept it, and quickly, apart from one just saying, in a matter of moments, that they’ll accept it.

We’re not getting a detailed discussion and rationale on why this was brought in, in the first place. Why was this brought in, in the first place? We have members sitting opposite who’ve been in the B.C. Legislature since 2002, when, in fact, this legislation was brought. Rather than simply giving us a history, rather than telling us why it was brought in and why they’re now supporting it, all they say, in essence, is “we support repealing it. ” I recognize this is a blight. It’s a shameful blight on 16 years of actually not putting education as a priority in this province.

This bill before us today is seeking to remove the controversial piece of legislation, which, fortunately, has never been used before, and, frankly, if it were, would almost certainly have triggered legal challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada, where, once again, it would’ve been deemed unconstitutional and a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the legacy that the new government has to deal with. It is repealing legislation that, yet again, would almost certainly have been unconstitutional.

My caucus and I are 100 percent behind this bill, and with that, I thank you for your attention. Wednesday, October 31, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6091

Deputy Speaker:Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate. Hon. M. Mark:I move second reading of Bill 41. Motion approved. Hon. M. Mark:I move that Bill 41 be referred to a Com- mittee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. M. Mark:I call Bill 40. [2:35 p.m.] BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (continued) On the main motion. S.

Cadieux:I am pleased to take my place to speak to Bill 40. Bill 40 is just a blatant and unfair interference with the ref- erendum campaign. There was to be a “yes” committee and a “no” committee and rules about funding, but in the middle of the referendum campaign, the government chose to intro- duce a bill that is clearly designed to get a “yes” vote. But I think that the referendum, frankly, is asking the impossible of voters. There are 29 things that have to be decided after the ref- erendum.

We’re not voting on first-past-the-post versus something else; we’re voting on first-past-the-post or something else to be determined later. I just don’t think that that’s the best way or an informed way to make a decision about something as fundamental as electoral reform. I absolutely believe that it is fine to ask voters to vote on a potential change if that potential change is defined, factual and clearly articulated. But every day I am continuing to see inaccurate information being thrown around by citizens.

It makes me concerned that, indeed, not enough education has been done and not enough facts are available to those voters. People are continuing to say — including members of this House — that under proportional representation, you as a citizen get to vote for your MLA and that there won’t be lists. But that is not true. The Attorney General’s own recommendations to cabinet, if you read them, lay out that two of the proposed systems would contain lists. The dual-member proportional and the mixed-member proportional representation would have party lists.

I don’t think that that makes for a more demo- cratic system. Now, of course, that is my personal opinion, but I can’t understand how people can suggest that it leads to better representation of the voter. The current system allows voters in any particular area to vote for or against a particular candidate. So if someone is elected, even if that person is elected and it is the choice of that voter, by the next election, if individuals feel that that person has not represented them well, they can not re- elect that person. That is that direct accountability avail- able to voters.

When the Premier says, “Take a leap of faith with us, ” I just think that’s insulting. If the government thinks that PR is the right thing for B.C., then why does the Attorney Gener- al say: “Well, if you don’t have enough information, just vote to keep the first-past-the-post”? Why not, instead, provide the information? But no, because we have a flawed process, a flawed referendum and a flawed ballot question. I just think that with a razor-thin minority government, through a minority coalition….

The reality is that I think that we should be a little more careful about a big decision like this, and we should take the time necessary to make this decision in a way where voters can make an informed decision. We have a referendum question with no clarity, no cer- tainty, a significant lack of detail and a Premier saying: “Take a leap of faith. Trust us to tell you later what you voted for. ” We’re debating legislation here to amend the legislation that this minority coalition government pushed through in the spring to meet the obligations of their agreement to maintain that coalition.

The legislation itself that enables the referendum was rushed through in the spring. Now we’ve got an insurance policy coming forward on behalf of the govern- ment to the voters to suggest that it’s okay, it doesn’t matter if you don’t know what you’re voting for, because later you can change your mind. If that was the intent…. We’re told it was, in fact. Clearly, government intended this long ago.

What we’re debating now — the potential to have a second referendum after a change to the voting system many years from now — is already referenced as a done deal in what are supposed to be non-partisan Elections B.C. voter packages explaining the referendum.

And if that’s the case, then the government told Elections B.C. months ago that the legislation that we’re debating here today, which has not been passed by this House, is a done deal. [2:40 p.m.] Now, I understand that the government feels that is the case, and I understand that they feel they have the support of their coalition members in forcing this legislation through so that Elections B.C. information is, in fact, correct in the future. But it’s not correct today, yet it’s been printed, presup- posing the outcome of the legislation that we’re debating. I think that is presumptuous.

I think it is calculated to give the government cover on this very flawed process. By even presenting Bill 40, the government is suggest- ing, to me, that voters are not supportive of a change to proportional representation under the rules, processes and information that have been set out to date. So they have to 6092 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, October 31, 2018

make some changes to entice voters into taking that great leap of faith. Why else would this happen now? It was only six months ago that the referendum act was passed. The government is telling me that they were so poorly prepared for that legis- lation that they forgot to include this big issue of a second referendum, so they need a do-over already, before we even have the referendum. It’s insulting. Changing our voting system is a major decision, and it is the right of the people. It’s a major decision for the elector- ate to make, and it’s their right to make that change should they wish.

But the electorate is being told by this government that we should take a leap of faith, vote on hypotheticals and vague promises, and I do not believe that is so. The government has bungled this from the beginning. They’ve been rushing from the beginning. We can’t have maps because it’ll take too much time. We can’t have details. It can be worked out later. Don’t worry about it. We can’t have a citizens’ assembly. That’ll take too much time. But this is a fundamental change to our democratic institution.

If the Premier believes it’s the right thing to do, if the Attor- ney General believes it’s the right thing to do, then they should have the class and the integrity to present their case, to defend it, holes and all, with its vague promises, with their Green Party deals. They should present it all to the public. And they — wow — miraculously are going to do that in a debate next week, after the majority of the ballots will have already been sent back to Elections B.C. People will have already made their choice, based on all that flawed information. This is not something that should be lesser than an elec- tion.

This is not something that should be given less atten- tion than a general election. This is, in fact, in some ways, more important. But government is trying to slide it past the voters, hopeful many will ignore a mail-in ballot, which they will. We’re already seeing evidence of that in apartment recycling bins. We have to ask, I think, the Attorney General, who’s now suggesting that if people don’t have enough information, they should vote to keep the system we already have. And I agree; they should.

But isn’t that just an admission by the Attorney General that, in fact, this whole referendum pro- cess is flawed and, in fact, there isn’t enough information? Otherwise, he should be defending the systems he’s put for- ward. But the details aren’t there to support. Frankly, I think the translucence from the Premier on this referendum is obvious. I would support a referendum where citizens could make a truly informed decision, but many people aren’t informed. They can’t get the information they need to make that decision, and many are making their decision with incorrect and misleading information.

My colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie has pointed out that this referendum may be unconstitutional, and he’s laid out his reasons. The pro-PR folks have presented that as a myth, but it’s actually a very reasonable concern and a question. Now, there is nothing unconstitutional about changing our voting system, provided — and I stress “provided” — that the change we make must be in keeping with the Cana- dian constitution and the Charter. There is a valid argument that some of the proposed proportional representation sys- tems do not.

There are a lot of myths out there, and there are a lot of things being presented as facts. Depending on which side of the argument is leading the discussion, you may find you don’t agree with either a myth or a fact. But there are a few that I read on line the other day that I am really con- cerned about. [2:45 p.m.] The pro-PR side is putting forward as a myth that prop rep is a risky unknown. They say that’s false, and they present as a fact that more than 90 percent of the world’s democra- cies use prop rep and that only four countries use first-past- the-post — the U.K., the United States, Canada and India.

But that statement is fundamentally false. The actual number of countries that use proportional representation and first- past-the-post are approximately even in support. The fact that people suggest it’s risky…. Well, it is risky, because two of the three options on our ballot are not used anywhere else in the world. They are hypothetical. And the third is only used in seven of the countries that use pro- portional representation. So I’ d say there is a significant degree of risk that we don’t know how those systems would work here. There’s another myth that the prop rep side is trying to put down.

They say that there’s a myth out there that prop rep will result in fringe parties. They say that’s false. They put for- ward that to win a seat under prop rep, a party must win 5 percent of the vote. In their minds, political parties will need substantial support, so then they couldn’t be fringe. Holy moly, all one has to do is look through the news art- icles of the day to see what’s happening in Sweden, New Zea- land and other countries. There are fringe parties in every legislature that uses proportional representation, and many of them are there with less than 4 percent of the vote.

Some are on the far right; some are on the far left. Some can’t be classified as left or right. They’re just one-issue parties. Meanwhile, few, if any, of the first-past-the-post legislatures or systems have any fringe parties represented. Now, I love this one. The pro-PR folks are telling people that it’s a myth that if we change the system, we’re stuck with it. And they’re presenting as a fact that B.C. will hold a second referendum after two elections and that we can go back to our first-past-the-post if we change and we don’t like it. By the way, no country has ever gone back after adopting prop rep.

The reality is that the legislation we’re debating says that if we switch to prop rep, then we will have it for eight years, or two elections past the switch. But it won’t be until after the 2021 election, so it’s more likely 12 years from now. And the structures that underlie our election system — the num- ber of parties, the number of MLAs, the number of ridings Wednesday, October 31, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6093

and the election rules — will all have changed in that time to suit proportional representation. So it’s not like throwing a switch. Referendums are expensive. The changes that would be required if we choose to switch will be even more expensive. The promise of a second referendum is an empty one. It’s offered as an insurance policy. I understand that from the perspective of government, but I believe firmly that if we switch, that’s it. No do-overs.

Best of all is something the member for North Vancou- ver–Lonsdale alluded to in a very impassioned speech — that somehow proportional representation democracies are kinder, gentler democracies. How so? Canada is consistently rated one of the best, most democratic and free countries in the world, one of the best places to live, one of the places most people would choose to move to if they could. Why? How about the fact that the election system we have now has produced one of the kindest, gentlest, least corrupt, prosper- ous and free democracies on earth? Why do we need to switch? This system isn’t perfect.

Every member of this House and every voter doesn’t get their way on everything. That’s because we don’t all see eye to eye. Every citizen has different priorities and thinks government should, of course, adopt theirs. As a member of a cabinet for a number of years, I didn’t always get my way, because there are competing priorities for governments to grapple with. [2:50 p.m.] This new government is not delivering on every promise they promised to voters. Why? Because they can’t do it all at once, and there are competing priorities.

Right now some of those competing priorities are with their coalition part- ners saying: “Y ou can’t do that, or we won’t support you. ” This is how our democracy works. Whether it’s first-past- the-post or proportional representation, the reality is no one will always get all of their own way. But this first-past-the-post system has given us one of the best places to live in the world. This has given us a stable, free place to live. Regardless of the fact that at this moment in time, my chosen political party does not govern our House or our province, that doesn’t mean I think we should switch the system.

This is okay. This has given us good government and a good place to live for a long time, and I don’t see the need to rush to change. Again, I will say: if citizens are demanding this change, then why are we rushing? If citizens are demanding this change, then let’s have that citizens’ assembly. Let’s let the citizens tell us how they want to elect their representatives. Then let’s have a referendum based on those preferences versus first-past-the-post, like as has been done in the past. Because this matters.

If proportional representation is supposed to cure all the ills of voter disillusionment and drive up participation rates, then why are we seeing so many discarded ballots in recycle bins right now for this referendum? If this is going to drive up participation rates and this is going to cure all the ills of our parliamentary system, then why has no threshold been set for voter turnout?

How is it we’re being asked to presuppose the outcomes of this rigged referendum and vote on a piece of legislation to amend the legislation that allows that same referendum to take place, to bind a future government to hold another ref- erendum, to check if people like the decision that they made? I don’t support the referendum in its current form. I don’t support this bill to amend that legislation. I don’t believe that the people of British Columbia will agree either. C.

Oakes:It truly is my pleasure to rise today to add my comments to the discussion, and I appreciate all of the mem- bers of this House and what they have contributed. I appre- ciate all of the contributions that members of both sides of the House have made in this debate. I think it’s important today that I take a few moments…. I speak to my constituents in Cariboo North, who have been asking incredibly valid questions that they are seeking answers to. What I have been saying is….

I direct my con- stituents to Elections B.C. to find out further information about what the three options for proportional representation look like. Here are the types of questions that my constituents are asking. And the reason why we have taken a very thoughtful approach to ensure that in this House, we are asking legit- imate questions that we are hearing from the constituents — the very nature of what our jobs are as MLAs….

When I have been home in my riding, somebody can come up to me in the grocery store and ask me a question such as: “What will the riding look like?” [2:55 p.m.] At the gas pump, somebody can stop me and ask me spe- cific questions, which I think really speaks to the heart of what it means under the first-past-the-post to have an elec- ted representative in our riding that you can reach out to and you can ask questions of and you can make sure that you’re holding them accountable. Sometimes lost in this whole discussion….

Sometimes the discussions in this Legislature in general really only speak to the element of an election. I was reviewing what the Premier said in his response to Bill 40, and it really was focused on the idea about the time of an election and making sure at an election time that you had a representative. That is why, you know, “Take this leap of faith” — and all of these elements that are out there on why this is such an opportunity.

I think what sometimes is lost and, I feel, may have been lost in the comments around proportional representation is the fact that as MLAs, our job is to listen to our constitu- ents not just at election time. Our job is to be listening con- sistently to our constituents and to be bringing those voices forward and reflecting on them. So when we speak in this House and we talk about what we have heard out in our communities, it is because we have access. As many of us have said in this House before…. I rep- resent a riding that’s over 38,000 square kilometres.

My rid- 6094 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, October 31, 2018

ing is larger than Vancouver Island. I work diligently with an amazing team of individuals to make sure that we are out consistently on the road, listening, holding mobile offices. And the number one concern that we are hearing from my constituents is: what will these maps look like? What is our riding going to look like? We certainly understand, and you read through the math, that there has been a set number of how many seats this House can hold, so the fears are that rid- ings like Cariboo North will be lost.

We have a population of just over 28,000, and we already struggle with the threshold that is necessary through Elec- tions B.C. But there is a geographic element that has always been acknowledged within the constitution, as my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie has talked about, and there are real fears that that regional imbalance of what potentially we may see may be reflected in this. In back and forth with emails that I’ve had with my constituents….

Currently it takes about six hours to go from one part of my riding to another, and for many of my constituents, it’s a three-hour drive into my office to meet with me. We do our best. Y ou know, it is difficult in rural ridings. How do I go now to my constituents and say: “Well, if we get amalgam- ated or eliminated, we now may become part of a mega-rid- ing”? Where now, all of a sudden, to that senior who desper- ately needs assistance or desperately wants their ideas reflec- ted here in Victoria…. They want to raise those concerns to me.

They’re now told: “Well, your MLA is ten hours away. ” Or maybe it’s 12 hours away. What is the workability of that going to look like in our communities? These are questions that just have not been answered through this process. Some of the other questions that have been asked, that they mention, will be post-referendum decisions — the total number of MLAs in the province, either a specific number or range, up to a maximum of 95. So who is going to lose their riding? Is it going to be in an urban setting? Are we going to see ridings lost in Surrey?

Are we going to see ridings that may be amalgamated in Burnaby, perhaps? Is there going to be a geographic focus on what we’re look- ing at? For northern British Columbia, are we going to see the entire north amalgamated, and then are we going to see a party choose what that representation will look like in our communities?

That is very concerning, and it should be con- cerning to all members of this House — whether to use a reserve seat allocation method and, if so, for what percent- age of seats. [3:00 p.m.] We also don’t know the number and configuration of single-member districts, what that may look like, or the con- figuration of two-member districts. And if you have a two- member district, how is the workability with constituency offices? Do we now, all of a sudden, see a community have multiple constituency offices in it? If so, what does the budget allocation mean through the Legislature to make sure those are staffed?

We look at other questions under the MMP decisions for the Legislature — the total number of MLAs in the province, exact ratio of first-past-the-post seats to the list of PR seats, up to a maximum of 40 percent list of PR seats, ballot options for the list of PRs to vote. Is it a closed list? The order of candidates is determined by the party. I’ve heard in this House many times…. I’m incredibly proud to be the first female MLA elected in my region, and it’s difficult. There are a lot of challenges, when we look at how we encourage women to get engaged, how we get mil- lennials engaged.

How do we get young people engaged? I look at a system of…. If it’s a closed list and it’s deter- mined by the party, how are we going to ensure that people who maybe are, for their first time, taking a foray into polit- ics, those millennials that are engaged and excited and pas- sionate about this option, and want them to consider…?

If it’s a party list, and you’re competing with a very senior indi- vidual who has been represented in this House for many years and has significant experience, how are we going to allow access to ensure that millennials and women and other populations will have the same opportunities? I’m incredibly concerned about that, and that is a question that has not been answered. If it’s an open list and voters vote for specific candidates, my question for this is…. I come from a riding that has also had an independent member in this House, and I think it’s a relevant question.

We’ve had independent members who have served very well in this House. They’ve brought forward very relevant, important information in this House. If it’s under a closed party system, if we look at some of the options that are being proposed, and it’s based off of a party list, how does an independent have the opportunity to serve in this House if they’re an independ- ent and don’t belong to a party? Isn’t that, by the very nature of democracy and everything that we represent in this House — so that people have the option to raise their concerns and to be democratically free to do that — an important element?

I think it is. I think ques- tions such as open and closed lists and if it’s a party that determines that…. I think it’s important. The other side of the argument will say: “Well, there will also be, in some of the options, an elected opportunity. ” Again, I look at an individual that may come from a com- munity in Quesnel that decides to run as an independent, and our riding becomes amalgamated with all of the north. Perhaps we get amalgamated or dissolved, and we become part of this super mega-riding that includes larger popula- tions. Maybe it’s a Prince George, or maybe it’s a Kamloops.

How does an individual in a smaller community with a smaller population base have the same opportunities to really be represented or to have their voices heard? I think it becomes much more difficult.

The other questions I’ve heard in my communities are: one vote which counts for both the local candidate and the list of PR seat allocation; two votes — one for the local can- didate and one for the list of seat allocation; whether can- didates for the local first-past-the-post seat may be on the party’s list for the regional list under PR seats; the method of Wednesday, October 31, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6095

determining the order in which the list of PR seats are allo- cated; whether to permit overhung seats — that is, to have a fixed number of total seats in the Legislative Assembly; potentially added seats to compensate if any party wins greater than the share of the first-past-the-post seats than its overall vote share would be entitled to. [3:05 p.m.] I raise this because these are legitimate questions that people are raising in our constituencies. To suggest…. First of all, to go out on a referendum with so many unanswered questions and put all of us, as MLAs, in a situation where….

I was certainly not raised to suggest to somebody who is an intelligent, articulate individual just to take a leap of faith. I am going to propose something to you, and you just need to trust me. The very element of being in politics often…. It is incredibly difficult to assure citizens that there is that high level of trust. When we, in some respects, do not respect the intelligence of our citizens by providing them with accurate information, dismissing them and suggesting that they take a leap of faith, I think it is very discouraging. I certainly have felt that on the doorsteps in my community.

Other questions that have come forward are whether the order of candidates on the list of PR ballots should be ran- domized or not. What is the method for filling in the single- member districts and the list-PR seat vacancies? What hap- pens if we have a by-election — similar to what it is currently or will be called — in an area? And then post referendum, other decisions around the Electoral Boundaries Commis- sion — the number and configuration of regions, the num- ber and configuration of first-past-the-post districts in each region, the number of list seats in each region.

There are so many unanswered questions. Again, I think to go out and to suggest to people now: “Well, yeah, I know that there are a lot of unanswered ques- tions, so that’s why we’re proposing we do a do-over…. ” I’ve gone on to Elections B.C. We are still debating this bill. We are still in debate of this bill, yet on Elections B.C., it is men- tioning that you can have a do-over. I think that there has to be a level of confidence that our citizens have in us that we follow a process and a procedure. Quite frankly, we come here to debate. We come here to have honest dialogue.

I would like to read a comment that the Premier made. I think it’s important to put on this record. “I hear it every day as I travel around British Columbia. I hear from people who are saying: ‘I’m really glad you guys are working together. ’” If we’re working together, why then the presumption that hav- ing dialogue and having the ability to raise questions may not…? It could formulate a different answer.

If the Premier is suggesting that everything is all working well and everybody is cooperating, why, then, wouldn’t we wait till after the vote is called before we actually institute and put something into the referendum — information that, perhaps, in many respects, is very misleading to constituen- cies and to people in communities? The Premier goes on to say: “I’m really happy to see that. I like the idea that you’re cooperating. Y ou’re putting aside your personal differences, and you’re working in the best interests of British Columbians.

I hear it over and over again. ” He goes on, and I think he was being a little flippant: “Of course, when you’re in government, you have an opportun- ity to travel around and talk directly to people. When you’re in opposition, you’re looking for a parade to lead, and I’m certain that someday a parade will come by that the mem- ber for Cariboo North can join into.

But for now, the ques- tion before us is Bill 40 and the opportunity to say to Brit- ish Columbians: ‘Y ou can embrace a change in our electoral process this fall, and if you don’t like it, two elections hence you’ll have an opportunity to vote against it. ’” He says: “Take a leap of faith. ” He acknowledges: “Well, yeah, I know. As I’ve been travelling around British Colum- bia, ” which he acknowledged in his response, “people are asking a lot of questions. ” [3:10 p.m.] People are legitimately asking honest questions to the Premier, and he has admitted this in his Bill 40.

He knows that when he travels, people are asking: “Show me a map. Show me what the riding will look like. ” I think it was also interesting that he was a little dis- respectful to the constituents in Cariboo North, which I probably should read into the record so my constituents have the opportunity to understand how collegial this House can be. “That’s why proportional representation’s time has come. The fear should stop. ” Let’s not provide information, just have a leap of faith. “The practical understanding….

Y ou don’t need a degree in statistics. ” Obviously, you don’t need a degree in political science either. That’s my own quote. “Y ou don’t have to be…exercising your franchise by put- ting an X beside the person that best reflects your values. After you do that, you can say with absolute certainty that your values will be reflected in this place. ” Now, you may not get represented, because again, it might be ten hours away where your MLA is, but your values will be represented. Lord help you if you run into any problems, and you’re in a crisis, and you actually need an MLA to help you.

Y ou may not have somebody around your area. My con- stituents who are affected by wildfires or floods or landslides may now have to travel significantly farther. But I digress. “That, again, as they say in the business, is a good thing. ” The Premier goes on: “Maybe not in Cari- boo North, but everywhere else, that’s the case. ” Maybe he was referring to Cariboo North because, as I have mentioned before, we’ve had an independent in our community.

Maybe what the Premier is saying is: “Well, now we’ve just elimin- ated the ability, through this process, to ever have an inde- pendent sit in this House. ” Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe that’s the whole intent of the Premier — to make sure that independents don’t have the ability to sit in this House and that it’s directed clearly by parties. I don’t know. I’m just reading what he said inHansard on Bill 40. But I 6096 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, October 31, 2018

think, again, these are very valid concerns that people have brought forward in our communities. I’ d also like to talk a little bit about the workability, or how this Legislature works. If I look at select standing commit- tees, which we have various of, I can never speak to…. It’s unparliamentary to ever say who may or may not be attend- ing certain meetings. I can tell you that there are very good records that are kept by our incredible staff here through the Legislature and that important work is done through these standing committees and the different offices that happen.

I can tell you that if you look at the attendance…. The Finance Committee has just finished travelling the province, listening to citizens and taking very important information back. All of the parties in this House have participation in that. I will say that it was discouraging to look at the attendance, perhaps, of the membership, and I encourage citizens to look. If you start having…. I think you need to pay attention, when there are critically important standing committee meetings that are happening, to who is attending and who is not attending. D.

Routley:I seek advice from the Speaker as to whether it’s appropriate to refer in any way to attendance at commit- tees. I sit on a committee with the member speaking and can tell the member that in 14 years, I’ve missed fewer than 12 days in this Legislature. I don’t know who she was referring to, but I question the appropriateness of that. Deputy Speaker:The ruling has always, in the past, applied to the attendance within this chamber. Please proceed. C. Oakes:I would say that I appreciate the member’s com- ments.

I’ve sat on a committee with the individual and felt it was a very rewarding committee that we sat on. I felt that incredible work was done. I raised that because I was very proud of the work that we achieved. [3:15 p.m.] My concern is that, on some of the committees that we currently have, there may…. I would also suggest that it is not the party of the individual who rose — that perhaps the attendance is not in question. There is a party where, I would suggest, attendance needs to be looked at.

The challenge is, if you have three or four people, how do you possibly ensure that all of the workings of this House — of the standing committees, of all of the work that happens within this Legislature — gets achieved? Those are some of the elements of the workability factor around proportional representation that I don’t believe have been addressed. And how, if you look at the standing orders, there probably has been…. I would hope that there has been work done on looking at how the standing orders will be reflected, with such significant change as what we are look- ing at with proportional representation.

I think those are critical elements to that. Going back to the idea of a do-over, I so respect the work that is done in this House and by every single member in this Legislature. I know that all of us come with the absolute heart and soul of making sure that we are listening to citizens and doing the elements of the work. I cannot imagine that, with the number of unanswered questions that we have….

We look at how special standing committees will work, and even Finance, and all of the oper- ational elements of what happens in this House — the type of damage that can come by choosing a decision without hav- ing all of the information prepared in advance is incredibly concerning. Or I think of the idea of the incredible cost to taxpayers by not having specific questions answered. And the idea of: are we going to be setting up con- stituency offices in every single community in British Columbia? Again, coming from a rural community, I often hear about…. There is so much, even through Elections B.C.

Everything is built around this idea that British Columbia has this level of connectivity that we are all so blessed to have. Again, in my communities, my 38,000 square kilometres, I can go ten kilometres any given way and not have cell ser- vice, or not have connectivity options. Or if we do, it’s satel- lite, and it’s so incredibly expensive that not everyone in our rural communities has access to that type of connectivity.

So if the idea is that we are moving away, which I think will be an element of proportional representation — you move away from having that direct contact with an elected MLA in your communities or your region, and move more to utilizing technology. Where will those investment dollars go to ensure that every citizen has the equal and same oppor- tunity for information and support? Y ou know, currently, I believe, it may be 80 percent of the population that is connected. But it’s not 80 percent of the province of British Columbia.

Anyone who has had the priv- ilege to travel throughout this amazing province of British Columbia can tell you that there are still significant gaps in last-mile connectivity. So I raise that as a concern of how our constituents will have access to us. I think that instead of voting…. We are voting more on a concept. I understand that there may be people out there that are comfortable with the idea of moving forward on a concept.

Within the walls of this House, we certainly have a process — and I would never dream of bringing forward, you know, a concept. [3:20 p.m.] As a former minister, you need to do your briefings, you need to have your information, and you need to have all of those pieces in line before you would ever come to this House to present something. What we are asking our citizens to do is in exact contrast to what we in this House do — by nature of making sure that we’re prepared, that we do our briefings and that we have the information prepared for us.

We’re being asked to vote on systems that have not even been used anywhere else in the world, yet government is choosing to not even provide, as I’ve said, the maps of the Wednesday, October 31, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6097

electoral districts or even the number of electoral districts and how many representatives each would have. Local rep- resentation does matter. The information we haven’t said is that political parties will choose your representative. Again, I come from a part of the world where we’re pretty independ- ent. We like to ensure that we have the same opportunities, perhaps, as in the urban ridings. In dual-member proportional representation, you are giv- en two options appointed by political parties.

All losing votes are distributed to parties to allow them to appoint candidates elsewhere — which, of course, is what could allow some of the examples that have been used in other countries that have been brought forward. Then you get to mixed-member proportional. This is the only proportional system on the ballot that’s actually used anywhere in the world.

I will be honest: when I’m doing my absolute best to present information to my constituents — I think it’s important that we do that — I’ll often refer to this one because I think it’s the most notable or the one that is the easiest, probably, with the most information to define. In this system, again, we have drastically few details about how the political parties would choose 40 percent of the MLAs. Again, my concern, as a female representative, is: how will we be supporting young people, millennials, to ensure that they have the same opportunities to get elected into this House?

Y ou have the rural-urban, a two-tiered mix of the STV system that British Columbians have rejected, as we’ve men- tioned, twice before, in 2005 and 2009; and the MMP , which is also on the ballot. Whether a riding is rural or urban…. I know I had talked about this earlier. I guess my constituents in Quesnel are wondering: “ Are we urban? Are we rural? If we end up with Prince George or Kamloops, what does that look like? How will that change?” Whether you’re in a health district…. Y our health authority — how does that change in your region? There is a lot of those types of elements that I think are concerning.

People need to ask, and are asking, those questions in my constituency. I see that my time is just about up. Just again, with all respect to all of the members in this House, it is truly a priv- ilege to serve. We all work very hard to support our constitu- ents, and it has been very disheartening to go home and to have my constituents ask specific questions — questions that I cannot answer. Deputy Speaker:Recognizing the member for Kelowna– Lake Country. [Applause.] N. Letnick:Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thanks to my colleagues for that warm welcome.

It’s indeed a pleasure to get up and address this issue on behalf of the constituents for Kelowna–Lake Country. We are both an urban and a rural centre — Kelowna, of course, being quite urban in many ways. My riding actually starts from Highway 33 and goes north to Oyama. There- fore, two-thirds of my constituents live in the urban centre of Kelowna, and one-third of my constituents live in Lake Country, which is a vastly less urban location. Both have interesting priorities. For the most part, their priorities are similar: good health care. Good education. Safe and efficient transportation.

Affordable housing, of course. Taking care of those that fall between the cracks. [3:25 p.m.] Mental health and addictions. Investment in our post-sec- ondary education institutions, both capital and operating. Also, investment in our K-to-12 infrastructure, in particular the need to replace Rutland Middle School. We have many, many issues that are compatible between Kelowna and Lake Country. It has been for ten years now — I’m in my tenth year — that I’ve had the privilege of representing them.

But none of those ten years has ever seen me stand up and actually discuss a bill like Bill 40, which is deciding how future MLAs…. Maybe me, but over the course of time, someone will follow me. So this is about the future MLAs, not for me in particular, who will be decided by those con- stituents that live in the general area of Kelowna–Lake Country — because as we know, with some of these options, we’re talking about larger ridings, so it’s hard to specifically pinpoint Kelowna–Lake Country — and how they will be selected to represent them.

The whole basis of my thesis here, and I know it’s an interesting word for this, is that we need local representa- tion. We need to make sure that we elect local people that represent local issues to this place so that they can fight for those local issues.

What I’m going to do over the next 25 minutes is talk a little bit about why we’re here; some of the opinions that have been registered on this bill so far; what the govern- ment has said they were going to do and what they’ve actu- ally done; how in the past, over two referendums, we’ve actually had an example of how the process should work and the results of that. Then I will finish off at the end with a little bit of why I believe, in

summary, we should contin- ue to go with first-past-the-post to elect our representat- ives here in this chamber. First of all, why are we here? Well, today in the Glacier Media outlet, the headline is: “Former NDP Premier Clark” — and that is not Christy; that is Glen — “Votes No on Elec- toral Reform. ” Y ou add that to the list. That’s Glen Clark, and now we have former NDP Premier Ujjal Dosanjh, who also votes no to electoral reform. Interjections. N. Letnick:I never thought, mentioning those two names, that I would actually get a round of applause.

Let me say it again: the former NDP Premiers Glen Clark and Ujjal Dosanjh vote no. Interjections. N. Letnick:That’s very funny. 6098 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Interjection. N. Letnick:Y es, the members are throwing me off my list. I might actually have to go for 35 minutes, Madame Chair, with your permission. But anyway, Mr. Clark said, and I am paraphrasing from the article, that the situation has become a political one driv- en by the B.C. Green Party shoring up Premier John Hor- gan’s government. That’s why we’re here. It’s very simple. It is all because of the confidence and supply agreement, the coalition agreement between the Greens and the NDP . As we all know from the polling and the discussions in our ridings, this is not falling directly on party lines.

There are many people in the B.C. Liberal Party that want to look at PR as an option. There are many people in the NDP that want to keep first-past-the-post. I also understand there are some in the Green Party that want to keep first-past-the-post. There are differences of opinion, and I really would encourage all people in British Columbia to go to the Elec- tions B.C. website and get the information that they require so that they can make an intelligent choice on their ballot. I would encourage all British Columbians to vote on this important referendum once they’ve had the information that they require.

So that’s why we’re here. Clark has voted against PR in the current referendum campaign. He’s already voted, just like I have. Full disclos

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20181031pm-Hansard-n174
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20181031pm Hansard n174
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8229595e91670530d636514a8d8bf86cc755d584

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).