Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 160

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 41 — Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act

Hon. M. Mark

Bill M221 — High Dose Influenza Vaccine for Seniors Act, 2018

J. Isaacs

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Day for the Eradication of Poverty

M. Elmore

Health Care Assistant Day

N. Letnick

Role of front-line workers in opioid crisis

B. Ma

Response to worker deaths in incident at Fernie arena

T. Shypitka

Great British Columbia ShakeOut

J. Rice

Doug Macaulay and youth music bands

R. Sultan

Oral Questions

Public debate on referendum on electoral reform

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Community benefits agreement and workers

T. Stone

Hon. C. Trevena

Site C power project

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

Community benefits agreement and workers

G. Kyllo

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Isaacs

Massey Tunnel replacement project

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

Petitions

D. Routley

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

J. Rice

S. Sullivan

On the amendment

S. Sullivan

T. Shypitka

S. Gibson

C. Oakes

M. Hunt

J. Sturdy

J. Martin

B. Stewart

G. Kyllo

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2018

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce members of the B.C.

Nurses Union, who members of the opposition met with yesterday. They’re

meeting with members all week, and I would assume they’re also taking time

to meet with members of the government: Christine Sorensen, president;

Adriane Gear, acting vice-president; Rhonda Croft, acting executor

councillor; and Robert MacQuarrie, BCNU communications officer.

We also have this week, being it’s Health Care Assistant Day tomorrow,

a lot of our health care assistants in the precinct.

Would the House please help me welcome all these wonderful people that

work so hard to keep our health care system sustainable for British

Columbians.

L. Reid: I am pleased to welcome 25 teachers from across British Columbia who

have been selected to participate in the 21st B.C. Teachers Institute on

Parliamentary Democracy, an intensive 4½ days of professional development on

politics, democracy and governance. They will be with us for the remainder

of this week, expanding their knowledge of our parliamentary system. They’re

also joined by four of their peers who are returning alumni, acting in the

role of facilitators: Mr. Neil Powell, Ms. Andra Linke, Ms. Michele

Cumberland and Mr. Paul Boyd.

Also joining this year are colleagues from the Legislative Assembly of

the Northwest Territories, and Jeanne Uris and Daniel Beauvirage from the

National Assembly of Quebec.

I trust you will take this opportunity to meet with them at tomorrow’s

luncheon in the Ned DeBeck Lounge and make them feel very

welcome.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m happy to welcome the director general of the Taipei Economic and

Cultural Office, Andy Chen, and his division director, Susie Chen — yes,

there are a lot of Chens here — who are joining us here in the gallery

today. I know they are meeting with several members from this

House.

As I was born and raised in Taiwan, and many of us also have Taiwanese

Canadians living in our communities, I would like to ask the House to please

make them feel very welcome.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very proud to welcome some journeymen apprentices and

preapprentices who’ve come to Victoria today to demonstrate their support

for apprenticeship training and to also show their support for the

government’s community benefits agreement.

We have in the gallery today, from United Association Local 324, Jim

Noon, Stefan Plusa and Jesse Venoit; from the IBEW Local 230, Anne Marie

Vis, Eric Holland, Chris Anthony, Cory McGregor; from the International

Union of Operating Engineers Local 115, James Knowles, Tom Kinnear, Chris

Taylor, Lucas Lapinski, Vince Sam, Jerome Thomas, Curtis Harold, Doug Hahn

and Patrick Watson; from the Sheet Metal Workers Local 276, Jason Pedersen,

Bill Thwaites, Eli Friesen, Nick Podolsky and Sam Kurtenbach; and from

Camosun College, the preapprentices in the pipe trades foundation program —

they’re going to be plumbers: James McCarthy, Myles Demelo, Lindsey

Trem­blay, Seleste Quayle and Leah White-Davis.

I hope that the House will make them all very welcome.

S. Cadieux: In the gallery now, possibly, or else very shortly joining us, are two

groups from Southridge School in my riding. A total of 72-plus young people

are here, along with their teacher, Mr. James Knihniski, and other teachers:

Ms. Alexandra, Mr. Neil, Mr. Shaw and Ms. Byrom. I hope that the House will

make them very welcome.

Hon. R. Fleming: In the gallery today is a young woman from Victoria who has just

returned from overseas, representing Canada and helping a number of

developing countries. Her name is Rachel Barr. She’s representing a local

organization called VIDEA, which runs programs on human rights and

democratic development.

[1:40 p.m.]

She’s now the program coordinator for a federally funded program

called the international Aboriginal internship program, which is aimed at

young Indigenous people in Canada, aged 18 to 35, to give them opportunities

to go oversees and work, in countries like Zambia and Uganda, with civil

society organizations that are related to the environment and working on

democratic capacity-building. It’s delightful to see her back safe and sound

from her trip overseas.

With her is Nadia Hamdon, who is my executive assistant. Wonderful to

see her in the chamber. She’s my former constituency assistant, and she’s

doing a fantastic job in our office. And they happen to be friends as

well.

Enjoy question period.

Hon. S. Simpson: It’s great, on what is International Day for the Eradication of

Poverty, to have a number of people join us in the gallery who are here to

talk about these issues.

From the B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition today we have Bill Weir,

Breezy Hartley, Phyllis Joseph, Georgia Brown and Doug Tuck. They’re all

members of the Community Action Network, which is a group of leaders who

currently live in or who have experienced living in poverty, and they’re

here today to talk to members of the Legislature about that experience and

the importance of fighting inequality and poverty.

They’re joined by three members of my poverty reduction advisory forum

who’ve played an important role in developing the poverty reduction

strategy: Viveca Ellis, Trish Garner and Lissa Smith. They’ve all

contributed a lot to this work.

I hope the House will make them welcome.

A. Olsen: I can’t sit down here, on the floor, look up into the chamber and see

an old friend from high school, from our alma mater, Stelly’s Stingers, my

friend Tom Kinnear, and not welcome him into this place and raise my hands

to him. He’s here with the International Union of Operating Engineers. He

gave me the nod. Yes, he is.

Welcome.

Would the members in this House please make my buddy Tom Kinnear

welcome as well.

Hon. S. Fraser: Joining us in the precinct today is Huu-ay-aht Chief Robert Dennis, a

friend of mine from the west coast of Vancouver Island.

I would note that since Chief Dennis and the Huu-ay-aht have achieved

nationhood, got out from under the yoke of the Indian Act, the Huu-ay-aht

Nation has become a powerhouse for innovation and ideas, an inspiration to

many and a benefit economically, culturally and socially to the whole

region.

I would add that he was visiting here today with myself and the

Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure to discuss important issues

around access to the community.

I would like the House to please make him feel very, very

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — ADVANCED EDUCATION

STATUTE REPEAL

ACT

Hon. M. Mark presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Advanced Education Statute Repeal

Act.

Hon. M. Mark: I move that Bill 41, the Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act be

introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the Advanced Education Statute Repeal

Act. This legislation will repeal the Public Education Flexibility and

Choice Act in its entirety. Significant portions of this act have been

found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The remaining parts would

also almost certainly be found unconstitutional. Removing the

legislation in its entirety will reduce risk of further litigation in

the future.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1:45 p.m.]

BILL M221 — HIGH DOSE INFLUENZA

VACCINE FOR SENIORS

ACT, 2018

J. Isaacs presented a bill intituled High Dose Influenza Vaccine for

Seniors Act, 2018.

J. Isaacs: I move that the bill intituled High Dose Influenza Vaccine for

Seniors Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name on the

order paper, be introduced and read for the first time now.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Isaacs: Influenza is a highly contagious viral infection of the

respiratory passages, causing fever, severe aching, coughing, sneezing

and extreme fatigue. The senior population living in residential and

long-term-care homes have a higher risk of getting the flu because of

the close environment in which they live.

The risk for influenza-attributed deaths is five times greater for

those with heart disease, 12 times greater among those with chronic lung

diseases and 20 times greater for those with both chronic heart and lung

conditions. Deaths from flu-related complications are typically

attributed to those underlying and secondary illnesses.

Seniors suffer disproportionately from influenza-related morbidity

and mortality. While adults over the age of 65 represent just 15 percent

of the Canadian population, they experience 70 percent of

influenza-related hospitalizations and 90 percent of influenza-related

deaths.

As we age, our immune system weakens. The regular flu vaccine is

less effective for seniors and does little to protect against infections

or outbreaks in long-term-care homes. Once an outbreak has occurred,

residents can no longer engage in social activities, family visits are

limited, and residents are confined to their rooms.

Access to the high-dose influenza vaccine would significantly

reduce the risk and severity of contracting and spreading this

infectious condition. It would reduce the number of deaths and avoid

unnecessary health complications. It would also diminish the number of

emergency visits, length of hospital stays and subsequent costs related

to hospitalization and inefficient use of acute beds.

The high-dose influenza vaccine contains four times the antigen of

standard-dose influenza vaccine. This legislation recommends the

high-dose influenza vaccine for usage in public and privately operated

long-term-care facilities.

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

Motion approved.

J. Isaacs: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M221, High Dose Influenza Vaccine for Seniors Act, 2018,

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

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL DAY

FOR THE ERADICATION OF

POVERTY

M. Elmore: October 17 marks the United Nations International Day for the

Eradication of Poverty, observed since 1993 as a day that recognizes the

need to eradicate poverty worldwide. Based on the latest data from

Statistics Canada, British Columbia has the second-worst rate of poverty

in Canada. That means 557,000 people, or 12 percent of our population,

are living in poverty in one of the wealthiest parts of the world, and

99,000 of those are children.

We must do better. We must do everything we can as a society to

lift people up and help to break the cycle of poverty for British

Columbians, as well as for those worldwide.

Poverty isn’t always visible, and those who experience it too

often go unheard. The International Day for the Eradication of Poverty

recognizes the importance of working with people with lived experience.

It is a day to acknowledge their efforts and struggles, and it’s a day

to hear their stories.

Across B.C., there are people and organizations working every day

to improve life for people in our province. I encourage everyone to take

the time today to think about how they can help, how they can get

involved and how important it is to fight poverty. Consider the ways

that you can help to change the narrative of inequality in your

community. It’s time to work together to break the cycle of poverty here

in British Columbia and around the world.

HEALTH CARE ASSISTANT DAY

N. Letnick: Health Care Assistant Day is tomorrow in British Columbia, a time

to celebrate and recognize the front-line service that health care

assistants provide to British Columbians each and every day.

[1:50 p.m.]

The term “health care assistant” refers to many different

positions, including community health workers, home support workers,

residential care aides, long-term care aides, continuing care assistants

and personal care aides. Health care assistants provide support on many

different levels to help British Columbians remain independent and

active in times of need in their homes and in their communities. They

play an essential role in meeting the needs of an increasing aging

population.

Our health care assistants are dedicated to maintaining the

comfort and quality of care needed as the population of British Columbia

grows older. This profession works around the clock providing care for

those who have more complex needs. They deliver their expertise in a

wide variety of areas within the health care field and are an integral

part of our system.

I’m happy to be celebrating Health Care Assistant Day for the

eighth time since its proclamation in 2011 by the former government.

This day is a way to honour and appreciate the selfless work these

individuals do day in and day out. Mr. Speaker, make sure everyone

thanks the health care assistant in their lives in person or through

Would the House please join me today and every day in saying thank

you to health care assistants across British Columbia.

ROLE OF FRONT-LINE WORKERS

IN OPIOID

CRISIS

B. Ma: I was riding back to North Vancouver on the SeaBus last month when

I sat down for a quiet SeaBus ride. Without knowing it, I realized that

I was overhearing a young woman talking to her friend about what she

does on a daily basis. She works with a local agency as a front-line

harm reduction worker.

Her story was harrowing. It was traumatic. It was desperate. It

was terrible yet deeply compassionate. “Sometimes I wonder how I can

continue to do this,” she said, “the daily pain and sadness, the death,

the disease, day in and day out — the hopelessness. I feel myself

breaking.”

The toll on those living with substance use disorder is, without a

doubt, devastating, and so has this opioid crisis been on the front-line

workers and community members who put their heart and soul on the line

battling this crisis face to face in a way that very few of us will ever

have to experience. I cannot imagine.

As the SeaBus turned and pulled up to the terminal, I turned

around. I tapped her on the shoulder, as I turn now to the front-line

workers across the province, to say: “Thank you for the work that you

do, for your strength, for your compassion. I cannot imagine the depth

of despair that this work can bring into a person’s life, but know that

it is important, that it is life-changing, that it is valuable beyond

words. I am so incredibly grateful to you for this work that you

do.”

RESPONSE TO WORKER DEATHS

IN INCIDENT AT FERNIE

ARENA

T. Shypitka: Sorry, another somber note. Today marks the first anniversary of

the tragic industrial accident that happened in Fernie, B.C. Three men

perished when they were assisting to repair an ammonia leak at the

Fernie Memorial Arena on that cold October morning.

One that perished was Wayne Hornquist, the chief facility operator

of the city of Fernie. He was 59 years old. He was born and raised in

Fernie. He was a husband, a father of two, a brother and a son. Wayne

was a jack of all trades and a master of many, and he prided himself as

being the best Zamboni driver in the world.

Lloyd Smith worked for the city of Fernie. He was 52 years old

when he moved to Fernie in 2015 from High River, Alberta. He was a

part-time paramedic and was a father to his 13-year-old son. Lloyd was

known for his quick wit and contagious smile.

Jason Podloski, 46 years old, was an air-conditioning and

refrigeration technician. Raised in Edmonton, he had recently moved to

Turner Valley, Alberta. He was a father of two, and he was well known

for his guitar-making skills.

The community of Fernie was devastated by not only having to deal

with the loss of these three great men but because of the social fabric

of the city that was taken when they lost the use of their hockey and

curling rink. In a small town of 5,000, I can tell you, that is the

social hub of a community.

[1:55 p.m.]

What I found in the last year was an incredible kinship between

residents of the community and communities in the region. The kinship

even reached outside into the neighbourhood of Alberta, where the NHL

Calgary Flames donated a regulation-size outdoor hockey rink.

I share their day in remembrance, as I think of them always, today

and every day. I’m so proud of the community of Fernie. They have shown

resilience and strength. They are a shining example of the power of

community.

GREAT BRITISH COLUMBIA SHAKEOUT

J. Rice: B.C. sits on one of the world’s most seismically active regions,

with more than 3,000 earthquakes recorded every year. Most are too small

to be felt, but the risk of one being big enough to cause serious damage

is very real. It’s tough to think about the possibility of an earthquake

impacting your family. It’s hard to imagine and scary to think about.

But knowledge is key to safety. That’s why, once again, we’re asking

British Columbians to imagine an earthquake scenario during the Great

British Columbia ShakeOut.

Every year this event gives British Columbians and their families

a chance to refresh their knowledge of what to do before, during and

after an earthquake. Tomorrow at 10:18, British Columbians in homes,

offices, public spaces and at schools will practise how to drop, cover

and hold on. We’re also going to practise that same life-saving drill

here in the House to make sure we’re also prepared for a potential

earthquake.

So remember: if an earthquake occurs, immediately protect yourself

as best as possible where you are by following the guidelines of drop,

cover and hold on. Drop where you are, onto your hands and knees if

possible. Cover your head and neck with one arm and hand. Crawl under a

nearby desk or table for shelter. Hold on until the shaking stops. And

count to 60 before emerging from your safe area, to allow objects that

may have shifted during the shaking to settle.

For British Columbians in active earthquake zones like where we

are right now in this chamber, practising the drill of drop, cover and

hold on will save your life. By practising these skills regularly, you

can train to immediately put that knowledge into action when an

earthquake actually happens.

It’s also critical to have earthquake preparedness kits on hand to

ensure your family has emergency supplies for a minimum of 72 hours.

Kits should include food like granola bars or non-perishable canned

foods, a first-aid kit, flashlights, a radio, extra batteries, a whistle

and a dust mask, among other things. Every British Columbian has a role

to play in earthquake preparedness. I encourage everyone to use this

opportunity to make a plan, practise a plan and be ready.

DOUG MACAULAY AND YOUTH MUSIC BANDS

R. Sultan: Brain imaging reveals when both sides of our brain light up

simultaneously. That’s what happens when young people play music. Doug

Macaulay, conductor of the West Vancouver Youth Band, says music boosts

cognitive ability. It prepares students for careers as doctors and

lawyers, not just musicians.

His band dates back to 1930, the time of the Great Depression. Its

first trip overseas was all the way to Keats Island in Howe Sound.

During World War II, several who were on that first trip were killed

overseas. Today band members parade on our Remembrance Day.

Doug Macaulay actually heads four community bands and two string

orchestras. What’s the difference? Well, I learned a band doesn’t have

stringed instruments, so it can march in the rain. Over 25 years, Doug

has taught thousands of North Shore youth. This summer they will tour

Holland and Germany, with concerts at Amsterdam and our former military

base at Lahr.

When I talked with Doug recently, he said his students pursue many

careers, not terribly often music. For them, music has become a metaphor

for achieving a goal together, finding value in accomplishments, working

hard and developing discipline. Music becomes the template for all those

important ingredients of success. He concludes: “What matters most is

these musicians become part of our community, and they learn to

contribute to community.”

[2:00 p.m.]

Oral Questions

PUBLIC DEBATE ON

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL

REFORM

A. Wilkinson: Well, in about five days, we expect that ballots for the mail-in

vote on proportional representation will arrive in boxes all around the

province. That is, of course, unless it’s disrupted by a mail

strike.

However, 24 days ago, on September 24, I suggested to the Premier

there should be a public televised debate to raise awareness, to get the

positions on the record and to allow people to make up their own minds.

Since then, we’ve had a mumbled response of support for this from the

Premier, and nothing more. The media have offered us airtime. They’re

readily available. I’ll make myself available. The only missing item

here is the Premier himself.

Now we see the Premier laughing at the prospect. So we have to ask

ourselves: is the Premier serious about this? Apparently, this

proportional representation referendum is an important thing, but he’s

not prepared to make 30 or 60 minutes of time to bring public attention

to it.

To the Premier, when will the Premier agree to pick a time for a

debate on television?

Hon. J. Horgan: I stood in this place yesterday and debated the very question. It

was on television. I await the words from the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, what an impressive performance that was.

We’re looking at a referendum that has been described by the

Premier himself as a “leap of faith.” Vaughn Palmer for the

Vancouver Sun has described it as a “leap in the dark.” The

public need to be more aware of what’s going on, and we need to get the

public involved. The perfect vehicle for that is prime-time television,

which has been made available to us, and the Premier makes a trivial and

dismissive remark about the most important vote in recent

memory.

We have to ask the Premier what it is that’s holding him back. Is

he scared of something? More particularly, is he flattering himself that

standing in this chamber for ten minutes is a substitute for a half-hour

television debate?

Premier, pick a time.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, let’s recap what we just heard here and unpack it a little

bit.

The member on the other side is concerned about performance, not

concerned about the people of British Columbia. The member on that side

of the House is more interested in prime-time television than the goings

on in the Legislative Assembly in the province of British

Columbia.

If I get this correctly, the Leader of the Official Opposition,

desperate to draw attention to himself, rather than the critical issues

facing British Columbians, which usually happens in the Legislative

Assembly, does not want to enter into debate on Bill 40 to talk about

the very issues he purports to have an interest in.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: What we’ve seen today is the Premier pretend that the public don’t

care about this. We see a Premier who says there’s no need to have a

public debate on this, that what happens in this room, with 25 people

watching, is a substitute for having hundreds of thousands of British

Columbians watching.

So Premier….

Interjections.

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

[2:05 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Yet the Premier is able to find time for an hour-long rally for

pro rep with the Leader of the Third Party here in Victoria on Tuesday,

October 23. The invitation says that we should be more cooperative and

collaborative.

Premier, why are you scared to go on television to debate

this?

Hon. J. Horgan: Just last week the Mission Chamber of Commerce invited members of

this place to debate the very question of proportional representation.

The member for Delta North agreed to attend. Apparently, he was going to

debate the Leader of the Opposition.

Maybe the camera crews cancelled, so he wasn’t interested any

more. But miraculously, the chamber of commerce, the then executive

director, de-invited the member for Delta North because the Liberal

leader did not want to have a debate. He wanted to have a vanity

exercise.

We were uninvited. The chamber of commerce bailed and said: “I’m

not in on any of this.” The Leader of the Opposition showed up. Sadly,

there was no one from prime-time television. Maybe the member for

Richmond-Queensborough can help him out on that.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

T. Stone: Tom MacDonald is a carpenter and a foreman who, for over 20 years,

has helped build major infrastructure projects across British Columbia,

including roads, bridges, the Canada Line and B.C. Children’s

Hospital.

Now, Tom has been a member of the same union the entire time.

However, like 85 percent of construction workers in British Columbia,

Tom MacDonald doesn’t belong to one of the NDP’s 19 approved unions. He

calls the minister’s policy “an affront to the rights of skilled workers

throughout British Columbia to decide for themselves on union

representation, rather than have that decision imposed on them by

government.”

My question to the Minister of Transportation is this. Why is she

forcing Tom to make the difficult choice to either join one of the NDP’s

approved unions or face the prospect of not having any work?

Hon. C. Trevena: There are a lot of myths about the community benefits agreement,

but there are many, many positive reasons. That’s why we’re moving on

with a community benefits agreement, because we believe in investing in

the people of British Columbia as well as the infrastructure of British

Columbia.

One of the myths is that only those who are union contractors can

bid. That is simply wrong. Any contractor can bid. In fact, the very

first objective of the agreement, 1.1(a), states: “to allow any

contractor in the construction industry to bid on and perform project

work.”

Like any unionized worksite in B.C. — whether it is Safeway or

B.C. Transit or many of the hotels that people work in, any unionized

worksite — yes, qualified workers will join the union. They will have

the opportunity to apply to work, whether they’re a union member or not,

and when they’re working on the site, they will join the

union.

They are doing that to ensure that we get fair wages — good,

family-paying wages — equal benefits and the commitment to both the

people of British Columbia as well as the infrastructure of British

Columbia.

[2:10 p.m.]

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

T. Stone: Let’s talk about myths. This minister and this government suggest

that communities are better off as a result of these projects. That’s

clearly not the case.

I’ll tell you what’s not a myth is that taxpayers get shafted as a

result of these agreements, and workers have no choice but to enrol in

one of the NDP’s approved unions within 30 days. That’s not a myth

either. The fact of the matter is this policy is unfair, and it’s

discriminatory.

Tom MacDonald, a construction worker, again, who has built

projects in every corner of this province, is concerned also because he

doesn’t want to jeopardize the pension plan that he’s been paying into

for 20 years. He says: “I also don’t want to disrupt the continuity of

my benefits by having to join the Building Trades Unions’ benefits

plans, which — particularly their pension plan — in my view, are

inferior to what I have today.”

To the minister, again, why is the minister messing around with

Tom’s retirement by telling him what he has to do with his pension

plan?

Hon. C. Trevena: I find it very…. There is the temerity of the former Minister of

Transportation to talk about shafting the people of B.C. when we have

been left with the ICBC mess, billions of dollars, thanks to his

work.

How dare the opposition even question the cost of this, when we

have….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, you may be seated and rise again when you feel that you

can talk uninterrupted.

Hon. C. Trevena: The opposition’s record on financial prudence when it comes to

matters of infrastructure projects is shameful. I mean, when the Leader

of the Opposition was Deputy Minister of Small Business and Economic

Development, the Vancouver Convention Centre went over budget by $335

million.

The opposition may not care about investing in the people of

British Columbia. We care about investing in the infrastructure of

British Columbia and the people of British Columbia.

I’m proud that in the gallery today are young apprentices, people

who are going to be working on the province in the future.

SITE C POWER PROJECT

S. Furstenau: It was almost a year ago that this government decided to forge

ahead with building the Site C dam, despite a report from the B.C.

Utilities Commission that should have spelled the end of the

project.

Importantly, BCUC found that there was no need for Site C’s

energy, even by 2024, when it would supposedly come into service.

Recently the CEO of B.C. Hydro reiterated this. He said: “We’re not

building Site C for today. We have an energy surplus in the short term.

We’re not even building it for 2024, when the units first come into

service.”

He also said that if LNG Canada goes ahead, “they will be a very

big customer. They would be in our top three or four biggest customers.”

This sounds to me like the reason for building Site C. Spending over $10

billion, $12 billion, $14 billion to do it is to power an LNG industry,

not to meet the energy needs of ordinary British Columbians.

My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Was the

rationale for building Site C to deliver power to an LNG industry rather

than meet the energy needs of ordinary British Columbians?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Let me be absolutely clear. The decision to proceed with Site C

had nothing to do with LNG Canada at all. There was no FID at the time.

There was nothing from that project that determined our decision on Site

C. Rather, the key factor that determined this government’s decision on

Site C was the $4 billion hole it would have left in the fiscal

plan.

That’s $4 billion less this government would have had to live up

to the commitments it made to British Columbians. It would have meant no

child care program. It would have meant not being able to address the 16

years of neglect by the previous government in health care, in education

and in post-secondary education.

We were not willing to leave British Columbians out in the cold

without those types of services that they rely on every single

day.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: While the minister claims the decision to build Site C wasn’t for

the LNG industry, it’s clear now that the LNG industry is expecting

subsidized electricity rates, which will be subsidized by the taxpayers

of British Columbia. This means saddling British Columbians for

generations to come with the debt for building this dam for the power

that we don’t need.

Not only this, but we are hearing serious concerns being raised

about geotechnical conditions and slope stability. We found out that the

Site C dam will be anchored not to bedrock but to shale. A recent

landslide near Site C has reminded us of the instability of the slopes

in this area. In light of all this, a retired B.C. Hydro engineer has

recently added his voice to the call for an independent safety review of

Site C.

My question is again to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Given

these serious concerns about geotechnical instability, at what point

does the minister feel that there should be an independent review to

assess the safety of the Site C dam project?

Hon. M. Mungall: There are a few comments in that question that I just want to

clarify for the record.

First off, LNG Canada and any LNG project that would be coming

forward in British Columbia would be paying the same industrial rate for

electricity as other industrial customers. That includes mines; that

includes mills, including the Crofton mill in the member’s own riding;

and that includes UBC, Vancouver airport and the greater Vancouver water

district, for example.

I appreciate her concern in terms of making sure that slope

stability is something that is addressed in the construction phase of

B.C. Hydro’s Site C. The issue of historical slides in the area has been

well documented and is being addressed with the excavations and the

stabilization measures at the site.

I also want to make sure that everybody here knows that B.C. Hydro

has a technical advisory board advising on the construction of Site C.

This board is comprised of globally recognized technicians for their

knowledge and experience with hydroelectric projects around the world.

Site C is being built and will be maintained to international and

Canadian safety standards.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

G. Kyllo: Jim Gilley is a red seal sprinkler fitter who has been paying into

his construction and allied workers union pension plan for 28 years.

Unfortunately, this is not one of the NDP cherry-picked unions. In order

to work on a public project, the minister would force Jim to stop

contributing to his own pension plan, even though, as Jim says: “I’m

better off with continuing my existing pension plan.”

Does the minister really think that she knows better than Jim

about his own pension plan?

Hon. C. Trevena: I again repeat the fact that workers on the worksite are to join

the unions. We know that we have unionized worksites. They’re expected

to join a union when they work on their worksite. They’re able to apply

for jobs, whether or not they are union members.

I would ask the member opposite maybe to chat with some of the

young apprentices who are in the gallery today — single mothers who are

finding work because they are getting trained in the trades, Indigenous

people who may not have had an opportunity to work who are getting

trained in the trades.

[2:20 p.m.]

That’s what community benefits are about. It’s about making sure

that we are investing in the people of the province. The other side of

the House may have forgotten there is a massive skill shortage. We want

to make sure we’re dealing with that.

The member opposite has his quotes from his constituents. I

respect that he wants to give the quotes from his constituents, but I’d

also like to talk about some of the people that are going to be

benefiting from the community benefits agreement. For instance, Danielle

Shore, who’s an ironwork apprentice from Squamish, says: “As a mother,

it’s really great to know I can go and be a part of these big projects.

It’s not just my husband going out and being the

breadwinner.”

We are working for the people of British Columbia. We’re investing

in the people of British Columbia as well as in the infrastructure of

British Columbia.

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

G. Kyllo: Workers employed on the Island Highway project in the 1990s lost

their union pension contributions, thanks to the NDP. Workers are

expressing grave concerns that the BTU pension plans are under water —

workers like Jim. Jim Gilley says: “I have no confidence in the

financial stability of the building trades pension plans.”

Why is the minister forcing Jim to stop paying into the pension

plan of his choice?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, I repeat the fact that we are committed to community

benefits because we are talking about an investment in the people of

British Columbia, an investment in training and opportunity for the

people of British Columbia so we have a good future for everyone, where

people will be able to earn family-supporting wages for

family-supporting jobs and have pride in the work they do. I also don’t

quite understand where the opposition is coming from in their lack of

comprehension of community benefits agreements.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, proceed.

Hon. C. Trevena: They really have a complete lack of understanding. We’ve seen

community benefits agreements working on public and private projects in

this province for many, many years. B.C. Hydro projects, up to and

including…. The John Hart dam replacement project in my own

constituency, which started under the previous government, is a

community benefits agreement.

J. Isaacs: Phoenix Truck and Crane is an important employer in Coquitlam that

traditionally works on big public infrastructure projects. Owner Bill

Dick wants to know why this minister is discriminating against him and

his employees simply because Teamsters Local 31 represents them and they

are not part of the NDP’s handpicked club of 19.

Can the minister please tell Bill and his 200 employees why they

have to join a different union to work on public projects and why

Teamsters Local 31 isn’t good enough for this minister?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I have said time and time again, any qualified worker has the

opportunity to apply, whether or not they are a union member. If it’s a

unionized worksite, they will join the union when they start work on the

project. But I’ve got to say, as well as the opposition not quite

understanding community benefits agreements and the benefit for the many

people who will get the work, like those people in the gallery

today….

[2:25 p.m.]

As well as not quite understanding it, I think we should have a

look at the opposition’s own record in dealing with big infrastructure

projects. When we’re talking about the Canada Line, more than 30 workers

from Costa Rica were paid less than $4 an hour, working 12 hours a day,

six days a week. That is that side of the House’s record.

We are proud to be investing in the people of British Columbia.

We’re proud to be investing in their training, in the opportunities, as

well as in the much-needed infrastructure in our province.

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

J. Isaacs: Restricting employment to less than 15 percent of the workforce

discriminates against qualified workers, like the 200 employees of

Phoenix. Bill has valid questions, but for weeks, he’s been unable to

get an explanation from his MLA, the member for

Coquitlam-Maillardville.

Again to the minister, what selection criteria were used to ban

Teamsters…?

Interjections.

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

J. Isaacs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the minister, what selection criteria were used to ban

Teamsters Local 31 from their handpicked list?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are looking at how we’re going to rebuild the province. We have

$15 billion of infrastructure projects coming in the next four years. I

am extremely proud that some of those projects will be under the

community benefits agreement, where we are going to be investing in the

people of British Columbia, in training for Indigenous people, in

training women, in training people who don’t usually get the opportunity

to work on these sorts of projects.

I would like to quote Guaretti Gilbeau, a heavy equipment operator

from Burnaby, who says: “As a heavy equipment operator, what an amazing

opportunity it is to support, advance and retain tradeswomen. It’s

rewarding to know that my government has introduced a framework where

women will be provided meaningful opportunity on construction projects

through the community benefits agreement. On behalf of all tradeswomen,

thank you.”

People know that this is the right way of building British

Columbia, of building British Columbia’s infrastructure projects. Ask

the women and young people in the gallery. We are going to make sure we

are investing in our province in a way that reflects our values and in a

way that reflects the needs of British Columbians.

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

J. Sturdy: Mr. Speaker, 13 months ago the Transportation Minister cancelled

the George Massey Tunnel replacement project after nearly $100 million

had already been spent and the project bids had come in an astounding

$900 million under budget. Last November the minister direct-awarded a

$1 million contract to do yet another review of this particular project.

So far, no one has seen the results.

Will the minister table the report that she has had on her desk

since June? Can she tell us when construction will restart?

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question. I think everybody is aware that mayor

after mayor raised objections about the Massey project, and still the

opposition, the then government, carried on, pressing ahead with it. If

the opposition had taken the time to look at it, as we are doing, we

wouldn’t actually be in the position we are in today.

We have said very clearly that we want to consult, and we are

doing that. We’ve been listening to the mayors. We are looking at the

options very carefully. The review by a very respected engineer, Stan

Cowdell, is complete. It is extensive. We’re working through it, and

we’ll be talking to communities on the way that we’re going to

proceed.

Mr. Speaker: West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a supplemental.

[2:30 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Well, here are the facts. The minister said 11 months ago that she

would move quickly, but people are still stuck in the tunnel.

Will the minister table the report, and can she tell us when

construction will begin?

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re doing the work that should have been done many years ago. We

are actually working with communities to get the solution right. People

need to be able to travel easily. They need to be able to get home to be

with their families, and they need to be able to get to work

easily.

Nobody is contesting the fact that there are traffic jams in the

tunnel, but we are doing the work that should have been done by the

previous government. We are working through this. We’ve got Mr.

Cowdell’s report. We’re going to be consulting, and we’re moving on that

stage.

[End of question period.]

D. Routley: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

D. Routley: This petition is signed by 527 residents of Crofton. It’s an effort to

have their former Crofton Elementary School — now closed and a hazard to the

community — demolished and taken care of in a safe manner. They’re seeking

assistance.

Orders of the Day

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

Referendum 2018 Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

J. Rice: I’m just going to back up a bit. We had a really important debate

yesterday on climate change, so I’m going to just start from the

beginning.

I’m honoured today to rise and speak in favour of electoral reform

in British Columbia. For too long, our old and outdated voting system

has put too much power in the hands of too few. This fall we’ll have a

provincewide referendum that gives British Columbians a chance to

replace the status quo with proportional representation — a way of

voting that puts people at the centre of politics.

Pro rep, used by democracies around the world, provides choice for

voters, more accountability, more collaboration between parties to get

things done for people. It’s a system used by countries around the world

to ensure that everyone’s vote counts. A party that gets 25 percent of

the votes gets 25 percent of the seats in the Legislature.

The B.C. Liberal opposition and their rich friends are desperate

to keep the old way of voting because it makes it easier for them to

control government with a minority of votes. Made-in-B.C. proportional

representation means that we can elect governments that work for

everyone.

Here are some words of wisdom about voting systems from the former

Premier, Christy Clark. In 2009, when Christy Clark hosted her own radio

show on CKNW, she gave a measured and thoughtful argument as to why our

province should drop the first-past-the-post system and adopt a

proportional representation system.

[2:35 p.m.]

In a video filmed in her radio studio, an ever-exuberant Clark

talked about why she preferred the voting system of first-past-the-post,

but once she got out of politics, as a regular citizen, she felt

differently. At the time, voters were about to determine whether a form

of pro rep, STV, should be considered. She stated:

“First up, let’s talk about the single most important vote that you

are going to cast when you go to the polls on Tuesday. I have a

confession to make — that I voted against STV in the last election. I

even campaigned against it in the last election. It was an idea that was

spawned by an assembly of non-partisan, everyday citizens, and at the

time, I have to say, it didn’t appeal to me. At the time, I believed

that my vote was right because I liked our first-past-the-post system.

Our current system served my personal interests as a politician very

well, thank you. I, like many of our entrenched interests, who are today

fighting proportional representation, didn’t see a need to change a

system that worked well for me.”

What about considering an electoral system that works well for

everyone? Clark goes on to say: “I hear that people are sick to death of

the way that our political system works.” Increasingly, fewer and fewer

young people are going to the polls every single year. They say there’s

just no point in exercising their franchise because their vote doesn’t

matter.

These sentiments still ring true today. I heard this on the

doorstep in the last election, and I heard it on the doorstep in the

previous election.

Clark elaborates to say that while lack of representation and a

feeling of not having a voice are things that frustrate voters, she

confirms that first-past-the-post doesn’t bother people who it benefits:

“I can guarantee you that they are not things that bother the hacks and

the backroom boys and politicians who are served by our

first-past-the-post system.”

That speaks to who’s fighting proportional representation right

now, such as the friends of the B.C. Liberals buying full-page ads to

whip up fear and mislead voters; former B.C. Liberal cabinet ministers

writing op-eds in newspapers, doing the same; rhetoric attempting to

divide rural and urban voters by stating that rural MLAs will suddenly

disappear; or my favourite, the full-page ad I saw where my riding of

North Coast was redrawn into the entire northern half of the

province.

These are misleading statements by the B.C. Liberals, who attempt

to instil a fear into northern and rural voters that life will be

dictated by the cities.

Let’s get the record straight. Proportional representation is good

for all voters, rural and urban. No matter where you live or who you

vote for, you deserve to help elect an MLA who shares your values.

That’s the basic principle of proportional representation.

All models of proportional representation have strong local and

regional representation. Voters will retain their local representatives,

and no seats will move to the cities. Every model will be tailored to

the geography of each region, and riding boundaries will continue to be

determined by community of interest, community of identity, historical

patterns and the need to keep the geographic size of ridings

manageable.

It gets better. By legislating a confirming referendum after two

general election cycles, our government is giving voters a safety valve

to revert to the previous voting system. The confirming referendum would

allow British Columbians, not politicians, to have the final say on

their voting system. All that to say: if people don’t like pro rep, they

don’t have to keep it. We can go back to the old way if that’s the

people’s choice.

People are telling me that they don’t like 37 percent of the vote

equalling 100 percent of the power, like the outcome produced most

recently with the Quebec election and first-past-the-post. People tell

me that they don’t think 40 percent of the vote should equal 100 percent

of the power, like the outcome most recently in the Ontario election

with first-past-the-post. They’re telling me that they can’t afford

another B.C. Liberal false majority.

What else are they telling me? They’re telling me that the last

year of our collaboration with the B.C. Green Party has been a success.

We have accomplished a lot together. They’re telling me that they

understand how a collaborative government can represent the will of the

people in our province. Who’s will? The will of British Columbians. It’s

time to join the majority of countries around the world that now use

some form of proportional representation.

[2:40 p.m.]

Proportional governments that reflect the will of all voters are

more stable and have higher voter turnout, especially among young

people. Studies have shown that there’s a greater sense of satisfaction

in democracy when someone feels like their vote counted. The political

theatre and partisanship fostered through the winner-takes-all nature of

our current system unquestionably affects the way that parties govern.

On the other hand, governments with proportional representation are by

their very nature more collaborative. This has the potential to lead to

more diversity and less partisanship in our political system.

I believe that a government should be comprised of a diversity of

people and a diversity of ideas, in order to reflect the many and varied

people who build and sustain this province. It’s time the people of B.C.

elect a government that’s accountable to all voters, not just a select

few. It’s time for more collaboration to solve the complex problems

facing people. It’s time to tell the hacks and the backroom boys and

girls and politicians that they will no longer have the ability to rule

the majority with a minority of support.

The B.C. Liberals still think that people with money should be

able to buy elections. Banning big money was a first step in giving

British Columbians more power in elections. Proportional representation

is the next step forward.

Let’s make sure that a government elected by a minority of voters

can’t cut services and make your life more expensive while they do

favours for their rich friends, like the B.C. Liberals did for years and

want to do again. The only way to fix the problem is to give people a

new way to vote. Pro rep puts power in the hands of regular people, not

just the wealthy and the well-connected, not just temporarily but for

good.

I will vote for proportional representation in the upcoming

referendum, and I encourage others who want a government that works for

everyone to do the same.

S. Sullivan: First of all, I’d like to let you know that I will be moving an

amendment toward the end of my presentation.

The question is about Bill 40 and why this bill is being

introduced right now. This is, in my mind, a blatant violation of the

spirit of the Referendum Act, in which it was made clear that there

should be fairness about who should be able to influence the direction.

There was a “yes” committee and a “no” committee and rules about

funding. Instead, in the middle of the referendum campaign, the

government chooses to introduce a bill. And what is the purpose of this

bill? There’s really only one purpose. It’s to get a yes vote. It is to

influence voters to vote yes.

Why is it happening now? Well, about a year ago, there was a poll

that showed that those who wanted proportional representation were about

more than 2½ times the number of people that wanted first-past-the-post.

A recent poll has shown that there’s just a few percentage points

difference.

Enter Bill 40, a desperate bill, an effort to try to shore up what

is clearly losing momentum. The pro-PR people are losing momentum, and

this has a serious chance of losing. How can that possibly be, with the

government in control controlling the entire process, controlling the

question?

I very much object to what’s going on here at all, which is why

I’m going to move a motion later on.

The goal of this is to interfere in the election and to say,

basically, “Hey, give us your old system, and we’ll give you a new one.

If you don’t like this new one, bring it back, and we’ll give you your

money back. You can go back to the way it was” — trying to make people

feel that this is not a bad direction that they’re going in.

[2:45 p.m.]

Now, how did we get to this point, where the support for

proportional representation has dropped so precipitously? Is it because

the offerings by the government are so bad? Each of the three systems

has serious questions around them. The citizens are saying: “This is not

what we anticipated. These are not the forms of proportional

representation, for example, that the citizens’ assembly recommended

many years ago.”

One hundred and sixty average citizens were chosen randomly. They

got together, and they looked at all of the forms of proportional

representation. They preferred voter systems, systems in which voters

choose all of their own MLAs. They rejected the party systems, where

parties get to have a major influence on who chooses the

MLAs.

The citizens’ assembly firmly rejected the MMP system that is the

favourite of the current government. They rejected it because they did

not want to move power from voters to parties. Each of the three systems

has party lists, lists in which the parties influence, in a very great

degree, who gets chosen to be MLAs.

Now, given that this is a bill that’s been introduced, we have a

conflict here on the issues of who can advertise, who can speak and

promote their ideas. We have the Referendum Act, which says that only

certain people can pay for advertising, etc. and what kind of money they

can use to do that. Yet we also have this conflicting with a higher

principle, the principle of a legislator to do whatever they feel is

necessary to do their job to make laws.

There are three classic

definitions of what a legislator does:

(1) makes laws, (2) provides for money for government to function and

(3) determines when a government should fall. One of the most important jobs

of a legislator is to make laws, and that legislator needs to be

completely free to do whatever they feel they need to, to reach out to

constituents and to communicate with stakeholders.

I have been told by the government that I am not allowed to, for

example, do what I would normally do in reaching out to my constituents,

boosting a Facebook post. I’ve been told that a $50 boost to a message

that I want to send to my constituents on Bill 40 is not acceptable.

It’s illegal. It’s against the legislation that is in the Referendum

Act. My response to them was: “What is more important? My duty, my

obligation, as a legislator is to communicate with my constituents, to

talk to my stakeholders, to receive their ideas.” And I’ve been told

that that has been made invalid by the Referendum Act.

Now, this is going straight to the heart of what we do here. If

the government can make a law that restricts a legislator’s ability to

do their job in one instance, what makes it a problem for them to make

another law to suspend the rights and duties of a legislator? So I take

great issue with what is going on here.

[2:50 p.m.]

The fact that this is a desperate move to try to get a win, to try

to convince the citizens that these systems…. “They may look bad. They

may deliver great power to political parties. You may feel uncomfortable

with this. But hey, don’t worry about it. You can bring it back after

two elections, and we’ll give you your old system back.” I don’t think

the public is going to buy that, quite frankly. I think this is a

blatant violation of the spirit of the Referendum Act and the idea of

fairness that the government should be able to use its resources to

bring this bill forward.

I, as a legislator, am not able to put $50 on a Facebook post to

communicate to my constituents about my concern about what this is. Now,

it is impossible for me to speak to my constituents about Bill 40

without talking about the referendum. That’s what this is

about.

I think one of the biggest casualties of this whole rushed process

is Elections B.C. They’re being put under tremendous pressure, and I do

not envy their job. It seems from the case that…. We see them now

heavily advertising for people to get out and vote. That makes them

appear that they are actually taking a position. There is more money

being put into this referendum right now than previous referendums. I’d

like to see a comparison of how much money has been put into this

referendum by Elections B.C. I don’t believe that to be the case, but it

certainly looks challenging to some citizens.

There have been so many communications, certainly to me, telling

me that I am not allowed to do my job as a legislator. The last person

who told legislators that they could not do their job and communicate as

they saw fit was a guy named Charles I, and he got his head cut off for

that.

This is going very deeply to the very nature of what we do in this

House. No one — no government, no piece of legislation — should be able

to tell me that I cannot communicate with my constituents by boosting a

Facebook post or taking a billboard ad out if I want when a bill has

been brought before this House with the sole purpose of influencing the

outcome. As I said, the highest duty of a legislator is to pass laws,

and they should not be fettered in any way in doing this. For example,

myself, I live in an urban riding. We don’t do door-to-door. We don’t

to the government.

Some proponents of proportional representation…. I’m sure many of

you have heard them. When you talk to the people who are in favour of

proportional representation, they are pretty upset about how this is

going. Who designed this process? Was this process designed to lose?

This is what I’ve heard from several people. How badly has this been

managed? Is there an actual attempt by the government to lose this

referendum? That is what is being asked.

It’s so badly done. The process has been so badly managed. The

offerings to the public are three systems that are probably some of the

worst systems on offer. There’s not a single voter choice system being

offered in which voters choose all of their own MLAs. I don’t actually

even think this is a real referendum. Yes, there are ballots. There are

questions. There are campaigns. But I don’t think it’s a

referendum.

[2:55 p.m.]

Referendums ask voters questions they can answer. This referendum

has a ballot which people can manage, but the questions are impossible

for most of us to answer. Now, we had a citizens’ assembly that rejected

the systems that are on offer right here. They especially formally

rejected MMP, which is a favourite of the governing party. The citizens’

assembly had 11 months to learn about the different systems. They

consulted with the public, customized different systems for B.C. and ran

computer models to choose between them. The B.C. citizens’ assembly

wisely chose to focus on electoral systems which were in use and had

been studied and written about for decades.

This referendum is asking the impossible of voters. If the ballot

information package is anything like the Elections B.C. website

information, voters will be getting about a single page of information

about each system. If a voter googles dual-member proportional or

urban-rural proportional, they will find out almost nothing. These

systems have never been used before.

How are we to expect voters to make a rational, real decision? And

how is a voter supposed to answer the second question? Voters will be

able to manage this ballot, but they won’t be able to answer the second

question. If a voter cannot answer the second question, then how will

they be able to answer the first question?

The wording of the first question is completely misleading. It

asks if voters want a proportional electoral system. There are many more

than the three proportional electoral systems on offer. The first

question isn’t logically connected to the second question. The first

question is really asking voters: “Do you prefer all of the three

proportional systems in question two over FPTP?” The first question, in

other words, is a trick question.

In the 2005 and 2009 referendums, a major criticism of BC-STV was

that it was too complex. Voters asked: “How can we vote for something we

don’t understand?” In the 2005 referendum, voters knew they had an

authority they could trust to give them advice about a complicated

issue: the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. In 2005, voters

trusted the B.C. assembly, and almost 58 percent of the voters supported

their recommendation, which would have passed with today’s

threshold.

By the time the 2009 referendum came about, the B.C. assembly had

been forgotten about, and the referendum failed, even by today’s

threshold. In the current referendum, the government has decided to

engage in very risky behaviour that I feel is putting our democracy at

risk. The dual-member proportional is a complete unknown. The government

has been grossly negligent in putting our fundamental democratic

institutions at risk by even putting this option on the table. The

government is relying on voters with no expertise about electoral

systems to vet the systems. This is complete madness.

The MMP on offer is what? Nobody knows, because even the most

basic details haven’t been decided. I encourage everyone to go on

Elections B.C.’s videos on YouTube and look and listen to each of them

being described. Especially, listen to the last minute of each video.

You will hear them say the standard: “Many of these decisions will be

made after the referendum.” Then they go on to list all of the

things.

I believe there are 29 issues in total that have to be decided

after the referendum. By who? Not by a B.C. citizen assem­bly, not

by independent experts but by a multiparty process. Politicians and

political parties will get together and decide what they think is best

for the citizens.

[3:00 p.m.]

Urban-rural is a conglomeration of three systems. Really. Some say

it’s two systems. In fact, I know that FPTP would be considered for even

some areas. The effect of having three different systems glommed

together is completely unknowable. It’s kind of like Frankenstein. It

might be a nice guy; it might not be a nice guy.

Now, there’s been a lot of chatter. I put a video out recently

that takes issue and gives some details. I’ve got a lot of feedback from

people who are in favour of pro rep but, also, have made comments that

there are, in fact, no party lists and all these things that are

untrue.

They need to read the Attorney General’s recommendations to

cabinet. There are many people misrepresenting what the Attorney General

recommended and cabinet accepted and what is apparently binding on the

government. In that document, both dual-member proportional and

mixed-member proportional have party lists. Many people are saying: “No,

there are no party lists. Don’t worry. Everybody can just vote for their

own MLA.”

In dual-member proportional, each district has a two-person closed

list determined by the party. It’s a two-person list. It’s a list.

Voters can’t vote for individual candidates. This is a party system.

This is not a voter system. Only parties. They can only vote for

parties. The party determines who is at the top of the list. They’re the

primary candidate. Being first on the party list is critical for the

dual-member proportional candidates. Because of this, these candidates

will have to have their loyalty to the party. Their loyalty goes to the

party first, not to the voters.

In dual-member proportional, the election of the compensating MLAs

is even more troubling. A straightforward calculation is made to

determine the number of compensating candidates from each party. That

sounds reasonable. So far, so good. But with dual-member proportional,

an algorithm looks at the results in all the local elections. Who

chooses? The algorithm chooses which of the candidates will get elected

as compensating MLAs for each party. You know, any party that gets 5

percent of the vote has to be given a riding. The secondary compensating

MLAs have to be given a riding somewhere.

So 5 percent. You could easily imagine the Marijuana Party or some

other party getting 5 percent of the vote. Who is going to be given the

MLA from that party? It’s an algorithm that chooses. Parties don’t

determine who these winners will be, unlike in local races.

Voters also won’t be determining who these compensating MLAs will

be. There is no venue for these candidates to compete in. There’s no

possibility of compensating candidates from the same party to compete

against each other. In effect, dual-member proportional candidates, the

MLAs, are randomly selected by a very complex and obscure

algorithm.

Let’s give an example. Say you have a riding that’s a strong NDP

riding next to a riding which is a strong B.C. Liberal riding. Those two

ridings go together. Now, say the B.C. Liberal actually gets to win.

Wins by just a small amount but wins, comes in first place. Now, clearly

the riding with the NDP MLA wants an NDP MLA.

[3:05 p.m.]

What would happen with that NDP candidate who just barely came in

second? Now that person goes into the candidate pool. It should be

obvious that both the party and NDP voters would want that person to be

elected.

Unfortunately for them, there is no way to vote for this candidate

or select them to be the compensating MLA. The winner is essentially

selected by an algorithm, which doesn’t look at anything important about

that candidate and about the voters. The winners of the compensating

seats for each party will be determined by the peculiarities of the

various local elections — how strong the candidates from other parties

are in that district, whether there are few parties running, many

parties running.

After the election, who do these MLAs represent? Who do they turn

to for their success? The party? No, actually, not even that. The

voters? Certainly not. They owe their success to the algorithm. The

algorithm is running this province.

In the multi-member party proportional and the multi-member

proportional part of the urban-rural, there are party lists. The exact

form is decided by a legislative committee — i.e., the NDP — after a

successful referendum.

Interjection.

S. Sullivan: Oh, sorry. The NDP and the Green Party will choose. Thank you to

the hon. member from Oak Bay for correcting me.

The options are a closed list or an open list. A careful reading

of the Attorney General’s recommendations shows that both closed and

open lists start as party-ordered lists. This is important, because with

any kind of party-ordered list, the candidates and MLAs have to try to

get high up on the list. This is where their real election takes place.

That’s the most important thing to determine whether they get elected or

not — how well they manage their relations and be in the good books of

the political party.

The boss of these candidates becomes the political party, not the

voters, who don’t really matter when a candidate is trying to climb a

party list. The voters aren’t the ones that determine who climbs that

party list. So even an open list that’s party ordered is like a closed

list. The party puts people at the top, and typically, voters will often

go and just tick off the top of the list.

Forty percent of the mixed-member proportional MLAs are list MLAs.

These 40 percent of the MLAs will see the party as who they represent.

Not the voters. This reduces local representation in the province by 40

or 50 percent, replaces it with party representation. Now, the Elections

B.C. video on MMP said these ridings could increase by up to 100

percent. That’s twice the size on an MMP.

One of the Attorney General’s options is to have dual candidacy,

where a candidate can run locally and also be on the party list just in

case they lose a local election. With a party-ordered list, these

candidates and MLAs will try to work their way up the list to have a

better chance of being elected.

This option will result in many more than 40 percent of MLAs and

candidates owing their loyalty to the party and not the voter. This is a

further diminution of local representation. So actually a bigger threat

to voter sovereignty is dual candidacy, and that’s on the table. The

political parties could decide that after the referendum. So now even

the voters that would be running in a type of first-past-the-post would

still have a second eye on that opportunity. Just in case they lose,

they would want to be up that list.

With closed lists, the parties will be choosing who 40 percent of

the MLAs will be, not the voters. Not only won’t these MLAs be local;

their loyalty will be to the party in Victoria and, subsequently, to

behind-the-scene backers of the party. This is a major power shift from

voters to political parties to political operatives and special

interests.

[3:10 p.m.]

With the open list, because they start out as a party-ordered

list, there is only a possibility that voters might be able to change

the order of this list. This is not guaranteed. It all depends on the

exact variables used to mesh what the voters want and what the party

starts out with.

Another MMP option the AG is keeping open is the possibility of

what they call above-the-line voting with the open list. Above-the-line

voting means that the voter accepts the party ordering of the list.

Above-the-line voting virtually guarantees that the voters won’t be able

to affect the order of candidates in the party-ordered list. It might be

more honestly referred to as a closed list.

I know that my time is running out here, so I would like to move a

motion, move an amendment, as I say, for all of the reasons I’ve stated

before. I believe that we need to take a break from this. This needs to

be brought off the table, and we need to get on with the referendum.

There should be no interference through the use of this bill.

I move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 40) intituled

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 be

amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months

hence.”]

Deputy Speaker: Would the member like to speak on the amendment?

S. Sullivan: Sure.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m just advised that when you moved the motion, it’s

understood that you have spoken to the amendment. So the member is not

obliged to speak on it again. If you wish to….

S. Sullivan: Well, yeah. I’d like to say a few words.

Deputy Speaker: That’s fine. Proceed.

On the amendment.

S. Sullivan: I’m not going to speak for two hours. But I will be happy to

say….

I think it’s important. This bill is a blatant

interference….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just hold it, please.

The member will continue.

S. Sullivan: Okay. I’m not going to speak for very long.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver–False Creek will have the

floor.

[3:15 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: Yeah. I’m not going to say much about this. I think I’ve said my

piece.

I know there are a number of my colleagues who want to speak to

this. I just want to say that the main reason for this is I believe that

Bill 40 is a blatant and unfair interference in the referendum campaign

that has been brought as a desperate measure to try to shore up the

positive votes.

Clearly, the momentum is not in favour of proportional

representation, because they’ve been offered very bad options, and the

citizens are starting to figure that out. These are party options. These

are options that will strengthen political parties and reduce the power

of the citizen. That is why I think the whole House should support this

hoist motion.

I will cede the floor to my other colleagues, who have a lot to

say about that as well.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Kootenay East, on the amendment.

T. Shypitka: On the amendment. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to speak today. First of all, a little

bit of a disclaimer on the bill. I’ve told this House, and I’ve told my

constituents in Kootenay East, that I don’t have any reservation. I’ve

never been opposed to any system that’ll make my riding or my province

better. Why would I? I live here. I have young children. I have aging

parents. And believe it or not, I have a few friends…

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: …most of them on the other side, it seems right now. Thank you.

They all depend on me in this House to do what is right and to make our

voices heard in the region.

Before I speak to this bill and the amendment, I’ll do a little

background to the point where we are right now today. In the fall

session, on October 4 of 2017, Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum

2018 Act, was read a first time, and it received royal assent on

November 30.

This bill was drafted in order to satisfy the number one priority

the Green Party had with the NDP, so that they would prop them up in

government. This is undisputed. It is written in black and white in

section 3, entitled “Policy Initiatives,” in the confidence and supply

agreement. The confidence and supply agreement is the bonding glue that

currently holds these two parties together to form a razor-thin minority

government.

We’ve seen some waffling from the Green leader on Site C. We’ve

seen him kick and scream a bit on the recent announcement of LNG and the

export terminal in Kitimat. He said a year ago he would bring down

government if LNG was given the green light — or, should I say, maybe

the orange light.

GHG climate targets will not be met, but he will not do what his

constituents asked of him because he’s holding out for more seats in

this House if this referendum passes. I guess who could blame him? I

don’t blame him. This is about self-preservation, and he has forced the

NDP to do the dance with him.

Now we understand that this referendum has been party-driven from

the onset, not politically driven. I say that because, yes, the NDP did

hint at putting forward a vote on changing our electoral system and

asking for a form of proportional representation. But the leader of the

NDP, now the Premier, also said he would do three fundamental things if

that referendum were to happen.

First, the Premier promised that the question on the referendum

ballot would be a simple yes-or-no question. That is now not happening.

Instead, we have a convoluted ballot on two questions, on three options

of PR, two of which have never been used anywhere in the world before.

It’s confusing, and I have a lot of concerns with that.

The No. 2 thing the Premier also said was that the referendum

would come off the heels of an all-party committee to ensure fairness

and input from all parties in the House — kind of like what we did in

2005 and 2009 with the citizens’ assembly, made up of around 160

citizens, academia and government. This was rejected as well and

replaced by a behind-doors committee.

The third thing the Premier alluded to recognized regional

thresholds that would ensure that at least 50 percent of the

jurisdictions would need to approve any change to our electoral system.

In other words, with 87 ridings in the province, we’d need at least 44

ridings to agree with a major change such as this. This was also thrown

out the door.

[3:20 p.m.]

To stack the deck some more, the committee also took the voter

threshold from 60 percent plus one, which is regionally and globally

recognized as a standard for anything major changing our electoral

system, and they reduced that down to 50 percent plus one, and no

minimum voter turnout. You can simply not lower the bar any more for

this referendum than has already been set by this committee. This is why

this referendum is politically driven and not driven by the

public.

As we’ve heard here earlier today, we’ve been handcuffed and

gag-ordered on how we can outreach to our constituents — some, I debate,

constitutionally challenging. I think we have an obligation to our

constituents to reach out any way we can. We’re talking about a bill on

the referendum, and somehow I can’t get that across the way I would

intend to my constituents.

The way we choose our regional representatives is a big deal. It’s

the way we get our local voice heard in this vast, diverse province of

ours. To treat this vote with this level of disregard is disturbing, and

to be brutally honest, it’s insulting.

Now, to get to where we are here today, to speak to a bill that

essentially brings forward a referendum for the upcoming referendum…. I

staunchly oppose this bill due to a few reasons.

The bill we have here today, in the immortal words of a former

member of this House, is a bit of jiggery-pokery.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, the Chair will request that you assist the Chair

to understand why this motion should pass or not pass. So if you could

speak to the amendment, that would be very helpful. Thank

you.

T. Shypitka: Well, hon. Speaker, the whole idea, quite honestly, has been not

very seriously thought out. We are not being allowed to do what we were

intended to do through….

Deputy Speaker: Just give us the reasons as to why or why it should not be. Just

give us the reasons. That’ll help.

T. Shypitka: I’m not too sure how much more to expand on that.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: That’s what I’m doing. That’s what I thought I was doing. Sorry,

hon. Speaker.

I do support the amendment for several reasons. The bill

originally tries to qualify a bogus first referendum by giving us a

flawed second referendum.

If I can provide another quote — we already heard jiggery-pokery —

this time a quote from the immortal Winston Churchill in his 1939 radio

address best describes this bill: “It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery

inside an enigma.” This is just one botched move after the other, so the

second bill I’m talking to is the second botched part.

I have given talks on this subject since last summer. I’ve been to

the Fernie Rod and Gun Club, the Kootenay Livestock Association, the

Sparwood Causeway Bay Hotel, Joseph Creek Care Village, Western

Financial Place, door to door and many coffee shops across Kootenay

East. I can tell you that in my area, not many are even aware of this

referendum, let alone that they know the details on the three options of

PR that are presented.

I don’t blame them, because complete details are not available. No

maps on electoral boundaries. Will there be closed party lists or open

party lists? What are party lists? What constitutes a rural, semi-urban

or urban riding? Am I in a rural or semi-urban or urban riding? Why are

we having two voting systems in one province? What does

first-past-the-post mean? If I don’t vote, does that mean that this is a

vote to keep things the same? Do I have to give an answer to the second

question on the ballot? These may sound like ridiculous questions, but

these are seriously some of the questions I get from intelligent people

in my riding and in others as well.

Hon. Speaker, I’m not sure if you have ever noticed or the members

ever notice that we live in a bit of a bubble here in the Legislature.

We go through our day educating ourselves on legislation and the bills

presented, like this one I’m speaking to today. We debate and do our

share in understanding those issues.

[3:25 p.m.]

The understanding that we have here on this topic certainly does

not reflect the general public that goes about making British Columbia

the best it can be. This bill gives the public the impression that

there’s a way out.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: The amendment. On the amendment to this bill…. It gives us the

impression that there is a way out if the referendum goes to a model of

proportional representation. I’ve heard “escape valve” and “exit ramp.”

What it really does is give the public more smoke and mirrors on this

Houdini act that the government is trying to trick us with.

My colleague here yesterday mentioned the old song, Bobby

McFerrin’s “Don’t Worry, Be Happy.” That’s what this bill actually

speaks to. “Don’t worry; be happy. If we don’t get it right the first

time, we can just go back and redo it all over again.” But I don’t think

that’s the way that it’s going to be. This is a leap of faith, as the

Premier has stated. And that’s another quote. Now the Premier is asking

the people of this province to take another leap of faith in supporting

a bill that really has no teeth to implement and lacks a connection to

the realities that would likely play out.

Quite honestly, it’s an outrage. It’s unbelievable that this

government would have us believe that this is a viable option. We can’t

legislate the actions of government two cycles down the road when this

House will look completely different. We won’t, most likely, have

majority governments. We’ll have maybe three or four, five, six

different parties here, and for them to vote against something that will

actually keep them in the place that they’re in there is almost

impossible. It won’t happen. Realistically, it’s just not

fathomable.

The other thing I wanted to talk about was the mail-in ballot.

This is 2018. We just heard yesterday that Canada Post may be on a

strike. I think that the original reason why we have a mail-in ballot is

because the government said that it was going to save us money. It was

going to cost us $9 million, they said. Now it appears closer to $15

million. Now, with the second referendum, it will cost taxpayers closer

to $30 million.

We have a municipal election in a couple of days. Why could this

not have been added to the referendum, to the civic slate? Wouldn’t this

provide a better voter turnout? I would say that it would. My colleagues

tell me it wouldn’t cost that much — maybe $1 million, maybe $2

million.

Something smells at the Legislature, and it isn’t the horse

carriages outside. This has been a rigged, stacked referendum. And now

the second referendum that we speak of is rigged to cover up the first

one.

Let’s talk about some of the signature trademarks of the pro-PR

side, how 40 percent gets 100 percent of the power. We hear this all the

time. The other side would have you believe that somehow, with PR — and

we heard a real passionate speech yesterday from the Premier — this “40

percent of the vote gets 100 percent of the power” would be totally

eliminated, and magically we will be working together and maybe perhaps

100 percent of the vote would get 100 percent of the power.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This is not real-life stuff. We see it across the world. What

they’re speaking of is the land of unicorns and rainbows and, as my

colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano says, the big rock candy

mountain. He says it all the time. I love him. It’s a beautiful world

they paint out, “with tangerine trees and marmalade skies,”

“rocking-horse people eating marshmallow pies.” Another quote, from John

Lennon, a famous song that we all know.

But that’s not what happens. In every government, there’s an

opposition, plain and simple. What happens is that working together is

misunderstood for power-sharing.

Now that you get two, three or four platforms, they get behind

closed doors and hammer out some sweet deals for one another. Cabinet

positions are handed to those small groups that are holding balance of

power, and what comes out reflects nothing of what was promised in their

collective campaigns. It’s unrecognizable. It doesn’t look anything like

the way it looks when it was first started.

[3:30 p.m.]

The author Mary Shelley comes to mind when I think of these new

governments. Mary was 18 in the year 1818, when she wrote the timeless

classic Frankenstein . The novel tells the story of Victor

Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a beautiful sapient creature

in an unorthodox scientific experiment.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: He wants to know the definition of sapient. Sapient is a word —

wise or attempting to be wise. I hope that satisfied the

member.

In the story, Frankenstein’s monster tries to adapt, and although

the creature learns how to imitate certain characteristics that keep him

functioning, it is the unnatural piecing together of his body parts that

does not allow him to fit into his environment.

To be sapient, the monster is pieced together with knowledge,

experience, understanding, common sense, insight — kind of what PR tries

to present us. However, this is forced in an unnatural way, and like the

monster in Mary Shelley’s novel, he ends up killing himself because of

the destruction he has left behind.

The reader is saddened by the plight of the monster because the

intentions are good ones, but they are unnatural, unrealistic and

ultimately ruinous. The reason I say unnatural is because this notion

that our current first-past-the-post system is not collaborative is

utter twaddle and prattle.

I can use two major parties to give an example. The NDP party is a

fine coalition. I’ll admit it. On the left of centre, it incorporates

labour, socialism, some environmental concerns, fiscal liberalism, First

Nations values, a bigger government. It’s a coalition of

ideas.

The party on this side, the B.C. Liberals…. We’re right of centre.

We’re a coalition as well. We are fiscally conservative, socially

liberal, pro small and large business as well as holding First Nations

values, and there’s many more.

We’ve evolved over time. We are a coalition on this side. The

party on the other side is a coalition as well. They’ve evolved. Now,

there’s some overlap between the parties, and that’s a good thing. But

under our current system, we are accountable to our platform. We

essentially live and die by what we support and how we

perform.

Now, to the delight of the other side, right now our government is

in opposition — I expected to hear some slamming or fist-bumping — and

we’re okay with that. We’ve been told that we need to up our game to get

the confidence of the people back in B.C. We’re good with that. That’s

what we signed up for. That’s what keeps us accountable.

Our government is retooling — our side, sorry. We hope to be

government. Our side of the House, because we’re in the penalty box,

we’re retooling right now. We’re realigning ourselves to adjust to the

constantly changing environment around us. We’re incorporating new

strategies, new partners, new awareness. This will evolve us naturally,

with a big tent of ideas that will satisfy the needs of British

Columbians, just like the other side, just like government. They sat in

the penalty box for 16 years. They retooled themselves. They got better,

right? I think they would agree. That’s a natural process. That’s an

evolution of a coalition of ideas that come together — both sides of the

House, three sides of the House.

The Green Party is getting stronger. You guys have done some great

stuff, and because you’ve listened to British Columbians, you’ve evolved

within your party, and you’ve brought a coalition of ideas and a bigger

tent. You’re doing a fine job.

The notion that somehow every person in B.C. will be happy once PR

is in is more hogwash. Let’s debunk a few PR myths.

Every vote counts. We hear that all the time. I’ve illustrated

this above a little bit. No matter what happens, what system is in play,

there will always be a government, and there will always be an

opposition. This is a good thing. Otherwise, it’s a dictatorship. So

there will always be someone not happy on how things are being run. We

have seen this in this sad example of a coalition right now in this

House. We’ve had a group of Greens that want everyone to believe that

they’re only wanting to work with everyone. They want to have a more

inclusive government where all sides work together in one big, blissful

way.

Interjection.

[3:35 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Yeah, absolutely. That’s what is said. All voices are heard.

Collaboration will be joined by all, and all voices will be heard. What

rubbish. In the entire 16 months that this collaborative government has

been in place, do you know how many times the Greens have sided with us

on any issue, bill or amendment — anything? If you said once, you’ve

been way too high. Zero. Not once.

The Greens didn’t even show collaboration on an amendment that

would have eliminated taxpayers footing the bill for political

campaigns. You know that, people in British Columbia? Does the Green

side even know that? It’s unbelievable.

Greens have to stick with government. They’ve written a confidence

and supply agreement. These are the backdoor deals that we’ll see in

minority governments. These are the things that British Columbians won’t

see. They won’t recognize the people and the parties that they vote

for.

This vote, that every vote counts, is nonsense. Also, there’s a 5

percent threshold on parties that will be eligible to sit in this place.

We’ve got 26 parties in British Columbia right now. We could literally

have seven or eight or nine parties running for their constituencies,

their ridings, that get 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 or 4 percent of the vote

that won’t meet the threshold of 5 percent. Those votes will be thrown

out. Those people’s voices will be eliminated. This could equal 10 or 20

percent of the voting public. That’s not every vote counts. They’re

eliminated.

Back to the bill at hand. The bill says that in a couple of

election cycles, B.C. will go back to the polls on another referendum to

see if everyone is happy and to revote on electoral reform. This is

about as likely as being hit by lightning and winning the lottery in the

same day. This will never happen, especially in the two cycles from now

that we were under proportional representation with a minority

government in place. You simply can’t evoke legislation to a government

in the future. The other side knows this. This is not going to

happen.

Once PR gets in, then we will never get it out. The other side

seems to think this is a great selling feature for PR. It’s been enjoyed

by countries all over the world. Once PR is in, nobody ever goes back.

That troubles me a bit. Is it because it’s so awesome that places like

Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Belgium, Italy and

Israel are all doing the happy dance because their government is so

stable and efficient? Not a chance. Maybe it’s just because — maybe,

just maybe — once minority governments are in, they will never vote for

a referendum because they would be eliminating their own jobs. It’s

plain and simple — self-preservation. Does that makes sense?

It’s disturbing that no country has gone back. It’s a definite

warning sign.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Did they like it? The leader from the Greens says it’s because

they like it. I argue, I debate, that it’s not because they like it.

It’s because no government in a minority situation would ever vote

against the seats that they represent. They would be eliminated, plain

and simple.

I got a letter here just recently from the Williams Lake Chamber

of Commerce. I think we can all understand that the chambers of commerce

across British Columbia are important to our economy and what we do in

the province to make us as good as we are. They’ve sent a letter.

They’re concerned about this referendum — absolutely about the

referendum. It’s entitled: “2018 Referendum on Electoral

Reform.”

They only want a few things. They want clarity on this referendum.

They want transparency. They want legitimacy. They have a conclusion.

They’ve got some recommendations as well. I’ll table this if anybody

wants to read it. But I’ll go through some of the recommendations

they’ve provided. I think they’re good ones.

[3:40 p.m.]

The first recommendation is: appoint a non-partisan examination of

the likely outcomes of an alternative system prior to issuing a

referendum, comparable to the previous citizens’ assembly, examining the

implications of proportional representation being considered,

particularly its implication on rural-urban divide. That’s one of the

systems proposed that’s never been implemented anywhere in the world

before, so I understand their concern in the first

recommendation.

The second recommendation is: clearly define the system of

proportional representation that is being considered well in advance of

any referendum.

The third recommendation is: adopt the same threshold required for

approval as was used in the referendum in 2005 and 2009.

I can tell you…. I’m from a rural riding. People are very

concerned and very upset that these thresholds have been taken out.

We’re supposed to be bridging the divide in British Columbia between

rural and urban. We’re doing nothing like that with this referendum.

We’re further fragmenting our province.

Our province is so diverse — I would argue that it’s probably one

of the most diverse jurisdictions anywhere in the world — and we’ve got

a referendum that is on populace voting and not represented equally

throughout the ridings that this province represents. So I totally

understand that one.

The last recommendation they have is: delay the referendum until

such time as the government has properly engaged the electorate and

provided adequate time for question, review and program definition. I

think that’s what we’re talking to in this amendment. We have not had

any time. I don’t understand the rush. Well, I do understand the rush,

but most people in British Columbia don’t understand the

rush.

The rush is that the Greens made it their number one priority in

the confidence and supply agreement to get this done. This is their last

stab. This is their last chance to get this done. We tried this in 2005.

We tried it in 2009. Now we’re trying it in 2018. They know that this is

their best chance to bring them more power, to get them more seats and

to have a party-based elected system in B.C. than it was….

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: We can look at Prince Edward Island. They had a referendum on

this. The voter turnout was so bad…. The government had all their wits,

and they said: “That’s not good enough.” I think that’s what we’re going

to see here.

The government has taken those thresholds away. That’s what these

recommendations stand for. They want a fair, representative process. I

don’t think that’s too hard to understand or wrap yourself around. I

don’t understand the rush. People don’t get it. We don’t know what rural

and urban ridings are going to look like. We have no maps. We have no

details on any of this stuff.

My constituents are concerned. I think most people in British

Columbia are concerned. We see the trend lines on what’s happening on

this. The jig is up. People in British Columbia may not be as passive or

asleep at the wheel as the government may think they are. They’re

actually getting educated on this system. What seemed like a pretty good

deal….

I could go to a car lot tomorrow. My car right now is dependable.

It gets me around. It’s a little old. It still packs my lawn clippings

when I do the lawn or anything like that. I might be looking for a new

vehicle. I can go down to the car lot tomorrow. I can talk to the

used-car dealer there. He can say to me: “Look at this vehicle. It’s

brand-new. Looks great. Shiny. Everybody’s driving it. It’s great. Gets

great gas mileage. Pulls a lot of weight. Comfortable.” All of those

kinds of things.

I would be interested. Absolutely, I’d be interested. But if I

asked the used-car salesman: “Can I look under the hood?” He says: “No,

no. You can look after you buy it. Then you can take a ride in it. Then

you can check it out.” This is the situation. This is a fairly simple

analogy, but this is exactly what the people of British Columbia are

starting to figure out. They want to check under the hood, and the car

salesman is saying: “Not a chance until after you buy it.”

That’s why people right now are sending letters like this in from

Williams Lake Chamber of Commerce.

[3:45 p.m.]

People are wising up, and the government doesn’t like it. So

they’ve put this new amendment in, this second referendum that makes

people feel all fuzzy inside. “Well, you know what? It doesn’t matter.

We’ll take a chance. We’ll buy the car, and if it breaks down, then I

can get a warranty.” Well, guess what. There is no warranty on the

vehicle. None. It’s not going to happen. It’s a sham.

I just want what’s right for the province. I just want what’s

right for my riding. That’s all I’m here for. Pretty simple guy,

really.

I’m getting pretty close here, but I think the points I’ve

illustrated are pretty popular around the province. People are wanting

these processes in place. We don’t want to just take a leap of faith

like the Premier says. We’ve heard responses to the Premier on actually

activating or engaging the population on having a public debate. He

won’t go there. He won’t have a public debate, because he knows more

education on this is a bad thing.

Anyway, I will not be supporting this bill.

S. Gibson: What a pleasure it is for me to join the discourse here regarding

proportional representation. Particularly, I’m referring to the

amendment, which I support. I think the spirit in which it was presented

is laudable. I endorse it, and I believe all of my colleagues will

endorse the amendment — needing more time and representing my

constituents of Abbotsford-Mission. My riding is urban-rural, which

gives me, I think, the right to speak with a little more depth on the

subject.

Just to begin, I have always been thinking that a good way to

speak to proportional representation would be to talk about it in terms

of thought-provoking movies. These are some ideas I have for some movie

titles to deal with proportional representation. These are genres of

movies and the titles.

The first one is a romance movie, and the title I’m coming up with

is: “I’m in love with an appointed MLA.” The next one, a western:

“Riding across my new riding takes two weeks.” How about a fantasy movie

about proportional representation: “Selecting a Government in Belgium.”

How about a film noir movie about proportional representation: “The

Explaining PR Mystery.”

How about a musical about proportional representation. Are you

ready for this one? “The Sound of Green Orchestration.” A documentary

about proportional representation: “How B.C. came close to being sucked

into the PR vortex.” How about a blockbuster about proportional

representation: “Indiana Jones and the $15 Million Riddle.” The last one

my list…. I’m sorry; this is the last one, the comedy category. I call

this one “The Droop Quota.” This concludes my….

My riding is urban and rural which, I think, allows me to speak to

some of the challenges that have been represented today as we talk about

this amendment, which I endorse.

I want to acknowledge the good presentation made by my colleague

from Kootenay East right now. Good job. I think you did some good work

there. I appreciate it.

This is my 37th year in elected office, locally and provincially.

I would say this vote is the most troubling and the most vexatious to my

heart. I’m alarmed by it, and I think the public is increasingly

becoming very, very concerned.

[3:50 p.m.]

As I talk to people in my riding, I’ll have folks come up to me

and say: “You know, I haven’t really decided on this yet. Tell me a

little bit about it.” When I elaborate, they’re shocked. They say: “Are

you kidding me? I didn’t know about that.”

The tide is turning away from proportional representation

dramatically provincewide.

We had a debate a few weeks ago in Abbotsford, and I had the

pleasure of joining that. It was well done. The advocates for PR did

quite a good job, and those who were opposed to it did an equally good

job. The lady beside me asked this question to the advocate for PR:

“Could you please explain those three models?” They were up on the

board. You could see he was a little nervous about it. He didn’t really

want to do it. He started to explain them, and the lady beside me said:

“I don’t get it.” The whole room was in turmoil, because they didn’t

understand the models.

It’s very easy to explain our current system. The person with the

most votes gets to be elected. How clean and simple is that? No Droop

quota comedy. It’s very simple. It’s so clear and classy.

I want to share something with you. Many of us in this room had

parents that fought during World War II. My mom and dad were both in

World War II. My mom was involved in breaking codes, and my dad was in

submarines. Six submarines went out in the flotilla; only one came back.

My dad was on that one. I’m glad he was frankly. You’d have a different

MLA here right now.

Here’s the point I’m making. I don’t want to get too melancholy,

but you know what? Those folks went out and fought for freedom. They

fought for the democracy that we have right now, not some tainted,

twisted new system. They went out and fought for democracy. And you know

what? I’m so thankful they did — pretty special that those folks went

out and put their lives on the lines to protect us for the democracy

that we enjoy in this beautiful room right here in Victoria, B.C.,

Canada.

Back to my story about this vote discussion in Abbotsford. As soon

as the guy explained some of the models, people were in turmoil. They

said: “We don’t get it.” The room changed its heart dramatically. When

they left, they said: “We’re not with that proportional representation.

We don’t get it. It’s too complicated.”

Last week in Mission, we had a delightful meeting to discuss

proportional representation. The Leader of the Opposition came out to

speak there. It was very well attended — delightful crowd. The people in

Mission are very friendly. It’s a very nice, small, welcoming community.

I’m very fortunate to represent the people of Mission.

I’m going to tell you something quite shocking. When you hear

this, you’ll be quite surprised. Probably one of the strongest promoters

of proportional representation in Mission came to the meeting. Super

guy, really a nice guy. In fact, he’s a supporter of mine. But he’s also

a supporter of proportional representation.

Here’s what he told the crowd. You’re going to be shocked by this,

and I encourage our government members to reflect on this. He said:

“Yes, I’m in support of proportional representation. But I’m sure not

supporting this vote.” You know why? Because he found it to be

manipulative, not like the other two votes, which were done in a

non-partisan way with a citizens’ assembly, which is a great way to do

it. People arrived, and they knew the process wasn’t flawed. It wasn’t

manipulated from the start.

This fellow — he’s a very good guy. You’d enjoy meeting him. He’s

a delightful person. He said: “I’m not supporting this. I’m going to

vote against it.” There’s a tipoff there. When somebody that strong for

proportional representation says, “I’m not going to support it,” I think

that should trouble this government. I think it should make you feel

very worried.

[3:55 p.m.]

What’s the problem with a complicated system? Well, we have folks

from all walks of life. We have folks that are working in just average

kinds of jobs. We have fancy people. We have simple people — educated,

not so educated. We want our democracy to be welcoming.

I have a special needs daughter. I hope that she can vote. She’s

not going to understand that ballot. Two elections back, she voted for

me. Yeah, my special needs daughter voted for me. Somebody asked her

this question, jokingly. My daughter’s name is Alisa. Somebody said to

Alisa: “Did you vote NDP?” She said: “No, I voted D-A-D.” Right? Ah,

yeah. It’s a true story. That’s a true story.

You see, when you complicate things, you scare people off. That’s

what you’re doing right now. That guy at that meeting in Abbotsford, he

could hardly explain the models. And you know that two of those models

on the list are science fiction. They’re fantasy. Why are they on the

list? We don’t know. Never been explained.

I like the system we have right now. We fought for it. We believe

in it. Look around this room. Do you realize that if PR is adopted, some

of you folks in government aren’t going to be back after those election

cycles? Some of you will go back to the car wash.

Interjections.

S. Gibson: Some of you will go back…. No, I’m teasing. I don’t know. I’m just

going to tease.

Some of you will go back to where you used to be, right? That’s

going to be kind of sad. You’re supporting a system to prop up the

alliance. We get it. We understand it. It’s pretty transparent. People

come up to me in the street and say: “Is that true? Is that the reason

behind this?” I say: “Yeah, you’re right.”

The average person on the street gets it. Some of you think that

they’re deluded. They’re not deluded. Never, ever underestimate the

intelligence of voters. Never do that. You know what, you’re

underestimating the intelligence of the voter. You think they’ll just

get the envelope. They’ll start filling everything out.

That’s why you’re mailing it out. We get it. You are not going

through a proper, traditional, modern system. You’re going through the

post office system. We understand why. We get it. We’re not deluded over

here. We get it. The public gets it. We know what’s going on.

You’ll remember the two votes that we had in ’05 and ’09. There

were regional accountabilities. You’ve got to have so much, 50 percent,

regional. That was what made people feel good about it. Now it’s going

to be metro-based. Isn’t that right? It’s going to be metro-based. So if

the metro people pull this off, it’s in. I worry about that.

We’ve got just a few hundred thousand people up north. They

deserve recognition. Actually, they deserve special treatment. They’re

not going to get it with this vote, not at all.

We have members and you’ve got members, government members,

throughout the north, in Skeena and other areas like that, Stikine.

We’ve got lots of wonderful members from the north. They’re going to be

shut out of the process. We know those ridings are going to be huge.

You’re going to have to take a Learjet to go and meet your MLA. How

tragic is that?

You know one of the things that people like about their current

system? The MLA is not overtly partisan. Yes, the member over here for

Nanaimo–North Cowichan…. Yeah, good to have you here today. This MLA

represents all his people. If I lived in your riding, hon. Member, you

would look after me. You’d take care of me. Same with you if you lived

in my riding.

This system says: “No, no. We’re going to make every­thing

partisan, super partisan. We’re going to have lists — check, check,

check — lists of people.” So I’ll go to my partisan MLA. That’s a shame.

What a shame, to turn the whole system partisan. It wasn’t that long

ago, in this Legislature, everybody ran as independents. Maybe that’s a

good idea. Maybe.

[4:00 p.m.]

Do you know what? I want to tell you something kind of personal. I

try to be an independent MLA in my riding. I’m a B.C. Liberal. I’m proud

of being a B.C. Liberal. We’ve got a great leader. I’ve got great

colleagues. But I’m independent in the sense that I look after everybody

in my riding.

If somebody comes in and happens to mention, “Oh yeah, I didn’t

vote for you,” I don’t care. It’s all right. Maybe they’ll vote for me

next time, when they get to know me. To know me is to love me,

right?

This system, speaking to the amendment, is going the wrong

direction. It’s going to make it more partisan. We don’t want

that.

When that fellow in Abbotsford was asked about the different

system, he had little coloured dots up there. This is a green dot MLA.

This is an orange dot MLA. This is a blue dot MLA, all in the same kind

of area. People are going: “I don’t….” They just want to come and talk

to me. “I don’t want to talk to a whole bunch of other partisan people.”

What a shame.

People have been talking on our side about maps. Members of the

government side: have you talked to your team about maps yet? Just a

little nod is all…. Okay, I’m not even getting a nod here, hon.

Speaker.

Maps are critical, because when we see those maps, we’re going to

suddenly realize those ridings are going to be the size of France —

gigantic ridings, huge, colossal, right from the Alberta border to

Alaska. Why? What’s the advantage of that?

You see, those folks up there have a lot more provincial

government services — highways, hospitals, all kinds of services. In

Metro, you don’t get the same percentage of provincial services. Those

folks need better representation. Big ridings are not a

benefit.

I’m noticing people are getting really worried about that up

north. They’re getting terrified. They’re going to lose representation.

It’s so sad.

Let’s have a look at some maps. I’m begging today. For the record,

we want to see maps. Isn’t that right, colleagues?

We want to see maps. We’re begging for maps. Whoever takes this on

over there will be my hero. Come back next meeting with maps. Yep, this

is your big chance.

Interjection.

S. Gibson: The hon. member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, get some maps for us,

and we will love you.

From time to time, people ask me: “Whose idea was this?” Have you

noticed that nobody has been pressing you? Before this came up —

proportional representation — nobody had ever phoned me and said: “Why

don’t we’ve a vote on proportional representation?” I didn’t get those

calls: “Line 3, go ahead.” I didn’t get one call requesting a

proportional representation vote. Did you?

Interjections.

S. Gibson: Nobody ever phoned me and said: “Oh, man, I’m desperate for a

third vote on that.” Never happened. Here it is $15 million later, and a

mailer that’ll be mixed up with pizza menus — right? — and real estate

cards and stuff. What is this? The kids will throw it in the recycling

as they head out to a movie.

Come on. Is there something wrong here? People are asking me to

question the motives. Well, these three seats here are the motives. It’s

obvious. This is not very complicated.

Now, one of the concerns that we have is that it costs more. It

costs more to the taxpayers. This side of the House is extremely

sensitive to the taxpayers. I don’t know how it’s working right now, but

we had the lowest tax rate for middle-income earners in the entire

country. Isn’t that right, colleagues? The lowest.

I want to draw something to your attention. It’s a little bit of

reading here. “The economic effects of constitutions,” noted

economists….

Interjection.

[4:05 p.m.]

S. Gibson: Economists never make mistakes. Per day. Okay.

Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini examined the impact of

electoral rules on government spending in 85 countries — speaking to the

amendment, hon. Speaker. Their research found that…. Watch. This is very

interesting. Feel free. I can get this to the government members, if you

want to circulate this in your caucus.

Their research found that spending was almost 6 percent of GDP

lower in countries with majoritarian, plurality systems than in

countries with PR elections. That’s pretty powerful. That’s why this

motion is very timely. It’s very propitious. Now, the higher government

spending in PR countries is financed, to a greater extent, with

deficits, borrowing. This is extremely troubling. I’m surprised that you

folks didn’t look at this before you moved this.

Put differently, countries with PR election rules tend to not only

spend more….

Interjections.

S. Gibson: Now watch. This is very profound. You’ll like to hear this.

Countries with PR election rules tend not only to spend more than other

countries — we’re already spending $15 million just to see what’s

happening here, just to test the waters — but also tend to borrow more

to finance such spending.

Here’s another quote. Again, feel free to take this back to your

caucus. I can get this to government members. I think you’ll enjoy

circulating this. It might increase your popularity with some of the

people there.

“The tendency of PR electoral systems to elect coalition

governments drives up government” — what do you guess or think the next

word is? — “spending” — you’re right; good guess — “and deficits, not

because voters necessarily want such policies but because the power

structure of the parliament has been realigned by changing the way

politicians are elected.” When I read that, I suddenly realized one more

reason why the public is going to just see the darkness, the dark side

of proportional representation.

There’s a lot more that can be said about this, but I want to make

a couple of comments about why we’re here today and maybe just elaborate

a little more. If you look around this House, our parties are already,

in a sense, coalitions, aren’t they?

Right now the NDP government is a coalition of three or four kinds

of MLAs. I don’t have to speak about what they are, but you know who you

are. There are different kinds of MLAs that represent different kinds of

perspectives on government, on life. That’s a good thing. I’m saying

that’s a good thing. It’s positive about this government. You have three

or four of what I would call political cadres embedded in your

government. It’s a good thing. I’m speaking to the amendment, hon.

Speaker.

On our side of the House as well, we are, I think it’s fair to

say, an umbrella party. We have people with different kinds of

perspectives, but what draws us together? Look across here right now.

What draws us together? Whether it’s Surrey, Langley,

Parksville-Qualicum, the north, the Okanagan or the Kootenays, wherever

you look — what do we have in common? We’re bound by an affection for

free enterprise and, really, grassroots democracy.

We’ve got a powerful force here. That’s why we won the last

election, with more seats and more votes — until things changed over

there. That’s profound. Now, the reason I mention that is because

coalitions are forming here right now. There’s a coalescing here, the

same as on your side. Here’s what’s going to happen with proportional

representation. How many parties do we have registered? I think somebody

told me.

Interjection.

S. Gibson: It’s 27 — thank you, hon. member from Surrey — parties.

Supposing that four or five of them get 5 percent of the vote. It

could happen. Now we’re down to only two members that we need for a

party, right? Only two members.

[4:10 p.m.]

You’re going to get the Vancouver Island Party, maybe a party with

a particular viewpoint, maybe the Communist Party. You know from Europe

— you are reading the same material I am — that some of those parties

are extremists. They embrace extremist values. They will have more

credibility under PR. With only two seats, if suddenly the member for

Nanaimo–North Cowichan gets grumpy and joins up with the member for

Vancouver-Kingsway — they get grumpy — they can form their own little

grumpy party, right? They can call themselves the Grumpies, and they’d

be good at that too. No, I’m just kidding.

I just wonder about how this benefits democracy. It makes it more

expensive, as I told you, and it gets away from that great congeniality,

that comradery, that we value here. You’re going to have little parties

sprinkled throughout here, just like they have in Europe, and you know

some of those parties are extreme.

Look at that party in New Zealand. You’ve read about them. Look at

the Prime Minister. It’s sad.

In British Columbia, we’re famous for political moderation

compared to a lot of places in the world. I’m going to tell you. My wife

was born in South America in a country that had civil wars every 18

months. This is a great province, a great country.

By civility, I’m not talking about the arguments that we have.

That’s healthy. That’s a good dialectic. We value that. You don’t want

to live in Bolivia. When my wife was there 30 years ago, that was a

terrible place. Look at Paraguay, some of those countries — Bosnia. We

have a wonderful, wonderful democracy here.

My concluding comments, speaking to the amendment — and thank you

for it — let’s realize that proportional representation will bring out

the dark side of politics. It will create polarization,

overpoliticization of our Legislature, and we will look back, if it’s

supported, with a tremendous amount of regret.

C. Oakes: I stand today before this House to support the amendment that is

currently considered on the floor.

I have repeatedly heard questions from my constituents, as I’m

sure every MLA in this House has, that have not yet been answered by the

government. Have more time to ensure a thorough education and respect

for the questions that are being asked by British Columbians, such as:

where are the riding maps, the numbers of MLAs? What do the

constituencies look like? What does a rural riding mean? What does an

urban riding mean? All are