British Columbia Hansard — 23 October 2018, p.m., Issue 166 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20181023pm-Hansard-n166

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, October 23, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 166 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Tuesday, October 23, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 5823 Bill 42 — Assessment Amendment Act, 2018(continued) T. Stone Hon. S.

Robinson Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 5824 Bill 42 — Assessment Amendment Act, 2018 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 5824 Bill 43 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018 Hon. D. Eby M.

Lee Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 5825 Bill 43 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018 Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 5825 Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018(continued) On the amendment(continued) A. Wilkinson T. Wat J. Y ap S. Cadieux N. Simons T. Stone T. Redies J. Isaacs M.

Stilwell M. Dean M. Lee

TUESDAY , OCTOBER 23, 2018 The House met at 1:32 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:I call committee stage on Bill 42, Assessment Amendment Act. Committee of the Whole House BILL 42 — ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 42; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 1:34 p.m. On

section 1(continued). [1:35 p.m.] T. Stone:I certainly appreciated the information that was provided by the minister and the ministry in the series of questions that we canvassed before lunch in terms of this particular

section and its implications for class 4 industrial properties. The final area that, as the official opposition, we want to address is this concern, which has been raised by lots of small businesses, in so far as inequities that exist with respect to how assessment is done in British Columbia. This bill, we can all agree, does nothing to address the fact that 98 percent of the businesses in British Columbia are small businesses.

They’re facing significant challenges in pockets of certain communities, particularly Vancouver and other Metro Van- couver communities — challenges relating to rapidly rising property tax bills. While we understand the intentions of this bill and its laser-like focus on addressing what appears to be a con- cern with one class 4 industrial property at this time, we can’t help but feel that there was an opportunity here to also try to address the inequities that exist for all of these small businesses.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a number of BIAs, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, UDI, chambers and many others — not to mention thou- sands of businesses — have been asking for modernization of how we do assessment in this province. They’ve been ask- ing for some relief. It’s incumbent upon all of us in this chamber as policy-makers to, I think, acknowledge that challenge and to try to do something about it.

We often talk about the hollowing out of our cities — par- ticularly in Vancouver and in the Lower Mainland — with small businesses having no choice but to close due to the fact that the property taxes they have to pay have escalated, and in many cases quite dramatically. We know that that’s being driven in part by changes to official community plans. But often, also, it’s just due to sheer market forces which, I think we all acknowledge, have caused significant increases in the assessed value of highest and best use, particularly in the Lower Mainland.

Notwithstanding the pleas of small business, there is noth- ing in this bill that addresses that reality. We think, in the official opposition — especially last week being Small Busi- ness Week — that there was an opportunity to put a bill in front of the House that perhaps could have taken some steps towards addressing these inequities. The fact is you can have a situation like in the city of Vancouver two years ago, where the West End plan was passed.

Assessed values under the community retail prop- erties throughout the West End plan increased between 200 and 300 percent, not because of anything substantive or practical that had happened on those affected properties but simply because of market forces. There is also, I think, a deeply rooted sense of unfairness here. Y our value is determined by highest and best use, but you’re going to pay a tax rate, in the case of small businesses, on a much higher mill rate than you otherwise would. Mr. Chair, at this point, we would like to propose an amendment to this section. [1.1 The following

section is added: 20.01 The minister must establish a task force to advise the minister on matters relating to assessment of property classes 5 and 6, as pre- scribed under

section 19 (14) of this Act, and (

a) the task force must include a representative from at least each of the following groups including property classes 5 and 6 owners and occupiers, local governments and the small business com- munity, [1:40 p.m.] (

b) the task force must evaluate assessment inequities of property classes 5 and 6, incorporating a definition of ‘eligible property’ in this Act such that an eligible property will include property classes 5 and 6 where the highest and best use value exceeds the value of the actual use, (

c) the task force must issue a report to the minister no later than September 30, 2019 and the minister must make the contents of that report public no later than October 15, 2019, and (

d) the task force recommendations must be implemented by the minister in time for inclusion within the assessment roll for the 2020 taxation year.] That’s the amendment that I would like to move. I’ve got copies of the amendment here for you, Mr. Chair. On the amendment. Hon. S. Robinson:I have to say how fascinating I find it that the member opposite, after 16 years in government, is saying now that something needs to be done, when, accord- ing to his own quote two years ago, the West End plan cre- ated significant challenges for those properties. If I recall, the member for Vancouver–West End raised that here in the 5823

House, and it fell on absolutely deaf ears. So I find it abso- lutely fascinating that suddenly there’s an interest, an interest in small business and an interest in the challenge of regu- lar British Columbians, because for a long time, those con- cerns went unheard and unheeded. I find it quite fascinating to hear that suddenly there’s this interest. I also want to remind the member — I know that he was listening closely to my second reading comments — what I said, because he clearly wasn’t paying attention.

My ministry is undertaking a review of the highest best valuation impacts on other property classes that are dealing with similar issues in addition to ongoing work on identifying property tax mit- igation strategies for small businesses subject to triple-net leases. We’ve already started to undertake that work, and it’s work that’s going to continue to proceed going forward. N. Letnick:I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members N.

Letnick:I seek leave to make an introduction because, for the first time in ten years, as far as I can recall, my brother, Robert Letnick, is in the House. Robert is a dentist and has been my watchdog for — I don’t know — 60 years and has taken care of me, making sure that I don’t get into too much trouble. It’s, indeed, an honour to have him here. Would the House please help me make Robert Letnick feel welcome. One more, if I may. I wanted you to applaud before for Robert here, but he’s also here because we lost our mother this weekend.

Debate Continued The Chair:Seeing no further speaker on the amendment, shall the amendment as introduced by the member for Kam- loops–South Thompson pass? [1:45 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.] Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 41 Cadieux de Jong Bond Polak Wilkinson Lee Stone Coleman Wat Bernier Thornthwaite Paton Ashton Barnett Y ap Martin Davies Kyllo Sullivan Isaacs Morris Stilwell Ross Oakes Johal Redies Rustad Milobar Sturdy Shypitka Hunt Throness Tegart Stewart Sultan Gibson Reid Letnick Thomson Larson Foster NAYS — 42 Kahlon Begg Brar Heyman Donaldson Mungall Bains Beare Chen Popham Trevena Sims Chow Kang Simons D’Eith Routley Ma Elmore Dean Routledge Singh Leonard Darcy Simpson Robinson Farnworth Horgan James Eby Dix Ralston Mark Fleming Conroy Fraser Chandra Herbert Rice Furstenau Weaver Olsen Glumac Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved. Hon. S. Robinson:I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 1:53 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. [1:55 p.m.] Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 42 — ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 Bill 42, Assessment Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. S. Robinson:I call Committee the Whole, Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2018.

Committee of the Whole House BILL 43 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (MINOR CORRECTIONS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 43; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 1:57 p.m. 5824 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 23, 2018

section 1. Hon. D. Eby: I rise to introduce legislative counsel who’s here with me. Sherie Verhulst will be assisting me through this process. I note we have quite a crowd in the gallery. Just for back- ground for those who are joining us in the Legislature here today, we’re doing committee stage on the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act. This is not the most exciting bill that you are going to see, but it’s neces- sary work for the Legislature to make sure that we correct minor errors that are in laws. They have to come to the Legis- lature for approval. We’ll be working

section by

section through it, and my critic in the opposition will be asking me questions about the sections possibly, and we’ll see what happens. I’ d just like to take the opportunity to make everybody feel welcome. M. Lee:Just to ask a question on this bill.

Recognizing that it’s a correction where you have a number appear alongside of a letter, as opposed to two numbers together, is there a way for the ministry to do a general review as to this sort of combination of numbers and letters, just to ensure that we have the right formulation, let’s say, where it’s intended, clearly — for this to be December 31, as opposed to Decem- ber 3l, if that’s a little “l”? Is there a way that we can do a gen- eral search to review this so that this isn’t done in a piece- meal fashion? [2:00 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: The correction the member is asking about originated in 1979. The

section is supposed to talk about December 31, but instead it talks about December 3, small letter “l, ” because someone mistook the small letter “l” for the number 1. So we’re correcting it to be December 31 instead of December 3l. The correction was apparently noticed by a publications clerk. If you can imagine, someone actually spotted it. It looked unusual to the clerk, and they brought it forward to be corrected.

I’m advised that it would be incredibly time-consuming and challenging to search the assembled statutes of British Columbia for similar errors, but I can assure the member that staff has advised me that there is a spell-check program in place that should catch this for statutes that are going in currently and that whenever staff identify similar errors, they will be bringing them forward to us for correction. Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved. On

section 21. M. Lee:I know that the Leader of the Third Party decided, in his comments on this bill, to raise attention to this par- ticular subsection — 21(b). Just out of interest, though, in terms of the B.C. Hydro plan, the way that it’s utilized in this schedule…. Perhaps I could get a comment from the Attor- ney General as to what that term is intended to cover, and the way it’s defined currently as “B.C. Hydro Plan. ” Hon. D. Eby:The member is referring to…. There are two corrections in this section.

One corrects the word “hectares, ” plural, to “hectare” because it’s talking about a single hectare of upland. So it’s correcting the plural to the singular. The other one talks about the “B.C. Hydro Plan plan, ” so it removes one of the words “plan” from that duplication. The B.C. Hydro plan is actually a document, and the B.C. Hydro Plan in this

section refers to a document apparently prepared by a gentleman named Fred Peters in 1999. It’s a specific document. It is meant to be referred to, as opposed to a verb like “to plan” or “there was a plan underway” or something like that. It refers to a plan like a document. This is a very specific document that the legislation refers to related to something called Fintry Park. I’m not sure if that’s exactly what the member was looking for, but that’s what we know. Sections 21 to 31 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:03 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. [2:05 p.m.] Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 43 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (MINOR CORRECTIONS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. D. Eby:I call continued second reading on Bill 40. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (continued) On the amendment(continued). Tuesday, October 23, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5825

A. Wilkinson:This amendment is, of course, designed to ensure that we have a proper and fulsome debate on the issue of the electoral reform referendum. Sadly, we find ourselves in the position that the ballots are already in the mailboxes of British Columbians. Some people have received them already and found them to be confusing. This is the state we find ourselves in, as this government has basically force-fed this referendum onto British Columbians. We need only review the history to see how much of a mess has been made of this referendum.

Back in 2004 when the issue was on the table after the 2001 landslide election, the appropriate approach was taken. A full year was taken for a neutral citizens’ assembly with no political involvement at all. Political parties had nothing to do with the citizens’ assembly in 2004. Members of that assembly were chosen at random from across British Columbia, and they assembled in Vancouver with the appropriate financial and academic support to make it possible to have a properly developed ref- erendum on electoral reform.

After a full year of deliberations, they produced a simple yes-no question asking British Columbians if they wanted to change to a STV voting system. That was put on the ballot in the 2005 election — a general election, with maximum pos- sible turnout of voters, with maximum information available to British Columbians and with no political involvement or manipulation at all. That was the right way to do it. That referendum vote did not prove to be successful, yet the question was put on the ballot again, in 2009.

By that time, fully developed maps had been put forward so British Columbians would have the ability to say: “Now I know what I’m voting for. I understand the system that’s being pro- posed. It’s a simple yes-no question. It’s here on the ballot at the general election, when I’m focused and paying attention, and I know what my riding would look like. I know exactly what I’m getting into. ” That’s what British Columbians voted against in 2009, to the tune of more than 60 percent rejecting the proposition, with full information. We then fast-forward to the current situation.

Of course, we all remember the 2017 election, where the Premier of today said, as the opposition leader at the time, that there would be three critically important features to any referen- dum on electoral reform. First of all it, would be a simple yes-no question. That’s a crystal-clear promise that is very easy to understand. Secondly, there would be a citizens’ assembly. Bravo for the now Premier — who has since broken his promise — because that was the right way to go about it. Thirdly, there would be regional thresholds so that regions of British Columbia would not be steamrolled by Metro Van- couver.

And lo and behold, the Premier has broken all three of those promises flagrantly. We need only review them to see how badly this has come across the table from the gov- ernment of the day. The citizens’ assembly was proposed in an electronic mail to the Attorney General, who normally sits in this room today, and that was rejected by him in November of 2017. The answer from the Attorney General was: “There’s not enough time. ” [2:10 p.m.] Well, there was an abundance of time. It’s now 11 months later. There could have been a full-on citizens’ assembly.

It could have been done properly — with integrity, with trans- parency — and the Attorney General rejected that proposi- tion in November of 2017. The second issue, the yes-no question. We remained hope- ful, as the NDP deliberated these issues in secret in their cab- inet room, that they would bring the question before this House for a debate so that all of the members of this elected assembly would have some input into the question that was to be put forward on the ballot.

Lo and behold, the Attorney General, who is supposedly neutral in these matters, turned around and did an on-line survey that was so massively biased that the media folks, the people in the gallery here who report on political matters, rejected it out of hand as a complete sham. Lo and behold, the survey asked a few questions, which then played no role whatsoever in the decision of the NDP cabinet as to what the questions would be and how the referendum would be con- ducted. Clearly, the survey was a sham.

It was simply a way for the Attorney General to say, “Oh yes, British Columbi- ans were consulted in this, ” which they were in a completely fraudulent way. So where are we left? In the spring, we heard that the ques- tion would be put forward, as developed in secret by the NDP cabinet, and they had already stacked the deck a year ago when they passed legislation saying that it didn’t mat- ter what the turnout was.

Members on this side asked the Attorney General on that side: “What if 10 percent of people vote?” He stood in this chamber and said, “It will be bind- ing, ” because the legislation says that the result of the refer- endum, no matter how many people vote, is binding. It must be implemented. We all know the story of Prince Edward Island. When it voted two years ago, 52 percent of the people voted in favour of change, but only 36 percent of people voted.

So 18.7 per- cent of eligible voters in P .E.I. said they wanted change, and the cabinet wisely said: “That’s not a mandate. ” They’re going to have another look at this completely. Instead, we have an arrogant NDP government pandering to the Green Party and force-feeding this on British Columbians by saying that the result will be binding, no matter how many people vote. That, of course, brings us around to the issue of the whole process in which they’ve set this up.

We have, in this House, witnessed the NDP suppressing conversation on this and arranging for Elections B.C. to discipline people who try to discuss this in public. This is fundamentally wrong. The right to vote, the structure of our voting system, is the right of our citizens. It is not something that is owned and operated by political parties. Lo and behold, we have the NDP setting up a system whereby if people spend more than a few nickels on this, they have to register with Elections B.C. and provide finan- 5826 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 23, 2018

cial statements. They get disciplined and, possibly, prosec- uted if they don’t. This is a way to suppress conversation about this, to make it dangerous to get involved. MLAs on our side of the House have been threatened with disciplinary action and prosecutions for simply going out and informing their voters of their views. This is wrong, because our system of democracy is wholly dependent on legitimate elections. What the NDP , to keep the Greens happy, is doing is setting this up as an entirely biased process to lead to an entirely biased result.

That, of course, brings us to the issue of the approach taken in this Legislature. In the spring, we had the concern raised about the question. The question disappeared into the NDP cabinet room and popped out with three possible scen- arios for proportional representation, two of which no one had ever heard of before. This had no connection whatso- ever to the consultation that had been conducted before that secret cabinet meeting. The sham consultation by the Attor- ney General was a complete waste of time and money, in a duplicitous way, to mislead British Columbians. So what do we have?

We have an NDP cabinet, some of whom are in the room today, who’ve processed and passed a complicated ballot that was then foisted on the people of British Columbia with no debate whatsoever in this cham- ber. We asked for an emergency debate. The NDP blew it off. We asked to debate the ballot. The NDP blew it off. The media people have been pointing out, increasingly, that this whole process has turned into a sham. [2:15 p.m.] Y et we have the shameless, slavish adherence to the plan by the NDP members and the Green members.

We notice that they have gone conspicuously silent, because this works entirely in their favour. The party that talks about collaborat- ive government, that talks about involvement of citizens, that talks about how we have to be democratic in our voting pro- cess, has gone silent as this sham rolls out. We had the NDP also decide who is allowed to be funded to support this process. One would think, in a democracy like ours, if you’re agitated and concerned, you can just go out there and talk about the democratic process. Surely, that’s something that comes in the Charter of Rights in Canada.

But no, we had the NDP attempt to legislate that out of exist- ence with tight rules, with spending limits, with a process that is designed to oppress citizen involvement. What have we got at the end of the day? The ballots are arriving in mailboxes, and people are barely aware that this is happening at all. When they open that ballot, they find a confusing package of multiple documents that they’re sup- posed to sift through.

Hearing from constituents of mine, relatives of mine, people in the far corners of British Columbia, they’re open- ing this package and they’re offended by it, because they feel like they’re being manipulated. The ballot is so confusing, and the series of packages they have to stuff it into and sign in just the right way will lead to a very high degree of voter dismissal and voter apathy. People will look at this package and say, “I don’t even understand what this is about, ” and throw it out.

We’re going to see a huge amount of discarded ballots, and that, in this situation, is a tragedy, because British Columbi- ans are entitled to have full involvement in this kind of thing. They are entitled to be informed. They are entitled, as the citizens who are the core of our society, to decide their own democratic fate. Instead, we have people opening up a package and won- dering: “What on earth is all this about?” They’re barely aware it’s happening. They’re presented with a package that’s confusing, and the easiest thing to do is nothing.

And that, I think, has to hang in the air, that the easiest thing to do is toss it out. It would appear from everything we’ve seen, from the behaviour of the NDP and the Green Party, that that’s exactly what they want people to do. Seeking a low voter turnout is ideal for the NDP because only their motivated souls — and we’ve seen a few major public sector unions getting act- ively involved in this to turn out their vote, just as they did in recent municipal elections…. Voter suppression is something that the Left, throughout the world, have decried everywhere they’ve been, except here.

We have the Republicans in the U.S., who are notorious for voter suppression, yet that’s exactly what the NDP are doing here. There is a degree of malign arrogance going on in this referendum that has to be pointed out. As part and parcel of this, what I’ve been trying to do with the Premier is to get him into a public venue to be account- able for this. We need some transparency around this ref- erendum. We need disclosure. We need heightened aware- ness in the public. People need information. They need their questions answered, and telling them to go to a website is the height of arrogance.

We also have to inquire as to why this was done as a mail- in ballot — $40 million of taxpayers’ money that could well have been spent on the many things this government extols, like homeless shelters, higher education, you name it. Lots of things could have been done with $40 million, rather than doing this the way it’s been done. Why was this not done at the next general election? Let’s answer that question.

Why was this not done at the next gen- eral election, when people are focused, when voter identific- ation is done in a rigorous and thorough fashion by Elections B.C., where we have the structure and efficiency of the exist- ing voting system and we have voters who are focused on the general election? Instead, we have a mail-in ballot. Well, how convenient. How self-serving can that be?

Forty million dollars down the drain solely to make sure that the Green Party has their best possible shot at getting more members in this Legislature. [2:20 p.m.] This is shameful that the members opposite sit and stare into their laptops and ignore these questions and just wait for the results to pour in, because the combination of an unaware public, voter suppression, suppression of dissenting Tuesday, October 23, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5827

voices, a manipulated ballot, the mail-in ballot system and suppression of the funding of campaigns is a perfect formula for the members opposite to get their way with the elector- ate. This is utterly shameful, yet we’re supposed to just suck it up and talk to voters and encourage them to exercise their franchise. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing all over British Columbia: encouraging people to realize what will go on in their community.

Whether you’re in Vanderhoof or Kimber- ley or Osoyoos, you simply have to look people in the eye and say: “If they succeed, you will never have an MLA of your own again because the ridings will be so much larger that smaller communities, which get special treatment from the Electoral Boundaries Commission today, will be com- pletely consumed into large ridings where those small towns will disappear. ” Their electoral representatives will fold into the cities, and lo and behold, we have a much more urban- ized assembly than we do now. This is bad for British Columbia.

We only have to remem- ber that the northern two-thirds of the province — everything north of Highway 1, north of Cache Creek; two- thirds of British Columbia — has 7 percent of the popula- tion. They have ten seats now, and that’s for good reason. That wasn’t decided in a gerrymandered fashion. That wasn’t decided by some crooked process. That was decided by the Electoral Boundaries Commission because that area of the province needs provincial services in a very special way. They are entitled to extra representation.

Do you think those people know what will happen to them under any of these three proposed systems? They have no idea how many ridings there will be, how far they’ll have to go to see their MLA, whether their MLA will be some- body they’ve ever even heard of and whether it’ll be someone off a party list who’s foisted on them by the party bosses after the election. This is so fundamentally wrong in a province as complicated as British Columbia that the members opposite should be ashamed of themselves.

We also have an Attorney General who glibly announces that under the three proposed voting systems, there are only 23 unknown features that will be decided by an all-party committee after the referendum vote. What? Why aren’t these things known now, like how many votes will you have? How many MLAs would be in an electoral district? We’re not allowed to know. Think of this. Assuming the referendum is successful, the people on that side of the House will simply vote themselves the seats and votes they need, because they have the ability to vote in the details they want in an all-party committee.

This is a complete sham. We’re hopeful that the courts will see through this. They are very vulnerable to judicial chal- lenges on this because of the high-handed, arrogant, condes- cending way in which they’re treating the voters of British Columbia. We also had this issue, which is only emerging now, of how deeply offensive this is to the role of the citizen. Why is it that this has been completely controlled by political parties? Why is it that a razor-thin majority, as we just saw on a vote here that was 42 to 41…? The most they can muster is 44 to 42.

Is that a way to fundamentally change our elect- oral system? Shouldn’t this require more of a mandate from the public, from the electorate, from the people whose rights are being diluted and taken away by this high-handed government on the other side? They don’t seem to have the slightest qualm in doing that. This combination of voter suppression and lack of awareness feeds perfectly into the hands of a high-handed, skin-of-their-teeth minority government who are trying to rig things for their own benefit in the years to come.

I have been very clear for over a month, asking the Premi- er for a public debate on this issue. Lo and behold, a couple of weeks ago, he said: “Oh, under the right circumstances, with a few broadcasters, maybe it could be possible. ” Then on October 18, the Premier said: “Well, okay, if you insist. ” But they’ve never come up with a date. So the cynicism contin- ues to roll off their benches. They’re going to clearly jig this to get a date after people have voted.

What a complete and utter sham that the Premi- er hasn’t got the stomach to come out and portray the bene- fits of this to British Columbians on prime-time TV before they vote. What’s the point? [2:25 p.m.] Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let’s have one speech. A. Wilkinson:So we’re left with the issue…. The members opposite now try to shout down this issue.

They’re uncom- fortable with the fact that their Premier doesn’t want to debate until the people have voted, so what they’re doing now is trying to shout down this conversation, a further step in their attempt to suppress the interests of voters. [L. Reid in the chair.] We’re told that this is the right place to debate the issue. Well, our side of the gallery is completely full. Where is the rest of our Legislature at the time of a debate that they say is fundamental and that should replace a television debate? Well, this is a shameless display of arrogance on the part of the NDP .

They are prepared to completely dismiss the idea of a tele- vision debate, to control the electoral process, to suppress citizen involvement, to keep people in the dark, to have a sham consultation, to rig the question, to control the entire process and to go through this George Orwell world of theirs where they know what’s best for us and we are just the poor peasantry who will be told what to do. It’s time for British Columbians to wake up, look at their ballots, have a look through them, come to the conclusion that makes the most sense.

This democracy has worked since 5828 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 23, 2018

1871. It’s worked in Britain for 300 years. Do not let these people opposite play games with your franchise and overrule your fundamental rights. We have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a reason, and we do hope that there are people out there who will get out and litigate this, because it is a complete sham. It’s unfortunate to end on this kind of tone on something so fundamental, because we should be celebrating the suc- cess of a citizens’ assembly. We should be celebrating the fact that people went to the polls in a general election and made their selection.

We should be celebrating the fact that we have a dynamic democracy where people get to choose their destiny rather than being manipulated by the members opposite. The question remains: can we have a debate with the Premier? If so, when? When is he going to show up on televi- sion to debate this? It’s time for the Premier to show his cards and time for us to have a fully democratic approach to this. Even at this late stage, we can do better if the Premier will just cooperate. T.

Wat:I’m so proud to rise today to speak in support of the hoist motion for second reading of Bill 40, that the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act “be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting ‘six months hence. ’” Many of my colleagues on this side, including the Leader of the Opposition, have already articulated so well the flawed process of the referendum.

The MLAs on this side of the House have to stand up in this House to point out how the NDP government, together with their junior partner, have been manipulating this referendum to ensure the outcome will be in their favour and in their interest, not in the favour and the interests of British Columbians. Essentially, the NDP and the Green Party partners are ask- ing for British Columbians’ blind trust. However, trust needs to be earned, not just given. To earn trust, say what you mean and mean what you say. I have not seen any evidence of why British Columbians should give their trust. Here’s why.

Let’s first look at how many factors won’t be considered until after the referendum. It totals 29, a staggering 29 factors. How are voters supposed to make an informed decision when so much remains unknown? We don’t know how many MLAs there will be. We don’t know what’s going to happen to our ridings. We don’t know the map of each riding. [2:30 p.m.] We don’t know, for example, for the municipality that I represent, if the existing four Richmond ridings will be com- bined into one riding. But one thing I can assure you: all rid- ings will be much bigger.

The city of Richmond now has four ridings, as Richmond has grown so much that the population exceeds 200,000. Many of my constituents come to my office to seek assistance on various issues, such as how to enrol their children in school, how to apply for a CareCard, how to apply for a driver’s licence or how to export their product to the market of Asia-Pacific, etc. As the MLA for my riding of Richmond North Centre, I’m so honoured and privileged, like all my colleagues in this House, that we can provide assistance to our constituents. Many of my constituents are immigrants who are new to our province.

When a constituent comes to my office for assistance or a meeting with me or my CA, we never ask them if they voted for me or not. The MLA constituency office serves all constituents, whether they are NDP , Green or B.C. Liberal or do not belong to any political party. That’s the way it should be, as the elected officials are the servants of British Columbians. Under the three proposed PR systems, there’s a likely chance that the four existing ridings will be combined into one riding. Or even worse, the neighbouring city of Delta might be incorporated into Richmond.

The government has refused to provide maps of these three proposed PR systems. The wider an area an MLA has to travel, the less exposure they will have to unique local issues. The more constituents an MLA has to serve, the less time he or she has to interact and serve the constituents. We don’t know what constitutes a rural or urban riding; therefore, we do not know which system would apply. We also don’t know whether there’s going to be closed or open lists of party candidates.

But one thing we are sure of is that a political party has got to choose the candidates who will eventually become the MLAs that represent their constitu- ents, and the voters are stuck with the party’s favourites. The voters cannot fire the MLAs chosen by the party even if they are not happy with their performance. Besides all these unknowns, there are no turnout requirements for this referendum. To me, this is not only a sign of the NDP government’s own insecurity but a distor- ted way to manipulate the public and entrench their pos- ition.

Changing Canada’s constitution requires two-thirds of the provinces representing at least 50 percent of the population to be in favour. Why is British Columbia con- sidering changing our electoral system with what could well be far less support than that? I hosted and participated in several public meetings about the referendum with my B.C. Liberal colleagues this summer. One of those in attendance asked this very poin- ted question. She explained that her strata council requires two-thirds of the vote to pass a rule change. How come the threshold for electoral reform is much lower than for a strata council?

In British Columbia’s two previous referenda on propor- tional representation, the B.C. Liberal government took steps to achieve a clear mandate. We required a majority of eligible voters and a majority of ridings to vote in favour of any change. Now the previous 60 percent threshold has been replaced with a 50-percent-plus-one threshold, the lowest the bar can be set. To vote for a new system that would change the fundamentals of our democracy, a new system to Tuesday, October 23, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5829

replace the current system that has been in use for over 100 years, shouldn’t the threshold be set higher? I argue that the design of this referendum is obviously self-serving for the NDP-Green partnership. A government formed under proportional representation would be based on a backroom deal only after British Columbians have cast their votes. The deal bears only one goal in mind, which is to establish a partnership of power. Under such a partnership, there would be promises of cabinet roles, but there would not be principles of governing.

In so working on solutions to your problems, proportional representation means that MLAs have to worry first about what is best for their party and the parties they have formed coalitions with. Coalition governments don’t exist very long — certainly not for four years, as we are used to here. [2:35 p.m.] This instability is reflected in the length of government mandates. MLAs are forced to be shortsighted. In order to form a government, parties are forced to make deals with each other. This is the norm. In cases around the world, this has led to enormous power being given to fringe parties and extremist parties.

It is not hard to find examples of coalition governments where religious, populist or even racist parties hold sway. The system doesn’t reward consensus or compromise, and there’s none of the give-and-take that happens behind the scenes in a large party like the B.C. Liberals or the B.C. NDP . Fringe groups are empowered and encouraged to com- promise. They are incentivized to dig in. What you get is hard-line parties setting the agenda. The system lends itself to chaos and confusion. In Germany, 91 of the 94 MPs were elected from party lists.

This is a party with racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and xenophobic tendencies. They are linked to neo-Nazism. Under PR, they have become the largest opposition party in Germany. I had the opportunity to visit New Zealand this summer and to listen to what people there have to say about their electoral system. It was a perfect time for discussion as New Zealand just had an election in 2017, using a mixed- member system, almost exactly like one of the three pro- portional representation systems proposed here by the NDP government in B.C.

The balance of power was held by the populist anti- immigrant party New Zealand First with less than 8 percent of the vote, and it was rejected en masse for their extreme views. A backroom deal was negotiated between this party and the minority government. Such a political arrangement was certainly not what New Zealanders voted for. The leader of New Zealand First, who holds extreme views, was rejected by its own constituents. After the elec- tion, he was appointed by his party and became the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in New Zealand.

When the New Zealand Prime Minister was on maternity leave, the leader of this anti-immigrant party was even acting Prime Minister. This is an example of how, under proportional represent- ation, parties could appoint someone from their own party list to represent constituents without the member actually being voted in by their constituents. This is the case in each of the three PR systems proposed by this NDP government. Right now, I’m wholly accountable to my constituents in the Richmond North Centre riding. I answer to them first.

Under PR, voters will, instead, be represented by unelected MLAs answerable to nobody but their parties. As over half of my constituents in my riding are immigrants of Chinese des- cent, we cannot afford the rise of anti-immigrant parties or extremist parties because even in a beautiful province such as British Columbia, we are not immune to racism. If you don’t think that could happen here, I can tell you there are 27 parties registered in B.C. already. We need to consider that this lengthy list of parties exists under a system where the majority of these parties are never likely to win a seat.

PR will only increase the size of this party list. It’s one thing to laugh about the B.C. Excalibur Party, but I and the majority of British Columbians don’t want to see them given a single seat in the Legislature any more than I think we would like to see the Communist Party MLA given a seat.

Let me quote you a statement from the Communist Party of B.C. on June 10 of this year: “While PR does not guarantee more positive government policy…it increases the chances to elect communists. ” Another statement on the same day was this: “The policy of the Communist Party in Canada has always been to support a mixed-member PR system. ” [2:40 p.m.] How about the Vancouver Island Party? I wonder how many members from the Island on the other side would jump ship and join this party if the proportional represent- ation electoral system was in place.

A quote from theVic- toria News said: “Vancouver Island Party lays out its declar- ation of independence from B.C. ” Just think, for a second, about our future Legislature comprised of MLAs from sever- al fringe parties focusing on single issues. Now let’s look at another fringe party, the Cultural Action Party. In an

article published on October 16, 2016, theVan- couver Sun headline: “ Anti-immigration Party Registered for B.C. Election. ” TheVancouver Sun reported that the leader of the Cultural Action Party, Brad Salzberg, often puts out new releases against the influence of Chinese culture and Chinese-Canadian figures in British Columbia. In 2014, this leader of the Cultural Action Party held a campaign to get a well-known University of B.C. history pro- fessor fired. Dr. Henry Yu has lectured and written about politics and racism in B.C. Many of our MLAs in this House know Dr.

Henry Yu, who was a co-chair of the former gov- ernment’s Legacy Initiative Advisory Council that was estab- lished after an apology by former Premier Christy Clark, in this Legislature, to the Chinese-Canadian community for the historic wrongs committed by past provincial governments over 100 years ago. I’ve also heard from leaders of the Chinese community. 5830 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 23, 2018

David Choi, national executive chair of the National Con- gress of Chinese Canadians, voiced his opposition on behalf of all members of his organization, saying that this refer- endum is not open or transparent. By the way, David Choi together with Dr. Henry Yu are the co-chairs of the Legacy Initiative Advisory Council — same Dr. Henry Yu who was the target of the Cultural Action Party. Instead of a fair and transparent referendum process, we are getting a rushed job that has only served to create confu- sion and anger in our communities.

I don’t think the major- ity of British Columbians want to see any credibility given to separatist or racist parties. But that’s how these parties all start. In countries like Germany and Hungary, nationalist and extremist parties have gained a foothold because of pro- portional representation, and in both countries, their influ- ence increases with every passing election. The on-line survey that informed the referendum was cre- ated by four academics that the NDP has sworn to secrecy. Three of those academics felt the end result of the survey was biased and unfair.

The Attorney General, who is a so- called neutral arbiter of the process, campaigned in favour of PR, and his own staff had input into the referendum process. Both the engagement survey and final ballot questions were written by the Attorney General’s political staff and were finalized behind closed doors at the cabinet table. The NDP refused to release the discussion on the referendum ques- tion, waited until the last day of the spring session to release the results of the referendum survey and then tried to stifle debate in the Legislature.

In an effort to ensure that British Columbians can make an informed decision in the electoral reform referendum, the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, almost a month ago, on September 24, suggested to the Premier that there should be a public, televised debate. This debate is to raise awareness, to get the positions on record and to allow people to make up their own minds. Even the media have offered air time for the debate. The media are readily available. The Leader of the Official Opposition party is available. The only missing item is a date given by the Premier.

Why is the Premier so scared to come up with a date for the debate, before the voting for the referendum began yesterday? [2:45 p.m.] I guess the Premier is well aware that once a public debate is watched by thousands of British Columbians, the truth will come out that this referendum is a flawed process and that British Columbia will vote no to PR. That is what the Premier is afraid of. That is why he has tried to delay the public debate as late as possible. British Columbians are being presented a piece of legis- lation that lacks basics in these realities.

This bill is asking for British Columbians’ trust — for their “leap of faith, ” as the Premier said — that if the PR system turns out to be a mess, there will be an opportunity to fix it. Trust is earned when actions match words. This government has not been doing that. This government’s handling of the electoral reform ref- erendum is in sharp contrast to the 2005 and 2009 refer- endums when B.C. Liberals were in government. Different from the NDP government, the B.C. Liberal government handled the referendum in a non-partisan way.

A citizens’ assembly, with 160 average citizens chosen ran- domly, was asked to look at all the forms of proportional representation. They had 11 months to study the different systems of proportional representation. They consulted the public and preferred a voter system in which voters choose all of their own MLAs. The citizens’ assembly rejected the party system, where parties get to choose MLAs. The citizens’ assembly firmly rejected the mixed member proportional, MMP , system that is the favourite of this NDP government — one of the three systems they propose.

The citizens’ assembly rejected the MMP system because they did not want to move power from the voters to the parties. In fact, of all the three PR systems proposed by this NDP gov- ernment, only MMP is in use in some countries, including New Zealand and Germany, that have seen the rise of anti- immigrant fringe parties holding the balance of power. The other two proposed PR systems have never been tried any- where in the world.

This NDP government has an obligation to explain to British Columbians why they are proposing these three forms of party-based proportional representation and why there are no details, including the number and the size of the ridings and the maps of the ridings, provided to voters. Clearly, the NDP government is fully aware that once all the details of the three proposed proportional representation systems are known to the public, this PR referendum would be defeated by British Columbians. In fact, the three proposed PR systems contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to the Charter, every citizen of Canada has a right to vote in the election of members of the House of Commons or of a Legislative Assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. If any of the three PR options was to be used, our voters would not be able to vote for their chosen elected officials. Instead, a political party would decide which MLA would be assigned to the riding. I really doubt if any British Columbi- an would be comfortable with a political party deciding on who will be their elected official. Would you? Oh well.

If the yes side to this referendum won, British Columbians would not be able to choose their favourite MLA. The political party will make the choice for you. British Columbians don’t need a second referendum promise. British Columbians are asking for a clear, fair and transparent referendum with all of the information and the riding boundaries. They want to know if they will vote for one candidate or two candidates or if they will vote for a party with a closed list or an open list.

Without all this basic information for the three proposed PR systems, this referen- dum is truly a flawed process, and it’s against the basics of democracy and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For all the above reasons that I laid out in the last 20 Tuesday, October 23, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5831

minutes, I support the hoist motion to postpone Bill 40 for six months. [2:50 p.m.] J. Y ap: I’m indeed honoured to take my place in this debate on the hoist motion. That motion reads as follows: “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. ’” I appreciate the great speeches from my col- leagues, which I have been listening to carefully over the last few days.

I want to thank my colleague from Vancou- ver–False Creek for his great speech and for introducing this amendment, which I support. This referendum is supposed to be based on a question on which voting system our province should utilize. I have to ask: how has our system not worked for British Columbians that we have to make this drastic change to our democracy in such a rushed, ill-advised, incomplete and unfair fashion? Hence, my support for this amendment.

I heard the Premier speak about how, under the current system, he felt his voice was not heard and that somehow this affected his representation of his riding and constituents.

The Premier said: “For four years, I sat on that side the House offering, I’ d like to think, on occasion, useful suggestions to the government, whether it be in this place or in the budget estimates that happen annually, bringing forward ideas from not just myself but from the people that I represented at the time in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, and I got zero re- sponse from the government. “They did not receive 50 percent of the votes — far less than that, in fact — but they had 100 percent of the power and the ability to say to me, as a member of this place, that my views didn’t matter and that my constituents’ views didn’t matter because of the banner I carried one day four years ago. ” However, the facts do not support the Premier’s conten- tion.

It’s why I support this amendment. As we’ve heard from previous colleagues speaking to the amendment, over the 16 years of our previous B.C. Liberal government, elected four times under the current first-past- the-post system, the Premier’s riding was the beneficiary of over $105 million in public investments by the B.C. Liber- al government. We’ve heard from colleagues what some of these investments were. If I may, a brief rendition of some of the projects that the MLA for Juan de Fuca was able to secure for his constituents as their representative. It’s a very impressive list.

I would almost envy getting this type of sup- port for my riding, and I’m sure you would as well, Madame Speaker. First of all, a whopping $53.9 million for Belmont Second- ary School, for 1,200 students. That was one of the projects funded.

There was $7.45 million in provincial funding for the extension of the Westshore Parkway project; $7 million in capital funding to Pacifica Housing Advisory Association, for 64 units of low- to moderate-income families in Lang- ford; $6 million for resurfacing projects in the Sooke area, from B.C. on the Move; and $5.5 million in capital funding for the Knox Vision Society, providing 40 units for low- to moderate-income adults, families and seniors. The list goes on and on.

The fact is that all of us MLAs, whatever party we may be members of — as my great colleague from Richmond North Centre said and as my colleague from Abbotsford-Mission said so eloquently the other day — serve and are at the call of all constituents. We will advocate for them. We’ll try to solve problems for them and help them navigate whatever bureau- cracy of the provincial public service they need help with.

We do not only represent those that vote for us or are mem- bers of our party, and I’m sure that that’s the case for every member in this House, on whichever side of this House. [2:55 p.m.] When constituents come to my office, I serve them regardless of their politics. I don’t ask constituents how they voted. Some may offer that they did not vote for me, and that’s fine. I serve every constituent. Maybe if I do a good job supporting them, that constituent might change his vote in my favour next time. Or not, and that’s fine.

However, as I talk to my constituents in my riding of Rich- mond-Steveston and listen to their concerns, it’s becoming very clear to me that this referendum has really become a question on the trustworthiness of this government. After the hopes and lofty promises made by this government in the 2017 election, the NDP has shown that they cannot be trus- ted. That is why I support this amendment. The NDP promised $10-a-day universal child care. Prom- ise broken. The NDP promised a $400 renters rebate. Prom- ise broken. The NDP promised 114,000 new affordable hous- ing units. Promise broken.

The NDP promised no new taxes other than what was in their platform. Instead, they’ve insti- tuted an increase in taxes to the tune of $8 billion. Promise broken. The NDP promised an all-party impartial process to determine the referendum rules. Instead, the Attorney General and the NDP cabinet have been dictating the ref- erendum rules. Promise broken. And the NDP promised a simple yes-or-no referendum ballot question. What is being delivered to homes as we speak — the ballots, the questions — is anything but simple. Promise broken.

This is a government which has shown, in just 16 months, that it cannot be trusted. Hence the need for this amend- ment. The referendum ballots, as I said, are arriving in mail- boxes and homes of voters around the province, yet here we are in this House debating this bill and this amendment, which I support. This referendum process has been rigged from the outset, and this bill is a blatant further effort to tilt the scales in favour of the yes side. British Columbians should be outraged over this. Bill 40 is a further testament to the untrustworthiness of the NDP government.

I suspect that there’s probably a simple reason for this bill coming to us right now, in the middle of the referendum period. That is, that the NDP might be fear- ful that they have lost the momentum with the referendum. As rigged as the process was, as stacked against the no side as it has been, they’ve gone from a commanding lead in the 5832 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 23, 2018

opinion polls, a 2 to 1 margin just six months ago, to now a virtual tie between the yes and the no sides. We have Bill 40, which seeks to set a second referendum after two elections under the new system, should propor- tional representation pass, to allow British Columbians to vote again on the electoral system. The NDP and their Green partners are essentially asking British Columbians to buy now and hopefully see a return on investment later. Except in this case, there is no buyer’s remorse. This referendum is legally binding. As we have heard, 29 different factors won’t be considered till after the referendum.

Given that, how are voters expected to make an educated and informed choice, when they aren’t being offered all of the relevant information? Hence the need for this amendment. Major factors such as — I’ll just list a few of them — the number of MLAs. We don’t know. The size of ridings. How big will they be? We don’t know. What constitutes a rural versus an urban riding? We don’t know. Whether we will use the so-called closed or open list for candidates or even a list system at all, we don’t know. [3:00 p.m.] I don’t think we can say fairly that we are actually choosing a system.

We’re instead asked to vote on the concept of another system of how we elect MLAs. What we are asking is whether voters want to directly vote for their MLA, which is the case now, or whether they want to have their representa- tives chosen by the party they are voting for. As the member for Vancouver–False Creek noted, that is what the question is here. Again, I’m grateful to him for bringing this amend- ment, which I support. The government had many options from which to choose for the proposed proportional representation systems. Many of them actually do have voters directly voting for their rep- resentatives.

The government included some of these sys- tems in their feedback questionnaire that they supposedly used to inform on the referendum.

Y et in the end, they discarded those systems that allow voters to choose their representatives, and they put in sys- tems that do not, going as far as to put out two systems on the ballot that, to quote the Attorney General’s report, are “not currently in use. ” We are being asked to vote on systems that have not been used anywhere in the world, yet the government is choosing to not even provide basic information like maps of the electoral districts or even the number of electoral districts and how many representatives each would have.

The information which we have instead is that political parties will choose their representative. That is the case in each of the three proportional representation systems pro- posed by the government. In dual-member proportional representation, you have two options appointed by political parties. All losing votes are distributed to the parties to allow them to appoint can- didates elsewhere. This, of course, is what would allow a fringe party with 5 percent of the vote to appoint a candidate in a party in a part of the province where they may have only had a marginal showing.

Then we have mixed-member proportional. This is the only proportional system on the ballot that is actually in use anywhere in the world. In this system, which we again have drastically few details about, political parties choose 40 per- cent of the MLAs. Whether they will do so from closed or secret lists or open public lists is still to be determined. Basic information — to be determined. That’s why we need the amendment, which I support.

Rural-urban is a two-tiered mix of the STV , or single transferable vote, system that British Columbians rejected two times, in 2005 and 2009, and MMP , which is also on the ballot. It’s a mix of the two systems. Whether a riding is rural or urban and, therefore, which system they use is going to be determined after the referendum. Voters are being asked to decide on a system when they don’t actually know whether they will choose their represen- tative by STV or MMP . In other words, they don’t know what system they will get when they vote.

This referendum is not a vote on which system British Columbia should use. It is instead a question on whether voters should choose their MLA or whether political parties will choose their MLA based on their proportion of the vote. As the member from False Creek said, this referendum is a referendum of political parties by political parties for polit- ical parties. My constituents in Richmond-Steveston are deeply con- cerned with this flawed, rigged process. I have heard from many of them, and on their behalf, we need to hit the pause button.

That is what this amendment will achieve. [3:05 p.m.] Let me just share a few examples of what I have heard from constituents. My constituent Brian writes to me: “I want to go on record with you as my MLA that I’m totally opposed to changing our FPTP , first-past-the post electoral system. It’s simple. It’s uncomplicated. It works. I want my MLA to represent the interests of my constituency first in the B.C. Legislature and to be directly accountable to the con- stituency that elected him or her.

I want to encourage oth- er people to vote in the referendum and, hopefully, once and for all, end this dispute so that government can get on with what they were elected to do — govern. ” My constituent Neil writes to me: “ As a matter of interest, last week I toured the Reichstag in Berlin. There are six parties represented in the Bundestag. ” I’m grateful to my colleague from Richmond North Centre for sharing some examples of the situation there in Germany. Neil writes: “I specifically asked about this with the upcoming referendum in mind.

I was told that the German Bundestag has not had a majority government since 1957. Some people are suggesting that the German model is an example where PR is working, but as things stand at the moment…. ” Tuesday, October 23, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5833

Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members. Members, the Chair will hear the speaker. J. Y ap:My constituent Neil writes: “It is decidedly not. It took several months for the current coalition to be estab- lished… ” Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Ministers. J. Y ap:“ …and even now, apparently, it is fraught with con- tention. ” That was from my constituent Neil. And one more. There are many, but just three for brevity. Ian writes: “I am opposed to switching to proportional representation for sev- eral reasons. I will comment on just two. “First, the purpose of elections.

Are we trying to elect a govern- ment, or are we trying to elect some single-issue advocates? If the lat- ter, we will have to accept disproportionate influence of small parties as they and the larger parties bargain their principles with backroom deals. There are lots of examples of that occurring around the world. With that dealing on the records elsewhere, there is the real risk of unstable governments. ” Ian goes on to say: “Recently Germany and New Zealand had hung parliaments. Italy has had 62 governments in 72 years.

In 2010, it took Belgium 541 days to form a government. ” This is his second point, my constituent Ian: “Secondly, the ‘my vote doesn’t count’ complaint only applies if one believes in participation medals for the also-rans. ” He goes on to say: “It is bizarre that parties attaining maybe 10 percent or 15 percent of the vote could be granted seats that may gift them the balance of power. Eighty-five percent or 90 percent of the voters did not vote for them. “The first-past-the-post system has given B.C. stable governments for 146 years. It may not be perfect, but it’s better than all the others.

PR in a large province like B.C. would be disastrous. ” End of the letter from Ian. We can address my constituents’ concerns with a pause, with this amendment. Constituents value their direct con- nection to their MLAs. That is true with all MLAs in this House, on whatever side of the House you sit. If an MLA is not doing his or her job, that MLA could be replaced by the voters in the next election. With prop rep, as we’ve seen in other jurisdictions, this is not the case. Unelected candidates can and are appointed to be members by their parties.

For example, in the case of the unelected New Zealand deputy prime minister, he actu- ally was a failed candidate but was appointed, nonetheless, to Parliament and a senior cabinet position. [3:10 p.m.] I’m honoured to serve the great people of my riding, Rich- mond-Steveston. I’ve lived in my riding for over 32 years. My constituents have the confidence that I understand their issues, as I spend time and I live among them. Elected as their representative, I’m accountable to them. So let us #savelocalrep.

We need to hit the pause button, with this amendment, because moving to prop rep, proportional representation, would change this. Unelected MLAs would be appointed by parties to ridings. British Columbians deserve to learn more about the details of how proportional representation would look; how it would operate in terms of the maps, the size of the ridings and the number of MLAs; and how the selection of MLAs appointed by the parties would work. I agree with the mover of this motion that they deserve more time to get that information, and that’s what this amendment will achieve — more time.

We need the details, which should have been provided months ago, well before the referendum period which we’re in now. The referendum process has been rigged from the outset. This Bill 40, this amendment act, is another attempt to slant the referendum in the favour of the yes side, to help encour- age voters who are on the fence, who are thinking about the possibility of voting in favour of it, to try out proportion- al representation. This is yet another blatant attempt by the NDP to favour the yes side. British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a fairer process.

They need the time offered by this amendment, a mere six-month delay, to be better informed. I will be sup- porting and voting for this amendment. I hope all members will also support this amendment. This amendment offers a chance for the government to hit the pause button, and that would be the right thing to do. S. Cadieux:I’m pleased to take my place to speak to the motion to amend the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act. Isn’t it odd that just six months after gov- ernment rushed in the referendum act, we’re here already because the government wants to amend the act?

It’s exactly why I support this hoist motion to move this debate six months ahead. Bill 40 is a blatant and unfair interference with the refer- endum campaign, and I think the whole House should be supportive of this motion. The question is about Bill 40 and why it’s being introduced right now. In my mind, as I said, it’s a blatant violation of the spirit of the referendum act, in which it states and is made clear that there should be fairness about who should be able to influence the referendum and direction. It set out a “yes” committee and a “no” committee and rules about funding.

But instead, in the middle of this referendum campaign that is now underway, the government is choosing to introduce a bill. What’s the purpose? There could really only be one pur- pose, and that’s to influence voters to vote yes. The pro–prop rep people are losing momentum, so gov- ernment has to do something to entice voters, with a buyer’s remorse insurance policy. They’ve brought this bill to amend 5834 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Bill 40 forward, and we’re suggesting now is not the time to amend the bill. The time to do that is later, once the referen- dum is over and people have had their say. [3:15 p.m.] How did we get to this point where support for propor- tional representation is dwindling to a point where govern- ment thinks they need to buy themselves some insurance? Perhaps it’s because the more people learn about the referen- dum, the more serious questions they start to ask. Now, this is not our first rodeo.

We’ve done this twice before but with a few significant differences, not the least of which was the 160 average citizens, chosen randomly, tasked with looking at all of the forms of proportional representa- tion. Now this time cabinet has decided that they know best. They’ve put forward three systems of proportional represent- ation for people to choose from, two of which are just merely hypothetical. Last go-round the independent, representative citizens’ assembly rejected the MMP system, which is now the favourite of the Green-NDP government.

They rejected it because they didn’t want to move power from voters to parties. Each of the three systems that are being proposed in the referendum have party lists — lists which the parties influence in a very great degree who gets chosen to be MLAs. Now, the referendum is asking the impossible of voters. If the ballot information package is anything like the Elec- tions B.C. website information, voters are getting a single page of information about each system. I received mine just the other day and took a look through it, and in fact, that is true.

There is a very little bit of information avail- able about each system. If a voter goes to the Google, as the Premier has suggested they do, to research dual-member proportional represent- ation or urban-rural proportional representation, what will they find out? Well, pretty much nothing. That’s because these systems have never been used before. They are totally hypothetical. Dual-member proportional representation is a complete unknown. So the government either has been grossly negli- gent or completely deliberate in even putting this option out for discussion.

Urban-rural is a hodgepodge of the three sys- tems — the effect of having three different systems jumbled together, completely untested in a democracy. But, yes, let’s go with that. What could possibly go wrong? The mixed-member proportional on offer is what? Well, frankly, nobody really knows, because even the most basic of details haven’t been decided.

If you’ve watched the Elections B.C. videos describing the options, as I have, what stands out is the last minute of each video where they state: “Many of these decisions will be made after the referendum. ” In fact, there are about 29 of these many things that have yet to be decided and will be decided after the referendum, so in fact, we’re not voting on first-past-the-post versus any definable form of proportional representation. No, we’re voting on first-past-the-post or some form of proportional representation to be determined after the fact. It’s like mystery meat. What is it? Is it pork? Is it ham?

Is it turkey? Is it meat at all? Who will define it for us? Who’s going to provide that recipe if the electorate chooses one of the three forms of proportional representation? Well, it won’t be a citizens’ assembly. It won’t be an inde- pendent, constitutional or voting system panel of experts. Nope. In fact, it will be a multiparty process. Y es. What does that mean to the average voter? Here’s the definition of that. Politicians from self-interested political parties will get together and decide what they think is best for citizens. That couldn’t possibly go wrong.

Now, I think it would be absolutely fine to ask voters to vote on a potential change to our democratic systems if that potential change was clearly defined, articulated and factu- al, and if the voters were presented with a clear decision between two differing systems. [3:20 p.m.] The fact, though, is that every day I see inaccurate inform- ation being thrown about by citizens, and it makes me con- cerned that, indeed, enough information and education has not been done. Not enough facts are available.

Just the other day I witnessed, on Twitter, an exchange between a number of individuals who purport to prefer one system or the other going back and forth. A number of those individuals are continuing to say that under proportional representation, you get to vote for your MLA, and there are no party lists. Well, those people are wrong. They need to read the Attorney General’s recommenda- tions to cabinet. In that document, both dual-member pro- portional representation and mixed-member proportional representation have party lists.

In dual-member proportion- al, each district has a two-person closed list determined by the party. That’s a list prepared by the party. Voters can’t vote for individual candidates. It’s not a voter- chosen system. They only vote for parties. It’s a party system. The party determines who’s at the top of the list. Being first on the party list is critical in the dual-member proportional system for candidates, so candidates will have to have their loyalty first to the party. Their loyalty is essential to the party, not to the voters, because that’s the only way they make it to the top of a list.

In the multi-member proportional and in the multi-mem- ber proportional part of the urban-rural proposed systems, from what we can tell, there are also party lists, the exact form to be decided on by a legislative committee — i.e., the NDP and the Green Party, with a majority of members on a committee, will choose. The options are for a closed list or an open list. But both open and closed lists are party-ordered lists. That means that candidates need to try to get their name high up on that list.

The most important thing they can do to determine whether or not they end up with a seat in this Legislature is whether or not they are at the top of that list. To be a party favourite increases your chances of getting elected, regardless of your popularity with voters. That Tuesday, October 23, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5835

comes second. The first race is to be on the list, at the top of the list. That happens well before any interaction with voters. So who’s the boss? Who are the MLAs chosen this way most tightly bound to? Clearly the party, not the voters. Voters don’t help candidates climb higher on a list. Their popularity with the party brass is what matters. Now, I don’t think that makes for a more democratic sys- tem. That’s why I’m not in favour of the referendum, and I’m certainly not in favour of giving voters an out clause, an insurance policy, with the amendment that’s being put for- ward by government.

It’s why I support the hoist motion and suggest that we push this discussion about providing anoth- er referendum until after we’ve at least seen what the voters think of this first very difficult and confusing one. As I said, I’m not actually opposed to asking the voters if they’ d like a change. I just think the voters need to have the information to make that change, and I think that the voters should be the ones to choose that change. In this case, voters choose for something that will be defined after the fact by politicians. I don’t think that’s right. I don’t like the idea, personally, of party lists.

I made that clear the other day, and somebody came back at me and said: “Oh, but you were selected by your party as the candidate in your riding. ” That’s true. I was, as were we all. The difference, though, is that my loyalty must remain with my voters. The voters, if they don’t like me as the candidate picked by the party, do not have to vote for me. They can place their vote elsewhere. In fact, in elections past, I have voted for a candidate that was not from my preferred political party because I believed that the person who would best represent me was from a dif- ferent party.

That’s my right as a voter. [3:25 p.m.] How would that work under proportional representation? If the voters don’t like the person that’s been representing them, they don’t even have a chance at the next election to vote that person out, because the party determines who rep- resents that riding. I don’t think that’s fair.

Now, a few days ago, the Premier stood in this House and said: “For four years, I sat on that side of the House offering, I’ d like to think, on occasion, useful suggestions to the government, whether it be in this place or in the budget estimates that happen annually, bringing forward ideas from not just myself but from the people that I represented…and I got zero response from the government. “They did not receive 50 percent of the votes — far less than that, in fact — but they had 100 percent of the power and the ability to say to me, as a member of this place, that my views didn’t matter and that my constituents’ views didn’t matter because of the banner I carried one day four years ago.

I think that’s wrong. ” Those were the Premier’s words. Now I’m sure he was using more than just a little artistic licence in his perform- ance the other day, because I know for a fact that isn’t the case. Let me give two examples. I am in opposition. I am not a member of the governing party nor of their partner’s. I am not politically aligned with the Premier. I represent a riding, and by virtue of the Premi- er’s comments, my constituents shouldn’t expect anything from his government because they voted for me.

Y et he’s already been to my riding himself to announce new school funding, much needed and much appreciated. Now a second example. The Premier suggested his riding got nothing when he was in opposition. But you know, that’s incorrect. Why? Because I was one of the ministers respons- ible for providing funding to programs and services specific- ally in his riding — $52,000 to a B.C. early-years centre, $10,000 to the Transition House Society for Annie’s Place Transition House, two things that are really important for the constituents of his riding, two things I know the Premier advocated for, for his riding.

Child care, early learning opportunities, domestic violence support. Let’s be clear, if anyone had reason to hold a grudge or ignore someone, it might’ve been me. During that same peri- od, the member from Juan de Fuca was calling for my resig- nation and citing my incompetence — his words, obviously, not mine. But I didn’t. Those investments still flowed to his riding and to his constituents, because government is for all of the people of B.C., and government continued for all of the people of B.C. despite the fact that the member did not rep- resent government.

Despite personal differences of opinion, politics or personal attacks, government continues. So there you have it: two examples, two governments, two opposition members and two sets of voters benefiting from governments that they may or may not have voted for or had a direct

part in electing. Why? Because that’s our job as MLAs, to govern for all, and I believe that we all understand that. That’s why I’m so troubled by this referendum, and now, this sideways attempt to slide in an insurance policy to sweeten the pot for voters. It’s why I can’t take the Premier seriously at his word to trust them and take a leap of faith. The arguments they make to support their cause of propor- tional representation don’t pass the test. If the government is so confident that PR is the right thing for British Columbia, then they should support this hoist motion.

There will be plenty of time and opportunity to come back after the referendum to debate the amend- ment to Bill 40. Obviously, I think that the House should support the motion. But let’s break it down again, because it’s a lot to swallow. We have a razor-thin majority government, a minority coalition government, which coincidentally, we are more likely to see in perpetuity if the people choose to adopt a PR system.

We have a flawed process that led to flawed legislation — whew, that’s a lot of syllables — that enables a sham of a ref- erendum. [3:30 p.m.] We have a politically derived flawed public consultation that led to politically derived legislation for a referendum, and the politically derived question proposing three 5836 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 23, 2018

potential and largely undefined potential options to first- past-the-post. We have a referendum and question with no clarity, no certainty, a significant lack of detail and a Premier that says: “Take a leap of faith, and trust me to tell you later what you voted for. ” We’re debating legislation to amend the legislation that this coalition pushed through in the spring. Why did they do that? Well, to meet the obligations of their confidence and supply agreement with the Greens. The legislation that enables the referendum itself to provide a sort of insurance policy for the voters shouldn’t be necessary.

But by even presenting Bill 40, the government is suggesting that the voters are not supportive of a change to proportional representation under the rules and process that were set out in the spring. So they better make some changes to entice voters to take that leap of faith. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Seriously, this is serious business. Changing our voting system is a major decision, but we are being told by govern- ment that we should take a leap of faith and that we will add this little amendment to the voters to offer them a chance to change their mind two or three elections from now. They can’t be serious.

It’s ridiculous. The government has bungled this from the beginning. They’ve been rushing from the beginning. We can’t have maps, because it would take too much time. We can’t have the details. The details could be worked out later. There’s no time. We can’t have an independent citizens’ assembly. That would just take too much time. Rush, rush, rush. What’s the rush? I don’t think we should rush. My col- leagues don’t see any need to rush. But the Greens want to rush.

In fact, the confidence and supply agreement that keeps the NDP in power and able to move forward with the other things that they think are important…. They say there’s a rush. It has to happen. It’s politics. That’s the rush. Now, I know governments rush sometimes and don’t always get things right. The government had a great number of those moments lately, rushing to implement a speculation tax that they’ve had to make oodles of amendments to, that still is not a speculation tax. Rushing to deliver child care, scaring providers in the pro- cess, leading to amendments to policy.

Rushing to find a way to make up all the money that will be lost by eliminating MSP , only to have to go back and amend the plan because, oops, they forgot about charities and, oops, we forgot about the public sector. Big oops. But hey, they were rushing. I accept that people make mistakes when they rush. But this is bigger than an: “Oops, we missed that, and we’ll fix it later. ” This is a fundamental change to our democratic insti- tution. This is potentially switching from first-past-the-post to proportional representation, and it is a big, big decision. It shouldn’t have been rushed.

The government is wrong here. The referendum is a stacked deck, rigged game and, in my eyes, an embarrassment. It’s a payoff to the Green Party, not a reasoned, non-political, thoughtful process, as it should be. Now, we’re already stuck with a referendum that I don’t support. But to now ask me to consider adding an addi- tional insurance policy to appease voters that are ner- vous…. Well, that’s just too much. That’s why I’m support- ing this hoist motion.

Setting aside the fact that future governments can’t be bound by legislation passed by previous governments, set- ting aside the fact that under PR, minority governments propped up by fringe parties that are only able to send mem- bers to this place because of the voting system…. What kind of logic is the NDP trying to sell here? Before the other side gets too excited, because I can see they’re getting a little antsy, I don’t want them to think I’m just trying to keep first-past-the-post to keep my job. I’m not. Let me assure members I respect the voters.

I respect the public in making the decision on what system we have. I would support a referendum on electoral reform, like the ones we’ve held before that were taken seriously.

I’ d support a referendum where citizens could truly make an informed decision, and I would respect the results of that process, regardless of what it meant for my political future. [3:35 p.m.] But how is it we are going to be asked to presuppose the outcome of this rigged-game referendum and vote on a piece of legislation to amend the legislation allowing that same ref- erendum to take place to bind a future government to hold another referendum to check if people like the decision they made to change or if they want to go back?

It seems very odd to me, and it’s why I support the motion to suspend this legislation for six months. I frankly don’t think we have enough information. I don’t think the public has enough information. It’s time to shut this down. N. Simons: I actually want to thank my friend and col- league from Surrey South for her words — not that I agreed with most of them, but I respect the fact that she presented her argument in a nice, succinct way, and I think that she made her points. I just disagree with most of the points she made.

For the benefit of those in the gallery watching here today, what we’re debating is a hoist motion, a motion to change or to delay a piece of legislation that we’re passing, that we’re hoping to pass, which is Bill 40. We said, all along, that the people of the province, when deciding on potentially choosing a new voting system, would have an opportunity, later, to say whether they want to stay with that choice or go back to the other system. We’ve said that all along. My colleagues have said that all along.

It should be of no surprise to anybody that when we talked about having a referendum on proportional representation — something that I might remind the opposition was in one of their throne speeches — we said that we would have an opportunity for the people to have another look later. Maybe Tuesday, October 23, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5837

they regret it. Maybe they didn’t like the way it worked. But they would have an opportunity to go back and vote again. That seems to me pretty fair. That seems to me like it’s making their concerns a little bit less strong. Because if they’re so concerned about a system coming into place that may reduce their ability — I don’t know why — to be rep- resented, there’s another option for people to go back to the polls later and decide that that wasn’t the decision they wanted to make.

I will not support this motion put forward by the opposi- tion, and I know it’s not a surprise to any of them, because I don’t think we should delay. I think we need to get on with this, and we need to ask the people of the province if they would like to choose a different system to get people in this House elected. There are lots of systems around the world, and the one we have in British Columbia is a little bit simplistic. Whoever gets the most votes in every riding wins. When I was first elected, I only got 43 percent of the vote, and the other two or three opponents combined had more, together.

Later, obviously, because the government of the time was just ignoring the people of the province, my pop- ularity shot right up, and I got 57 percent. I’ve always man- aged to maintain a level of support from my constituents, partly because they think I’m doing a good job and partly because they didn’t want the Liberal Party to be elected. That’s just the choice that people in the province have. They get to choose between political parties and individuals, and that’s not going to change. The only thing that will change is that when one party gets 40 percent of the votes, they’ll get 40 percent of the seats.

If you get 20 percent of the votes, you’ll get 20 percent of the seats. And the people being elected will be chosen very similarly to the way we get chosen now. We will be seeking our nominations. We will be hoping for the support of the people who are members of our party, and we’ll put our names forward, and we will have representation in this province. Let me point out something that the opposition doesn’t want to mention. They don’t want to mention the fact that for 16 years — and I mean 16 years, 16 long years — they had all of the power.

They could make every decision they wanted, despite the fact that in opposition, where I sat for 12 years, we represented a lot of voters in the province. But did we get to make decisions? None. Did we ever try to? Y es. But did government listen? Never. They had 100 percent of the power. They knew it, and they would use it to their advant- age at every step of the way. [3:40 p.m.] Now, the argument that when you’re elected and you’re in opposition, your riding still gets stuff, I find very simplistic. Y ou know what? I think this is what the member opposite said.

It is not the entirety of the argument, obviously. It is not the entirety of the argument, because the Premier would also have said: “I would have preferred it if government thought a little bit about the people who are going homeless, thought a little bit more about the people who are suffering in the sys- tems that they were gutting until they were almost a shadow of their former selves. ” We wanted to see efforts going into reduced poverty, but the government wouldn’t listen. They had 100 percent of the power, and they didn’t have any intention of listening to the opposition.

In a new system, where everybody gets represented according to the number of votes they get, we’ll have to talk more amongst each other, and maybe we’ll have to com- promise once in a while. Instead of saying, “No, no, no, ” to everything, maybe say: “Well, that’s a good idea. ” If it’s a good idea, we should think about doing it. If it’s a good idea, whether it’s from the Green Party or the Liberal Party or the NDP , we should think about it. Maybe there will be more parties. Maybe more people will run in elections.

I think more people will even vote in elections if they think that if they vote, that one person will get one more vote, and if enough people vote for a party that they like or people that they like, then they’ll have representation. Interjection. N. Simons: A person or a party that they like. They’ll be able to elect the person or the party — both. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members will come to order now. Mem- bers. N. Simons: For my friends in the gallery: this sometimes happens. When we say something they don’t like, they’ll just try to shout us down. But that’s okay. I’m used to it.

I think I might get under their skin. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Member, take a seat, please. Other members will have their chance when they get the chance to speak. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has the floor now. Please continue. N. Simons:Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes I do get accused of being the best heckler in the House. It’s true, and they know that it’s always friendly. We have the best of a lot in this House right now: the best barbecuer in the House, the best Minister of Indigenous Relations — I could go on — the best Finance Minister. Y es, I might be the best heckler. That’s okay.

They know how to take it. But I’m talking about a motion that’s a serious issue in this House. We’re talking about electoral reform. The opposition doesn’t like what we’re planning, but unfortunately, it’s what 5838 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 23, 2018

the people of the province knew was coming and the people of the province are happy to have a chance to vote on. I’m not telling people how to vote, and nor should the opposition tell people how to vote. They should be helping to ensure that the public of British Columbia is well informed — not scared, not deluded, not misinformed and not mis- guided. But that’s not what’s happening. They’re standing up in this Legislature, when they’re given a chance, and they’re saying: “Y ou should be scared of the options put before you.

Y ou shouldn’t like the options put before you, and you don’t know all the answers to all the questions. ” For that reason only…. It doesn’t really make sense. It really doesn’t make sense, because there must be something else. There must be something else that bothers the opposi- tion about our proposed legislation. I don’t think it’s necessarily true when they say that it’s always going to be politicians making decisions about rid- ings and things like that. We have independent commission- ers. We have Elections B.C. Decisions about things like that are made by independent boundary commissioners.

We’ve don’t know, when they’re changing our boundaries, how they’re going to be changed. We don’t have a say in that. We can say what we’ d like, but we don’t get a say for sure. I think a system that doesn’t put all the power in one place, necessarily, is a better system because we have a more mod- erate approach to everything. We have a better opportunity to discuss. I think it’s clear that it can work. Now, when they talk about stability in government and predictability in government, we have many examples of first-past-the-post where that doesn’t work. Look at New Brunswick.

Who’s going to be forming government? What was their percentage of the vote? It doesn’t seem to make sense. They have 22 seats versus 20, but the ones with 20 got more votes. I would say that for every example the opposition tries to bring up to support or reject a particular jurisdiction’s voting system…. I think you can find other examples, but we’re talking about British Columbians.

We’re talking about British Columbians who understand that we’re a diverse province with geographical differences, regional differences, even local community-to-community differences. [3:45 p.m.] In my particular constituency, we have a broad range of communities. We have Gibsons, Sechelt, Pender Harbour, Powell River, Lund — all those communities. All the way up the inside coast of British Columbia, we see diversity of com- munities. They change, and they have different needs over different times, and they have different representatives.

We expect that they will continue to have their voices properly reflected in this place. There’s no reduction of the voice of the people in this province. There’s only an increase to their voice in the proposed system. That is at the root of this issue — that we will be voting potentially for a system that is proportional. The best thing about a proportional system is that it’s proportional. What we have right now is often disproportionate underrepresent- ation. We have disproportionate underrepresentation. I don’t know why there’s such a f

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20181023pm-Hansard-n166
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20181023pm Hansard n166
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b5db55c01803306851faae242fa4bfc3f85cbd84

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