Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 22, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 163

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

The benefits of modular housing

M. Dean

T. Stone

Economic recovery plan for communities affected by wildfires and floods

C. Oakes

J. Rice

Investing in cycling, walking and multi-user infrastructure

D. Routley

S. Gibson

A legitimate pathway to electoral reform

S. Sullivan

N. Simons

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 28 — Electoral system

J. Routledge

M. Morris

J. Brar

P. Milobar

B. Ma

T. Shypitka

R. Leonard

D. Barnett

S. Furstenau

M. Lee

B. D’Eith

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2018

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

THE BENEFITS OF MODULAR HOUSING

M. Dean: Today it’s my honour to talk about the benefits of modular

housing. The most critical issue in my constituency of

Esquimalt-Metchosin is the housing crisis. The housing crisis was

created by years and years of neglect, and it’s going to take years of

sustained action to bring housing affordability back.

Our government is moving quickly to provide housing and support

services for people who have been living in unsafe conditions on the

streets for far too long. The community response across the province to

our new program has been remarkable. In less than a year, we reached our

goal of confirming 2,000 modular homes throughout the province, and 22

municipalities have partnered with us to help people who are

experiencing homelessness.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Still, housing is not available or affordable for many residents

of Esquimalt-Metchosin. Greater Victoria is said to have one of the

least affordable housing markets in Canada. Rents have been increasing

considerably in recent years, and incomes, to meet these increasing

costs of housing, have not kept pace.

The CRD has an overall vacancy rate of 0.7 percent, including a

vacancy rate of zero for three-bedroom units. According to the capital

regional district’s draft housing affordability strategy, about 6,200

affordable rental apartment units are needed now in greater Victoria

just to catch up with current demand.

Wait-lists for social and supportive housing are extremely long.

In June 2018, there were 994 households on the B.C. Housing wait-list in

the capital region. There were 1,525 individuals across the capital

region identified as being homeless on the night of the 2018

point-in-time count. There was an overrepresentation of Indigenous

people in this count. It included youth and seniors, and 2.2 percent did

not identify with binary gender options.

Further west in my constituency, we’ve experienced an ongoing

issue of housing problems. While the housing crisis might not have been

the same as in downtown cores, of a visible street population, the

housing issue in West Shore results in people living in the woods and

off the trails.

Families in West Shore are experiencing housing instability,

insecurity and poor conditions. There are so many ex­amples of

overcrowding, couch-surfing, renovictions. Many families are living

paycheque to paycheque and are living precariously on the edge of having

to reach out to a friend or a family member for basic shelter. This is

especially true for single women, who are especially vulnerable to their

precarious situation being exploited.

In my community, I hear from bylaw officers that they encounter

the homeless population, the marginalized, living on the edges of the

community. They’re camping away from the main drag, yet they come to the

attention of these officers, who have to help them to find resources and

appropriate shelter. Because the issue of homelessness has been

concentrated in downtown, resources to address this crisis have been

concentrated in that urban area.

[10:10 a.m.]

However, we need more development of affordable housing and

shelters on the West Shore. I want to say thank you to all of the

agencies and services who are doing what they can already in our

community. For example, there are no shelters for youth, who might be

thrown out of home by a struggling family or are unable to make the rent

and are evicted by their landlords. I know from a youth advocate in our

community that we have a crisis in youth homelessness. She tells me of

the local areas, among the big-box stores, where groups of homeless

young people spend the night together.

At last, we are able to see a shift in support for the homeless.

Our government has a comprehensive 30-point plan that will tackle the

housing crisis. We will increase capacity, repair aging infrastructure,

respond to immediate homelessness, enhance capacity for families as well

as individuals and support youth who are homeless.

Of course, this is a complex matter, and it requires a

comprehensive and bold plan. One aspect of this plan is to provide

modular housing. This can be done quickly, and the modular units

provided offer privacy, storage, private bathrooms and safe personal

space. As part of the 2017 Budget Update, the province announced that it

will invest $291 million to support the construction of 2,000 modular

units for people that are homeless. What’s important is that not only do

modular units provide almost immediate relief from homelessness, but

they also provide safe shelter, and our modular program offers the

services that are needed. This is such an important

component.

In my community, there’s a crisis in mental health and addictions

issues, and there are no services available. Due to cuts in services and

increases in population, members of my community who have mental health

and addictions needs do not have local services, and they often come to

the attention of RCMP or local bylaw officers. Youth in need have to

wait at least one year for service.

In contrast, modular housing brings with it staffing 24-7 and

life-enhancing services to residents, such as mail programs, life and

employment skills training, health and wellness support services,

opportunities for volunteer work. Everything is based on people’s

assessed needs. They can connect residents to community supports. They

can offer case planning and needs assessment. They can offer assistance

to access income assistance, pension benefits, disability benefits. They

can offer no-cost laundry services either on site or off

site.

The allocation of these units is a responsive move, a responsive

program. It brings with it these wraparound services that are needed so

much, and the investment in local communities is responsive to local

needs, strategic plans and best-practice research.

This is a great opportunity for me to say thank you to all of the

non-profits who are partnering….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

T. Stone: I am pleased to rise on behalf of the official opposition and

speak to the benefits of modular construction — a powerful economic

driver across our province, including in my community of

Kamloops.

Under the leadership of Horizon North CEO Rod Graham, Kamloops is

now the home of an industry leader in the modular construction industry.

What Horizon North proudly proclaims as its centre of excellence has

developed into a technological and industrial marvel, operating like an

automotive manufacturing plant to deliver a wide array of modular

projects.

At present, Rod Graham is directing a team of around 400 dedicated

workers using sophisticated technology and leading design software.

Their Kamloops workforce is expected to increase by an additional 200

more jobs over the next couple of years. The skilled team of

construction workers in Kamloops is producing modules of various sizes

in a factory controlled environment.

I’ve had the privilege of touring this facility, as I know the

Minister of Housing has as well, and I know that she will agree that the

work being done here in this Kamloops facility is absolutely incredible.

Horizon North has transformed modular construction far beyond work camp

accommodation, though I note that those particular modules are now homes

away from home, designed with the all of the luxuries and comfort that

one would desire in his or her private residence.

[10:15 a.m.]

Imagine LEGO blocks being built in a controlled and closed

environment in a manufacturing facility, rather than at an outdoor

construction environment, shipped to site and assembled on site. The

technique uses the same materials as conventional construction and

designs to the same codes and standards but saves 30 to 50 percent of

the time. When done, the structure is indistinguishable from

conventional construction methods. The benefits of modular construction

include reducing waste, reducing our carbon footprint and reducing

construction schedules.

Modular construction has countless applications, including new

school construction or school additions. Think of the value of being

able to put up an elementary school in half the time it currently takes,

and at a discounted price.

As an example, a new elementary school that’s needed in the

rapidly growing Kamloops community of Pineview Valley could be ordered

today, and it would be ready for occupancy in nine months or less, and

certainly in time for the start of the next school year in September

2019. It would also be built to the same standards of quality for less

cost than a school built via conventional construction

methods.

I also think of care for seniors. Of course, Canadians aren’t

getting any younger, as was reiterated in the latest census. Seniors now

outnumber children for the first time in history, and the widely held

view among the population experts is that in less than eight years from

now, our nation will require over 130,000 additional spaces for seniors,

growing to 240,000 units by 2046.

An increasingly rapid response to meeting this demand will be

critical, and modular construction can get those needed facilities open

in half the time as traditional on-site construction — again, with zero

reduction in quality.

I’m also proud to remind this House that Horizon North is making a

huge difference when it comes to creating supportive housing to ensure

that British Columbia’s most vulnerable have safe and secure housing.

Horizon North is currently involved in approximately two dozen

affordable housing projects across the province. Among these ventures

are 600 units in Vancouver, valued at $66 million, to provide a stepping

stone from temporary to permanent housing. There are also two separate

projects in Kamloops to build 104 units, valued at $11.4

million.

Now, Luke Harrison, CEO of the Vancouver Affordable Housing

Agency, says: “It’s not a solution for everything, but it’s a great tool

that we have in our arsenal now to deal with things like the homeless

population that requires an urgent and critical response that just

doesn’t come as easily through traditional forms of conventional

construction.”

Modular construction stands poised to provide British Columbians

with tremendous benefits, meeting the needs of our citizens, such as

schools, senior centres, supportive housing and more — delivering on the

requirements of quality, sustainability and affordability, all the while

providing local communities like Kamloops with good-paying, skilled

jobs.

To quote Horizon North’s CEO Rod Graham on the excitement and the

state of the readiness of B.C.’s modular construction industry: “We’re

just getting started.”

M. Dean: Thank you so much to the member for Kamloops–​South

Thompson. Yes, you’re right. It’s these new provincial investments in

modular housing that are also creating thousands of jobs and boosting

local economies throughout the province. Manufacturers, as mentioned, in

Kamloops and, also, Kelowna, Penticton, Cumberland and Westbank are

building these modular units, and that supports stability and the growth

of local businesses.

There’s also flexibility in the modular technology, which means

that a range of buildings are being developed through­out B.C. in

ways that fit the housing and support needs of the communities that they

will be put into. For example, repurposed temporary modular housing was

used to quickly address a critical need in Surrey, while permanent, firm

five-storey buildings with elevators and other amenities are being

constructed in Kamloops.

Let’s take the example from Surrey. A camp had established itself

for many months, culminating with 160 people living along 135A Street.

They were offered supportive housing at the temporary buildings that

were announced in January or shelter beds at one of the local shelters.

The 160 units of temporary housing included secure individual rooms with

private bathrooms and access to meal programs, counselling, medical

offices, skills programming and 24-7 staffing.

What was really significant about this project was that the end

result was that everyone chose to go to one of the shelter options that

was offered. None of the homeless population from 135A Street chose to

remain on the street or move to an alternative homeless camp.

[10:20 a.m.]

In less than a year, our government has actually delivered 2,064

modular homes in 22 communities. We’re going to build on the success of

this program and the interest that we’ve heard from across B.C.

communities. We’ve launched the supportive housing fund, and we’re going

to deliver an additional 2,500 new homes with 24-7 services.

We know this is only a start in tackling the homeless situation.

That’s why work is underway across government to develop a homelessness

action plan, and that will develop really long-term solutions. And I am

committed to continue to work with our municipalities, with our First

Nations band councils and with the local non-profit agencies in our

community to identify where and when we can bring these resources to our

communities.

ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN FOR

COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY

WILDFIRES AND FLOODS

C. Oakes: I truly am pleased today to have the opportunity to present an

economic recovery plan for communi­ties affected by wildfires and

floods. The 2017-2018 wildfire season saw a combined total of over 2.55

million hectares of forests burned, with each season setting a record of

the largest area burned in British Columbia history. Tens of thousands

of people were forced to evacuate their homes, and many suffered

destruction of property and total loss of homes or their inability to

earn a living on the land.

If we’ve learned anything from the last two record seasons of

wildfire seasons, it’s that our current approach to fighting and

preventing wildfires isn’t working. We need a different approach to

address the changes in hydrology, watersheds and debris management that

is resulting in floods. The same applies in the manner, or lack thereof,

of assisting people after they have been affected by wildfires and

floods.

My riding of Cariboo North is a perfect example of what the

combined effects of wildfires, floods and landslides can have in

altering people’s lives. We continue to have families who were burned

out in 2017 still waiting for a home, struggling with insurance

companies, lack of contractors, difficulty in getting permits and

overwhelmed by the prospect of spending another winter without a

home.

I’ve visited multiple times with these families. The reality is

they’re still facing the emotional devastation of losing their home and

possessions. They do not want to move as they are still going through

the burned-out rubble, looking for possessions that are dear to them.

There needs to be better support with long-term rebuilding for families,

support with accessing reliable contractors, working with insurance

companies, prioritizing permits to assist people to rebuild their

lives.

For the 200-plus residents in the Buckridge and Estella areas, two

years of wildfires and then the devastating landslide of 2018 have left

their lives remarkably altered. Following the 2017 wildfire season, a

post-hydrologic risk assessment of West Fraser Road and the Narcosli

watershed impacted by the Plateau wildfire complex covering an area of

521,012 hectares and stretching 130 kilometres from one end to the

other…. After the fires, significant debris and changes in hydrology

have left significant impacts in both flooding and

landslides.

In the spring of 2018, West Fraser Road faced a significant

landslide in six areas. Residents are now being told, when they meet

with the Ministry of Transportation, it may be fixed by 2020, but it

still needs to go through significant reviews, and it needs to go

through treasury.

Here is the reality for people who live in Buckridge and Estella.

They are now travelling on an altered road — narrow, gravel, remote. For

the 28 children who live in that area, they are getting on a school bus

at 6:30 in the morning, travelling two hours on this narrow gravel road,

shared with the industry. Four hours a day children are travelling on

these remote gravel rural roads to attend school.

[10:25 a.m.]

The community members are concerned that they’re not being heard.

We have seen disaster financial assistance in other parts of the

province when landslides have happened, and the community members of

Narcosli, Buckridge and Estella want to ensure that resources will be

made available for them as well.

For the communities living in Nazco and Kluskus, who have been

affected by two seasons of wildfires and flooding, their challenge that

we have is that insurance doesn’t cover flooding. So families who have

been affected by multiple years are waiting to try and have their

insurance challenges addressed. More needs to be done to assist

them.

A little over a week ago, 100 workers in our community of Quesnel

faced immediate layoff from the Tolko Quest Wood lumber mill. We

certainly understand, with the significant amount of fibre that was

burned during the wildfires, that we would see limited fibre and we

would start to see changes in our community. I can tell you that this

kind of news sends a chill through the hearts of families living in our

communities.

We are one of the most forest-dependent communities in British

Columbia. When changes in our economy and changes that we’ve seen

resulted in wildfires, communities are asking where the resources are to

help people retrain, rebuild, reinvest and look at new opportunities to

move on in the community in their lives.

West Fraser Road serves as another example of how communities need

to be working together. With significant loss in areas of economy, we

also need to look at how we can address impacts on other economies, such

as the guide-outfitters. We’ve had challenges, as well, rebuilding, with

the trappers, significant areas affected by the Plateau fire. For these

types of economic-related individuals on the land base, there needs to

be a way for the government to work with them to support

them.

A guide-outfitter goes out to shows, many of them two or three

years out. Now, with the effects of two years of wildfire seasons, they

have to refund all of that. Eighty percent of the territory is burnt out

for guide-outfitters and trappers, and they are asking the government

where the resources are to help them rebuild and look at

alternatives.

There’s also, as I’ve mentioned, a significant loss of log supply

in our communities. There are opportunities to work with industry to

make sure that we’re getting permits out much quicker. We’ve continued

to raise concerns that we have with the bug epidemics that we’ve seen

with both the spruce bud beetle as well as the Douglas fir. There are

significant concerns that by the time the studies have been completed,

it will be a significant epidemic, as we’ve seen with the mountain pine

beetle.

I’ll continue in a moment.

J. Rice: As the member mentioned, it was indeed an unprecedented wildfire

and flood season both in 2017 and 2018, with 1.2 million hectares burned

in 2017 and 1.3 million hectares burned during this year’s wildfire

season.

In 2017, too, we had over 65,000 people displaced. We had about

one-third of that this year — displaced during the wildfire season and

hundreds and hundreds of homes and other structures lost.

Recovery efforts are focused in four key areas: people in

communities, economy and environment, infrastructure and then

reconstruction. A list of the 2017 recovery programs and initiatives

available to individuals, families, businesses, the ag sector and First

Nations are available on the B.C. government website. It’s

gov.bc.ca/wildfirerecovery.

Then there’s the local authorities and First Nations recovery

toolkit that is also published on line on the B.C. government website. I

won’t go on and talk about all the slashes and that. But it’s there,

it’s available, and I’d be happy to help anyone who needs help

navigating that.

The member mentioned that the current approach to fighting fires

or to dealing with our wildfires in British Columbia is not

working.

[10:30 a.m.]

I think both sides of the House are in agreement that we have a

lot of work to do when it comes to fighting fires and preparing our

communities for the impacts that we’re facing around climate change,

whether that is fires, floods, landslides or whatever is next —

hopefully, nothing.

I wanted to say that that’s why we — at least the Ministry of

Forests, Lands and Natural Resources alone — committed over $72 million

over three years for wildfire recovery and to help build communities’

resilience to wildfires. Of this $72 million, this includes $50 million

over the next three years under the new community resiliency investment

program — which people are giving a horrible acronym of CRIP — to reduce

wildfire risk around First Nations and local communities. It also

includes $22 million over the next three years to assist land base

recovery in the most heavily impacted areas.

This $22 million is for looking at things like access management

for fire access roads, to improve or recover water storage facilities

and dams, to rehabilitate range lands and reforestation. This $72

million builds on a whole bunch of other commitments that this

government has already made.

In 2017, $100 million was allocated to the Canadian Red Cross to

assist people affected by wildfires. To date, as of this spring, the Red

Cross has provided support to over 22,000 households to return home and

has made over 66,000 distributions of financial assistance. They’ve held

over 7,700 meetings with individuals and families needing ongoing help

to recover, made 1,200 referrals to external mental health and support

agencies and completed over 220 outreach visits to impacted

communities.

As of this September, 27 community recovery managers have been

hired to oversee the implementation of community recovery plans in 25

communities. That includes in the Cariboo and the areas that the member

opposite has just spoken about.

There’s a long list here of recovery plans that have been

submitted to the provincial government. I won’t get into all of those —

but basically to say that there’s a lot of work that’s being done, even

though there may still need to be more work done.

There are mental health and wellness working groups. They’re

working on short-term and long-term supports. Funding has been approved

for four community wellness managers in Ashcroft, 100 Mile House,

Quesnel and Williams Lake. The Ministry of Health, First Nations Health

Authority, Canadian Red Cross and many government ministries, Interior

Health, community policing, not-for-profit groups are all involved in

delivery and supports for this region.

C. Oakes: First, I do want to thank the member for North Coast for the work

that both she and the ministry did over the last few years. We really do

appreciate it.

I think it’s also fitting for me to take a moment to thank all of

the incredible men and women who worked tirelessly over the last two

years to keep our communities safe and to work diligently on both fires

and floods. The comments that I make today are not a criticism. They’re

just an ongoing conversation of gaps that we see evolving that we need

to address.

The Cariboo Fire Centre learned so much from 2017, and they

implemented those changes in 2018. To all the men and women working in

the Cariboo Fire Centre: I’m so incredibly thankful for the work that

you do.

To our Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development director, the regional men and women working in our

communities: you live in our communities. You understand the needs that

are required. You understand the gaps. I think it’s fitting that we in

the Legislature understand what your needs are and try and find ways,

with the limited resources that we always have, to fill in those

gaps.

I would like to draw attention and hope that the member and all

members of this House will help assist us in raising to the federal

government the needs for disaster financial assistance for the

communities affected by the West Fraser Road landslide.

[10:35 a.m.]

Please, if there’s anything…. These community members are being

told it will be several years waiting for that road to be built, and

their lives have been significantly altered. So, please, if there’s

anything you can do to assist them….

I also want to draw attention to the post-wildfire hydraulic risk

assessment of the West Fraser Road and the Narcosli watersheds impacted

by the Plateau wildfire complex. I’m significantly concerned that if we

do not address the hydrology challenges that we have, due to the

wildfires we’ve seen, we’re going to face significantly more challenges

when it comes to spring freshet.

There’s lots of attention on fires. We need to make sure that

resources and support for our regional FLNRORD teams are there for

addressing the hydrological risks that we face in our communities. I

would ask the member to champion that as well, with some

assistance.

Finally, for the employees and businesses affected by the closure

of Tolko…. I have met with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural

Resources and offered to work collaboratively together. I think there

are some lessons we learned when we were in government with a

cross-ministry strategic approach by bringing in everything from

Ministry of Children and Families, Rural Development, to Forests, Lands

and Natural Resources.

INVESTING IN CYCLING, WALKING

AND MULTI-USER

INFRASTRUCTURE

D. Routley: I rise today to speak to the House about an issue that I really

have nothing to do with — cycling infrastructure, walking and multi-use

transportation investments. I think these are very important

investments. I think everyone would be surprised that I would be

supportive of investments in cycling. But with my history…. I absolutely

love bicycles. I’m going to talk about why people might ride

bicycles.

My own history with a bicycle was through recovery. A lot of

people begin cycling through recovery from injuries. I took it on as a

sport. I travelled around the world and rode my bicycle all over Japan

and built a business importing and manufacturing bicycles. So they are a

big part of my life. It’s no surprise that I’m supportive.

But why would I ride a bicycle? I ride a bicycle for all the

reasons that people mention: for better health — physical health but,

even more importantly, mental health; for environmental integrity and

responsibility, as I take away my emissions and my footprint; to reduce

congestion in our cities and conflict on our roads. All of those things.

But for me, the number one reason is that it’s fun to ride a

bicycle.

I have to say that I’ve ridden a long way. I estimate at least

seven times around the equator. I’ve been hit seven times by cars. So I

know full well the implications of not making these investments, and how

they hold people back from experiencing what I consider to be one of my

favourite things about being a human being. It is, in fact, one of the

most common experiences of human beings: learning to ride a

bicycle.

Last year there were 1.9 million people in British Colum­bia

who rode their bicycles at least once. The number of bicycle trips to

work and back has increased 64 percent since 1996.

In Victoria here, we have a nation-leading 16.9 percent of

commuters either using bicycles, walking or other means of active

transportation. They have a plan here in Victoria to build 32 kilometres

of cycling infrastructure, including 5.4 kilometres of protected bike

lanes in the city here. That will help a lot of people get on their

bikes who are afraid of riding in traffic, like I could be.

I think that if we’re careful…. We have a much higher degree of

awareness from drivers now than we had before, but there are still

conflicts. In the first 14 months of Victoria’s cycling plan, there were

530,000 trips over these bike lanes. When completed, the 32 kilometres

of cycling infrastructure should reduce 10,000 tonnes of carbon

emissions.

In Vancouver, more than 10 percent of people cycle to work. That’s

No. 1 of all major North American cities. In Victoria, they’re

nation-leading in these numbers here in Canada. Fifty percent of the

commuting trips in Vancouver are either by foot, by bike or by transit.

This is an extraordinary number, and it’s a number that we must increase

if we hope to reach our climate goals.

[10:40 a.m.]

This July Vancouver broke ridership records on five of their major

bike routes through the city. On the Burrard Bridge bike lane alone, in

July, there were 216,000 trips. On the Point Grey Road bike lane in

July, there were 110,000 trips. The Mobi bike-lending service in

Vancouver has grown in a few short years from 250 bicycles and 23

stations to more than 800 bicycles and 100 stations.

Clearly, if we build it, they will ride. If we build the

infrastructure, the people will use it.

Whenever I talk to people, I ask them…. I ask cyclists: “Why do

you ride your bike?” Almost invariably, they say: “For my health, my

mental health.” There’s nothing better after a long frustrating day at

work, or in question period, to get on a bike and roll away, feel the

wind, breathe the air and think calm thoughts, because you’re in a bike

lane protected from traffic.

It’s a very important investment that progressive cities are

making all over the world. It counts for health. It counts for

emissions. It also counts for the economy. Retailers along bike paths in

Vancouver have noticed a strong increase in their retail sales. This is

a very important factor. We already know that bicycle tourism is a very

significant contributor to the economy and does increase as we make

these investments.

I’m standing here in support of further investments in cycling

infrastructure. I hope all members in the House will agree with

me.

S. Gibson: I’m pleased to speak to this statement regarding investing in

cycling, walking and multi-use infrastructure by the member for

Nanaimo–North Cowichan. I appreciate that.

I want to begin by saying that there’s a difference between living

in community and living in a community. The difference is that when you

live in a community, you care about the people that you’re with — your

citizens that you share the community with.

Now, community is about cooperative healthy lifestyle, the

opportunity to build relationships, supporting family as the foundation

in a secure society, and recreation and sport that’s

organized.

Some of you will know Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the pyramid.

Well, at the very top was something called self-actualization. When we

get out and use these recreational trails that the member was talking

about, I believe we self-actualize more successfully because we get to

know our strengths — our recreational strengths and our physical

capacities. Investing in these roadways, these trails, for cycling and

walking and other personal pursuits is a good thing and desirable. I

want to agree with the member this morning.

My experience as a long-distance cyclist affirms this. One of the

things I have appreciated is the people I’ve gotten to know along the

way. You’ll be cycling. Somebody will come up beside you, and all of a

sudden you’ve kind of made a new friend, as it were. You cycle for many

kilometres together and then part ways.

The other benefit to these trails is that you see communities from

a different perspective. If you’re always on the roadways, well, that’s

what you see. You see all the commercial development. But often these

trails are on different routes in areas that are more rural, and that, I

think, is a benefit. Cycling also gets you off the main drag, as it

were, and allows you to really see the community more from, I would say,

a recreational point of view.

Now, I have had the privilege of running for 25 years. A friend of

mine who was a police officer got me started. He got me started running.

We used to run all of the trails around the community in my riding of

Abbotsford-Mission, and what a great experience it was. Unfortunately,

he had to stop running because of some physical challenges, but I kind

of kept going.

[10:45 a.m.]

We have Discovery Trail in Abbotsford. Some of you may have heard

of that. It traverses much of our urban area. Every month thousands of

people run across that. They walk across it. They take their families

along there, with their kids. They push their kids in buggies. So it’s

really building community, as I said in my earlier remarks. It follows

the power lines, areas that couldn’t often be used for anything

else.

Now, I’ve seen deer, and I saw a coyote one time. We have

raccoons. Friends of mine who have taken these trails have seen cougar

and even bear along the Discovery Trail. Seniors walk their dogs, which

is, of course, a great thing for community. It’s an opportunity for a

variety of demographic groups. Running and cycling clubs, of course, use

these trails as well.

One thing the speaker, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, did

acknowledge earlier on was about alternatives to driving. Increasingly,

in urban areas, you’re seeing where people are actually commuting, using

the trails, walking and cycling. There’s a trail here in Victoria. I

think it’s the wild goose trail. Is that the name of it?

An Hon. Member: The Galloping Goose.

S. Gibson: Yeah, right.

I ran that the other day, and I bumped into quite a few people who

were actually commuting along there. It was kind of neat. There’s an

affirmation that it can happen even here in our capital city, right here

in Victoria, particularly in urban areas.

Investing in this kind of infrastructure is good for our health.

It’s good for community. It builds social contact. I want to acknowledge

this motion from the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

D. Routley: I thank the member for his reply, and I’m very happy that he would

agree that these are important investments. I think everyone in the

House would agree. I think it’s hard not to when you look at the

outcomes, both in terms of people’s health and in reducing impact on the

environment and making a community a more livable place.

I always want to encourage people to ride. You don’t want to tell

them scary stories about being hit by cars or about having bad

experiences with drivers, but it is an important aspect of what happens

out there. I can say that, just very tragically, last night on Marine

Drive a pedestrian was killed. I believe it was an accident, and the

outcome of the accident was that a pedestrian was killed. It

re-emphasizes the importance of having separations for traffic. When

you’ve got multiple thousand-pound vehicles travelling at high speed

around very soft vehicles called human bodies combined with tiny light

vehicles called bicycles, the outcomes can be terribly

tragic.

Yesterday I was chased by a driver on my bicycle. I was chased,

and the driver intentionally tried to hit me multiple times — and swore,

cursed and jumped out of his van. I rarely do this, but I wrote all this

down, and today I’m going to be making a complaint to the police. This

kind of thing is something that I used to experience routinely on a

bicycle. Now it’s much more rare, but it happens. It’s one of the

reasons that we need to support these kinds of investments. I’m an

extremely experienced cyclist. I have bright, flashing LED lights on my

body and my bicycle when I’m riding. I am very visible, very

responsible, yet I can still wind up in a conflict like that.

When we look at that aspect of our lives, in Toronto, after they

made significant cycling investments, conflicts on the road, from car

driver to car driver, decreased 71 percent — let alone the conflicts

between cyclists and car drivers. So it’s very important. As we

experience congestion, there are the obvious psychological reactions to

that, and some people, unfortunately, react in a less than positive way.

I think it would be a lot easier just to separate that traffic than to

evolve and elevate those people to a place where they would respect the

other people on the road.

When I think of my kids, when I think of parents sending their

kids to walk to school, they’re afraid for their lives. When you think

of your parents or elderly people walking on the side of the road,

you’re afraid for their lives. That shouldn’t be the case. All over the

world, we have examples of best practice. We should do it here; we

should continue to invest.

[10:50 a.m.]

A LEGITIMATE PATHWAY

TO ELECTORAL

REFORM

S. Sullivan: My statement today is on the legitimate path to electoral reform.

This is a very serious issue. Parliament, of course, is engaged in the

exercise of power, and we have to take utmost care when considering

electoral reform.

When I look around the world — I look at the different countries

and the quality of life of people — it strikes me that people really are

the same everywhere. We have the same desires; we have the same

motivations. What makes us different are our institutions and often the

culture that’s derived from those institutions. The structure of our

institutions directly influences our national character, and it

influences our quality of life and the way that we engage with each

other, our citizenship. Are our government systems resilient or fragile?

Are they inclusive or exclusive? Are they efficient or bureaucratic?

This affects our quality of life and the culture that we live

within.

It’s important to recognize, first of all, that electoral reform

is complicated. The different forms of government require expertise, and

they require time. It takes a long time to get up to speed. There aren’t

a lot of experts in the world who know all there is to know about

different forms of electoral systems. It is important to get that

expertise and to take the time to understand it, because it will have a

profound impact on our quality of life and the way we govern

ourselves.

It’s important to keep an open mind about the opportunities that

are available from different systems and also to recognize the things we

may not always appreciate about the system we have. You know, we’re so

accustomed to it that we often don’t realize how much it means to us and

what it does for our culture.

It’s important, when creating a new electoral reform system, to

have a set of values. We must develop these values, against which

systems would be measured. Creating a really comprehensive set of values

is critical. It requires impartiality, and politicians, unfortunately,

are hopelessly conflicted in this issue. They are likely to be biased —

and, possibly, unconsciously biased. It goes without saying that because

their own success or failure is linked with the electoral system, this

has to be the case.

Even if they’re not biased, there will be a perception of bias.

It’s not only important to have an impartially decided system but that

these systems be perceived to be unbiased. If the citizens suspect that

the offerings are related to external power issues, there will be a

question of legitimacy, and by removing many of the decisions and the

processes from people who are likely to be conflicted, this will

increase the legitimacy of whatever is the result.

It’s important, also, to understand the idea, the concept of

representation. What does that mean, “representation”? There are two

different aspects of that.

[10:55 a.m.]

One is the perspective of what voters see. How do they see their

own world in the area that they live? Different voters see the same

thing differently. I can’t help but notice — in talking to people, some

from different visible minority groups — that when I go down a street of

my city, I’m actually in a different city than they are because of the

social environment.

Representation is not a mathematical issue. It’s not an abstract

thing. It actually is highly related to the perspective of voters and

citizens. I note that there are some pretty well-established

international best practices. The United Kingdom has a very

well-developed system. These systems are not ensconced in our political

system here now. The European Union has done a lot of work on developing

best practices for how to come to new electoral systems.

Probably the greatest resource is right here in British Columbia.

It’s called the citizens’ assembly. There were 160 citizens chosen from

different ridings — male, female, two people from each riding. They

spent 11 months looking at the issues of values, the issues of different

electoral systems. They actually ran computer models of these various

different systems, and they were able to identify real flaws within some

of them, because of the incredible work they did. They are an incredible

resource, and that expertise exists right here among us.

N. Simons: Thank you to my friend, my colleague from False Creek, for his

comments on this important issue. I appreciate the thought he puts into

these kinds of issues — sometimes seen as dry issues that are, maybe,

beyond the daily conversations of our fellow citizens but that,

nonetheless, require some thought, especially on important issues such

as how we are represented in a democracy, how the choices of individuals

are represented in the place where decisions are made.

The member stated that everybody sees things slightly differently.

I think that’s a fair comment. I think even the definition of

“legitimacy” is sometimes subjective and needs to be discussed at a

deeper level than we often get a chance to do in this

chamber.

I understand, also…. There’s sort of a veiled comment about a

process we’re currently engaged in. I think it’s important to point out

that when we ask the public for their opinion in the form of a

referendum or any other sort of public opinion measurement, it’s

important to consider all of the factors related to that particular

decision that the public has to make. At a certain point, there’s an

assumption that people will have an understanding of the question that

they’re being given. Based on that understanding, whether it’s an

in-depth understanding or a superficial understanding, there’s a sense

to what question they’re being asked.

I think when we talk about legitimacy — or the opposite,

illegitimacy — we’re getting into a little bit of brinksmanship. I think

what we’re dealing with here is that we have levels of integrity, levels

of measurement that may not simply fit into legitimate or not

legitimate. I believe that when you ask the public for an opinion on an

issue, you can measure it. It’s measurable. It’s a measurement of those

who spend the time to express their opinion.

We’ve heard comments from the opposition about the legitimacy of

government under this system that we use here, though the party that

manages to gain the confidence of the Legislature is a legitimate

government. Despite that, we hear members of the opposition calling

government illegitimate.

[11:00 a.m.]

I think last week there was mention of the legitimacy of the

municipal elections that occurred just this past weekend and whether or

not the results of that election, wherever they were held, were

legitimate or not. In fact, the question is a bit of an undermining

question when it’s stated in that way. In fact, legitimacy can be

adherence to rules, adherence to the accepted practice that we undertake

here.

What isn’t legitimate is, I believe, asking a majority to make

decisions based on whether they believe minorities should have a voice.

I think that can be, on the face of it, seen as an illegitimate

question. When you put power against those who are disempowered by a

simple vote of majority, I think we have a problem.

When it’s an issue for opinions to be sought, there are fair

questions around process. Those are expected in this place. The

discussions around different styles and different forms of ascertaining

public opinion are legitimate discussions. Whether you come to a

conclusion that you believe is right or wrong, it can’t be questioned as

to whether it’s legitimate or not.

I really appreciate the opportunity to have this brief discussion

with my friend, and I look forward to his concluding

comments.

S. Sullivan: Thank you to the hon. member for his comments. I certainly don’t

want him to be under the misapprehension that this statement has

anything to do with any issues that might be ongoing at this time. It’s

completely independent.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It is very important that citizens, when they are asked a

question, have a real question that can be answered, that there is good

information, that these are fully canvassed and that the citizens really

know what they’re voting on when they do vote. I’ll note again that the

idea of representation is not mathematical. It’s not just abstract.

There are different ways that we perceive the community that we live in,

and any electoral system, any governance system, has to take that into

account.

The international best practices that have been devel­oped

around the world…. The United Kingdom has a very formulaic way of

approaching things that I think is worth looking at. The European Union,

as well, has done some very in-depth research on how to truly determine

the will of the people.

Of course, the citizens’ assembly model is the model that I

think…. There may be other, equally legitimate models, but it certainly

has set a very high bar, a very good standard. With the 160 people that

are currently here in British Columbia that stand ready and waiting to

be consulted, I think that we have a huge opportunity to use their

resources, their knowledge, to help us in any way we move forward in

electoral reform.

Hon. C. James: I call Motion 28, from the member for Burnaby North, for

consideration.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to

proceed with Motion 28 without disturbing the priorities of the motions

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 28 — ELECTORAL SYSTEM

J. Routledge: I move the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House support an electoral system where

every vote counts and where the percentage of seats in the legislature

reflects the percentage of popular vote.]

We’ve been hearing a lot of arguments about the virtues of

first-past-the-post, and I must say most of them seem specious to me. I

take issue with the assertions from across the aisle that every vote

counts now under the current system because they help every constituent

who comes to them without even asking who they voted for. The opposition

seems to think of themselves as legislative shop stewards, and they’re

missing the point.

[11:05 a.m.]

I grew up in Ontario, and I have voted in every election since I

was old enough to do so. But it wasn’t until I was in my 30s that I got

to vote for someone who actually won. That was the year I moved to

B.C.

My parents lived their entire lives in Ontario. Sometimes they

took turns voting. Because one was a Liberal and the other was a Tory,

they figured that if they both voted, they would cancel out each other’s

ballot.

In those days, the values of the two main parties were so similar,

it didn’t really make a difference to your family’s fortunes which one

formed government. You rooted for your party the way you rooted for your

hockey team. I finally did manage to convince my mother to vote for my

party, and she had a good laugh when her neighbours were wondering aloud

who that one NDP vote was in our poll.

So don’t try to tell me that everyone’s vote counts under

first-past-the-post. It’s not about case work. It’s not about whether or

not your MLA will help you when you get into trouble, even if you didn’t

vote for them. It’s about whether or not your MLA shares your

understanding of why you got into trouble in the first place and whether

or not they will fight to change the systemic conditions so it doesn’t

happen to you or anyone else ever again.

Today we live in different times. In fact, we live in deeply

troubled times. We see the evidence of it every time we turn on the

news. In the most powerful and influential nation in the world, politics

has turned into a Roman circus. Fear and alienation are becoming

defining features of our society, and it’s taking its toll on voter

turnout. Any politician who hasn’t been hearing voter apathy on the

doorstep hasn’t been paying attention. In fact, in established

democracies, voter turnout has been in gradual decline since the 1960s.

This should worry us.

Look at New Brunswick, where voters went to the polls recently.

Twenty-two thousand more people voted Liberal than Conservative, yet the

Conservatives won more seats. And only 44 percent of young voters went

to the polls at all. In other words, the majority of people who have to

live the longest with the consequences of political decisions are not

participating in the making of those decisions.

I’ll tell you where voter turnout isn’t in crisis, and that’s in

countries that elect their governments through a system of proportional

representation. For example: Iceland, 89 percent; New Zealand, 88

percent; Denmark, 87 percent. These are countries that score higher than

Canada on the human development index and where citizens tend to be

happier and feel more secure.

Those who oppose proportional representation say that our current

winner-takes-all electoral system is working. But working for whom — for

the 3 percent of British Columbians who have 56 percent of the wealth?

It doesn’t work for the growing number of working poor or for the 20

percent of the B.C. kids living in poverty.

One final point, Mr. Speaker. Defenders of the status quo have

argued that proportional representation will legitimize right-wing

extremism. Well, it’s already on the rise, even here in British

Columbia. It’s a symptom of deep and chronic social divisions, it’s an

angry response to the fear of losing one’s place in the pecking order,

and it is nowhere more prevalent and dangerous than in the largest, most

powerful, winner-takes-all democracy in the world.

Proportional representation does not create right-wing extremism,

but it could help to contain it. I submit that democracy is not a

spectator sport. Pro rep can bring citizens down out of the bleachers

and onto the playing field. If we invite citizens to be part of the

game, they’re more likely to feel like they have a stake in the outcome.

With pro rep, we can all be winners.

M. Morris: I have news for the member. Under our current system, every vote

is counted by Elections B.C. — every single vote — unless the ballot is

incorrectly filled out.

Over the years since 1982, when our Charter of Rights and Freedoms

was entrenched into the Constitution Act, 1982, there have been many

challenges against the electoral process in Canada. It first started in

British Columbia, here, against

section 3.

[11:10 a.m.]

I want to quote an observation by the Supreme Court in a case from

2003, where the court said: “In each election, a significant number of

citizens vote for candidates nominated by registered parties in full

awareness that the candidate has no realistic chance of winning a seat

in Parliament, or that the party of which she or he is a member has no

realistic chance of winning a majority of seats in the House of Commons.

Just as these votes are not ‘wasted votes,’ votes for a political party

that has not satisfied the thresholds are not wasted votes

either.”

The Supreme Court has recognized the fact that votes aren’t

wasted, that every vote is counted. What the member’s motion refers to

is support for a system that changes the results of an election, the

outcome of the elections, after the votes have been cast.

We have 87 ridings in the province. Who knows how many we’ll have

if and when proportional representation takes place. Votes are cast.

Then they come up with a system of mathematics to try and change the

outcome of the vote by eliminating the regional votes that we have here.

It’s a system that offends the basic democratic rights of citizens to

vote for a member of the Legislature.

All proposed PR models that this government is putting forward

speak about political parties appointing a member of the Legislature,

not the citizens voting. It’s a system that destroys the equality of

voting power guaranteed by

section 3 of our Charter. Our Charter states

that every citizen has the right to vote for a member of the House of

Commons or of a Legislative Assembly and to be qualified for membership

therein. It doesn’t say anything about a political party appointing a

member to the House.

I want to quote another case from the Supreme Court of Canada. It

says: “Section 3 should be understood with reference to the right of

each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process, rather

than the election of a particular form of government. It’s found in the

fact that the rights of

section 3 are participatory in nature.

Section 3

does not advert to the composition of Parliament subsequent to an

election, but only to the right of each citizen to a certain level of

participation in the electoral process itself.”

The member and many of the members have alluded to the fact that

the person that they voted for didn’t get elected. That is the

consequence of a voting system that reflects the will of the people.

Effective and meaningful representation is afforded to all British

Columbians in the ability to participate in the electoral

process.

The outcome of the electoral process reflects the will of the

people. Fringe parties or parties that may receive a proportion of the

popular vote in only a fraction of the electoral districts have, in

reality, received insufficient public support provincially. Proportional

representation would offend the basic rights of effective and meaningful

representation by converting regional results through a mathematical

formula.

Again, on that note, I want to quote another quote from the

Supreme Court of Canada: “Respect for the inherent dignity of a human

person, commitment to social justice and equality, respect for cultural

and group identity and faith in social and political institutions which

enhance the participation of individuals in society are better met by an

electoral system that focuses on effective representation rather than

one that focuses on mathematical parity.” That was from a Supreme Court

case back in 1991 that dealt with electoral boundaries.

Another quote. This one dates back to 1989, but it’s been used as

a foundational piece of jurisprudence in every Supreme Court case that’s

looked at electoral reform. “The process of adjusting for factors other

than population is not capable of precise mathematical

definition.”

J. Brar: It’s always a real honour for me to stand up in this House and to

support the motion introduced by the member for Burnaby

North.

[11:15 a.m.]

The motion reads: “Be it resolved that this House support an

electoral system where every vote counts and where the percentage of

seats in the legislature reflects the percentage of popular vote.”

That’s the key for our democracy.

When I was a young student at the school in my village…. At that

time, I grew up believing that democracy means majority rules. Even if

you ask a lot of people out there today, there will be a lot of people

who tell you that democracy means majority rules. But the reality is

opposite. A majority of the time, it’s a minority rule, and that’s a

problem. That is not working for the people.

That’s why it’s about time for a new way of voting that works for

the people. For too long, the outdated voting system has put too much

power in the hands of too few when the majority of the people are left

out. The current voting system is not good for the people.

The Quebec election, for example, on October 1, saw the

conservative coalition receive only 37 percent of the popular vote but

59 percent of the total seats. Quebec’s results are similar to what

happened in Ontario last June, when Doug Ford’s Conservative party took

61 percent of the seats with only 40 percent of the popular

vote.

These are just two of the latest examples of our outdated

electoral system. In these two recent elections, each party won 100

percent of the power with less than 50 percent of the vote. The problem

with this picture is that the percentage of seats in the legislatures of

Quebec and Ontario does not reflect the percentage of popular vote each

party got, and that is wrong.

We saw something very similar happen here in this province under

the B.C. Liberals. Election after election, they would get less than

half of the votes and grab 100 percent of the power, and it was

hard-working people of British Columbia who paid the price. The B.C.

Liberals made everyone pay more for everything, while cutting important

services like health care and education.

On the other hand, they gave huge tax cuts, the very first day

when they came into power, to the top 2 percent of rich people in the

province. That’s why the B.C. Liberals and their wealthy friends are

desperate. They are completely desperate to keep the old way of voting,

because it works for the B.C. Liberals, and it works for the top 2

percent of rich people in the province.

Clearly, the outdated voting system is not working for the people.

Too many people feel that their vote doesn’t count, that it is wasted,

and that’s why people would like to change this voting system with the

new proportional representation system.

Proportional representation is a system used by countries around

the world to ensure that everyone’s vote counts. A party that gets 25

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

That’s very simple.

British Columbia has an opportunity to change our voting system so

that everyone’s vote can count. The referendum to change the voting

system by mail-in ballot will run from October 22 to November 30,

Proportional representation can fix this. With pro rep, everyone’s

vote will count. Pro rep will strengthen the voice of people from every

region of the province. Parties will have to work together to get things

done for the people. The governments are more stable. People have a

greater sense of satisfaction in their democracies.

We have a chance to put power back in the hands of the regular

people and elect government that works for everyone, not for the top 2

percent of rich people. We have a chance to finally put people at the

centre of politics, and that’s why I support the motion that this House

support an electoral system where every vote counts and where the

percentage of the seats in the Legislature reflects the percentage of

the popular vote.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to this motion

today.

[11:20 a.m.]

I have to say that I haven’t been in this House for that long now

— it’s about a year and a half — but I think this has to be one of the

more, frankly, ridiculous conversations we’re having right now, given

that we’re in the middle of a referendum — a time when we have been

told, by Elections B.C., that we cannot even spend the money to

photocopy, let alone boost a Facebook post. Yet we’re seeing the

government bring forward motion after motion to try to discuss, across

government-funded airwaves, which will undoubtedly result in

government-funded press releases, post motions, on these types of

issues.

I find it completely ridiculous. Hopefully, the Premier will be

willing to actually set a date so that we could have a properly

televised debate between the party leaders, to make sure that people can

understand why it is, perhaps, the Premier is hiding something. I know

that’s what I hear in my riding quite a bit, and certainly that would go

a long way to maybe allaying fears that there isn’t something being

hidden, when we all know that there are a lot of things that need to be

worked out.

In terms of the motion, we keep hearing: “Every vote will count.”

Every vote does currently count. The fact that we hear members opposite

go on about it, saying, “I’ve never voted for somebody that got into

power before or got elected before,” doesn’t mean their vote doesn’t

count. What it really means is that they didn’t vote for the person who

got the most votes in their riding that particular time.

Under proportional representation, there’s no guarantee that your

vote results in somebody in your riding representing you. Otherwise,

there’d be no need to have an election. We would just self-appoint one

person from every party. We’d triple the number of MLAs in this House,

and we’d call it a day. Then everyone would feel like they have someone

representing them in this House.

To suggest that under PR you will now be guaranteed that your vote

will result in someone locally representing your views as a political

party in this House, is, frankly, totally wrong and totally misleading.

If we want to look at the system and the situation we have under this

current House, we’re currently sitting in opposition with the most

amount of elected seats. There has been a deal struck, and that’s

totally within the rules of the game.

Let’s look at what happens when you have three party members able

to control the government and keep a government in power. It doesn’t

relate to their 18 percent of the vote; it’s closer to about 4 percent

of the vote, for the number of seats they’re currently holding. Let’s

look and see what they’ve been able to drive as a deal. Under PR, that’s

what it’s about. It’s all about deal-making. It’s all about following

through for your party base on what your platform was and getting those

deals negotiated.

Let’s look at what deals have been negotiated so far. Of the 18

percent of the people that voted Green last time — the three seats that

control this Legislature — so far all they have seen are deals that are

completely self-serving for the three Green Party members that are in

this House. The 18 percent of the vote has not wound up with any

legislation. Zero legislation has been passed in this House that is not

self-serving for the Green Party.

In fact, it’s down to the point that the only thing within that

CASA agreement that’s actually been acted upon, of any consequence, is

to be given official party status so that the three, instead of four,

become an official party. This results in pay increases for the three

members, but it doesn’t result in any actual policy being adopted by the

government.

Now, when we want to talk about “every vote counts,” when we want

to talk about making sure that people are held accountable, just because

you vote for 18 percent under PR, it does not guarantee you 18 percent

of the legislation being passed in this House. What it guarantees you is

that you get 18 percent of the seats. Just like with the three seats

right now, you would still control the balance of power.

What we’re really saying is that under PR, we would prefer that a

5 percent threshold start to control every single legislation period

moving forward from that next election. Five percent would actually

start to control the balance of power in this House. That doesn’t sound

like every vote counts. That sounds like, actually, 5 percent starts to

control, with self-serving negotiations.

That does nothing to advance their own party’s actual promises

they make to their party members. I don’t remember the Green Party

advocating for Site C, yet we have it going ahead. I don’t remember the

Green Party advocating for LNG, but I see that’s going ahead. I don’t

remember the Green Party advocating for Kinder Morgan, yet now we have

it nationalized.

That is what actually happens under PR. We’re seeing it in real

time. The negotiations that happened are nothing but self-serving,

self-fulfilling projects that they want to see move forward and that

help themselves but don’t help their base that actually voted for those

policies in their platform.

In fact, I believe the Leader of the now Third Party in this House

actually said after the election: “Oh, that was during the election.

Platforms are irrelevant moving forward.” Well, what makes anyone think

the platforms wouldn’t be irrelevant moving forward under PR?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

P. Milobar: They absolutely would. That is why this is a ridiculous

motion.

[11:25 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, just out of courtesy, when one member speaks, others

please listen. Then you stand up, state your point of view. Then you get

your turn.

B. Ma: In the coming weeks, people across British Columbia will be

receiving ballots for the upcoming electoral reform referendum,

collectively making one of the most important decisions that we can,

about the future of democracy in this great province. When my ballot

comes, I will be voting to move away from our old and tired

first-past-the-post system towards a proportional representation

system.

I’m voting for proportional representation because I believe in

the process of democracy, that our governments are elected to carry out

the complex and diverse will of the public and that our voice into our

government is through our vote. I believe that in a proper democracy,

all people are equal and that all voices matter. So all votes should

count towards the end result of an election. I look forward to B.C.

joining democracies like Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, New Zealand,

Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland.

The list goes on to nearly 90 countries around the world that have

embraced proportional representation as the way to allow our parliaments

to be truly representative of the diversity of political opinion and the

diversity of being that truly exists in this province, where 40 percent

of the vote means 40 percent of the seats — not 55 or 60 percent of the

seats, like what commonly happens under our current first-past-the-post

system, leading to the creation of false majorities. It has happened in

nearly every single election in the history of British Columbia. It has

allowed a plurality of voters, not a majority of voters, to decide, for

the entire province, what values and principles their government should

apply.

I also believe in collaboration, in constructive dialogue, in

compromise for the betterment of the whole. B.C. Liberal members are

fond of lamenting about the B.C. Green caucus holding the balance of

power in our Legislature, but if the B.C. Liberals had just been willing

to work with us, we, today, could have a cooperative government

representing 80 percent of the popular vote instead of 60 percent. They

are so busy fighting the future that they don’t see that their decision

to refuse to collaborate is what puts the balance of power into the

hands of the B.C. Green caucus. They have absolutely no one to blame for

that but themselves.

I look forward to throwing out the old, divisive way we do

politics here, bolstered by an antiquated first-past-the-post system

that tends towards keeping two dominant parties at each other’s throats

day in and day out. I am tired of the hyper-partisanship that dominates

politics here. I am tired of an electoral system that encourages

political leaders to be more concerned with the health of their party

than the health of the public, obsessed with who did what when, whose

ideas were better or worse, and majority governments reversing direction

on the governments before them just to make a political

point.

I don’t care who comes up with a good policy idea. I just want it

to be implemented, and implemented right, for the benefit of the public.

If it takes two or more parties collaborating, softening the edges of

our distinct political ideologies to get things done together, I

consider that a good thing and a vast improvement on the status

quo.

No system of democracy is perfect, because humans are terribly

imperfect and, Lord knows, our elected officials are not infallible. But

I do believe that we can do great things together if we set ourselves up

to succeed by emphasizing cooperation over divisiveness, if we build our

democracy around a system that values constructive conversations and

rewards politicians and political parties that know how to play well in

the sandbox together, rather than parties and politicians who deploy the

best partisan attacks.

[11:30 a.m.]

This fall I’m voting for proportional representation because I

believe in democracy. The question you all have to ask yourselves is

whether you do too.

T. Shypitka: Proportional representation, or PR, has many catchphrases to dumb

down the conversation. Perhaps a catchphrase that is most

misrepresentative and insulting to voter intelligence is “every vote

counts.”

All around the world, in countries and jurisdictions that have

democratic governments in place, whether or not the representatives got

there by a form of PR or by a form of plurality such as

first-past-the-post, there is always a government and always an

opposition. Simply stated, there are those that get to run their

platforms and those that do not. The only difference is that when a

government is put in place by a form of PR, the platforms don’t resemble

in any way what they were promised to at first to their

constituents.

That’s because with minority governments, to form a majority of 51

percent, the parties must horse-trade and deal-make behind close doors.

Some call this collaboration. But to be a realist, it is an offering of

sweet deals and cabinet positions to put one party in place to be

government that the general public knows nothing about.

The result is a platform that nobody recognizes. Credibility is

shot because promises aren’t kept, and constituents are left scratching

their heads, wondering who is accountable for the mess. So 49 percent

are not getting their voices heard as being in opposition, and the other

51 percent are confused about who they voted for. This is a far cry from

100 percent of the voices being heard.

When we look at every vote counting in a PR world, we have to look

at all those fringe parties that will be given life, with the prospect

that they could possibly join us here in the Legislature as long as they

can run candidates across the province and come in fifth or sixth place

— enough just to get themselves in.

There are 26 registered parties in B.C. I would dare say that you

would have many of them running in a PR environment when they are

tantalized by the thought that every vote counts.

For example, there are many that would love to see the Vancouver

Island Party run, for the Island of Vancouver to be independent. That’s

an actual party. More perhaps to see the Communist Party of B.C. get a

few seats. That’s an actual registered party. I’m sure the Work Less

Party of B.C. would get some votes, because who doesn’t want to work

less? That’s an actual registered party. Marijuana is high in the news

cycle these days — pun intended — so the Marijuana Party of B.C. is

bound to spark some interest here and there across the

province.

Maybe some new parties would come into play, like the

anti-immigration parties. These far-right parties are gaining a lot of

strength across the globe.

All these parties will give voters across the province more choice

and allow their voice to count. But not all will make the 5 percent

threshold that is in place to verify their legitimacy to sit here in the

Legislature. What about all these votes that are cast aside and not

recognized? What about their voice? Do their voices count? Nope. Too

bad. Their voices are tossed into the trash bin. This could technically

be 10 percent or more of the electorate voices wasted.

When you give oxygen to one-issue parties and more choice, be

careful what you ask for. There are many examples happening right now

across the world: in Germany, as the member opposite said; Sweden; New

Zealand; Northern Ireland; and Italy, where choice and a fictitious

promise that every vote counts not only is untrue but is hollowing out

the centre of our political spectrum and giving to the extreme sides of

left and right.

When I think of first-past-the-post and hear the catcalls from

those that oppose it and say my voice doesn’t count because my party

never gets in, I say that is simply not true.

I’m not sure what the MLAs on the other side of the floor are

doing. When I’ve talked to my fellow comrades over here, they ensure me

they have a constituency office that works for the people of their

region, no matter what their political stripe. We all have constituency

assistants in the Legislature this week. Is the other side of the House

telling this House that our assistants are not doing their job

properly?

I love and appreciate my CAs. They have a grueling job of tackling

complaints, concerns and communications all day long. They are in

constant damage control. They certainly don’t ask for people’s voting

cards when they come through the door. They help everyone. Here’s a

short list: workers compensation claims; senior care advocacy; Medical

Services Plan help; water licences; road, bridge and infrastructure;

wildlife management issues; land access issues. I could go

on.

As a matter of fact, the only time every vote doesn’t count in my

riding is when I’m forbidden to talk to regional staff by orders from

headquarters on that side of the room. I take pride in representing my

constituents, each and every one of them. I would certainly hope those

on the other side do as well.

[11:35 a.m.]

In Kootenay East, every person may not exactly get what they want.

No one ever will. But I can assure you that every vote counts. I will

quickly add that this debate is more than five minutes, and a publicly

televised debate is necessary between the Premier and the opposition

leader.

Come on, Premier. What are you afraid of?

R. Leonard: It is a great privilege for me to stand here today to speak to the

member for Burnaby North’s resolution that this House support an

electoral system where every vote counts and where the percentage of

seats in the Legislature reflects the percentage of popular

vote.

I grew up believing in the fairness of democracy. We exercise

democracy when we vote. The result of that vote should make a

difference, or why would we bother? The fact is voter turnout is on the

decline. On that point alone, we should be concerned in this

House.

The voting system in place today doesn’t ensure a government that

will have an ear to the concerns of the people of the province. The

result of a citizens vote may make a difference, but maybe not. In fact,

in every election but one in the last 90 years, the majority of voters

did not have a government that reflected their values and

perspectives.

“Every vote counts” doesn’t simply mean that every vote is counted

on election night. It means that every voter’s choice at the ballot box

translates into a voice in this Legislature — a voice that is expressing

their values and their perspectives on government and the laws of

British Columbia.

During the fall session of the Legislature, our new government

took the first of two steps to grow the integrity of our democracy. We

started by banning big money from politics so that the voice of the

people will be the voice of government, not drowned out by the power and

influence of big business and organizations.

In a second step, the people of British Columbia deserve to have

every person’s vote count and have the diversity of B.C. reflected in

the decisions of government. Government that is powered by the people

has so much potential to create a better world for all.

Democracy is not a static thing. It responds to the pressures and

circumstances of the day. Early Canada was ruled by the family compact,

an elite and empowered group of businessmen and leaders who focused on

their business interests and not on things that mattered to the vast

majority of citizens — things like roads and schools.

The desire for a more representative government grew. In the

1830s, democratic reform was sought through revolution. Although it was

defeated, the people had their way. The family compact was

undone.

Even with the family compact gone, Canada’s electoral system

continued to be restrictive. Only landowners had the vote. Voters had to

for small wages and didn’t own property pushed for a voice. Then the

suffragette movement that we talked about last week brought the vote for

women.

Embarrassingly, until 1960, Indigenous people were not allowed to

vote without giving up their treaty rights or status. Our democracy,

obviously, has not been static. Looking back, it’s easy to see that it

needed to change, and it did change for the better.

The original first-past-the-post system was built on two parties.

In our 2017 provincial election, I counted 19 parties in B.C. vying for

our vote. I hear there are more. It is this circumstance that results in

first-past-the-post serving up 100 percent of the power to governments

that have, for all but one since 1928, represented less than 50 percent

of the will of the voters.

Today’s government does represent a majority with more than 57

percent of voters having the balance of power. That’s because in this

minority situation, two parties formally agreed on how to work together,

and that’s what people are longing for. Just like a good marriage, you

can disagree, but you work it out.

Speaking of minority governments, I think it is also worth shining

a light on the fact that good things do happen when there is not a power

imbalance in government. It was a minority government that produced our

proud legacy programs medicare and the Canada Pension Plan —

world-renowned programs that truly define Canada.

[11:40 a.m.]

Democracy should fairly express our values, and those values

should shape the democratic electoral system in B.C., where the

percentage of seats in the Legislature reflects everyone’s vote. That’s

fair, and it works to make every vote truly count.

D. Barnett: I am glad to participate in this debate, because constituents in

my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin have the most to lose under proportional

representation. My riding would be one of the current rural and northern

constituencies that would be lumped together into a few giant ridings

that would be dominated by the majority of the population concentrated

in the Lower Mainland.

If anyone doubts this is going to happen, just look at the wording

of the motion we have before us: “that this House support an electoral

system…where the percentage of seats in the legislature reflects the

percentage of popular vote.”

You don’t need a Droop formula to figure out that under

proportional representation, Metro Vancouver’s population of 2.5 million

would dominate the remaining people scattered throughout the province.

In effect, Canada’s third-largest metropolitan city, confined in an area

of just 2,700 square kilometres, would dictate to a province bigger than

the United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg and northern half of

France combined. All provincial resources would go towards servicing the

Lower Mainland, simply because that’s where the largest percentage of

votes are.

I know this will offend hard-core supporters who claim that

proportional representation will signal an end to poverty and public

dissatisfaction with government and cease the threat of a major

earthquake striking the west coast. Naturally, none of these things will

come to pass, but those calling for a major overhaul of the way we

choose government want you to take a leap of faith.

I find this rather ironic, because critics of our current

electoral system are the very same ones who formed a minority government

after the last election. It was, in fact, our current system that

allowed two parties to combine their percentage of the popular vote in

order to form a coalition.

Proportional representation will change all that. No longer will a

citizen choose the best candidate to serve as their local

representative. Political parties will instead choose who gets elected

based on party lists. Local representatives will cease to exist.

Individual citizens have the most to lose, and political parties have

the most to gain.

Before I ruffle too many feathers on the substance of proportional

representation, I should convey the concerns of many of my constituents

who wonder why this referendum was not held in conjunction with local

elections last Saturday. It would have made a lot of sense and perhaps

encouraged more people to participate and have dialogue.

If you look at the confidence and supply agreement signed by the

NDP and the Green Party, it actually called for the referendum to be

held in conjunction with the 2018 civic elections. Instead, two parties

that pride themselves as being very modern and on the leading edge of

technology chose to use snail mail.

Why is that? And why is there no minimum threshold for

participation? I thought supporters of proportional representation were

pro-democracy and would welcome the participation of more voters. Only

57 percent of eligible voters turned out for the last provincial

election, and given the fact that the vast majority of B.C. voters are

unaware that we are already several months into the referendum campaign

period, the prospect of high voter turnout for a mail-in ballot is

actually low.

The current Premier almost promised a yes-or-no referendum. This

way, voters would be able to express a clear choice. The referendum

question is so complicated most people won’t be able to discern the

difference between dual-member proportional, mixed-member proportional

and whatever the heck rural-urban proportional is.

When will the Premier stand up and have a debate with the Leader

of the Official Opposition? Many people may just elect not to

participate, and that would be a shame.

[11:45 a.m.]

S. Furstenau: I’m happy to stand up to speak in favour of the motion today on

proportional representation. We in B.C. right now have the opportunity

to join over 90 democracies around the world, including 85 percent of

OECD countries that operate under a proportional representation

system.

I think it’s best to start on the problems to be solved. We’ve

heard a lot about votes counting and being counted. Let’s get into

that.

At the riding level, because there are often four, five, six

people on a ballot, the person elected to be MLA can be elected with as

little as 35, 33, 32 percent of the vote, which means that, say, at 35

percent, 65 percent of people in the riding did not vote for that MLA.

So yes, on election night, their votes are counted. But after election

night, they don’t count towards anything in terms of what happens in the

Legislature. The 35 percent of voters who voted for the MLA who gets

elected — their votes count towards what happens in the Legislature. The

65 percent of voters who didn’t vote for that person — their votes don’t

count.

Next, at a provincial level, how does this translate? Those 35

percent, sometimes 40 percent, thresholds at the riding level translate

to 39 to 40 percent of the popular vote that will deliver to one party

100 percent of power, a majority of seats and a four-year mandate,

during which they can push through any legislation, any policy. It won’t

matter what the opposition has to say because they don’t need their

votes in the House.

One of the members spoke earlier about the fact that

first-past-the-post always delivers an opposition. In fact, in 2001, 58

percent of the popular vote delivered 77 of 79 seats to the B.C. Liberal

Party and no official opposition in this province for four years, which

is bad for democracy. It’s bad for the people of B.C. It, in fact,

demonstrates that first-past-the-post does not always deliver an

opposition. It does almost always deliver distorted results based on

outcomes that mean that the minority of voters give 100 percent of power

to one party.

What else about the system isn’t working? Costly policy lurches.

One government comes in, undoes all the policies of the previous

government and costs us an enormous amount of money. We’re seeing that

play out very much right now in Ontario, where, literally, the contracts

that are being cancelled are going to cost in the billions for the

taxpayers of Ontario.

We hear about the idea of deal-making, which I think can be a

pretty cynical

interpretation of what can happen under minority

governments when parties and elected people come together, find their

common ground, recognize that they have shared values and put forward

policies and legislation that actually represent the desire and will of

the majority of people that they represent. This is much better for

democracy.

I want to speak just briefly…. We met with a group of teachers

last week. There was a panel of us from all three parties. These

teachers echoed the comments that we hear all the time about what

happens in this chamber, particularly during question period — that they

walked away feeling very cynical about the politics and governance in

B.C. because they saw shouting and yelling.

I think that what we want to foster is a healthier, kinder culture

of politics. Proportional representation that brings us to a place where

political parties need to work across party lines certainly fosters a

better culture of politics.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Finally, what does proportional representation offer us in terms

of a long-term view of how governance and policies happen in this

province? Well, under first-past-the-post, what tends to happen is too

much focus on swing ridings and swing votes and not enough focus on

long-term policies.

In the world today, right now, in the wake of the IPCC report on

what is going to be happening in our world over the next 20, 50, 100

years — devastating impacts from climate change that have failed to be

met, particularly by countries that are operating under

first-past-the-post and not representing what the will of the people

want in Canada and in B.C. — the majority of people want to see action

on climate change. They have not seen that under first-past-the-post

government, and we’re seeing an increasing number of provincial leaders

across this country who are saying that climate change action actually

is not a priority for them. Once they get elected in with a majority,

they will be able to undermine and undo that action.

We need change. We need it now in B.C. I look forward to this

referendum, and I look forward to us modernizing our

democracy.

[11:50 a.m.]

M. Lee: I wish to rise to speak to this motion. Like many other British

Columbians, my parents came here to Canada as immigrants. They wanted to

build a bright future in this province. This fundamental question that’s

being raised here, for the past year, on the basis of power — how did we

come to this? It was not about electoral reform. It was about what issue

would bring together the current government with the support of the

three Green Party members. This hasn’t been the sort of comprehensive

approach to electoral reform that you would expect for British

Columbia.

Under our current first-past-the-post system, across this

province, we have the opportunity to form strong majority governments,

majority governments that win the majority of support from British

Columbians. We need to find more balance in this House. But the parties

that do that are the ones that are able to provide to voters in this

province the broadest set of policies, that find the right balance among

all the issues that we talk about in this House every day:

environmental, health, education, economic, mental health, our

relationship with Indigenous peoples, to name a number. These are all

issues that we have to deal with as political parties.

To form that consensus, to forge that plan for the province for

the next four years, to win that mandate — that comes apart when we

start to divide this House more by single-issue parties under

proportional representation. This is what is at stake here. This is why

we need to ensure that British Columbians understand the convoluted

electoral reform referendum that they’re being presented with

here.

There are so many details to be left after the vote, details that

the Premier should be standing up and debating with the Leader of the

Opposition in public at this time. Ballots are being received in

mailboxes by all British Columbians now, this week, yet the Premier has

not set and agreed to a date with the Leader of the Opposition, when

that debate should be happening now.

Our province has more pressing issues than this. We need to deal

with the issues that are facing this province now for the medium term

and the long term. Having proportional representation only introduces

the possibility of those single-issue parties — parties that resonate

with certain parts of our province.

I appreciate that British Columbians are very passionate about

issues around the environment. I am too. Issues around regional issues,

whether it’s the Vancouver Island Party or the Rural B.C. Party; issues

around religion; issues around ethnicity and anti-immigration — we want

to be addressing those considerations as political parties. We need

political parties that are able to form government if

elected.

Last election, in 2017, voters did not vote for this current

combination government that they have today. In terms of policy lurch,

we have, clearly, examples of where the previous government’s vision for

this province — around LNG and Site C, for example — is continuing. We

need to ensure that even with a minimum 5 percent threshold, we don’t

open the door — as we’ve seen in Sweden, Germany, Italy, New Zealand —

to more fringe elements holding a disproportionate balance of power in

our Legislative Assembly.

We also need to ensure that we have the direct accountability

between voters and members of this House and not leave it to political

parties to determine who represents voters under mixed-member

proportional, rural-urban proportional and dual-urban. We need to ensure

that voters have that direct level of accountability so they can hold to

account the government they elect and the members of this House who

represent them in their communities.

[11:55 a.m.]

We need to continue to find the balance of priorities in this

province, and to do that, we need to keep our current

first-past-the-post voting system.

B. D’Eith: Quite simply, democracy is defined as government by the people,

the rule of the majority. How is it that the present first-past-the-post

system allows parties that receive 38 to 40 percent of the vote to get a

majority of seats in our House and, therefore, 100 percent of the power?

How is this democracy?

Look at the recent elections in Ontario and Quebec. Doug Ford’s

Conservative Party became government with 40 percent of the vote. In

Quebec, the Coalition Avenir Québec won a majority of seats in the

National Assembly with 37.5 percent of the vote. In both cases, around

60 percent of the voters did not vote for those parties, yet they

govern, and they can govern with impunity, with majorities.

In fact, in B.C., since 1928, there’s only been one majority

government that had over 50 percent of the vote — one. Surely, that is

not fair or right.

Proportional representation allows the Legislature to be balanced

by the popular vote. It’s as simple as that — to represent the actual

percentage of voting, where 40 percent of the votes mean 40 percent of

the power.

Of course, I can understand why members on the other side are

afraid of this. I can understand why they’re terrified, in fact. It’s

because they know that they cannot hold power with a minority of voters

if pro rep is selected.

Now, the opposition hates the fact that the B.C. NDP and the B.C.

Greens have found a way to work together. It’s meant that our government

has had to work harder for legislation. It means that we’ve had to take

other points of view into account with creating policy. I know we’ve got

under their skin on this because, like pro rep, it’s simply about

cooperation, and it’s better for democracy.

This is how it’s worked in New Zealand for decades. Successive,

stable governments that have not experienced the same wild policy lurch

of first-past-the-post governments. Parliaments with more women, more

Aboriginal and more visible minority members elected to parliament.

Higher voter turnout, especially with youth, which you guys would really

hate. Governments with parties that have to work together and listen,

where the diversity of voices is heard.

But the no side cries: “But rural and remote areas won’t be

represented.” What they really mean is that with pro rep, rural folks

won’t be represented primarily by B.C. Liberals. The reality is that

rural B.C. voters, just like the rest of B.C., hold diverse political

beliefs.

This was so evident in my recent travels with the Select Standing

Committee on Finance. No matter where I went in B.C., people had a

variety of opinions. Pro rep would mean more B.C. Liberal representation

in urban areas and more B.C. NDP and Green representation in the

Interior and the north. This would mean that the rural voices, in fact,

would be more accurately represented than they are now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. D’Eith: The criticism by the no side that rural voters will not have a

local representative under PR is simply not true. All three pro rep

systems that are proposed will continue to have local representation in

rural areas.

The no side is simply resorting to fearmongering and misleading

statements to confuse voters. This fearmongering by the B.C. Liberals

comes up again with fringe parties. You’d figure there’s a Nazi under

every seat, under every desk here. But there’s a minimum threshold of 5

percent, and it’s very difficult to meet that.

Just look at the last election. The Conservative Party, a

mainstream party, received less than 1 percent of the vote. There are 13

other parties, and they received less than 1 percent of the vote. It’s

very hard to get a threshold of 5 percent.

If people aren’t happy with the change, they have a chance to

confirm pro rep and go back to first-past-the-post with a second

referendum, and that second referendum will be no later than 13

years.

Interjection.

B. D’Eith: Once again, the B.C. Liberals are saying 12 years. In fact, that’s

not true. The second referendum will be no more than five years after

the first pro rep election. Again, they’re misleading the voters. They

said the system is complicated, but it’s simple.

Voters are still going to go to their church or their school, and

they’re going to put an X on a box. The difference is that their vote

will count towards balancing the Legislature. No matter what they do,

their vote will count. That puts power back in the hands of the

electorate, and that’s something that the B.C. Liberals do not want to

see.

The truth…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. D’Eith: …is that pro rep will make democracy stronger by increasing voter

turnout; by ensuring that the popular vote is represented in this House;

by increasing the number of women, Aboriginals and visible minorities;

by making parties work together to create better, more reflective

policy.

I am actually excited that B.C. will have the chance to vote on

pro rep over the coming weeks. This is an opportunity for B.C. to show

true leadership on electoral reform. We’ve got big money out of

politics. Now let’s take the next step. Put people in the centre of

politics, and vote yes for pro rep.

B. D’Eith moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada