Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 168

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Citizen of the Year Award recipients in Prince George

S. Bond

Supportive housing for homeless in Maple Ridge

B. D’Eith

Response to landslide in Old Fort

D. Davies

Zonta International

M. Dean

Bonnie Christie and Children’s Hospital trauma nursing

A. Weaver

Rob Patterson and Malahat highway safety

S. Furstenau

Oral Questions

LNG Canada project agreements

M. Polak

Hon. C. James

M. de Jong

Support for workers with job-related mental health issues

A. Weaver

Hon. H. Bains

Deep brain stimulation surgeries

N. Letnick

Hon. A. Dix

G. Kyllo

Foster parents

L. Throness

Hon. K. Conroy

International adoptions

J. Isaacs

Hon. K. Conroy

Safe Care Act and youth mental health and addiction plan

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Darcy

Petitions

Hon. M. Mungall

J. Isaacs

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

M. Hunt

On the amendment

M. Hunt

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I have two special guests today in the gallery, Brenda McClellan and

Dave Walker. They are long-term friends of mine, but they have a connection

to the member for Shuswap, because they’re actually from Shuswap right now.

And they have a connection to the member for Delta South, because apparently

— I just found out — he dated Brenda in grade 3.

I didn’t know that, Brenda; you didn’t tell me.

Anyway, could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. James: I have a constituent and a friend who is visiting today in the

gallery. He is an active and engaged member of our community. He is a former

constituency assistant in this area, on the Island. He is a mental health

advocate, and now I’m very proud to introduce him as a newly elected greater

Victoria school board trustee. Would the House please make Ryan Painter very

welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three guests here today who

are here to witness the statements and question period. They are Christine

Sorensen, the president of the B.C. Nurses Union; Robert Macquarrie, who is

with communications with the B.C. Nurses Union; and Bonnie Christie, a

registered nurse. Would the House please make them feel very

welcome.

I also have another visitor in the gallery today. Her name is Kim

Charlesworth. She was the 2017 Nelson Citizen of the Year, a former

councillor, a graduate of Dalhousie law school and an awesome candidate for

us in the riding of Nelson-Creston in the 2017 election campaign. Would the

House please make Kim feel very welcome.

R. Leonard: I hope that the House will join me in welcoming the class of Joy

Tansky from the Phil and Jennie Gaglardi Academy, with her grade 10

students. Joy was a student at the B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary

Democracy here, and she’s a frequent flyer, bringing students and future

voters into this House. Please join me in welcoming her and her

students.

Hon. K. Chen: I would like to welcome ten students from Canada Star Secondary

School, who will visit the Legislature today with their vice-principal,

Michael Atkinson, and also Ms. Angela Ellis from the school.

[10:10 a.m.]

They are students who are taking comparative civilization 12 class and

are here to learn about our work in the Legislature. I look forward to

seeing them today, and I ask the House to please make them feel very

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD

RECIPIENTS IN PRINCE

GEORGE

S. Bond: It takes a pretty special person to be named the Prince George

Citizen of the Year, but this year it wasn’t just about one special

person. There were, in fact, four incredible recipients recognized as

Citizens of the Year. Two minutes will hardly do justice to the lifetime

of contributions they have made individually, but suffice it to say that

their collective efforts have changed the face of our community, our

region and beyond.

Les Waldie was recognized for more than four decades of community

service. He co-chaired the successful bid for the 2015 Canada Winter

Games; had a key role in delivering the Kordyban Lodge that serves

cancer patients; and volunteered with the arts, sports and numerous

community organizations.

Dr. Charles Jago was honoured for being a change agent. He was a

strong proponent for the creation of a northern medical program,

improved health care services and was chair of the Northern Health

Authority board for 12 years — not to mention a former president of the

University of Northern British Columbia and a recipient of the Order of

Canada.

Pat and Nancy Harris have been lifelong champions for increased

people with mobility challenges to have the equal access they deserve.

Whether through school programs, advocacy or relentless effort, changes

continue to be made: an elevator at our airport, an accessible boardwalk

at the Ancient Forest and audits of local and regional parks, just to

name a few.

I am proud to know each one of these recipients and can

unequivocally say that they are indeed outstanding citizens.

Thank you, Les, Charles, Pat and Nancy for being

difference-makers. Congratulations. You are most deserving of this

special recognition, and we know that our community is a better place

because of you.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR

HOMELESS IN MAPLE

RIDGE

B. D’Eith: Everyone deserves a home. Unfortunately, not everyone in B.C. has

one. Nowhere is this more evident than in my home community of Maple

Ridge, where the present tent city has been since early 2017.

I’m very pleased that 53 units of modular supportive housing have

been opened in Maple Ridge on Royal Crescent to help some more of our

more vulnerable homeless citizens. Over this week, people have been

moving into this facility — residents ranging in age from 23 to 73, men

and women, residents with mobility challenges and a wide variety of

health care needs.

This facility will provide them with the dignity of a roof, a bed,

a separate bathroom and, importantly, their own door — something that we

all take for granted. They’ll be provided with healthy food and a sense

of community. They will get any health care and mental health and

addiction services they need. That’s why today I would like to thank the

organizations and people working in our community who have stepped up to

help to transition these people from the street to the housing that they

need to give them the care and the support they need.

I’d like to thank B.C. Housing; the local B.C. manufacturer,

Horizon North; Coast Mental Health, the new operator; Fraser Health;

RainCity Housing and the ICM team; the Maple Ridge community action

team; the Salvation Army; Alouette Addictions; the CEED Centre; the city

of Maple Ridge; Maple Ridge firefighters; RCMP; B.C. Ambulance Service;

and the many caring individuals from our city and from these

organizations who have helped.

It takes a village. I believe this applies to people in our

community who are vulnerable, suffering from mental health and other

health-related issues. I believe that a civil society is judged by how

it treats its most vulnerable citizens. This week a village of

associations and compassionate people wrapped their arms around some of

our more vulnerable citizens. I would like to thank them and our

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing from the bottom of my

heart.

[10:15 a.m.]

RESPONSE TO LANDSLIDE IN OLD FORT

D. Davies: Nothing changes the role of an elected representative faster than

a catastrophic event like I recently experienced in my riding with the

Old Fort slide just a few short weeks ago. All of a sudden, your first

priority is the safety of people that you represent and what can be done

in those first few hours following an event like this. Like many of my

colleagues in this chamber that have experienced other devastating

events such as wildfires and floods, we recognize that lives have been

changed forever. As a local representative, we do have a duty to respond

to those now and into the foreseeable future.

For the approximately 200 people whose daily lives have been

turned upside down without warning, it is hard to appreciate what it is

truly like to be forced from your home. Fortunately, no lives were lost

in this landslide at Old Fort, but the damage is enormous and their

future is unknown.

I had never really seen the power of nature so vividly until I was

given the opportunity to tour the damage with officials and look at the

pavement that was folded over like paper. However, power has been

restored by B.C. Hydro and a temporary road is being built into the

area. Local representatives, whose future is still uncertain at this

time, have been given the opportunity to return to their homes by

riverboat, only to retrieve some belongings and to start to prepare

their homes for winter.

I am very grateful to members of my community, many of whom have

stepped up to support their neighbours and friends to cope with this

incredible and difficult situation. I want to thank the Peace River

regional district, Chair Sperling and the people at the emergency

operations centre who have worked many long days.

I want to thank my Member of Parliament, Bob Zimmer for his

assistance. I want to thank emergency management B.C. and all the staff

and the volunteers at the emergency social services centre. I’m also

thankful to the Public Safety Minister for making himself immediately

available and personally travelling to the scene.

To the residents of Old Fort: we are thinking of you, and we are

standing with you during this very trying time.

ZONTA INTERNATIONAL

M. Dean: Imagine a world in which women’s rights are recognized as human

rights and every woman can live to her full potential. This is the

vision of Zonta International. Zonta International improves women’s

lives by increasing their access to education, health care, legal

services and economic opportunities while supporting efforts to prevent

and end violence against women and girls.

The Zonta Club of Victoria is one of hundreds of clubs. In

November, they’re celebrating 50 years of community service. They’re

about to hold a fundraising event to support the HerWay Home program.

HerWay Home is a non-judgmental health and social resource for pregnant

women and mothers with young children or babies who have a history with

substance use and who may be affected by mental health issues, violence

and trauma.

As the Zonta Club of Victoria turns 50, Zonta International is

getting ready to celebrate its 100th year of service in 2019. That’s a

century of empowering women.

Congratulations, Zonta, and thank you to local members for your

amazing work in our community.

BONNIE CHRISTIE AND

CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL TRAUMA

NURSING

A. Weaver: A phone rang in the intensive care unit at the B.C. Children’s

Hospital. The call was from a rural B.C. hospital. They needed to

transfer an eight-year-old boy to Children’s ICU right away. Bonnie

Christie was a senior registered nurse in the ICU that evening. When the

boy arrived, she started removing the bandages, and blood began flowing

like a waterfall. He had been ripped apart at the legs in a car accident

while he delivered newspapers to his neighbours. He died shortly

afterwards, as he bled to death in the ICU.

In 21 years of Children’s ICU nursing, Bonnie has seen a lot of

death and injury. Bonnie remembers when two young girls were brought to

the Children’s ICU covered in third-degree burns. The girls’ mother died

in the fire as her estranged husband tried to burn their house and kill

the family.

Bonnie remembers another young girl with burns so severe that they

had to transfer her to a specialty hospital in the U.S. The girl’s

mother set her on fire while she was doing drugs. She also remembers a

young boy who was admitted with head wounds. When she took off his

bandages, part of his brain fell to the floor. His father tried to kill

him with an axe.

Bonnie remembers other children who were sick and injured, and she

remembers some who died horrible deaths. She can’t even count the number

of horrible things she saw as a Children’s ICU nurse.

After 21 years of critical care nursing, Bonnie started having

nightmares. She dreamt of pools of blood and people hanging on

chain-link fences with hooks through their scalps. At first, she thought

she only needed to get away from critical care nursing, so she

transferred to less acute roles. But after several transfers, she kept

having panic attacks and anxiety and more nightmares.

[10:20 a.m.]

“I love nursing, but I’m still burdened by the events I went

through,” said Bonnie. “I can never work in health care again, and I

don’t want any of my colleagues to go through what I did with

WorkSafeBC. What we do is too important and too stressful for us to be

reinjured in the process of trying to get help for

ourselves.”

That was Bonnie Christie’s story.

ROB PATTERSON AND

MALAHAT HIGHWAY

SAFETY

S. Furstenau: There’s a movement in the Cowichan Valley riding to rename part of

the Malahat

section of the Trans-Canada Highway to Patterson pass, and

for good reason.

I only met Rob Patterson once. It was December 2016, and Rob, as

chief of the Malahat volunteer fire department, was speaking at a

meeting about the safety of the Malahat highway. Rob spoke passionately

about the many horrific accidents he had attended as first responder and

the impact they had on victims’ families and his and his colleagues’

lives. He was committed to improving the roadway and driver safety to

reduce the likelihood of an accident happening.

What was significant to me about Rob’s advocacy was how he stood

up for his community. He was a humble man, but on the issue of road

safety, he was outspoken and did not hold back from sharing his truth

about what it felt like when he received a call that an accident had

occurred on the highway. What made him most effective in delivering his

message wasn’t just his personal experience but that he brought the

community with him. He wasn’t out in front; he was shoulder to

shoulder.

Rob was more than a fire chief. He was a leader who embodied

humility and humour, who inspired all who met him, including me. Rob

died within a month after that December 2016 meeting, unexpectedly.

People said he died doing what he lived for: helping a community member

out of harm’s way.

I commend the Malahat community for wanting to recognize the

efforts of this great community leader.

Oral Questions

LNG CANADA PROJECT AGREEMENTS

M. Polak: Nearly a month ago the government, along with LNG Canada, made a

very significant announcement. However, since that time, there has been

no disclosure from government of the terms of any negotiated agreement

with LNG Canada.

To the Finance Minister, has the government made an agreement with

LNG Canada?

Hon. C. James: We’ve been clear about our LNG framework. In fact, the framework

was released in March to talk about benefits for British Columbians and

putting the sector on a level playing field with other

industry.

Just to run through those pieces for the member, LNG will pay the

same electricity costs as any other industrial customer, such as a mine,

a mill or Vancouver Airport. There will be a deferral for PST costs

which will be repaid and will be available to other major investors in

British Columbia. The clean growth incentive program was also announced

in the budget in 2018 and is available to any other company, as well,

that outperforms global benchmarks for the cleanest facilities. And

we’re removing the LNG income tax in favour of existing taxes and

royalties.

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

M. Polak: Well, transparency and meaningful disclosure are important not

just for members of this chamber but also for British Columbia’s

citizens.

To the Finance Minister, what guarantees, if any, have been

provided to LNG Canada that would bind future governments or, maybe even

more importantly, future taxpayers?

Hon. C. James: The details are out there for the other pieces. The piece that

we’re continuing to work on is the performance payments — making sure we

have an agreement around the performance payments — and continuing on

with being as transparent as we can, as we were in March, in releasing

it. We’ll release that information when we finish those discussions as

well.

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

supplemental.

M. Polak: Of course, members of this assembly as well as British Columbians

deserve to have the opportunity to review in detail the terms of any

negotiated agreement.

I wonder if the minister would tell us: does the agreement include

specific requirements around hiring, around procurement, around

training, and if so, what are those requirements?

Hon. C. James: As I said, there isn’t a formal agreement in place. What we have

is, basically, a framework, which we released in March to the public. We

believe in that transparency, and we’ll continue to be

transparent.

[10:25 a.m.]

M. de Jong: To the minister, earlier today the Minister of Finance referred,

for the first time, to something called an operating performance payment

agreement, and I think, to be fair, she just referred to it again a

moment ago. She specifically said this: “We’re working through that

piece, as we’ve done with the four agreements. Those have been out since

March.” I’m not aware of any agreements that have been out since March.

She then said: “We’ll release the implications.”

I’m not sure what that means, but my question to the minister is:

why hasn’t she or the Premier referred to the agreement thus far? What’s

in it? What long-term obligations has the company agreed to? What

long-term obligations has the government agreed to?

Hon. C. James: I will remind the member again that we put the framework out that

we have worked on with LNG, the framework that is in place with LNG,

which would be the same framework for other companies if there are major

investments. That will include paying the same electricity costs, the

deferral on PST for construction costs that will be repaid after the

plant is built. That will be paid back to us in performance

payments.

We’re working out the specifics, and yes, we will release that

when they’re there. The clean growth incentive program is already out

there, and removing the LNG tax has already been announced as

well.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: A couple years ago the minister and her colleagues had an

opportunity to review and critique in detail an agreement the then

government concluded with Petronas. She and her colleagues had plenty to

say about what was in the agreement and what wasn’t in the

agreement.

The announcement made October 2 also involves Petronas as a pretty

significant shareholder. I don’t think the minister wants to release the

agreement. I don’t think she wants the public to see what’s in it or

what’s not in it. I don’t think she wants some of her colleagues to see

what’s in it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Abbotsford West has the floor.

M. de Jong: Will the minister confirm that it is her and her government’s

intention to repeal the very legislation and the very

section of the

legislation that would require her to make the agreement

public?

Hon. C. James: In fact, we don’t need legislation to be public and transparent.

We do that as government because that’s the right thing to do. I

understand we have a very different approach than the other side took to

making sure that we stand up for people and that we stand up for good

projects that protect the environment and provide jobs in British

Columbia.

We have been clear about the LNG framework. It has been released

in March. It was out there in March and talked about the electricity

costs, talked about the PST, talked about the clean growth incentive

program and talked about the LNG income tax.

We will continue to be transparent, because we believe in that on

this side of the House.

SUPPORT FOR WORKERS WITH

JOB-RELATED MENTAL HEALTH

ISSUES

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

injuries that can be debilitating. Last spring this government

introduced protections by adding a presumptive clause for this kind of

workplace injury. Now certain first responders are supported for

injuries that can arise from the important work they do.

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

workers, I’m concerned that others who suffer mental disorders on the

job are being left out. In particular, I’m profoundly troubled that

professions such as nursing, teaching, social work and 911 responders,

which employ disproportionate numbers of women when compared to men, are

being left out. When I raised this issue this past spring, the minister

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

getting the help and safety they need.

What has the minister done — to the Minister of Labour — to

deliver on this commitment?

Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the member for the question, and I really want to

thank him for his passion about workers’ health and safety, because I do

share that passion.

I must say that I’m proud to say in this House that as one of the

first actions as a minister, I changed the WCB act to make it easier for

the first responders to access benefits for those who are suffering from

mental health injuries.

[10:30 a.m.]

First responders have been asking for these changes for a long

time. They were ignored by the previous government. We couldn’t ask them

to wait any longer.

Bill 9 also, as the member mentioned, enabled me to add other

groups of workers and provide them with better protection. That’s why I

am meeting with all those groups of people that the member had

mentioned, including CUPE, the nurses and dispatchers, about how to add

them onto the list.

I also understand that workers suffering from mental health

injuries need help now. That’s why changes are being made at the WCB

right now. With additional staff, more mental health claims are accepted

now, in a timely fashion. Support is provided to them as and when they

need it. This is in the view that health and safety is my number one

priority. I will continue to work to make all workplaces in B.C. the

safest in the country and so that those who are injured at workplaces

are treated with respect and dignity.

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

A. Weaver: I might suggest to the minister, when he asks how to make such

changes, that it’s quite easy. It’s through order-in-council. I would

encourage the minister to direct that passion that he talked about to

actually ensuring that the workers are given the protection they

need.

For example, a few moments ago I read the story of registered

nurse Bonnie Christie. Her doctor filed a WorkSafeBC claim and referred

her to a psychiatrist, who confirmed the diagnosis. But the WorkSafeBC

process to evaluate her claim took four months and made her relive the

traumas time and time again.

This is what Bonnie says: “The core problem I had with WorkSafeBC

is that nursing isn’t one of the occupations that presume mental

disability because of work trauma. To get my claim accepted, I had to

retell my story over and over to WorkSafeBC, a story that I told you a

few minutes ago. Every time I retold it, I relived what I went through.

During that time, I was crying all day long and had so much anxiety that

I couldn’t leave the house.”

My question is to the Minister of Labour. When will he ensure that

the presumptive clause for work-related mental health disorders is

applied to nursing? The trauma Bonnie has experienced is no different —

no different — from the trauma that is experienced by firefighters and

police officers, professions that are dominated by men, not women. The

Nurses Union has provided the evidence to the minister. It’s time for

the minister to act. When will he act?

Hon. H. Bains: I must say that unlike the previous government, health and safety

of workers is my number one priority. That’s why we made the changes.

I’m so proud of those changes, and we realize more needs to be

done.

The legislation was our first step. It allows me to add other

groups of workers onto the list. That’s why we are actively working with

those, and I will be meeting with nurses later on today who will be

providing me with more evidence of why they should be added onto that

list.

We are actively working with those groups. But WorkSafeBC is

working with those groups right now by adding more staff and helping

those people suffering from mental health injuries.

I just want to say to the House here, as well, that every worker

in this province is entitled to mental health coverage through

WorkSafeBC, and we are adding more resources to help them as we go

forward.

I am working with nurses. I am working with other groups so that

we can add them onto that list to provide them better protection. I want

to ensure that all workers go home after the end of their shift safe and

healthy.

DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION SURGERIES

N. Letnick: Deep brain stimulation surgery, or DBS, has given people with

Parkinson’s disease and others a new tool to combat the tremors

associated with the disease. Dr. Christopher Honey is the only surgeon

who is funded to perform DBS surgery in all of the province. A second

doctor is desperately needed to match the national average.

To the Minister of Health, what are his plans to add a second

doctor and increase patient access to DBS?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I want to thank the member for his question. There are, in fact —

and have been over the last four or five years — significant and growing

wait times for DBS interventions, and it’s very important. A lot of us

in our families and a lot of us as constituents know people who are

dealing with Parkinson’s disease. It’s a very serious situation, and

DBS, for many of them, is helpful. In fact, the range of people that it

can help has increased over that time.

In this year, we’ve increased the number of interventions

scheduled by 50 percent. That number will not be adequate, I think, to

reduce the wait times, but it makes the situation better than it was

before. It’s gone from 23 interventions to 36 interventions this

year.

The member is quite right. It puts the health care system in

jeopardy when only one person can perform those interventions. That

individual — we don’t want anything like that — can themselves become

sick and unable to perform those surgeries. The health authorities, both

Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal Health, are working on that issue

right now.

Those surgeries currently take place within Vancouver Coastal

Health, and it’s my general view, given they have some of the

infrastructure in place to support them, that that would be a good thing

to do. We’re working on the issue of expanding access to those surgeries

now, and we’ll have more to report in the near future.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna–Lake Country on a supplemental.

N. Letnick: The challenge is that Dr. Honey is maxed out at approximately 40

procedures per year, and there are double that number of people actually

waiting to get the procedure. Dr. Ivanishvili at Royal Columbian

Hospital has taken the training from Dr. Honey, and he’s ready to go

today. I also understand that there are people at Royal Columbian who

have fundraised, or are in the process of fundraising, the $200,000

necessary to get the operating room up and running.

Again to the Minister of Health, what are his plans to accelerate

increased access to DBS and give hope to patients and families suffering

with Parkinson’s disease?

Hon. A. Dix: I certainly appreciate the contribution made by Dr. Honey, who

started doing these surgeries in 2001 and is continuing to this day. As

I say, we’ve given him more operating room time this year as a

reflection of the long wait times that were occurring, starting over the

last number of years.

The situation, as he suggested…. There is a second doctor who is

eligible. It also requires a whole infrastructure around that doctor to

set it up at a new institution. That’s why the two health authorities,

Vancouver Coastal Health and Fraser Health, are working on this issue.

Clearly, even though we’ve increased that number by 50 percent, with one

doctor performing the surgeries, that’s not a continuing and inevitable

process.

He’s quite right to raise the issue. It’s something that we’re

working on very hard, given the importance of this surgery and this

intervention to many citizens in British Columbia. I appreciate his

question.

G. Kyllo: Today there are 80 British Columbians currently approved for DBS

surgery in our province, many of whom have talked to my colleagues from

Kelowna, Cranbrook and from Langley. The minister and I have spoken

about the specifics of the case of one of my constituents, Maureen

Hafstein, of Salmon Arm.

This is what Maureen had to say this past spring: “I want to be

clear that I’m not wanting to jump ahead of anyone in line. I’m asking

for increased funding so that everyone will benefit.”

To the minister, will he provide the resources necessary for a

second surgeon so that patients like Maureen can receive the surgery

they so desperately need?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, we’ve increased the number of surgeries by 50 percent of

what was there before I became Minister of Health. If the suggestion is

that we’re not taking the interventions seriously, we are taking them

seriously. An increase of 50 percent over what was there before is not

adequate for many of the patients, including the member’s constituent,

and we’ve spoken about this before.

We’re working on this issue pretty hard, including in the health

authorities, to ensure that that happens. We’ve taken, I think, some

interim steps that are helpful. We’re going to continue to work to see

that access for that surgery is maintained.

Some people have talked about it taking place at Royal Columbian

Hospital. It’s my general view that we should build on the

infrastructure we have now, and that involves work by the two health

authorities. We’re proceeding with that work.

[10:40 a.m.]

As I told the member — I believe it was in August — and what I say

today is that that commitment, an increase by 50 percent and actively

pursuing an expansion of capacity, is a pretty significant response to

what had been a problem that had been growing over a period of

years.

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

G. Kyllo: I thank the minister for his response. Unfortunately, as has been

indicated, there are over 80 patients currently on the wait-list now. My

constituent Maureen has been waiting for two years already. It could be

potentially another two years before she even has that

opportunity.

Now, the friends and family of patients such as Maureen Hafstein,

Rob Mallet in Kelowna and Tom Armour of Fort Langley are calling on the

minister for a second doctor. There’s a very specific window of time in

which the DBS surgery is most effective.

Again, on behalf of Maureen, Tom and Rob and so many others, will

the minister take concrete steps to add the second surgery and provide

the necessary surgery these patients so drastically need?

Hon. A. Dix: I’ve spoken to many people on the wait-list for this surgery. It’s

an issue that affects my family and many other families, the issue of

people suffering from Parkinson’s disease.

That’s why we’re taking the steps we’re taking, which I might say

— I say this because I know the member is raising the question, and I

respect he’s raising it on behalf of his constituent — had not occurred

before. We are taking the steps required to increase the number of

surgeries this year by 50 percent, which is no small number. This is

part of an overall response and an improvement in the efficiency of the

health care system and a surgical plan that will see the reduction of

wait-lists this year in the health care system.

We think the public health care system can do better. We’ve

provided resources for it to do better. We’re improving the efficiency

of that system. I’m very proud of the work of doctors such as Dr. Honey

and many others — doctors across this system, nurses, care aides, health

science professionals — who are doing this work every day.

I hear the member. I hear people across B.C. I know the struggle

they face. I’m aware of it and working hard on it. I think we have to,

in the most respectful way possible, increase access to those services

while acknowledging that these are real challenges for people and

putting patients first.

FOSTER PARENTS

L. Throness: This month is Foster Family Month, and the government has mounted

a recruitment campaign to find more foster parents. They need to do

that. In March of 2017, there were 2,500 foster parents. This year, this

spring, the minister told me there were only 2,200. That’s a drop of 12

percent in just one year. In Chilliwack, we had information sessions for

60 interested families, and only one applied to be a foster

parent.

Why are foster parents refusing to join and quitting under this

minister?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. I think we’d all agree that

all children deserve to grow up in safe and nurturing homes. I know, as

a mother and a granny, that there’s no more demanding and rewarding

experience than being a caregiver or a parent to children. We deeply

respect and value the contributions of foster parents in this

province.

I met with foster parents last year at their AGM and again this

year in Nelson at their AGM. We talked about the issues that they go

through when they’re providing care.

I understand the numbers that the member is talking about, but we

also understand that we are looking at the foster care system

differently. We are looking at the way we provide care for children

differently. We’re looking at issues. Like within the Indigenous

communities, they don’t want to have kids put into foster care. They

want to have kids stay with families, stay with communities. So we’re

respecting that and doing things differently in working with the

Indigenous communities to ensure we can do that.

I greatly respect the work being done by foster parents. We are

working to look at a new system of funding, looking at contracted care,

foster parents, kith-and-kin to say: “What can we do differently to

ensure that the bottom line is that we are providing safe and loving

care to the children in this province?”

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: The minister has no excuse. She’s been in her job for 14 months,

and she’s done absolutely nothing to arrest the decline in foster

families under her watch. Because of her inaction, agencies are

resorting to giving away chocolate bars with a toll-free number on it,

hoping that they can find somebody with a sweet tooth who also wants to

be a foster parent.

Recruitment by chocolate bar is not enough. When will the minister

get serious about finding and keeping foster families in

B.C.?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, actually, we are doing incredible things to recruit foster

parents in this province. One of the great things that we’re doing is we

consulted with former kids in foster care. We talked to them, former

kids in care. We said: “What worked for you, and what didn’t work for

you in foster care?” They helped us to develop a new fostering website

that I’d ask all members to go onto, fosternow.ca. It actually talks

from the viewpoint of foster parents but also from the viewpoint of

former kids in care, who talk about how their life was changed by foster

parents.

One young fellow, a guy, says: “My foster mom saved my life.”

They’re really rewarding stories to look at. We’re talking to people.

Actually, we are having more calls to offices, people who are saying:

“Yes, we are interested in being foster parents.” But we have to do due

diligence, to make sure that they are the people that want to provide

the best service we can and the best, loving homes we can to kids.

That’s the bottom line, and we’re working hard at it.

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

J. Isaacs: On May 14, the province abruptly suspended intercountry adoption

from Japan. As a result, more than 30 families from B.C., including two

from my community, have been left in limbo for more than five months.

The families are desperate for answers, yet this government has kept

them in the dark.

Will the government show a little bit of compassion for these

parents-to-be and tell them what is going on?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. We feel deeply for the

parents that have gone through this situation. We are working very

Japan, to ensure that the adoptive parents who are looking to adopt

children in Japan are coming to Canada and that it is being done

properly. The worst thing that could happen is that children could be

brought to Canada and that then it would not be an adoption that could

be continued and finished.

The bottom line is ensuring, when children come from Japan, that

they are coming in an appropriate manner and that it is being done

legally. We are working with our partners in the Canadian government to

make sure that this can happen. We’ve provided legal support for the

families that were left in Japan, and they are all here back now in

Canada. We will continue to do that to work with those

families.

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

J. Isaacs: We know that Japanese children who need homes are out there, but

sadly, the province has suspended the program. Last week a B.C. adoption

agency closed its doors due to the suspension of the program and a lack

of international adoptions.

Can the minister please advise when the provincial director of

adoption will issue no-objection letters for these families so that they

can bring their children home?

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, the ministry will do that when all the legal parameters are

covered and it’s done properly.

I also want to clarify that actually, adoptions are going down in

the province. We’re seeing more families being kept together because

we’re working harder to keep families together. That is something that

is happening in this province.

We met with the agency when they expressed their concerns. The

other two agencies that are still running took over the few families

they were working with.

We know that, especially in the Indigenous communities, they don’t

want their kids to be adopted. I met with the Métis Association, with

Lii Michif Otipemisiwak, the association in Kamloops. The woman that’s

the executive director said to me: “You will notice, of the 50 kids in

care we have, none of them have been adopted because we’ve all been able

to keep them within their community, keep them with their family and

keep them with their grannies, their elders so that those children are

not being adopted.” I think it’s a great number that we’re looking

at.

SAFE CARE ACT AND YOUTH MENTAL

HEALTH AND ADDICTION

PLAN

J. Thornthwaite: I have repeatedly asked the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions to call the Safe Care Act for debate. On May 31 of this year,

the minister said: “We will be bringing forward this fall a plan for

child and youth mental health. As part of bringing forward that plan, we

will be looking very closely at all the existing proposed

legislation.”

My question is…. Time is running out, Minister. When will the Safe

Care Act be brought to this Legislature?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. J. Darcy: We are working very hard on our plan for child and youth mental

health. I continue, as part of that process, to meet with parents, to

meet with families, to meet with loved ones who are living with mental

health and addictions today and who have lost their loved ones to the

overdose crisis.

We have said in this House before…. What people who are living

with addictions or who have loved ones living with addictions have

stressed to us over and over again is that “the system failed us” and

that we need to concentrate, first and foremost, on improving a

voluntary system of care for people living with addictions in the

province of British Columbia. I’ve said many times that we are looking

at the evidence. We’re looking at the experience in other

jurisdictions.

Recently, a week ago Monday in the journal of the Canadian Medical

Association, there was a really important contribution to this

discussion. I would encourage the member opposite to look at it, if she

hasn’t yet. It said, specifically, that existing evidence that mandatory

addiction treatment does not lead to significant improvements in

substance use outcomes is something that needs to be taken very, very

seriously into account and that coercive approaches can undermine trust

and can actually set people back.

We’re looking at all of the evidence. We will act on what is in

the best interests of children and families in British

Columbia.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Families continue to talk to me — and I know that they are still

continuing to talk to the minister — and tell me that they are begging

for action from this government. Minister, it was you, six months ago,

who made the commitment…. Today it’s October 25. Six months ago you made

the commitment to come up with a plan and to review whether or not this

legislation would be coming to this House.

My question remains. When will the Safe Care Act be introduced in

this House?

Hon. J. Darcy: What I’ve committed in this House and what I’ve committed publicly

is that we will be reviewing the experience in every jurisdiction and

the experience in other countries, for that matter, in order to ensure

whether we need to introduce secure care, whether we need to amend the

Mental Health Act, whether we need to look at other policies and other

pieces of legislation.

As part of that review, we’ve looked at a report that came out of

Alberta recently, and it is also a very, very compelling report. It

looked at the experience, it looked at the stories, and it looked at the

life journeys of 12 young people who have died of overdose. One of the

things that was reported there by the Office of the Child and Youth

Advocate in Alberta was that of those 12 youth who had died of overdose,

six of them had died in secure care.

It’s important that we look at the evidence, and that’s exactly

what we will be doing. Our focus is on building a voluntary system of

care for child and youth with early intervention, early prevention so

that young people do not go down this journey towards addiction. And

we’re looking at all possible legislation and policy. Evidence is what

is going to guide our actions.

[End of question period.]

Hon. R. Fleming: With the agreement of the House, Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make

an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Fleming: During question period, we had a group of students who arrived from

École Reynolds Secondary in my constituency. Their teacher, Mme. Alecia

Jones, was here — a grade 10 French immersion class. I know that they

enjoyed themselves. I see a new group of students here as well, so I would

ask the House to make both groups of students most welcome to the

House.

There’s another gentleman I’d like to introduce to the House as well.

I see Ryan Painter here, our newest school district 61 trustee who was

elected last Saturday night. Congratulations to him. He’s been a tireless

champion for student success and student mental well-being in our school

system, and I know he’s going to do a great job over the next four years in

district 61. Welcome.

[10:55 a.m.]

Petitions

Hon. M. Mungall: I rise to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents. In the

first one they are asking for a moratorium on logging on the

Argenta–Johnsons Landing face, pending a thorough assessment and provision

for the following concerns: water security, road safety and slope stability.

That one has 106 signatures.

They also have another petition calling for the full protection of the

public land on the Argenta–Johnsons Landing face by including this

magnificent landscape within the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, thereby

completing the park from mountaintop to lakeshore.

J. Isaacs: I have three petitions to present to the Minister of Education and the

Premier. The petitions are from a constituent regarding the education

curriculum.

Orders of the Day

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

act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

M. Hunt: I am rising to speak to Bill 40, which is before us, the

referendum amendment act. I’ve been listening to the debate that has

gone on in this House, and I’ve been trying to listen to the members

opposite and hear their arguments in the midst of this referendum and

this referendum bill that’s before us. But I find it absolutely amazing

that, as they’re speaking to the bill that’s before us, in fact, they’re

all: “Rah-rah. Yes. PR is great and wonderful.” Yet I find it amazing

that they don’t get into any of the details of it.

There are three options that are being proposed on the PR side of

things, and I haven’t heard the members opposite discussing those three

options and their feelings about the options themselves, the details

about them and all the ramifications of them. It’s absolutely silent. I

find it amazing. It seems to me that what we have here is a hypothetical

situation that is put before us called proportional representation, but

as this side of the House has been saying, there are absolutely no

details. There’s absolutely no information about it. It’s just amazing

that we’re going forward with this in such absolute

ignorance.

Now, again, I recognize that the Premier has called this a leap of

faith, and maybe that’s why — because they don’t want the details out. I

know that in question period the other day, we were asking the Premier

about a debate. The ballots are already out there in the community —

well, at least some communities; certainly not in my community yet,

since we’re sort of at the tail end of the mail process. That’s fair

enough.

Many people already have their ballots, and as I’ve seen on

people that have already responded and sent it back. Yet we haven’t had

the debate that has been promised, that was promised over a month ago.

We haven’t seen that yet. I just can’t understand why. Maybe it’s just

because the government doesn’t want the details out there. They don’t

want the information out there.

[11:00 a.m.]

I find it amazing. As I was listening to the Minister of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction, in the midst of his discussions, he

talked about: “Well, the reason why the previous referendums had failed

was because the thresholds were too high.” Well, that’s interesting. In

the NDP’s own constitution…. At their last convention, there was a

motion, in fact, to amend their constitution so that people could make

amendments with 50 percent plus one vote, just like the referendum is

changing how we elect our MLAs. But I thought it was interesting that

“no, no, no, it has to stay at two-thirds.”

That’s 66.66666 percent, which is certainly higher than the 60

percent that the last referendums were held at. Ye, the minister stood

up and said: “Well, the threshold was too high.” How is it that their

own internal workings of their party have higher, and that’s okay

there?

I find it amazing that we’re sitting there saying: “It should be

just like it is in Europe.” I’m sorry, but Canada’s very different than

Europe, and certainly the province of British Columbia is very different

than Europe.

I remember my first trip to Holland. As we were driving along the

freeway…. I’ll call them freeways instead of the words that they use,

but the concept is their freeway. All of a sudden, you look up at the

mileage thing, and it says: “Paris 400 kilometres.” I mean, whoa. Europe

is small. There are a lot of people living in small areas.

When you start looking at the list of those countries that have

proportional representation and are working on the basis of proportional

representation, you see lots of population in a very, very small area.

That’s not what we have in British Columbia.

In British Columbia, we have over half the population living down

in about 1 percent of the province, in the little Lower Mainland. We

have vast, vast areas with very spread-out populations. If that little

area of the Lower Mainland, greater Vancouver, is dictating to the

entire province…? No.

The system that we have is one that, yes, is lopsided. It’s

different. But it addresses the issues of B.C. It’s dealing with the

challenges of British Columbia. It’s dealing with the vast, vast areas

that some of the members here…. Actually, on both sides of the House for

that matter. When you get up into northern B.C., they are massive,

massive ridings.

I know that in my previous riding of Surrey-Panorama, I could

drive from one corner of it to another within 15 minutes. I’ve never

tried it with my current riding, because my current riding has a lot

more agricultural land in it, so it’s a little more distant. But still,

compare it to what’s going on up in northern B.C., where literally, a

member can’t get from one corner of his or her riding to the other

corner in a day. They have to fly back and forth.

Certainly, the system that we have today is dealing with those

challenges — and the courts. It has been taken to court, and the courts

have agreed with that. The courts have declared: “Yes, there is

uniqueness here, and that uniqueness needs to be addressed and needs to

be worked on.”

When I listen to what’s been happening here, with the whole

concept of this referendum…. I’m listening to an awful lot of wonderful

slogans, wonderful lines coming from the members of government. But, in

fact, where are the details? Where’s the substance? Where’s the essence?

It just reminds me of the magic show that you go to as kids.

Well, actually, it’s not magic at all. It’s the art of the

illusion. In the art of the illusion, what you’re really trying to do is

to get people’s focus over here while something is happening over there.

I think that’s exactly what’s going on in this whole

referendum.

The illusion is: “Every vote counts. Let’s have the number of

seats in the House exactly equal to the number of votes that are cast.

Won’t that be wonderful?” Sounds good. Sounds interesting.

[11:05 a.m.]

We had a similar thing going on in a previous bill that was

saying: “We’re going to get big money out of the elections. We’re going

to get big business and big unions out.” Well, how did that work in the

municipal election that we’ve just gone through last week? We definitely

know that in some of the ridings, we had the big unions hiring people —

or, I should rather say, paying people — to actually go out and canvass

and work for those who were running.

Now, is that going to be on the disclosure of the candidate who

was running? No, it’s under third party. There are loopholes in the

midst of the legislation that was created, or the former legal structure

hasn’t been changed so that we, in fact, took care of those things and

actually got what was said. Big unions, big business, out of elections

didn’t happen.

I think what’s happening here, as we look at this, is if we look

deeper, the reality is that what we’re seeing is a shift in power. There

are many types of proportional representation, and certainly, as we look

at the debate that’s going on in the midst of the province, many people

are dealing with this country, that country and the other country and

all pulling them together and saying this, this and this and “therefore,

it’s okay.” But we don’t know, again, the details of whether we’re

dealing with open lists or closed lists. What are we dealing with? What

are we working with?

Actually, what we’re seeing is that the three propositions that

are on this ballot are all propositions that are centred on political

parties. Now, again, two of them have never been used in the world

before, so they’re totally unique. Actually, they weren’t even a part of

the consultation process that went on that was supposedly great, the

biggest consultation this province has ever seen, but suddenly they

appear out of nowhere on the ballot. Two of them have never been used.

But in the midst of all three of them, all three proposals are focused

on political parties, political parties making the decisions. They’re

the ones that are going to choose who, in fact, sits in this

Legislature.

I have a real concern with that. If we look back to 2005, 2009,

those two referendums, they were built on the basis of a citizens

committee that in 2004 assembled with, I believe it was, 160 members

selected from around the province, theoretically. I don’t know exactly

how they were chosen, but at least in theory, they were chosen to

represent the citizens and all the different areas of the province. The

system they came up with was the single transferrable ballot, which in

fact kept the power in the hands of the voters.

Now, yes, the individual had to get 50 percent plus one vote, so

they at least got the majority of the votes from their constituency, but

it was the voters who were making the choice. Their votes were going

directly to who sits in this House and represents them — not the party.

It wasn’t a vote for the party.

As a matter of fact, I heard, in the midst of the debate, one of

the members standing up…. The member from Sunshine Coast stood up and

said: “You get to vote for the party.” Well, I’m sorry, but the system

that we have had and worked with is a system where the voter votes for

the individual that they want here in the midst of this

House.

Now, I do recognize that some people don’t. I recognize that.

There are some people that just vote for the party. As a result — the

classic line — the dog catcher could be in this House, you know, if they

run with the right party and get the right nomination. But at

least….

Interjection.

M. Hunt: I’m not suggesting which side of the House. I’m talking in a

generality here, so as not to offend the Minister of Health. The thing

is that it wasn’t the party that was actually deciding who got here.

Yes, maybe leading up into the nomination, they had it, but there were

individuals who were standing and running. I can assure you that there

are a lot of people in every riding who are voting for the person, not

for the party.

[11:10 a.m.]

So all those who were elected into this House under the proposals

of 2005 and 2009 for proportional representation would all be elected by

50 percent plus one, at least, of those who cast their votes, not by

political parties making decisions in the back rooms.

Now, that’s not what we have before us. We, in fact, have the

systems that were up for options. Well, it’s interesting how the ones

that were voter-centric have been removed, and instead, we have all

three being party-centric — created so that the parties are the ones

that are powerful. It’s the parties that are the ones that have the

power.

As I have lived my short life here in Canada…. Well, that’s a

definition of terms, isn’t it? Anyhow, as I have lived my whole life

here in Canada, I have constantly heard this debate over the Senate —

whether the Senate should be elected or appointed, whether the Senate

should be thrown out altogether. We’ve had this national discussion. I

don’t think it’s ever gotten into a real debate, but at least there’s

been a national discussion about it.

The concern has always been the same: the powers of the party; the

power of the Prime Minister or the Premier, who gets to select who’s in

the cabinet, who gets to select the issues. Therefore, the theory…. Now,

I wouldn’t disparage anyone on the government side for this, but the

theory is that those would clamour to be obedient to the Premier so that

they could get the plum job of being a cabinet minister.

But now, instead, it’s the voters choosing the party. And it’s

only…. If we look at many of these that were multiple members, it’s

actually only the first member who is directly elected by, interestingly

enough, first-past-the-post. Then everyone else after that goes on the

basis of the percentage of the vote — which therefore, goes back to

party lists. And either you’re on that list, or you’re off the list. Who

controls how the list and the order of the list…? Well, it’s all the

folks in the back rooms, the folks that we don’t get to see, that we’re

not involved with.

So really, this referendum is government of the political parties

by the political parties for the political parties. That’s why this

whole referendum process stinks. Because it’s all done by political

parties. It wasn’t done, even though the Premier promised it. He

promised that there would be a citizens’ assembly. He promised there

would be neutrality and all of sort of that stuff. Well, that’s not what

happened.

You know, I’ve been listening to the accusations made, and it’s

all about these falsehoods, these fabrications and

fearmongering.

You see? My dear friend from Surrey-Whalley — I was just taking a

breath there, because I know it’s Whalley — pounds the table, because he

quite agrees. And actually, that’s what we heard from most of

them.

I find it interesting that the definition of fearmongering is the

other guys. We’ve heard them raise the issue of “oh my, Premier Ford in

Ontario” or comments about the President of the United States of America

— duly elected by the way, within their system. But that’s not

fearmongering; that’s dealing with fact.

Well, I think we’re dealing with fact. Actually, we would like to

deal with facts, but we don’t have the facts to deal with, because all

we have is three hypotheticals. A hypothetical first question, which is

first-past-the-post, which we know clearly; the concept of proportional

representation; and then three theories that have no information about

them and no understanding about them.

But you know, Halloween is just around the corner, and this is the

time of the scary movies. This is the time where, you know, the classic

Alfred Hitchcock, for those that are old enough to know and remember

Alfred Hitchcock — the scary movie. And what made the scary movie scary?

Well, usually it was either fog or mist, so that you can’t

see.

[11:15 a.m.]

Or it was darkness of night. People are afraid of the dark. Well,

isn’t that amazing, because that’s exactly what Vaughn Palmer suggests

is going on in this referendum. Although the Premier calls it a “leap of

faith,” Vaughn Palmer called it a leap into the darkness. And that’s

exactly what it is. It’s the scary movie. I don’t have to promote

fearmongering on this side. The citizens of this province are in fear

because of the lack of detail, the lack of information.

We heard it this morning in question period. We heard the cabinet

ministers, each of them standing up and saying they were for openness

and transparency and that that’s how they were running this government.

Well, if that’s the case, let’s get open and transparent right here —

Bill 40.

Let’s get this whole referendum…. Let’s get it out there in

clarity. Let us get it out there in people being able to clearly

understand what the options are. Really, in this shift, we’re actually

having the citizens give up their rights to determine who is in this

House and give it to political parties. And that is a huge

change.

Again, my ancestors came to North America 400 years ago seeking

freedom. They left Europe because they didn’t have the freedom and the

liberty there that they wanted to. They came for freedom, and that is

what has been offered in North America, particularly here in Canada. We

have offered that to the world since before we were a nation. We’ve had

freedom and liberty. That’s why we see massive immigration and massive

lineups of people trying to get into Canada, because Canada is unique.

Canada is different.

Canada is a wonderful country where we accept people, and it

doesn’t matter what colour of skin you happen to have. It doesn’t matter

what country you’ve come from. It doesn’t matter what your religious

background is. We offer freedom, hope, opportunity, to all peoples.

That’s the uniqueness of Canada. And that’s why I’m not afraid to have a

system that isn’t the same as what’s going on over in Europe. My

ancestors left Europe a long time ago because they wanted the freedom

and the liberty that is offered to us here in Canada.

Now, one of the other things that I heard from the other side of

the House was: “Well, we’ve been open and transparent because we’ve sent

out a 24-page…. There’s a 24-page Voter’s Guide out there that

is going to make things very clear, and everybody is going to understand

what’s going on.” Well, it’s interesting. I took it off the Internet

because I haven’t got my package yet. I printed off the 24 pages that is

this wonderful Voter’s Guide that’s being sent out to

everybody.

It’s really interesting because it, first of all, talks about the

referendum. It says who can vote. That’s page 2. And what the referendum

is about. The referendum ballot itself — what it’s going to look like is

page 3. Page 4 is “How to vote.” Page 5 is “How to ask for a voting

package.” Page 6 deals with important dates. How I can get help in

voting if I need it, and translation services.

What happens after the referendum? Well, that’s a really good

question. Actually, what happens after the referendum is the fact that

then the NDP-Greens will decide what’s going on, and cabinet will make

the final decisions on all the details that they don’t want you to

have.

Then “What is a voting system?” We’re already at page 10 here of

these 24 pages. Actually, it’s 22 according to the list. There are extra

pages for the covers and that. But here we are. We’re actually here at

page 10, and we haven’t even talked about any of the four systems that

are in front of the taxpayers. Boy, this information is great. I’m sure

this is going to help everybody to clearly understand.

Then finally, we have two pages, 10 and 11, dealing with what the

first-past-the-post system is. I don’t think anybody, other than

academics and those of us that are really into it, have ever called this

system first-past-the-post. Then it deals with the concept of

proportional representation. This is page 12.

[11:20 a.m.]

Then we deal with a graph “at a glance” on page 13 of what

first-past-the-post looks like and what a proportional representation

system might look like. Then at page 14 to page 21, we finally get a

little bit about what these voting systems are — these three that are

before us.

It’s really interesting, because all they do here is talk about

characteristics of these three systems. Again, we have no details on

this. We don’t know for sure what’s going on. We simply have

characteristics. It might be this. It might be that. It might be the

other thing. It’s absolutely amazing. The information here is not

information about what’s actually going on. It’s not dealing in details.

It’s, rather, dealing with what might happen, what might not

happen.

Actually, what’s before us, Bill 40, is dealing with having a

second referendum. That’s the issue that Bill 40 is all about. But, you

know, it’s amazing. This brochure was produced before Bill 40 ever

arrived in this House, before this concept: “Going to make it

law.”

Well, it’s interesting, because page 8 of the information here

says…. Oh, I guess I should read the beginning of the paragraph. It’s a

list of different things. It says: “If a proportional representation

voting system is adopted, the government has said that after the

referendum, they would….” Then it lists off these things that the

government has said it would do.

It’s not saying this will happen. It’s simply “the government said

so,” just like the government said they would have a citizens’

committee. That didn’t happen. The government said they would have one

question: yes or no? That didn’t happen. The government said…. There’s

such a long list of what the government said. But anyhow, the government

hasn’t done any of the above.

At least here, we’re going on. What does it say? The last bullet

says: “Another referendum will be held after the second general

elections to see if B.C. wants to keep the new voting system or go back

to using first-past-the-post.” Isn’t that amazing? These guys at

Elections B.C. are absolutely awesome. They saw into the future. They

saw that this government was going to introduce Bill 40, and they

already put it in the literature before it ever happened. Amazing. I

tell you, the wonderful folks at Elections B.C. can see the future.

Maybe they can tell us what’s going to happen in the next election so

it’ll just make it all easier for all of us, and we won’t have to spend

so much time and money and effort.

This was already something the government said it was going to do,

so why is Bill 40 even before us? Why is Bill 40 even here? It isn’t

giving us any…. This bill that’s before us isn’t getting any clarity.

It’s not making things easier for us. I would suggest that it’s

here….

Oh my, Madame Speaker, I need to be careful how I say this. We’re

accused of fearmongering, so I want to be very, very careful how I say

this. But maybe it’s because the government wants to reduce the fear

that the electorate is feeling over this referendum. Maybe the

fearmongers are actually the government side, because they haven’t given

any details of what’s actually going on here. What a thought.

Maybe the real fearmongers are those who are trying to keep the

electorate ignorant so that they don’t know. Or maybe what it is, is

that they’re trying…. After all, you know, in the midst of this

referendum, there was only $500,000 that was given to the yes side and

$500,000 that was given to the no side, and then third parties could

spend up to $200,000 each.

[11:25 a.m.]

Maybe what it is, is the government has decided: “Hey, we’re not

doing as well in the polls as we thought we were. Maybe we need to spend

some more money on this. Maybe what we’ll do is we’ll introduce a bill

in the House in order to be able to allow the government to spend more

money on this referendum. Now there’ll be House talking about House

affairs and dealing with House information.” I don’t know.

It’s interesting how we have one of the members of our side of the

House who has been trying to get information out to his constituents,

and Elections B.C. says that he can’t spend money unless he

registers.

I’m sorry, but there is so little information on this. There is so

little for us to work with here that I’d like to move an amendment to

the bill that’s before us. Here’s a copy of it for Madame Speaker, and I

have copies of it for the House Leaders of the two parties so that they

can have it. I’ll read it to you, Madame Speaker, while that’s being

circulated.

I would move:

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

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 be

amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting

therefore the following:

“Bill (No. 40) not be read a second time now but that the

subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.”]

That is my motion, Madame Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order. Please proceed.

On the amendment.

M. Hunt: I have a real concern that even on this bill that is before us, we

simply don’t have enough information. We don’t have details.

I find it amazing what is before us, considering what’s gone on in

this House over the last week — and we’ll just deal with the last week.

Here we’re talking about holding a second referendum sometime in the

future. But in this House during this parliament, we have had the

government decide the legislation that was before this House years ago

called the carbon tax…. We will now forget the part that says it will be

revenue-neutral. Now we’re going to make it…. Well, we’ll make it just a

good government revenue source.

Bill 41. We’re talking about Bill 40 and moving this amendment to

Bill 40. But what is Bill 41 that is before the House? It’s entitled

Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act. It only consists of two clauses.

The first clause is: “The Public Education Flexibility and Choice

Act …2002, is repealed.” The second: “This Act comes into force

on the date of Royal Assent.”

This parliament cannot bind future parliaments. It’s very evident

by the actions that have been taken by this government — both on the

carbon tax and here, Bill 41, dealing with the Public Education

Flexibility and Choice Act. It’s just that simple. You do it by policy,

by order-in-council, or you just bring in a piece of paper and repeal

it. So what’s before us really isn’t worth the paper that it’s written

on. It’s an absolute waste of paper that’s before us because we can’t

bind future parliaments, and that’s exactly the intent of what Bill 40

is.

I think that this needs to go to committee so that the committee

can determine what’s really going on here. Let’s have that discussion

because, really, what we’ve had in this House up until this point in

time is we’ve had the government members all stand up and say: “Isn’t it

wonderful?” And the members on the opposition have said: “Isn’t it

terrible?” Members of government have stood up and said: “You’re just

fearmongering.” And we’re saying: “We just want details.”

[11:30 a.m.]

Maybe let best thing is let’s just send it off to committee, and

let’s let the committee come up with the details. Let’s let the

committee come up with the thoughts of how in the world this is actually

going to work. How is this going to be enforced?

Now, we have heard it earlier today. We don’t have to go back into

ancient history. We can simply go to this morning’s question period. At

this morning’s question period, we had at least two ministers…. Now, I

noticed it on two, and I have to admit, I might have missed it on the

responses from other ministers from this morning. But they did get up

with: “This government is marked by openness and transparency, not like

that previous government.”

Well, let’s get open and transparent here, folks. Let’s get the

details out. Let’s find out what’s actually going on instead of the bill

that’s before us — or the redundant bill that’s before us, because

Elections B.C. has already said it’s going to happen.

You see, once again, the Premier called this a leap of faith. I

don’t think the taxpayers, the voters of this province, should be

leaping by faith about anything. I think they should know what’s going

on. There should be a clear understanding of what’s

happening.

I think a committee working on this can bring that clarity to this

House. Vaughn Palmer called it a leap into the darkness. We need

clarity. We need understanding. We need to know what is happening

here.

Now that we’re talking about the amendment, I again bring up the

scary movies, because without clarity…. If you see the bad guy coming —

if you can see the big monster, King Kong, coming — there’s no fear

here. You know what’s happening. You know what’s going on.

Actually, of course, the joke is told about the Prairies — since I

was originally from the Prairies — that your dog can run away from home,

and you can watch it for the next three days running away because it’s

all just flat and open and transparent. There is no scary movie there.

There’s no scary thing. You can see it coming.

You can see the thunderstorm. You’ve got lots of time when that

thunderstorm comes rolling in the Prairies on a good summer’s evening.

When you see those dark clouds coming, you’ve got time to prepare and

get your stuff in. I think that’s what’s necessary here. That’s why the

amendment before us is, in fact, to go into committee and get this

committee to bring light upon this.

The members opposite love to talk about Europe and all these

wonderful countries that have proportional representation and the

wonderful things they’re doing. A quote from The Economist

magazine. Again, The Economist magazine, for those who aren’t

familiar with it, is a European magazine usually dealing with financial

and political things.

They’re talking about the wonderful homeland of proportional

representation, Italy, and amendments that are being made in Italy to

their form of proportional representation. It’s talking about a new

electoral law that was approved — now again, this is a year ago, so this

was in October of last year — that might limit the members’ freedoms, if

only slightly.

I am now quoting from The Economist: “One reason so many

parliamentarians override their constituency wishes is that they are

largely unanswerable to them. Since 2005, they have been chosen, in

multi-seat constituencies, from slates crafted by party leaders who

decide which candidates can stand the best chance of election. Only in

the anti-establishment Five Star Movement do the rank and file determine

the order of the candidates on each slate.” That’s not even the voters.

That’s this one party where the rank and file of the party decides the

list. Forget this open list of voters deciding the list. It’s all done

in the back rooms.

[11:35 a.m.]

This new law means that some lawmakers, though still barely a

third of those in the Italian Parliament, will be chosen at the next

election how? On a first-past-the-post basis in single-seat

constituency. Isn’t that amazing that we have the wonderful heart bed of

proportional representation, Italy, in fact saying: “We are going back

to first-past-the-post”?

Now, they’re only doing it by a third of them, but at least that’s

a third. They’re starting on that road back to first-past-the-post,

because they have found proportional representation to be such an

absolute and complete disaster.

We’ve heard from the Premier. The Premier has stood up, speaking

on the debate to Bill 40. Now, there’s an interesting one. The Premier

has stood up to speak about the referendum, and you know what? He’s

afraid to speak in front of a TV camera in an open debate on

proportional representation.

He agreed to it over a month ago, and where’s the date? Where is

the time? What’s going on? It’s all been stalled by — oh no, it couldn’t

be the Premier; no, no, no — his staff. We’ve got to throw the staff

under the bus once again. Somehow they can’t come up with a

date.

They could come up with a date — what was it? — two days ago. Was

it two days ago, the crystal palace thing? There was the ability of….

Both the Premier and the Leader of the Third Party were able to have a

wonderful pro-PR political rally, and that was great. But — oh my — this

side of the House isn’t allowed to spend money on that sort of stuff.

This side of the House gets rules by Elections B.C. that we can’t even

boost a Facebook post.

Somehow the rules around this place seem very strange to me. But

again, somehow we’re throwing all of our staff under the bus because the

Premier doesn’t want to set a date and a time because the Premier

doesn’t want the information to get out.

Now, I realize there were some harsh words that were said here in

the House in question period on Tuesday, and I don’t know that I would

necessarily use some of words that were spoken. But I think what, in

fact, we did see was a Premier who doesn’t want the facts and the

information to get out to the voters so that they can clearly make a

decision. That is what I think was the difference between the 2005 and

the 2009 votes on the referendum. More details got out. More information

got out.

So now what’s the intent? The intent is simply rag the puck. Let’s

stall and delay. Maybe around the end of November, we’ll finally have a

debate on this, once everybody’s already sent their ballots in. That’s

why I think it’s important that this go to committee so we get

clarity.

Again, just to keep things clear here, the Premier stood up in

this House, and here’s what the Premier said:

“For four years, I sat on that side of the House,” referring to us

over here in opposition, “offering, I’d like to think, on occasion,

useful suggestions to the government, whether it be in this place or in

the budget estimates that happen annually, bringing forward ideas from

not just myself but from the people that I represented at the time in

Malahat–Juan de Fuca, and I got zero response from the

government.”

Now, that was his reasoning for saying that we should have

proportional representation. But the facts don’t back that up, because

we have $53.9 million spent on Belmont Secondary School to accommodate

12,000 students — a brand-new school; decision, June 27, 2013 — and $7.4

million in provincial funding to extend the West Shore Parkway project.

Now, again, there are even matching funds from the federal government as

well as from the city of Langford for a total of $22 million, but that

was in July of 2015. Then $7 million in capital funding for the Pacifica

Housing Advisory Association of B.C. That was October of 2016. And $6

million in construction funding….

[11:40 a.m.]

It’s amazing. The list goes on and on and on. Actually, there are

three pages in this list, totalling $105 million, but the Premier got up

and said he got zero. I find this amazing, because so much of what is

happening is smoke and mirrors here. We’re talking about an illusion of

proportional representation, but where are the details? Where are the

facts? Where’s the information that’s before us? It’s absolutely

amazing.

Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the amendment.

M. Hunt: Absolutely, Madame Speaker. That’s why I’m speaking to the

amendment. The amendment is to send this to committee so the committee

can clear up the details.

I’m just trying to show, in the midst of the debates that have

gone on here, how what is being said doesn’t line up with the facts. The

reality is that what’s before us, in Bill 40, is a proposal to, in fact,

have a second referendum. I’m saying: how can this be? How is that even

enforceable in the real world?

I think a committee looking at it and discussing it can actually

give a clarity as to whether there’s any use to this — which I don’t

think there is — or whether it is in fact doable or workable. What I’m

trying to do is to bring evidence of lack of detail. By lack of detail,

I’m saying this should get to committee so that we can actually get some

more decisions, because this whole proposal, this whole thing that is

before us, is rigged. It’s all rigged, because it’s going in one

direction.

Again, the three proposals that are before us are all focused on

the party. The voters here are not being given an opportunity to have a

system that is voter-centric. There are those systems. Now again, maybe

they’re not used very often through other proportional representation

countries that are using that, but the opportunity is there for the

voters to keep a hold of their most precious item, and that is their

vote, their power to choose who sits in this House.

That’s the clarity I’m looking for. Those are the details that

we’re asking for. In the midst of this entire proposal that is before us

and the whole referendum itself, again, we say there’s this

accountability. We say that there is this, that and the other thing, but

even the issue of local representation is getting more and more

diluted.

Again, I could sit there and go through the three different

proposals before us, but as we get larger and larger ridings…. That

isn’t necessarily bad, because I have served as a councillor in the city

of Surrey. In the city of Surrey, we don’t have constituencies, as my

friend from Surrey-Whalley has also. We sat together in the good Surrey

council. We had some interesting sparring opportunities in the midst of

Surrey council. Again, it was amazing. Even there, we sat on opposite

sides of the council desk as we were there. It was just

amazing.

Even in the midst of all of Surrey…. It, by the way, is currently

nine ridings or nine constituencies. Good for Surrey. We’re getting our

representation and our voice here, and that’s a good thing. But you see,

I’m not afraid of representing all of Surrey. I’ve done it for 23 years.

I have no problem with that.

Where I do have a problem is, as we look at the vastness of this

province…. We’re talking about Surrey, we’re talking about the Lower

Mainland. Again, the Lower Mainland, although it’s half the population

of this wonderful province, it’s only — I haven’t done the math on it,

but I’m guessing — about 1 percent of the land. It’s very, very little

of the whole of this province.

That’s why we have a system where we protect the members up north.

They don’t have as many constituents because they have vast, vast areas

to represent. But we’ll be losing even more of that, because, as was

shown…. In the 2009 referendum, I think we had almost a third of the

province in one riding. It was going to be one riding in the midst of

this.

[11:45 a.m.]

So we lose that local representation. The voter loses that local

perspective. This is a referendum that has been created by…. The

proposals that we have on the ballot are created by political parties

for political parties to keep political parties in power and keep them

working.

I don’t necessarily say that our party is better than their party.

I wouldn’t say such a thing. I would say they’re the same in the fact

that they’re both parties….

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Oh no. We have very different perspectives on things, and that’s

why I sit with this group, because I am more aligned with this group and

what they’re doing. By the same token, that is part of the beauty of the

parties we have.

Now, yes, it might be nice to have more of a third party or a

fourth party. Actually, we have, I think, about — what is it? — 27 or 28

parties in B.C., something like that, right now under the current system

that we have. But all of these parties are coalitions. They’re people

working together so that the very platforms that we put out are, in

fact, compromises of the…. I don’t want to use the word “extremes,”

because that’s an inappropriate term, at least for our side of the

House.

We have different perspectives, we come together, and we have a

commonality. We put forward a platform to the citizens that’s a

commonality of working together to say: “We think this is the direction

that we should go.”

Now, I don’t question for one minute that the members opposite

also want a better British Columbia than we have today. We want to see

improvements for our kids and our grandkids. Yes, some of us have a lot

of grandkids. Some of us have a lot of stake in the future of this

province. But again, we’re here, people vote for us.

yesterday. We had a debate going on over proportional representation. I

was putting forward my thoughts, and a friend of mine for years and

years was disagreeing with me. Another one came up and said…. I guess

I’m not allowed to use my name here because I’m a representative. But

anyhow, they basically said: “Well, we trust you because we’ve known you

for so many years. We’ve known to trust you.”

That kind of relationship between a member in this House and his

constituency is absolutely invaluable. To me, that’s what makes this

House work. Even though, yes, we can have our disagreements across this

House — we can say that they’re doing it the wrong way, and they can say

we did it the wrong way, and we can have all this — we know our

constituents. Our constituents know us.

They have chosen to put their confidence in us directly by their

vote, not from some list that’s sitting, created by only the Lord knows

how. Somebody’s making the choice of who’s out here. My constituents get

stuck with this person who may not even live anywhere near Surrey. It

could be somebody that they’ve picked off a list that lives over in

Cowichan Bay or something.

Interjections.

M. Hunt: Yeah, they could be East Vancouver. You’re absolutely right. It

could be…. Is it Kensington? They could actually be from that Kensington

area of Vancouver instead of someone representing our good Surrey. We

don’t know those things. Those are details, again, that I think we need

to be dealing with in the midst of committee. That’s why I have moved

the motion.

I’m noticing my time. I’m wondering, Madame Speaker, shall I

continue on?

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Okay. Hey, I’ve got lots of stuff to do. I’m happy to keep

going.

There’s that relationship, and I think that’s so critical, and

it’s so important that we work on that, that we continue. Because if

this referendum, in fact, is two elections from now, which could be up

to ten years from now…. Actually, it could be more than that, because

it’s going to be ten years because they’re, theoretically, five-year

mandates. So that could be 12 years from now. There’s an awful lot of

history that gets lost in the midst of 12 years.

I dare say: how many of the members sitting in this House will be

here 12 years from now? The normal…. Yeah, okay. We’ve got a couple

putting up their hands, and that’s good for them. But the reality is

that when we look at the history of this House, the average time that a

member serves in this Legislature is, in fact, eight years.

I realize, of course, Madame Speaker, that you are an absolute

exception to that. If my memory serves me correctly, you are, in fact,

the longest-serving member of this House. Certainly, congratulations to

you, Madame Speaker, for that.

[11:50 a.m.]

Of course, that is why I never argue with Madame Speaker when she

says I’m out of order or I need to adjust things, because she’s

certainly….

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Exactly, just like now. When she says to keep going, I’m going:

“Absolutely, we’re going to do this.”

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

When we look at stability…. I mean, she has to be an example of

stability that has been here — a long-serving relationship with her

constituents in Richmond. They know who she is. They know what she’s

thinking. They’re working together, and there’s that solid

relationship.

It’s not like what we see when we go, for example, to Italy — 65

governments since World War II, Greece at 50, Belgium at 43.

I now see the leader of the government saying: “Marvin, you’ve had

enough.” It’s time for lunch, and he’s getting hungry.

Mr. Speaker, I would move….

Interjections.

M. Hunt: No. I’m just looking at the…. I know who the boss in this House

is, and the Government House Leader is the boss of this House. He’s

looking at me, telling me: “Get it over.” The Speaker is nodding his

head up and down.

With great, great reluctance, I move that we adjourn and have

lunch. I move adjournment of the debate, and of course, I’ll reserve my

right to continue on, because I have so much more to say.

M. Hunt moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada