Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 72

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Luwana Daoust

N. Simons

Statements

Movember fundraising campaign

N. Letnick

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Paul Smale

S. Chandra Herbert

Laurie Gourlay

D. Routley

Angela Larsen

L. Reid

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Silver Star Ski Resort

E. Foster

Nanjing Massacre

R. Kahlon

Fort Nelson Community Literacy Society

D. Davies

Internet and role of Net neutrality

B. Ma

Gratitude in role as MLA

S. Furstenau

Days of Activism campaign against gender-based violence

R. Singh

Oral Questions

B.C. NDP government action on campaign statements

R. Coleman

Hon. J. Horgan

Rebate for residential tenants

S. Sullivan

Hon. S. Robinson

Deep-well royalty program

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Mungall

Government plan for child care

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

Review of ride-sharing and taxi industries

M. Polak

Hon. C. Trevena

Albert Giesbrecht release and bail conditions

J. Rustad

Hon. M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Office of the Merit Commissioner, merit performance audit, 2016-17

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act (continued)

S. Gibson

C. Oakes

M. Morris

D. Barnett

J. Isaacs

Hon. D. Eby

J. Rustad

M. Polak

A. Olsen

J. Thornthwaite

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Legislative Assembly

Estimates: Officers of the Legislature

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2017

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

LUWANA DAOUST

N. Simons: Today is a special day, obviously, for all of us. We are all

heading home, and that’s a good thing. It’s a special day, in

particular, for someone who we see on a daily basis in the dining room.

That’s Luwana, who we’ve known over the years as a welcoming face in the

dining room and someone who’s been an important part of our lives. Today

is a day that will be her last day in the dining room. She’s also going

home to Hawaii, where her family is.

As they say, and she says, when a door opens, another bigger door

opens, and that’s a good thing for her. I just want to say, on behalf of

everybody in this chamber and everyone who’s had the opportunity to meet

her, thank you, Luwana, for your service to us in the House and all the

guests who’ve come through the door. We’ll miss you a lot.

Statements

MOVEMBER FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN

N. Letnick: It gives me great privilege to stand up today and remind everybody

that today is the day we get to reintroduce our upper lips to our wives,

children and grandchildren. Today is the end of Movember. On behalf of

men everywhere, and everyone that participated in this campaign, I’d

like to thank them all and remind them they have until the end of today

to contribute and to help raise awareness for prostate cancer and men’s

health in general.

Could the House please contribute and say thank you to all the men

and others who helped make Movember as successful as it was.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Popham: I noticed that I’ve got someone very special in the chamber today. She

is my administrative assistant. Her name is Justine Wendland. She’s visiting

us for the first time. She’s joined by my ministerial assistant, Jessica

Smith.

I’d just like to thank my whole team, who made this session so

delightful. Jessica, Greg, Will, Lisa and Justine, thanks for everything

you’ve done for me.

Tributes

PAUL SMALE

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise with some sadness to inform the House that a former

constituency assistant of mine named Paul Smale passed away the other

day. He only worked with me for a short time but made an incredible

impression on constituents. He was bright, friendly, funny and had a

really positive spirit. His most important desire, at least that I could

see, was to ensure that those who were marginalized, those who had been

forgotten and those who’d been ignored were listened to and found a

friendly face in my office, somebody who would make them feel welcome,

that they mattered and that they were worth his time and, indeed, worth

the time of us all.

[10:10 a.m.]

I want to thank his partner, Tom Coleman, for sharing him with us

and, really, just to thank his friends and family for providing him with

the support he needed so that he could give his all to my constituents

in Vancouver–West End, Coal Harbour. Paul was a remarkable guy. I’m

sorry that I didn’t get to know him better in the short time that he was

with my office. He will really be missed in my community.

LAURIE GOURLAY

D. Routley: I would like the members to allow me indulgence as I remember my

constituency assistant. I promised myself to start this optimistically,

and I was in tears before starting. So here we are.

Laurie William Gourlay was born in Hamilton, Scotland, October 23,

1953. Laurie died on November 14, 2017, in the arms of his sweetheart —

who’s watching, his 41-year wife, Jackie Moad — and in the company of

their six Lassie collies. As we all know, our constituency assistants

become our friends — so Laurie is much more my friend — and also our

partners in what we do.

Laurie was a person who was so dedicated to the environment, like

no one I had ever met, and would pour every ounce of his soul into every

organization that he was a part of beginning — the Georgia Strait

Alliance and the recycling programs of B.C. This is a person who had

dedicated himself to our planet and everyone on it, all living things,

in the most optimistic way. Laurie was a “doot-de-doodly-doo” kind of

guy. He was a hippie, and his long grey locks to the very end reminded

us all of his lifelong commitment to these efforts.

More importantly, Laurie was a person who didn’t divide. He was

forgiving of people who hadn’t reached the plateau of awareness that he

had. He was always helpful, and everything he did was meant to uplift

people. I think that’s what everyone who knows him will remember the

most.

Jackie, we love you. Laurie, we love you.

Thank you, Members.

ANGELA LARSEN

L. Reid: I would like the House to join with me this morning in wishing the

fondest of farewells for someone who worked in this place for more than

40 years. I speak of Angela Larsen. She, indeed, was the fiercest

protector of the Office of the Speaker. She taught many a new member the

ropes in this place.

For 40 years of dedication, I’d ask the House to please join me in

wishing her the best retirement ever.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Trevena: I would like to introduce somebody who is new to working at the

Legislature, a new public servant who is working in my office. Lindsey

Jackson is my administrative coordinator. She’s been in my office for about

five weeks, has made our team work extraordinarily smoothly and has shown

her skills, working in the non-partisan way that all public servants do,

along with my administrative assistant, Jacqueline Chapotelle. Lindsey is going to be observing question period

in person for the first time today, and I hope the House will make her very

welcome.

A. Olsen: It is with sadness that we will bid farewell to the member for Peace

River North’s moustache. He has been promising us down at this end that it’s

going to be going.

I would like to make an introduction. Emma Coles is a teacher at

ḰELSET Elementary School. She was my

son Silas’s grade 2 teacher. She’ll be here with 24 grade 5 students,

including a young gentleman that I coached in soccer, Ryan Sylvester.

They’re not in the House yet, but would the House make them feel welcome in

anticipation of their arrival.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two very special people in the

gallery today. They are Jillian Oliver, the press secretary for our caucus,

and Stefan Jonsson, the B.C. Green press secretary. We couldn’t do what we

do without their amazing help. We thank them, and I wish the House to make

them feel very welcome.

[10:15 a.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SILVER STAR SKI RESORT

E. Foster: It gives me pleasure today to rise and speak about the ski

industry, which has a huge impact on B.C.’s economy and, particularly,

Vernon.

Silver Star Ski Resort is a cornerstone of winter tourism in

Vernon. They hire close to 700 staff at the peak — 150 full-time, 120

returning — and the balance are seasonal. The company’s payroll is close

to $11 million annually, and much of that is spent in the local economy,

as it is earned there. The company also spends far more than that on

goods and services, again, most of which is supplied locally. Silver

Star has invested over $65 million in infrastructure, lifts, buildings

and developments in the past 15 years.

The Silver Star official community plan and the Silver Star resort

master plan update of 2015 recognized the Silver Star resort community

as an emerging year-round destination. Currently about 70 percent of the

visits are regional, and 30 percent are destination. Provincially, 75

percent are from B.C., 10 percent from Alberta and 11 percent from

Ontario.

It has been estimated that the overall Silver Star resort

community, which also includes the ski hill and the lift operators, is

an important part of the regional economy by employing more than 1,500

people, attracting annually in excess of 5,000 visitor days, with an

estimated $50 million in visitor spending annually.

There are over 30 ski hills of various sizes around the province,

not including heli-ski and cat ski resorts. If you use Silver Star’s

impact on the local economy as a multiplier, it’s easy to see the

industry’s value to the province. So with the snow starting to fall and

the lifts opening, I, along with most members of the House, wish my

friends at Silver Star and all the ski hills in the province a very

successful year.

NANJING MASSACRE

R. Kahlon: On December 13, people across the world will pay tribute to the

lives of more than 200,000 Chinese victims in the city of Nanjing. In

late 1937, during the second Sino-Japanese war, hundreds of thousands of

people, including both soldiers and civilians, were killed. The horrific

events are known as the Nanjing Massacre, and many reports documented

that 20,000 to 80,000 women were sexually assaulted.

As Canadians, we are well informed of many historic and current

events happening around the world where women and children are often the

first casualties of war and armed conflicts. Here is a story of a

survivor:

“My name is Chen Jiashou. When the armies invaded Nanjing in 1937, I

was only 19 years old. I was taken by some nearby soldiers and brought

to a pond adjacent to Shanghai Road. Soldiers hustled several lines of

about 200 Chinese troops toward the edge of the pond. I was terribly

frightened. Thus, the instant the soldiers opened fire on us all, I

immediately fell towards the ground, faking my death. Struck by flying

bullets, my Chinese comrades all piled on top of my body. Right up until

it got dark and the soldiers had all left, I lay underneath the dead

bodies, not daring to move. I waited till dark when the soldiers left.

It was thus how I became a fortunate survivor of the Nanjing

Massacre.”

Canadian-Japanese writer Joy Kogawa wrote in the Toronto

Star : “Large-scale acts of violence in history need to be

widely known and studied so that they are not repeated.

Whereas the

Holocaust in Europe is taught and remembered, the same cannot be said

for wide-scale atrocities in Asia’s history.”

This December 13 will be the 80th anniversary of the horrific

events. Commemorative events will be held across the country and the

world, and I urge members of this House to attend events in their

communities.

FORT NELSON COMMUNITY

LITERACY

SOCIETY

D. Davies: I rise today in this House to talk about the Fort Nelson Community

Literacy Society, which has been providing advocacy services for several

years in this small northern community. They are a non-profit charitable

organization that is governed by a group of volunteers.

As a learning centre, they help community members in the form of

tutoring and learning support. Community education is a focus and

raising literacy, a priority. They provide tutoring programs for all

ages, community classes, workshops, special learning events and drop-in

services for those needing extra help. Many forms and documents require

learners to use computers, and with low computer literacy rates,

especially among the aging population, this is can be a huge barrier in

this community.

[10:20 a.m.]

As you can imagine, and in a smaller community like Fort Nelson,

organizations like the literacy society are very important. In the hard

economic times that Fort Nelson is facing right now, this organization

plays an even more important role. Helping community members fill out

forms like employment insurance, social assistance, compassionate care,

disability, and so on, is very important for all the residents in Fort

Nelson.

The Fort Nelson Literacy Society has become a social service

agency in order to fill in gaps in Fort Nelson. They’re doing important

work around basic literacy, as well as that of social workers and of

Service Canada, which is lacking in that community. If they did not fill

this gap, community members would be without this support.

Fort Nelson is in a very vulnerable time. Community members are

struggling. Some live in poverty. Without the corporate donations that

this society once received, Fort Nelson Literacy has faced cutbacks at a

very crucial time. But knowing Fort Nelson and the resilience of that

community and its people, the Fort Nelson Literacy Society, I’m sure,

will continue to provide this very important service to its

community.

I’d like to say a big thank-you to Seanah Roper and all of her

staff and volunteers at the Fort Nelson Literacy Society for their

tireless efforts.

INTERNET AND ROLE OF NET NEUTRALITY

B. Ma: The struggle to keep the Internet free and open rages on.

Originally developed in the public sector for decades and now operated

by private corporations, the Internet has become an absolutely critical

part of our jobs, our economy, our social structures — indeed, our lives

as we know them.

But the Internet is more than work emails, Netflix, Facebook and a

seemingly endless source of cute cat photos. It is also, at its core, a

medium through which free speech is expressed in all of its forms. It’s

how we take in and share information. It’s how we learn, communicate and

seek out truths and fake news alike. It’s also how citizens organize and

mobilize for a variety of issues and campaigns and a place where voices

that are underrepresented in traditional media can be heard.

A key principle of the free and open Internet is a concept called

Net neutrality, which prevents Internet service providers from

throttling access speeds for certain sites and boosting them for others,

based on the highest bidder, in order to encourage people to access some

sites over others. Without Net neutrality, it is perceivable that

Internet service providers could refuse to provide access to certain

sites entirely, unless that site could afford to pay them. They could

also limit your access to certain sites based on the website bundle

you’ve purchased, like with your cable TV.

There are many powerful people who stand to benefit from the

erosion of Net neutrality, tilting the playing field so that the

Internet only works for the people at the top. There have also been the

herculean efforts of Net neutrality activists all over the world,

including right here in B.C., who have been fighting for the free and

open Internet to be maintained. To those people, I am very, very

grateful.

GRATITUDE IN ROLE AS MLA

S. Furstenau: The holiday season is nearly upon us, and there are many

traditions celebrated at this time of year. One thing that connects all

of these traditions is gratitude. I’d like to reflect, as we end our

session here, on things I am grateful for.

I’m grateful to the staff here at the Legislature, including the

Sergeants-at-Arms, maintenance staff, cleaning staff, restaurant staff,

the Clerk’s office for helping us navigate parliamentary procedure, the

librarians for responding so quickly to reference questions and the

chamber staff who tend to us while this House is sitting. These

dedicated individuals make this old stone building feel like a warm and

welcoming place to be.

I’m grateful to the exceptional staff and volunteers in our

legislative and constituency offices, who’ve provided me with everything

I need to feel empowered and successful in this very serious

responsibility of being an MLA. I’m grateful for the relationships I’ve

developed with many members of the House, in government and opposition,

these last few months and for the hard-working ministerial and

government staff, who have helped me be effective in my work.

I’m grateful to the press for the work they do to communicate to

the public what is happening with their government. I’m grateful for how

much I’ve learned from people who’ve reached out to me from various

organizations and advocacy groups. These past six months have been akin

to a high-intensity university program, which, given how much I liked

university, is pretty much a dream come true.

I’m grateful for my community in the Cowichan Valley — to

community groups, local governments and countless volunteers who keep

our social programs working, often without the resources necessary to

meet their needs.

Finally, I’m grateful for my family. My amazing and supportive

husband, Blaise, has held down the fort while I’m here, and my children

are looking forward to their mom being home more often. I’m sure

everyone in this House understands when I say I’m looking forward to

curling up on the sofa with my kids for a good, long cuddle.

[10:25 a.m.]

Let us all recognize what a gift and a blessing this role is. We

have a serious responsibility but also an extraordinary opportunity to

make a positive difference.

DAYS OF ACTIVISM CAMPAIGN

AGAINST GENDER-BASED

VIOLENCE

R. Singh: November and December are important months for raising awareness

of gender-based violence in Canada and around the world. Since 1991,

thousands of organizations have recognized 16 Days of Activism Against

Gender-Based Violence and used these days to campaign for global

change.

From the 25th of November, the International Day for the

Elimination of Violence Against Women, to the 10th of December, Human

Rights Day, it also includes the National Day of Remembrance and Action

on Violence Against Women on December 6. A day we can never forget,

December 6 marks the anniversary of the 1989 Montreal massacre at École

Polytechnique, where 14 students and staff were killed just because they

were women.

The campaign promoting 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based

Violence is a time to galvanize action to end violence against women and

girls around the world. Statistics show that women and girls continue to

be more at risk of experiencing many forms of violence than men and

boys. An estimated one in three women will experience some form of

sexual violence, harassment or intimidation in her lifetime.

Gender-based violence does not just touch the lives of women. It

has the capacity to severely affect us all. It destroys families,

weakens the fabric of society and takes a heavy toll on our communities

and our economy.

During the 16 days of activism, we encourage everyone to become an

ally in the elimination of gender-based violence by listening to others,

believing survivors, speaking up against gender-based violence, safely

intervening when witnessing acts of violence and taking action so we can

make our communities safer.

Oral Questions

B.C. NDP GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON CAMPAIGN

STATEMENTS

R. Coleman: This is a government of reviews, avoiding decisions and broken

promises — from housing to transportation to hydro rates and

taxpayer-funded political parties.

The Premier has found it very difficult to keep his promises. When

he was asked about his broken promise on taxpayer-subsidized political

parties, he had this to say: “I would call it an amended promise.” I

don’t know when the promise was made during the election that said, “I

have the right to amend all my promises in the future and break them

through an amendment,” but that’s what’s going on.

You make a commitment, then you break it, and then you call it

amended. Can the Premier tell this House why he decided to break — oh, I

mean amend — his promise and award millions of taxpayers’ dollars to

political parties?

Hon. J. Horgan: I just want to comment on the member from Langley’s moustache.

I’ll be sad to see it go, as will I be sad to see the one on the member

beside him go at the end of November — not going to happen.

It is the last day of question period, as you know, and I’m

delighted to stand and respond to the member’s question. He asked about

the commitments and promises that this side of the House made during the

election campaign.

I’m very, very pleased to say that on the question of reducing MSP

premiums by half, we’ve delivered on that. I’m very pleased to have the

opportunity to say that when it comes to increasing disability rates and

income assistance rates for the first time in a decade, we’ve delivered

on that promise. I’m very, very pleased to say that we’ve reinvested in

public education, and thousands of teachers have been hired so that

we’ve got class size and class composition rules and regulations that

make it easier to learn and easier to teach.

Although we only have half an hour and I have a very long list,

I’ll leave the member another opportunity to ask a question.

[10:30 a.m.]

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

supplemental.

R. Coleman: For the reduction of MSP premiums you’re doing on January 1, which

we were doing anyway, you’re welcome, Premier.

Unfortunately for British Columbians, the NDP and the Premier are

fine with amending, bending and, in actual fact, breaking his promises.

Here’s what he said when he was asked about giving British Columbians a

choice of a yes-or-no question on a referendum on electoral reform. His

answer was: “Yeah, exactly.” What the media probably didn’t hear — “but

I have the right to amend it later if I want to” — sounds pretty clear

to me.

We’re finding that the Premier is fine with amending his promises

and not actually keeping them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

R. Coleman: Surely the Premier realizes that he has said one thing and done

another again. Can the Premier tell British Columbians why he chose to

break his promise — oh, amend his promise — on a matter that is so

important that it seeks to change the way elections are held in British

Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his question about how we elect

representatives to this place.

Of course, we’re very, very proud on this side of the House that

one of the first bills that we put in this House was banning big money

and getting union and corporate donations out of B.C. politics. I’m also

very pleased that we committed to electoral reform. There is a bill

before the House today that will be passed, I’m confident, by the end

the day that will allow the citizens of British Columbia to vote on a

new way of electing representatives in this great institution. I’m

excited about that. We’re excited about that.

I’m hopeful, based on the comments from many of the members about

electoral reform…. The member for False Creek said it was high time. The

member for Kamloops–South Thompson said that he was committed to

enabling a third referendum. I know he’ll be voting in favour of our

bill today. The member for Richmond-Steveston: “The discussion around

electoral reform is a key facet of our democracy, and renewing a healthy

debate of our system is important.” I know he agrees with me. I know he

agrees with my colleagues and will be supporting our bill at the end of

the day.

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

supplemental.

R. Coleman: British Columbians deserve a Premier and a government who take

responsibility for the promises they make and follow through on them in

the way they’ve done them.

He and his Green partners have broken the promise — oh, I mean

amended the promise — on taxpayer-funded political parties. He’s broken

his promise — or, I’m sorry, amended the promise — for a simple

referendum for electoral reform, which was going to be a yes-or-no

question. He’s broken his promises — I mean amended his housing promises

— on housing, which have evaporated in some amended aspirational goal,

which means it will never happen. He’s cancelled the Massey Tunnel

replacement project. He’s still dragging out the Site C decision until

Christmas, which could affect 3,000 people working in the

site.

My question to the Premier. How can British Columbians have any

faith in this Premier when he clearly breaks — I mean amends — his

promise on a whim, politically, rather than delivering to the people of

British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m pleased that the member, who has a good depth of knowledge on

housing files, raised the housing issue. We have already, in 16 weeks,

invested in 1,700 new affordable housing units as well as 2,000 modular

units.

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: The member who asked the question will also know that there used

to be a big loophole about fixed-term leases. He said year after year

after year that he was going to get to it, but it was complicated. It

didn’t take us very long. We closed that loophole.

While I have the floor — and I appreciate I only have half an hour

— I want to pay tribute to the member opposite, the Leader of the

Opposition. This will be his last day as Leader of the Opposition, as

the opposite party selects a new leader.

[10:35 a.m.]

Twenty-one-and-a-half years — he corrected me — of service to this

institution. We have disagreed almost every day of our time together,

but I do hold the member in very high regard. He knows that. I’m

grateful for the work that he did to step up and assist the opposition

in what was a difficult transition for them. He has, in his own way,

made it a little bit more difficult for me — but not today.

[Applause]

REBATE FOR RESIDENTIAL TENANTS

S. Sullivan: The government has made very specific promises on housing. For

example, for the great majority of British Columbians who are struggling

with housing, they are being offered temporary modular

portables.

It’s made some other specific promises. Since then, we’ve heard

the Premier say things are “not as easy to do as we had first hoped” and

now refers to housing promises as aspirational. The budget came and went

without a word on a renters rebate.

My question to the Minister of Housing. Can she explain why the

promise of a renters rebate appears to have been amended?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m always pleased to get up in this House and talk about housing.

For far too long, people have been neglected. We have incredible

challenges around this province around housing affordability, and I am

so proud of the fact that our government acted so quickly, early in our

mandate. We made sure that there are 2,000 modular units that are

available to those who are sitting in cold, wet conditions. We have

started to deliver on those, and 900 places have been identified in very

short order. The sites for 900 homes have already been identified.

That’s moving quickly. That’s what it means to have a government that

cares.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–False Creek on a supplemental.

S. Sullivan: I thank the minister, but I would remind her that the great

majority of British Columbians do not consider temporary portable

housing as their housing future. I’d ask…. The renters had hoped that a

rebate would be delivered. My hon. friend the leader of the Green Party

has said he’s opposed. He says the renters rebate is dead, and he also

said that the promises are irrelevant. In the budget, there was no money

committed, no timeline set. Renters are just left to wonder what

happened.

Again to the minister, will she make a clear commitment to the

renters rebate, or is the leader of the Green Party correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: There are a million and a half renters in this province who are

thrilled that we fixed the loophole in the fixed-term residency

legislation. They have been waiting because the members opposite said it

was so complicated. We did it in our very first time here in this

House.

We also increased funding, $7 million of funding, to the

residential tenancy branch, which had been poorly underfunded by the

previous government — long waits to get heard. We took care of that.

We’re making sure that renters in our province have the opportunities to

have secure rental, secure homes going forward.

DEEP-WELL ROYALTY PROGRAM

A. Weaver: I must say it’s a bit rich. It’s a bit rich to listen to members

opposite, the Leader of the Official Opposition, stand up and talk about

failed promises when I sat and listened for four years to the promise of

unicorns in all of our backyards from LNG. On that topic, every year,

the B.C. government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

A. Weaver: …doles out hundreds of millions of dollars to oil and gas

companies to subsidize horizontal drilling in the northeast of our

province. The companies earn these credits by drilling qualified wells,

and when the wells start to produce gas, the companies apply the credits

to reduce or even eliminate provincial royalties that they would

normally pay on this public resource.

[10:40 a.m.]

In recent years, the participating companies have amassed credits

faster than they can spend them. The balance in their deep-drilling

account has increased from $752 million in 2012 to an accumulated $3.2

billion today. Not only are we not getting paid for this public

resource; we are literally paying companies to take it from

us.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. How can the minister justify

continuing the deep-well royalty program when it is not needed by gas

companies and it is such a staggering waste of taxpayer

money?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the question on what is a very

important issue.

Let me start by saying that British Columbians want this

government to ensure that projects are providing good family-supporting

jobs, but they also want to make sure that projects are meeting high

environmental standards — absolutely. They want to make sure that

British Columbians are also getting a fair rate of return. Last year the

province received $145 million in royalty revenue from natural gas

development. This money, obviously, goes to help support the services

that British Columbians rely on every day.

We also want to ensure that, as I said, we’re meeting the highest

standard of environmental protection. That’s why this government has

announced that it will be moving forward with a hydraulic fracturing

scientific review panel. That panel is going to be getting started in

the new year, and we’ll have more details following in

January.

Most importantly, this government is committed to ensuring that

all British Columbians benefit from safe and sustainable development in

this province, and that’s what we’re going to be doing.

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

A. Weaver: It was so boisterous I couldn’t hear you acknowledging my standing

here.

The deep-well royalty credit program was designed to enable the

provincial government to share the costs of drilling in B.C.’s deep gas

basins when it was a so-called risk-based industry. It’s not anymore.

Horizontal fracturing is no longer a new technology. It’s become an

industry norm.

In 2009 and again in 2014, the B.C. Liberals relaxed the

requirements for deep-well credits so they could pay companies more

money to drill. In the eight years prior to the 2009 changes, B.C.

collected an average of $1.3 billion per year in natural gas royalties.

In the eight years since, B.C. collected an average of $307 million per

year. Last year — the minister told us — we collected a mere $145

million.

Measured as a share of the value of oil and gas production in

B.C., royalties collected by government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: …have fallen from 44 percent in 2008 to just 4 percent last year.

Our government is literally giving away our natural resource and paying

oil and gas companies to extract it.

My question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources is this: how can your government continue with this giveaway

when there is such an urgent need in our society to transition to a

low-carbon economy?

Hon. M. Mungall: To speak to this particular program, I just want to make sure that

the member knows that many of the credits that he speaks of will

actually likely never be used as older wells are closed. Just as an

example, one well earned a million dollars’ worth of credits, but it’s

been shut for ten years. It’s not going to reopen, so it will not

actually be realizing those credits.

There are quite a few other examples exactly like this. I would be

happy to set up a briefing for the member so that he could get to the

full details of this issue, which I’m very glad that he’s quite

concerned about. Question period doesn’t allow the time to go over all

the details.

Again, I will say that this government is committed to ensuring

that British Columbians get a fair rate of return for their resources,

that they have good family-supporting jobs and that we are protecting

our environment.

[10:45 a.m.]

GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR CHILD CARE

L. Throness: Last summer the NDP platform promised a rainbow-and-unicorns child

care system — full-day care for $10, part-time for $7, no fee at all for

families under $40,000 and a pony for every child. The platform went on

to promise $175 million more for child care in this fiscal year. But in

the end, there was nothing, not even a baby step on the way to better

child care.

How can the minister finish delivering on her promises if she

can’t even keep her word to start?

Hon. K. Chen: Thanks so much to the opposition member for raising a question

about child care. I’m so happy to have the opportunity to share the work

that our government has been doing to bring quality, affordable and

accessible child care to B.C. families.

Since we have become government, in mid-July, we have been working

hard, working hand in hand with providers, educators, parents and making

sure that we are working on the implementation plan to build a system

that can benefit all families in B.C., who have been waiting for years,

under the members’ opposite side of the government — for 16 years — for

the services that they deserve.

Interjections.

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

Hon. K. Chen: The members opposite had 16 years and failed B.C.

families.

People are so happy to finally see a government that is working

with them — that is listening to families in B.C. to put together a

system that can potentially bring significant changes to all

families.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: There are so many things we have to do. We need to make sure the

first steps we’re taking are the right steps that will lead us to a

universal child care system.

Mr. Speaker: Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: Well, we created 25,000 child care spaces. We started all-day

kindergarten. We did StrongStart and the early-years strategy. We are

proud of our record on this side.

Now, a couple of weeks ago the Premier met with the Prime

Minister, and here’s what he said: “If we’re going to deliver on our

commitments to child care, we’re going to need a willing partner at the

federal level.” Well, that’s a big if. I’ve been through the NDP

platform. There were no ifs, ands or buts about child care. They were

going to deliver on their promise….

Interjections.

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

L. Throness: Will the minister admit that the government already overspent, the

cupboard is bare, there’s nothing for the kids and she can’t deliver

$10-a-day care without a federal bailout?

Hon. K. Chen: I really want to take this opportunity to thank a lot of

advocates, parents, providers and ECE workers who have been working so

hard to make sure child care is an issue that is front and centre. It’s

because of them and because of so many people who have been advocating

for families in B.C. It’s great, and it’s very interesting to see that

members opposite are now growing a strong interest in investing in child

care.

As I mentioned earlier, we really need to put together a lot of

work to fix the system, the current system, which has not been working

for a lot of families. There are so many things that we have to look

into, including: how do we accelerate the creation of child care spaces?

How do we support the workers, the ECE workers, who have been working

with low wages and providing the important services to our youngest

citizens?

[10:50 a.m.]

How do we make sure that we address the diverse needs of our B.C.

communities? How about child care for First Nations communities and

families? How about supported child care for families with special needs

children? There’s so much work we have to do. During the past 16 years,

life was getting so unaffordable for families in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. K. Chen: We are committed to making life better for B.C.

families.

REVIEW OF RIDE-SHARING

AND TAXI

INDUSTRIES

M. Polak: After what happened in question period yesterday, I thought I

would give the Minister of Transportation a fairly direct question. In

this case, it’s about the ride-hailing review, which has delayed the

amended promise of the opposition to deliver ride-hailing by the end of

the year. I have the terms of reference for the consultant, and it

references a progress report due November 29, yesterday. I would ask the

minister: has she received the report, and will she be releasing it

publicly?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say that the political games being played by that side

of the House about ride-sharing are quite astounding. After our

government bringing forward consultation initially, which that side of

the House had initially said that they agreed with…. When we brought in

consultation with the taxi industry on ride-hailing, they criticized it.

Now they say we’re locking out the taxi industry — that we need to do

everything.

We are moving forward with a thoughtful review. That scope, as

everybody in this province is aware, has been broadened to include taxi,

to include ride-share, to include broad discussion and to include, also,

a committee of this House to examine this. We are doing this prudently,

we are doing this thoughtfully, and we are going to be producing a

ride-share system that works for everybody in B.C.

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

M. Polak: Where to begin? I thought I was giving the minister a fairly

straightforward question to which she could provide a fairly

straightforward answer. I can only conclude from the answer she’s given

that not only has the ride-hailing promise been amended by a delay, but

in fact, now the report has been delayed. So we have….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

M. Polak: We have $165,000 of taxpayers’ money that was spent to hire a

consultant to create yet more delays around ride-hailing. And now we are

left to conclude that not only is ride-hailing being delayed, but the

report is delayed. Either that, or the minister hasn’t read it. That

wouldn’t be new. She hadn’t read the previous report. With something so

critical, as the minister says….

Interjection.

M. Polak: Did I hear 16 years again? Oh.

When the minister can’t answer a question like that without going

into the usual key messaging, I have to be concerned about the future of

this amended promise of the NDP. When are they going to get on with it

and stop with all of the delays and bring in ride-hailing?

Hon. C. Trevena: If this was so critical, as the member opposite suggests, why did

that side of the House do nothing for five years, since ride-sharing was

brought in?

If it was so critical, why did that clone speech, when they were

very briefly government back in June…? They may have a slight memory of

it. Why did the speech that the whole of the opposition voted for say:

“Your government has heard the message that legitimate implementation

concerns remain. Any proposed legislation will be referred to an

all-party committee for extensive consultation…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: …with the public and stakeholders, in particular regarding

boundaries”?

We are acting on this. We are doing a thoughtful approach. We are

having an all-party committee. We are having a consultation that

includes taxi and ride-share. That side of the House has absolutely no

right to be questioning what’s been happening when they wasted five

years of time to deal with ride-sharing.

[10:55 a.m.]

ALBERT GIESBRECHT

RELEASE AND BAIL

CONDITIONS

J. Rustad: Albert Giesbrecht has been charged with first-degree murder. He is

being released on bail with 22 conditions. This is certainly concerning

for the family of the victims but also for everybody in the entire area.

Albert Giesbrecht targeted five people, of whom four are still living in

the Burns Lake area. How this judge can make a decision like this is

beyond me. However, my constituents are rightfully anxious that this

individual will be permitted back into the community.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he tell my

constituents what precautionary steps his government has taken to ensure

that people of the Burns Lake and surrounding area will be

protected?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank the member for that question. I, too — in fact,

all of us on this side of the House — share those concerns about this

particular case. I can inform the member of a number of things. Crown is

looking at avenues to appeal on both the conditions and the release.

That is currently underway.

I can also tell the member that he is correct around the 22

conditions that currently have been put in place around the release of

this individual. I could go through the full 22, but what I will say is

that some of the key ones, for example, are that he will be confined to

house arrest 24-7 and that there can be no departure from the residence

except for court-appointed escorts or legal appointments in an ambulance

or medical emergency. He is to have no access to Internet or cell phone.

There is to be no possession of firearms, prohibited weapons, drugs or

alcohol. And not to occupy any vehicle without court-appointed

escorts.

These are some of the conditions that are in place. It is our

expectation that the monitoring will take place, working with…. Both

Corrections and the RCMP are aware, and it is our expectation that any

deviation from any of those court conditions will result in that

individual being picked up immediately and put in a safe, secure place

where, I think, all of us feel he belongs.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Merit Performance

Audit 2016-17 of the Office of the Merit Commissioner.

A. Olsen: I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: The class that I formerly introduced is now here. Welcome to Emma

Coles’s grade 4-5 split class from

ḰELSET.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 6. In Committee

A, I call the estimates for the independent officers of the Legislature and Vote

[11:00 a.m.]

M. de Jong: I don’t know that members are aware that the Government House Leader…. I’m

not opposed. I don’t know that members are aware that Committee A has just been

called for the purpose that the member has alluded to. So if members have

duties, they need to make their way to Committee A. I’m just not sure that

anyone heard.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:02 a.m.

On the amendment to

section 9 (continued) .

S. Gibson: A pleasure to be here speaking on behalf of my

constituents.

This is a propitious motion, and I want to honour and thank the

member for Nechako Lakes for bringing it forward. It’s definitely

appropriate. I hope it receives serious consideration. I have been

watching with great interest the discourse here over the last few days

and seeing government responding to, I think, the genuine concerns being

expressed here regarding Bill 6.

I want to speak specifically to the amendment. I think because

this decision is so dramatic and will have such a significant impact on

how government is selected, any opportunity to address the concerns that

will obviously develop as this discussion ensues is appropriate. This

dramatic impact will be pervasive. It will be provincewide, in

particular in rural areas, and I want to just address that right

now.

We have vast reaches in our province represented, for example, by

the hon. member for Peace River North and many others. You will know,

hon. Chair, that there are large, relatively underpopulated ridings that

need to have input, need to have impact. So the resolution, the

amendment brought forward by the member for Nechako Lakes, speaks to

that.

It says that the balance in favour of adopting a proportional

representation voting system will comprise a majority of more than 50

percent of the electoral districts. This is actually a very good

request, and I really hope that both the government and the Third Party

address this seriously. Could it be that we would have unanimity on this

very important amendment?

[11:05 a.m.]

We don’t want to see a small minority of ridings controlling the

outcome of this important referendum. We don’t want to see concentration

in densely populated urban areas. Now, my riding of Abbotsford-Mission

is kind of a mix. You can drive for many kilometres in my riding through

beautiful, bucolic areas, but at the same time, you have urban areas in

Abbotsford and Mission. I’m kind of a hybrid. I have a sensitivity to

this issue.

I believe this amendment gives balance, and as government is

reflecting on this, I believe they should consider this very seriously.

It has been discussed around this place from time to time that we need

to work more together on issues of such consequence as this. This

amendment, in many ways, is an opportunity to address that, and I would

encourage the Third Party in particular to consider this.

Now, we know back in 2009…. I’m advised that only 8 percent of the

ridings actually supported electoral change. We can see what the

implications could be if this amendment is not supported and adopted. As

a matter of fact, I really worry what will happen to the political

culture and fabric of our province if we don’t, in some way, address the

rural dimensions of our province.

If you look at an electoral map, you look at tiny concentrated

urban ridings in the densely populated Metro area, and then look up

north, look to the central Interior — vast ridings that need

representation. I believe that if they could be here right now,

representatives, they would beg government: “Don’t leave us out,

please.”

C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the opportunity, on behalf of my

constituents in Cariboo North, to speak to the importance of this

amendment.

It truly is an opportunity, and I encourage members of both sides

of the House to take in reflection and consider the geographical nature

of this province. I’ve heard over the last few weeks and months about

the importance of ensuring that representation happens for every single

constituent in the province of British Columbia. That’s why I think it’s

so critically important to stand and, again, reiterate the complexities

and the geographical nature of the province of British

Columbia.

Vancouver Island has a significant population, but from a

geographical perspective, at 31,285 square kilometres, one would suggest

that in our ridings it is quite small by nature. When you look at the

riding which I represent, which is 38,579 square kilometres — the area

which I represent alone — while our population is small, I would say

that every single member, every single constituent in Cariboo North

feels that within this House their voice is represented and that they

have an opportunity to connect, not just at election time but throughout

the course of the years that their MLA represents their

views.

I would remind the members opposite that one of the critical

elements of ensuring we have a healthy renewal to democracy is the need

for constituents to feel that their voice can be heard and that they

have an ability to plug into a system which we represent. I would remind

the members that in a significant portion of my 38,000 square

kilometres, a significant portion of our constituents still do not have

access to cell service. They still do not have access to last-mile

connectivity.

[11:10 a.m.]

If we are, in truth, looking at broadening, expanding, ensuring

that we have larger regions in this province, there needs to be a

twofold commitment. When the members vote on this, remember that you are

voting to ensure that there’s connectivity, that there is cell service,

that there’s an ability for every single citizen in the province of

British Columbia to have the opportunity to engage and to have their

voices heard. It’s critically important. An investment and a vote for

this means you are also ensuring that the financial assets are there to

ensure that this important infrastructure is in place.

It is also critically important that whether you’re looking at a

proportional representation system of mixed-member, that whether you are

a member that represents a riding on Vancouver Island or a riding in

Vancouver, that if you decide to vote in favour of proportional

representation, you are also in favour of voting to ensure that you are

representing areas outside the urban settings.

That means that while currently there are members that have the

ability to go home in the evenings and there are also members that have

the ability to get home Thursday night, for many of the rural members,

the reality of how large our ridings are and the reality of what we

represent mean that we get home Friday afternoons. For members who are

voting on proportional representation, please know what you’re voting on

is in ensuring that you are coming to our ridings to ensure that they

are represented.

It will mean a significant shift in urban MLAs and how you

represent, because you will be expected…. Because every voice matters in

this House, in British Columbia, the workload for urban ridings is going

to significantly increase. There will be significant cost increases that

will be borne by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I urge members of this House to support this amendment. It’s

critically important to ensure that every voice matters in British

Columbia.

M. Morris: I was speaking here yesterday about this bill and speaking to this

amendment here, and I did mention that federally there needs to be, I

think, at least seven provinces or territories voting 50 percent plus,

in order to support an electoral reform such as this.

I’m aghast, actually, at government ignoring the importance of

regional representation right across our province here. I was in charge

of the northern three-quarters of the province for a number of years for

policing, and I used to see the same kinds of things. You know, the

whole world — it doesn’t matter whether you’re in policing or health

care or education, everybody — thinks that the crux of the problems and

the issues happen within their area. They’re myopic in their view of

things, and they don’t give any attention to what happens in the

outlying areas.

Prince George is only…. It’s in the middle of the province. It’s

roughly 800 kilometres, give or take 50 kilometres, from Prince George

to Vancouver, from Prince George to Edmonton, from Prince George to

Calgary, from Prince George to Prince Rupert, and it’s a little bit

further to Fort Nelson. Prince George is the hub within the province

here.

It’s critical that the representation in the rural areas reflects

the differences that we have. We’ve got the northeast part of B.C. It’s

over the rocks. It’s over the Rocky Mountains. It has a lot of

similarities with the western part of Alberta. They have unique

differences up in that area, as well, versus northwest B.C. — the Rocky

Mountains, the Stikine area, Dease Lake, Telegraph Creek, — a lot of

differences in that region in comparison to downtown

Vancouver.

There are as many people living in the city of Surrey as there are

living in the northern three-quarter parts of B.C. — just Surrey. Then

you look at Metro Vancouver. You’ve got about 85 percent of the

population of British Columbia living in Metro Vancouver. Collectively,

all we need is 50 percent plus one voting within the city of Vancouver,

and they outvote everybody within the rural area of British

Columbia.

Their thoughts and their ideas and their interests…. What they

think is important in Metro Vancouver is vastly different than the

issues that we have in rural British Columbia. That’s what rural B.C. is

afraid of — that the representation won’t be there. We’re going to have

people in urban B.C. deciding what’s good for us.

[11:15 a.m.]

I refer to metaphors from time to time. It’s much like somebody

trying to tell their child to eat the broccoli or eat whatever it is

because it’s good for you, and they don’t want to eat it. It’s the same

thing. People in Vancouver, in urban B.C. are going to be telling

British Columbians in rural B.C. what’s good for them. It’s going to

come back to bite everybody.

It’s vastly important. This is a significant change to the

electoral system in British Columbia for all British Columbians, not

just the folks in the highly populated areas. B.C. is one of the most

urbanized provinces in Canada. We have some unique differences here in

British Columbia that need to be recognized. The electoral system is one

of those…. It’s a fundamental basis for recognizing how we respect those

differences right across British Columbia here.

I hope the members in government are listening. The Attorney

appears disinterested from time to time throughout this debate. But I

hope that the members in government are listening to this. Although that

government is mostly reflective of the highly populated areas in British

Columbia, I hope they start paying attention to what happens in

regional, rural British Columbia here so that maybe they can start

reflecting some of their interests out there as well.

I support this amendment. I hope that the members in government

support this amendment. If we can get this amendment through, to reflect

regional representation in the province, I think it’ll be a great step

forward in electoral reform in British Columbia here.

D. Barnett: I come from, as you know, rural British Columbia. I have the

sixth-largest riding geographically in the province, and I have the

eighth-smallest in terms of population. In 2014, the census said there

were 33,520 people. My riding is over 44,000 square hectares. For me to

get from one end of my riding to the other, from my house to the end of

my riding, without stopping, without going anywhere, it takes me around

7½ hours.

The population is scarce, resilient. I have 11 First Nations

bands. I have a community whose industries are agriculture, forestry,

mining and tourism in the remote and rural areas. These people are

resilient. They’ve been there for many years, and many in our

agriculture sector are long-term citizens. Their ranches have been taken

from their grandparents to their parents and now to the people that are

running them. We have guide-outfitters. We have tourism operators. We

have trappers. We are a very diverse group of people.

I keep hearing about the wild, wild west. We are the Wild West,

and we’re very proud of it. We’re proud of how we work. We’re proud of

how we appreciate each other. And my colleague over there is going like

this, because his

interpretation of Wild West is different than mine.

Mine is of freedom and of people who speak to each other truthfully and

honestly, work together, collaborate together and share the pain and

share the resources of this vast area.

We have just gone through, as you all know, one of the world

wildfires in the history of the province and, probably, of many other

places. But we managed to get through it because the people are diverse,

resilient and, as I’ve said, take care of each other.

To have representation for this wonderful region and for all our

regions in this province is of the utmost importance. I’ve been in this

country, in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, for 50 years. I’ve seen the

Cariboo-Chilcotin grow, and I’ve seen it change. I’ve seen new

industries, and I’ve seen industries close.

We have in the West Chilcotin some of the richest gold and ore

deposits there are in the province of British Columbia. We have

industries who want to come to our vast areas so that we can generate

jobs and generate income to support the daycare and the health care and

the social programs that this vast province enjoys throughout not just

the Lower Mainland but in rural British Columbia.

[11:20 a.m.]

Many times it’s very frustrating for those of us in rural British

Columbia. The only time we see any urbanites is when they’re protesting

something that we want to do in our regions. This is why this province

has many issues.

If we don’t have proper regional representation of people that

understand where they live, understand their people, this province will

become divided like you’ve never seen division.

It is so important that we take every step we can to ensure that

if this particular issue moves forward, it is done fairly, with

consideration for all the people of British Columbia — in particular,

these vast regions with small populations who do, where they live, know

that many of the resources, the financial resources and others, come

from these regions to support this province. It is so important that our

voice is strong and is heard in this House and in the government of the

province of British Columbia.

I encourage everyone to support this amendment. Without amendments

like this to this bill, I feel we will fail the people of rural British

Columbia and of all of British Columbia. Let us think twice when we’re

making decisions. Who are we making them for — ourselves? No. Our job is

to make the best decisions possible for all the people of British

Columbia.

J. Isaacs: Listening to my fellow members here this morning, it’s clear that

there is some grave concern around the mechanics of this bill. I also

have concerns, and it’s the reason that I support and am in favour of

the amendment.

We have concern because we are changing a well-established,

functioning electoral system. That will have unintended consequences.

Bill 6 will fundamentally change our political system. It’ll change the

fabric of our democracy. It will affect British Columbians across the

province. Whether we’re in rural areas or Vancouver proper, there will

be changes for generations to come.

We have to reflect back to the previous referendums — 2005 and

2009. The referendum on proportional representation was a process that

was handed over to the public and not to the government. It certainly

wasn’t done through a biased survey looking for a particular

outcome.

The B.C. citizens’ assembly consisted of a 161-member panel and

was established as an effort to determine both what kind of improvements

needed to be made and how a referendum question would be asked. British

Columbians from rural areas, from the Lower Mainland, from the Fraser

Valley — all across the province — were consulted and the process was

universally lauded for its independence and impartiality.

The level of voter approval that was needed in the referendum — to

result to be binding on the government — was set at a minimum of 60

percent, with a simple majority in 48 of the then 79 electoral

districts. After being put to a vote in 2005 and ultimately failing to

meet the threshold requirement, the question was again posed to British

Columbians a second time, in 2009 — again, a 60 percent minimum

threshold.

While the first referendum was close, the second referendum was

far from it with a resounding 61 percent voting against proposed reform.

So 61 percent of the public thought that it was a bad idea to change our

electoral system.

[11:25 a.m.]

With the 60 percent threshold in the last proportional

representation referendum, the postmortem revealed why the public voted

against it. It was complicated and confusing. It would have reduced

local accountability. It would have increased the size of ridings. It

would allow MLAs to avoid direct accountability for their decisions. It

would have taken control away from elected MLAs and substantially

increased control to political parties. It would have allowed special

interest groups to dominate party nominations.

With this historical lens in mind, it becomes easier to identify

the problematic mechanics of this proposed referendum and the

seriousness with the lack of minimum thresholds. This is a serious

issue. Instead of the previous 60 percent provincewide popular vote

threshold and the regional threshold of 50 percent in at least 51 of the

province’s then 85 electoral districts, the NDP and Greens have dropped

the threshold to a 50-percent-plus-one majority and have done away with

the regional thresholds.

These thresholds are far too low. This means that Vancouver’s

population alone will be able to decide for the rest of the province if

British Columbia will change its electoral system from a

first-past-the-post system to a system that will redesign the way we

determine and measure accountability of our elected officials and

government, and it will leave our rural areas

underrepresented.

There are always detrimental consequences when decisions are made

by a small group of individuals, particularly when these decisions are

clearly self-serving and do not necessarily represent the views of the

remaining stakeholders. One must reach a reasonable threshold, a quorum.

This is the built-in mechanism to protect the majority of stakeholders,

especially when a minority stakeholder wishes to make significant policy

or financial decisions. To not have a minimum standard or minimum

threshold in place could radically change our system of

democracy.

This bill is not a conduit for stable, secure governments. It’s a

bad idea for British Columbians, so I speak today in favour of the

amendment and in favour of adjusting the thresholds.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to all the members who spoke on the

amendment.

Just as a point of correction, the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie said that federally, changing the voting system

requires a constitutional amendment, including 50 percent of the

population plus seven out of the ten provinces voting in favour. It’s

not correct, and it’s my concern that statements like that are

misleading to British Columbians.

Federal voting systems can be changed with a piece of legislation,

just like in British Columbia. Of course, we’re not doing that. The

proposal here is for a referendum, as there should be.

I’ve reviewed the amendment, and staff have reviewed it. I’d like

to share with members the good, the bad and the ugly and, ultimately,

why I will not be supporting the amendment.

The good is that there’s very clearly an intent and a concern

among members to ensure the rural voice is protected. I’ve heard that in

a number of the second reading speeches. I’ve heard that repeatedly

here. That will be incorporated in the report back around consultation,

around what people want to see go forward on the ballot. It’s very

clearly a value held, and it’s not just on the other side; it’s widely a

value held by British Columbians. I imagine that of the 8,300-plus

people who have already participated in the survey, we’re going to hear

that. So that’s the good part about this amendment.

The bad part about this amendment. I still don’t understand why

members on the other side aren’t taking advantage of the drafting

services that we offer. It’s confidential. Members of the public service

who are expert in drafting will assist the opposition in

drafting.

[11:30 a.m.]

This amendment actually amends the wrong section. It should be

amending subsection (1), not subsection (2). Subsection (1) talks about

what it takes for this to be binding, and the members on the other side,

I take it from the speeches, want it to say that in order for the result

to be binding, there has to be a majority from more than 50 percent of

the electoral districts. It should be in subsection (1). Instead, it’s

in subsection (2), which talks about the date and the implications if it

is binding.

It modifies the wrong section. It’s got typos in it. I understand

the reluctance; it’s a new thing. But I really do encourage members,

because if it was something that the government or even the Third Party

was prepared to consider supporting…. We are in a minority parliament

here. It needs to be drafted properly. It’s just totally unnecessary to

have poorly drafted materials when we’re offering professional drafting

services.

That’s the bad, but that’s not fatal, in my mind. The idea here….

We could deal with that. It’s just not particularly helpful.

The ugly…. The problem with it, and why I won’t support it, is

pretty straightforward. The members on the other side have encouraged

me, repeatedly, to do the math on different proposals going forward. So

I did the math on this proposal. At the extreme, this proposal could

result in 74.7 percent of British Columbians voting in favour of

changing the voting system, and it would still fail.

Now, that’s at the extreme. But what it does, this amendment, is

it creates the possibility of a significant majority of British

Columbians voting in favour of changing the voting system and the voting

system not changing.

The principle behind the 50-percent-plus-one threshold is quite

straightforward in terms of: every British Columbian gets a say. Every

British Columbian gets a vote. All of the votes count equally. This is a

very significant change, and they should count equally. We believe very

firmly, on a significant change like this, that every British Columbian

should get a say.

The core of the argument made by the opposition here in the

amendment is that there’s a uniform perspective in rural areas, and I

would take it from their comments that the uniform perspective is

opposed to a change in the voting system. I don’t believe that to be

true. I don’t believe there’s a uniform view in urban areas in British

Columbia. I don’t believe there’s a uniform view in rural areas of

British Columbia. I believe that British Columbians, regardless of where

they live, have diverse views on voting system changes and whether we

should do it or not.

That’s why we have proposed a system where every British

Columbian’s vote counts. So I thank the member for the proposal. I will

not be voting in favour — not because of the bad but because of the

ugly, which is the suggestion that there could be a significant majority

of British Columbians voting in favour of change and the amendment would

undermine that intent sent by the electorate.

Again, I would just encourage members in the opposition to take

advantage of the professional drafting services. In a minority

parliament, it is a great advantage to have well-drafted amendments,

because the government or the Third Party might support it. And if they

do, it should amend the right section, it should be in statutory

language, and it should achieve the intended result — which makes life a

lot easier.

J. Rustad: I just have to repeat one point. I know it’s been mentioned here

by one of the other members in the debate. But when you look at the

referendum that was held in 2009, with just over 39 percent of the

turnout, the number of ridings that produced that 39 percent is

shockingly low. When you look at what that means for being able to reach

a 50 percent threshold, you stand the potential to significantly

alienate a very large portion of this province with the way that it’s

been formed.

If the minister is unhappy with the way the amendment has come

forward, or the wording, then the other option for the minister is to

stand down this

section of the bill and bring forward an amendment that

he is happy with, that would see that balance and fairness reflected for

the voices across this entire province.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for that. As I noted, the poor drafting was not

the issue. The issue is that there could be a significant majority of

British Columbians voting in support of change and that would not be

realized.

Just as a correction to the member’s comments. He said that there

was a 39 percent turnout in the referendum. In fact, the turnout was

55.12 percent. It was 39 percent who voted in favour of a change to a

single transferable vote.

[11:35 a.m.]

J. Rustad: It wasn’t the turnout. It was the results in terms of those voting

in favour of this.

I want to add just one more thing into the record. My colleague

has just reminded me of this. It’s a fundamental piece, I think, of

democracy around the world and certainly here. It’s a quote from Thomas

Jefferson, which goes: “There is nothing more unequal than the equal

treatment of the unequal.”

Amendment negatived on the following

division:

[11:40 a.m.]

YEAS — 37

Cadieux

Rustad

Bond

de Jong

Coleman

Wilkinson

Stone

Bernier

Wat

Johal

Lee

Hunt

Barnett

Tegart

Martin

Throness

Davies

Polak

Morris

Ashton

Oakes

Thomson

Sturdy

Ross

Isaacs

Milobar

Thornthwaite

Clovechok

Yap

Redies

Paton

Gibson

Sultan

Shypitka

Reid

Letnick

Foster

NAYS — 43

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

[11:45 a.m.]

M. Polak: There is a recent

article from Business in Vancouver that

reports, in answer to a question about voter turnout, that the Attorney

General’s office confirmed that even if only 10 percent of registered

voters were to cast a vote in the referendum, it would be

valid.

I’m asking the minister: just how low would the turnout have to be

in order for the referendum to be invalid?

Hon. D. Eby: British Columbians have a history of turning out in large numbers

for electoral reform votes and for referenda generally, with one notable

exception, in 2002 — high 40s to low 50s.

I agree with the member from Prince George when she said yesterday

that she didn’t think it would be 10 percent, 20 percent or 30 percent.

She thought it would be higher than that. I agree with her. I think

there will be good turnout for this because, as she said — and I agree —

people have a lot of passion about this. They care about this. It’s an

important issue, and it’s a serious issue for British

Columbians.

We have taken steps at every turn to maximize voter turnout,

including choosing to use a mail-in ballot, which consistently has

higher turnout than municipal elections. I note that it would be unique

in the history of B.C. referenda, including every single referendum ever

conducted by the members on the other side of the House, that there is

no minimum threshold in this bill. There’s never been a minimum

threshold in a bill put forward on a referendum in British Columbia,

including on proportional representation.

I do understand the member’s question, but I think speculating on

a hypothetical that is unlikely in the extreme is not particularly

helpful in informing British Columbians about this referendum. We expect

turnout to be very high. We hope that British Columbians turn out and

vote, and we hope that all members get out there and inform their

constituents so that they do come out and vote.

M. Polak: In the last two referenda with respect to electoral reform…. Of

course, those were both conducted in conjunction with provincial

elections, so one could be reasonably assured of a turnout that would

have been similar to those that we expect in provincial elections. Does

the minister agree, though, that there does exist a threshold below

which it would be unreasonable to hold this as binding on

government?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand that the member is interested in this hypothetical

situation that is unlikely in the extreme. I don’t think that that is

particularly helpful in understanding how the bill works and the history

of how British Columbians vote in these kinds of things. I note that in

the transit plebiscite, 48.6 percent of people voted. That was a mail-in

ballot. In the HST referendum, 52.6 percent of eligible registered

voters voted.

We expect that this will be an issue that British Columbians find

a great deal of interest in. We will do our best to get the word out

about this. I am sure — and I hope — that members in this House will

ensure that their constituents get out and vote, and we will have very

high voter turnout. That is the hope.

We’re doing everything we can to enable that, and if members have

suggestions about how to improve voter turnout on this, I hope that they

provide them in the consultation process that we’re doing or during this

debate. I’d welcome that too. You don’t have to be so formal about it.

Just put it in the old Hansard . I’ve got two staff here taking

notes as well.

We believe and we hope that British Columbians will turn out in

large numbers. I know the member for Prince George–Valemount agreed. She

thinks there’s going to be significant turnout here.

M. Polak: Likely or not, I do believe that on principle, we should be in

agreement that there would be, I think, concern on the part of British

Columbians that this should not be binding on government if it were

below a certain threshold. I have one to suggest. In fact, I have an

amendment I will propose. I will pass it along and wait for copies to be

distributed before speaking a little bit further to it.

SECTION 9

by adding the underlined text as shown:

(2) If the result of the referendum

(

a) is binding on the government in accordance with subsection

(1), and

(

b) the ballots referred to in that subsection are in favour of

adopting a proportional representation voting system,

and

(

c) the number of votes returned is equal to, or greater than the

number of votes returned in the average of the last three provincial

general elections,

the government must take steps that the government considers

necessary or advisable to implement the result of the referendum,

including introducing the legislation needed to implement the

proportional representation voting system in sufficient time for that

voting system to be in place for a general election called on or after

July 1, 2021.]

[11:50 a.m.]

So while members are reading it over, the amendment that I’m

proposing would include a….

The Chair: Member.

M. Polak: I am sorry. I apologize.

The Chair: All right. Carry on now.

On the amendment.

M. Polak: Sorry. I was continuing from before. I apologize, Mr. Chair. I

should have waited to be recognized.

While the members are familiarizing themselves with what is a very

short amendment, it adds, with respect to what causes this to be binding

on government, a requirement that a voter turnout threshold be reached

that would be the average of the last three provincial elections and

that, below that, the results would not be binding on

government.

I think this is important. Now, the minister says that he’s quite

sure that the turnout will be beyond that. In that case, I can’t see why

there would be any harm in including the threshold below which this

would not be binding. It seems to me that if the minister is confident

that the turnout will be high, then there shouldn’t be anything

problematic with the amendment that I am proposing.

I know that there are other members who wish to speak to this

matter and the importance of ensuring that we are not, as a Legislature,

bound by the results that may come from a low turnout, given that this

particular vote is not attached to a provincial election, a municipal

election. It stands on its own and, also, is one that doesn’t, as the

HST did, engage people’s wallets.

It may not gain as much attention as that one. But again, I think

that if the minister is confident that the turnout is going to be high,

in that case, there shouldn’t be any problem with accepting the

amendment that I have proposed.

Hon. D. Eby: Again, I’m going to express my frustration that the members on the

other side are not taking advantage of the drafting services that are

offered by legislative counsel. This amendment, like the last amendment,

amends the wrong section.

I mean, we’re in a minority parliament. If you hope to have your

amendment passed, it’s got to be in language that makes sense and is

interpretable by a judge, potentially — that it can stand up in court.

This amends the entirely wrong section.

I will not be supporting this.

A. Olsen: I just want to highlight that it was a week or so ago that we

presented a letter. We do want to collaboratively work with all members

of this House. We want to be able to work through these amendments, to

be given the opportunity to…

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, continue.

A. Olsen: Thank you.

…fully analyze the impact of an amendment.

Specifically on this bill, this bill was the first piece of

legislation that, I believe, the Attorney General put in front of us.

We’ve been debating it literally ad nauseam for months now. These

amendments conceivably could have been drafted a long time ago. They

could have been discussed. We could have gone through them. We could

have put them to our research teams to fully understand the implications

of it. They could have, to the point of the Attorney General, been moved

to the right

section of the bill.

I just wanted to highlight the frustration that I have and that my

colleagues share when we’re not given the benefit or the ability to

understand the implications of these. It is deeply frustrating when

we’re not given the benefit of that doubt to….

Interjection.

The Chair: Continue, Member.

The member has the floor.

A. Olsen: Thank you.

Certainly, it is the right of the members of the official

opposition to not give the time. That’s true. But in the spirit of

attempting to work together on a bill that we’ve been debating for a

long period of time, it would be appropriate to allow us the opportunity

to understand how the amendment changes and the effect that it

has.

[11:55 a.m.]

Unfortunately, we continually are not given this opportunity. I

just am standing….

Interjections.

The Chair: Continue, Member.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, the member has the floor.

Please proceed.

A. Olsen: To the point, I’m not sure why it’s necessary to bring up what

other parties have done at other points in time. I’m simply pointing out

that this is an opportunity to do things differently that’s not being

taken, so it’s unfortunate. It’s with great difficulty that we’re able

to analyze this.

J. Thornthwaite: I know that this member that has just spoken has not been in the

House in the last parliament. But I can tell you that my experience,

being in the last parliament, was it never happened. We never got any

notice.

Interjection.

J. Thornthwaite: Exactly. Sometimes we did work with them, even when we were just

getting stuff handed to us.

The fact is that I am standing here today to support my colleague

on the referendum — “the number of votes returned is equal to, or

greater than the number of votes returned in the average of the last

three provincial elections.”

Interjections.

J. Thornthwaite: The reason why I would like to speak to this, if people would let

me speak to it….

Interjections.

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to speak to this because the way that this

referendum…. The whole entire process with regards to this consultation

is a sham. In comparison to other previous referendums that we have had

on proportional representation….

The Chair: Member, noting the hour, please.

J. Thornthwaite: Yes, Mr. Chair. I will reserve my right to continue on.

Thank you.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix: This is a delightful and extraordinary moment. With that — and

noting the next sitting in that case, as well, just in case — I’ll move

that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES:

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

The Chair: Welcome. We draw this committee into session. We are

considering the votes for the statutory officers and the Legislative

Assembly.

Vote 1: Legislative Assembly, $82,191,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:

OFFICERS OF THE

LEGISLATURE

Vote 2: Auditor General, $17,339,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $743,000 —

approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $46,154,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $6,064,000 —

approved.

Vote 6: Merit Commissioner, $1,125,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Ombudsperson, $6,653,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Police Complaint Commissioner, $3,428,000 —

approved.

Vote 9: Representative for Children and Youth, $8,970,000 —

approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report resolution of the votes and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:10 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada