Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, November 27, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 68

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

Tributes

Nadine Nakagawa

Hon. J. Darcy

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M211 — Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act, 2017

A. Weaver

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Burnaby Community Services Christmas Bureau

initiative

A. Kang

Richmond Chamber of Commerce business award recipients

J. Yap

Hockey Helps the Homeless tournament in Vancouver

M. Elmore

Accomplishments of British Columbians with

disabilities

S. Cadieux

Santa’s Workshop initiative in Comox Valley

R. Leonard

Chinese Canadian Military Museum

T. Wat

Oral Questions

Referendum on electoral reform

J. Johal

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

Tax credit changes and digital media industry in Okanagan

A. Weaver

Hon. B. Ralston

Adventure tourism proposal for Lions Gate Bridge

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

Film industry and policy on commercial use of public structures

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. C. Trevena

Electricity rates and review by B.C. Utilities Commission

T. Redies

Hon. M. Mungall

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act (continued)

J. Rustad

On the amendment

J. Rustad

L. Throness

P. Milobar

T. Wat

S. Gibson

E. Ross

J. Yap

S. Bond

M. Hunt

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture (continued)

D. Clovechok

Hon. L. Beare

J. Thornthwaite

P. Milobar

M. Bernier

J. Johal

J. Rustad

S. Cadieux

D. Barnett

T. Shypitka

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2017

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

E. Ross: Today I rise in the House to welcome two Kwagiulth brothers from

northern Vancouver Island.

[1:35 p.m.]

James Walkus is an aboriginal entrepreneur. He is close to finishing

the build of a second vessel, valued at $14 million, being built in B.C.

specifically for salmon aquaculture. Maurice Isaac is currently the site

manager at Midsummer Island for Marine Harvest.

I would also like to acknowledge an old Tsimshian basketball enemy,

Gary Hall. He is the former elected chief councillor of the Kitasoo/Xai’xais

First Nation at Klemtu, which has had a joint venture with Marine Harvest

for more than ten years.

Will the members please join me and welcome these exceptional

entrepreneurs to the House today.

Tributes

NADINE NAKAGAWA

Hon. J. Darcy: Thursday nights there’s always a crazy rush to get home to our

constituencies. I was lucky enough to make it to the Platinum Awards of

the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce just in time for them to give

out the award for Citizen of the Year to Nadine Nakagawa, who was

instrumental in so many initiatives in the community, including truth

and reconciliation, New West pushing for diversity on city committees,

the community garden, an active environmentalist involved in beautifying

the city, head of her residents association and many other things.

Somehow Nadine Nakagawa also finds time to be my constituency assistant,

and an awesome one at that.

I’d like to ask this House to join me in extending congratulations

to Nadine Nakagawa, the Citizen of the Year for New

Westminster.

Introductions by Members

J. Martin: Joining us in the gallery today is a very good friend of mine who has

recently become a part-time constituency assistant in my office, taking over

as soon as that’s out of the way, he’s going to be sampling some of

Victoria’s thriving craft brewery scenery. Please welcome Matthew Hawkins to

the House.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Chris Ralston, who is in the gallery today.

Chris is one of the exceptional volunteers who help us make our constituency

office a warm and welcoming place. Please join me to make Chris feel welcome

here today.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my parents, who

are in the audience here today, behind you there in the gallery. It gives me

great pleasure to welcome them. This is the first time they’ve been here

since the election.

Many of you will know my mother, who stole election night with her

interviews on Global TV. She’s up here, and she would be proud to talk to

you, each and every one of you, about the process of my birth, if you so

wish to ask her. Would the House please make them feel very

welcome.

R. Singh: It is with great pleasure that I welcome my very dear friends Paul

Faoro, the CUPE B.C. president, and Justin Schmid, the legislative

coordinator of CUPE B.C., to the House. They have been not just dear friends

but big supporters of mine. Would the House please make them feel

welcome.

M. Dean: I’m really pleased to see some friends from my constituency in the

House today. In particular, Jennifer Burgess does so much volunteering and

has sat on so many boards in Metchosin and in the region. Also, Trudy

Spiller, who is here today from Colwood, recently authored an amazing First

Nations story that’s being translated into lots of different languages.

They’re here with some other guests. Would you please make them very

welcome.

R. Glumac: I would like to introduce two people who played a very important role

in my being here today and, in fact, played a pretty important role in my

being anywhere — my parents, George and Maria Glumac. May the House please

make them feel welcome.

Hon. R. Fleming: In the gallery this afternoon, I’d like to introduce Mr. Tony

Sprackett, who is the constituency assistant doing casework for Victoria’s

Member of Parliament, Murray Rankin. He has been the president of the

Fernwood Community Association for the past 12 years. He’s worked in various

incarnations of income assistance, in the ministry as a front-line social

worker for 17 years. He’s a long-time, active member of the B.C. Government

Employees Union, now retired, and a fantastic photographer. I would ask the

House to make Mr. Sprackett welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

I would also like to echo the greetings and welcome from my colleague

from Surrey and introduce two gentlemen with us. Justin Schmid is the

national representative for CUPE and the legislative coordinator for the

CUPE B.C. region, and of course, Mr. Paul Faoro, who is known to lots of

members of this House, is the president of CUPE B.C. and represents 25,000

employees in the K-to-12 education sector here in British Columbia. Would

the House please make them welcome again.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M211 — UKRAINIAN FAMINE

AND GENOCIDE (HOLODOMOR)

MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 2017

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Ukrainian Famine and Genocide

(Holodomor) Memorial Day Act, 2017.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Ukrainian Famine and Genocide

(Holodomor) Memorial Day Act, 2017, of which notice has been given in my

name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first

time.

This bill establishes the fourth Saturday in November as an

official day of remembrance. The term “Holodomor” is derived from the

words “ moryty holodom ,” meaning extermination by

hunger.

As many as ten million Ukrainians were killed by the Soviet

government under Joseph Stalin through a deliberate state-induced famine

in 1932 to 1933. One-third of those killed were children.

This bill, if passed, would make B.C. the fifth province to

establish an official day of remembrance for Holodomor. Similar

legislation has already been passed by the federal parliament, as well

as by Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

Canada is home to the world’s third-largest Ukrainian population,

behind Ukraine and Russia, with an estimated 1.36 million Ukrainian

Canadians living across the country. Among them are members of my

family. In my family’s case, as part of Stalin’s collectivization of

farms, my grandfather, didus , was shipped to northern Russia.

My mother was born in the Ukraine and fled as a refugee during the

Second World War. She now lives here in Victoria and has joined us in

the gallery.

In tabling this legislation, I’d like to recognize the Minister of

Jobs, Trade and Technology for his continued efforts to have Holodomor

recognized in this House. I also wish to thank the government for

proclaiming, as a one-time event, November 25, 2017, as Holodomor

Memorial Day, as well as the government’s commemoration of the victims

of the famine and crimes against humanity in a ceremony this past

weekend.

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

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M211, Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day

Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BURNABY COMMUNITY SERVICES

CHRISTMAS BUREAU

INITIATIVE

A. Kang: We are less than one month away from the winter holidays, and I

would like to highlight some of the amazing work that the city of

Burnaby has done to make sure that everyone, and I truly mean everyone,

can enjoy the holiday spirit.

Burnaby Community Services Christmas Bureau brightens the holiday

for families with low-income seniors experiencing isolation and those

struggling with extreme poverty by helping them put a gift or two under

the tree. Last year, through the generosity of our community, the

Christmas Bureau distributed nearly 192,000 holiday items to more than

3,000 people, including 2,000 children, 137 seniors and 35 individuals

who were homeless or at risk of homelessness.

This year the gift room is located right next door to my community

office at Burnaby–Deer Lake in Metropolis at Metrotown, in the upper

level. I hope that the Grinch doesn’t take this opportunity, now that

I’ve announced it, to try anything funny and steal all the gifts from

the room.

Many people have put hard work into making this happen, including

Stephen D’Souza, the executive director of Burnaby Community Services,

and generous donors like ten-year-old Brianna, who donated half her

yearly allowance for the last three years. I’m so proud to see such

selflessness and sense of community in someone so young. But hey, that’s

Burnaby for you.

The toy room is open Monday to Friday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., and

on Saturday from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. The doors are closed on December

‘Tis the season of love, joy and giving. So please give generously

by dropping off a toy, for toy donations, or registering at the

Christmas Bureau’s program.

Happy holidays, everyone.

[1:45 p.m.]

RICHMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

BUSINESS AWARD

RECIPIENTS

J. Yap: Richmond is B.C.’s fourth-largest city, and I’m proud to say it

has a thriving and diverse business community. Richmond is home to YVR,

Vancouver International Airport, an advanced high-tech industry and many

businesses in the pharmaceutical, transportation, construction,

agribusiness, communications and distribution sectors — not to mention

the wonderful small businesses that offer a wide range of goods and

services in my local community of Steveston.

Last Thursday evening the very best in local businesses were

honoured at the 40th annual Richmond Chamber of Commerce Business

Excellence Awards.

This year’s winners in the chamber’s ten categories included

Richmond Society for Community Living as Association of the Year,

Vancity as Green Business of the Year, Saltworks Technologies as

Innovation of the Year, Fuggles and Warlock Craftworks as New Business

of the Year, Ideon Packaging as Outstanding Workplace of the Year,

Taipak Enterprises as Young Entrepreneur of the Year, Ashton Service

Group as Business Leadership of the Year, Juan’s Auto Service as Small

Business of the Year, Reid Hurst Nagy as Mid-Sized Business of the Year

and Cowell Auto Group as Large Business of the Year.

This year’s inductees into the Richmond Chamber’s hall of fame are

Michael Chu and Harry Minsy. Along with the member for Richmond South

Centre, I was pleased to join 350 of Richmond’s community and business

leaders in celebrating these Business Excellence Awards winners, as well

as the nominees, who are all demonstrating a high level of skill,

entrepreneurship and customer service to the people of Richmond and

beyond.

Thank you to chair Rob Akimow and CEO Matt Pitcairn and their team

at the Richmond Chamber of Commerce for hosting this wonderful award

celebration and for working so hard to make Richmond such a prosperous

and favourable place to do business.

HOCKEY HELPS THE HOMELESS

TOURNAMENT IN

VANCOUVER

M. Elmore: Hockey Helps the Homeless is a hockey tournament held in NHL

cities across Canada that works towards ending homelessness and

restoring the dignity and independence of people who are homeless. Over

200 former NHL players and Olympic gold medallists have played in the

tournament.

“It’s a good fast game. You’ll like it, Mable. You should join,”

Heather McCutcheon, organizer for the women’s tournament, told me.

“Three games in five hours for a great cause.”

The women’s tournament, in its sixth year, continues to grow fast

and had a waiting list this year. My team was sponsored by Farris law

firm and coached by Jack McIlhargey. He was a defenceman for the

Vancouver Canucks and a former Canucks assistant coach, voted one of the

30 all-time greatest Canucks, and is currently a scout for the

Philadelphia Flyers.

It was a good, fast three games. But more than that, it was an

excellent day with terrific people who have a huge heart and are helping

to make a difference in Vancouver.

This year the Vancouver tournament raised over $600,000, the most

of any tournament across the country, for local agencies in the Downtown

Eastside that support people facing homelessness and help to transform

lives in our community: the Urban Native Youth Association, Covenant

House, Powell Place women’s centre, RainCity Housing, Lookout Society

and First United Church.

I’d like to recognize the volunteer board of directors who spent

countless hours organizing and running the tournament: Chair Ewan

French, Gord Keep, Pat Robinson, David Fine, Jay Surge, Peter Matsubara,

Lucind Rideau, Heather McCutcheon, Dana Turner, Liz Hudson and Brianne

Carson.

Thanks to all of the volunteers, sponsors and participants for

playing a role to work towards a future where every Canadian has a place

to call home.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF BRITISH

COLUMBIANS WITH

DISABILITIES

S. Cadieux: First, a shout-out to the gallery watching from VGH

today.

The annual observance of International Day of Persons with

Disabilities on December 3 seeks to raise awareness of the gains to be

derived from the integration of persons with disabilities in every

aspect of political, social, economic and cultural life.

Now, of course, we’re all proud of B.C. heroes like Terry Fox and

Rick Hansen. But have you heard about these folks?

Barb Goode, the first person with a developmental disability to

address the United Nations General Assembly. She’s a strong advocate for

plain language, something all governments need to be reminded of too

often.

Niall McNeil, an actor with a developmental disability who has

co-written two plays, the second of which, King Arthur’s

Knight , will be at the PuSh Festival this January.

Marilyn Rushton, a teacher and accomplished musician who also

serves on the board of Blind Beginnings, a non-profit supporting B.C.

families with blind or partially sighted children.

Jaimie Borisoff, a neuroscientist, a professor and a Paralympic

medallist who is the Canadian chair of the Rehabilitation Engineering

Design Lab at BCIT.

[1:50 p.m.]

Johanna Johnson has had to fight for her right to teach but this

year celebrates her 17th year as a grade 1 teacher in Vancouver. Johanna

is a high quadriplegic who is ventilator-dependent.

I am so proud of all of them and of so many more. So when I read a

headline this weekend that Time magazine and the U.S. President

were in a bit of a scuffle over who might be named person of the year, I

found myself pondering why society continues, through the media, to

glorify and celebrate the people that they do. So may I finish with

this.

To Time magazine, I have some suggestions for you. You’ve

never heard of them, but that’s your problem. British Columbians with

disabilities will continue to take their places to make the world a

better place, and we will be here to celebrate that. They make my list

for people of the year, and in celebration of this year’s International

Day of Persons with Disabilities, I thank them all for taking their

place, for using their voices and their talents and for paving the way

for others to follow.

SANTA’S WORKSHOP INITIATIVE

IN COMOX

VALLEY

R. Leonard: Once again, a wind has blown in from the North Pole to the Comox

Valley. On November 2, there was a bringing of generosity of spirit to

grow a giving community. Santa’s Workshop opened once again to receive

gently used and loved toys to give to kids in the Comox Valley —

children and youth up to the age of 16.

Unique to Vancouver Island, in 1972, Santa inspired Penny Marlowe,

a single mom, to become one of his elves. Her kids even helped out.

Today some 90 elves volunteer from one hour to five days a week

repairing bikes and electronics, cleaning, augmenting and checking that

all of the parts of the toys are in working order and that they’re all

there.

The elves stick around for decades. Coordinator Donna Kennedy has

herself been an elf for only ten years, but the longest-serving and the

most honoured elves are John Bernard and Fay Beasley, who have been

there for decades.

Santa’s Workshop receives donations of toys and money. Gifts for

kids aged 11 to 16 are the hardest to get. They prefer electronic toys,

and the generosity of people in the Comox Valley has made sure that

youth are not forgotten.

There are a couple of companies which have donated batteries the

last couple of years. Toys often need batteries. An example is one

company that has those breathing apparatuses for night sleep. They can

only use their batteries for test once, and those gently used batteries

are being put to good use. A construction company donated three boxes of

D-cell batteries. Another great example of the spirit of giving —

Santa’s elves were able to provide 214 donated bikes last

year.

A family only need provide proof of address and a CareCard to get

the toys that they deserve at Christmas. Seven hundred kids have had

this opportunity to enjoy Christmas, and it’s thanks to the generosity

of spirit of the Comox Valley.

CHINESE CANADIAN MILITARY MUSEUM

T. Wat: November is a time of remembrance for the men and women who have

served our country in conflicts around the world. They fought numerous

battles and, in some cases, lost their lives so that we could have the

freedoms we enjoy today.

Earlier this month, along with the members for Richmond South

Centre and Richmond-Steveston, I was honoured to take

part in a

fundraising dinner supporting the Chinese Canadian Military Museum

Society. This important organization collects, preserves, documents and

commemorates the role of Chinese-Canadian veterans in the service of

Canada’s military and its impact on Chinese-Canadian history and civil

rights.

The event was held in Richmond, and it was a huge success. This

annual fundraiser was extra special this year as attendees also marked

the 70th anniversary of the first Canadian citizenship ceremony for

Chinese persons.

The event also launched the museum’s latest exhibit: On a Wing and

a Prayer. It shares the remarkable stories of Chinese-Canadian air force

members who fought, died and survived some of the most harrowing

situations of the Second World War.

We had the opportunity to meet two of them at a fundraising dinner

— aged 100 and 94 years, respectively. What a special privilege to be

able to thank them in person for their bravery and sacrifice.

[1:55 p.m.]

Congratulations to the Chinese Canadian Military Museum on its

successful fundraiser and a fantastic new exhibit. Thank you to all of

our veterans, to whom we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Oral Questions

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

J. Johal: Our current democratic system has served us well for over 150

years. Changing that system should not be an issue of partisan politics,

but let’s look at this government’s approach on proportional

representation. They’ve broken their promise on a simple yes-or-no

question. No minimum turnout and a skewed survey, designed 3 to 1 by

those opposed to the current system.

To the Premier, the survey is decidedly and deliberately slanted

on an issue of fundamental importance. Will he withdraw it?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. You’ll forgive me, hon.

Speaker, if I read back the throne speech — the first NDP throne speech,

the NDP-Green throne speech.... This year, back on June 22, the Speech

from the Throne said: “Your government will enable a third referendum on

electoral reform. It will require extensive public consultation to

develop a clear question.” That was the position of the people on the

other side of the House when they thought they were going to stay on

this side of the House.

I appreciate, hon. Speaker, the desire of the members on the other

side of the House to try and denigrate the desire on this side of the

House — two political parties representing about 58 percent of the

popular vote in the last election wanting to bring in proportional

representation. That’s what we campaigned on.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: British Columbians were promised a simple yes-or-no answer, not a

manufactured consultation process. It’s clear the on-line questions are

obviously loaded in favour of PR. The process is clearly biased in

favour of ensuring a yes vote.

The Premier has asked British Columbians to answer these

questions, so I’ll put one to him. I’ll make sure that this is fair by

sticking exactly to the survey. Which would he prefer? Choose one of the

following answers: (a) “MLAs who do what their party promised” or (b)

“MLAs who do what their constituents want.” To the Premier, choose one —

(

a) or (b).

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I welcome the question from the new member for

Richmond-Queensborough. He wasn’t in this place when the B.C. Liberals

developed their first referendum question. That was back in

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: That’s when the B.C. Liberals wanted to take away minority rights

from Indigenous people in British Columbia. It wasn’t just New Democrats

that were opposed to the question at that time. None other than Angus

Reid, someone who’s pretty good at this sort of thing, had the following

to say — that it was an absurdity, a disaster in polling. “One of the

most amateurish, one-sided attempts to gauge public opinion that I’ve

seen in my professional career.”

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: So the last people we should take advice from on the referendum

are those on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a second

supplemental.

J. Johal: The Premier is asking British Columbians to ask this question. He

should answer it as well. I’m going to ask him that question again. He

made specific promises on proportional representation, including that it

would be a yes-or-no question. But his junior partner says campaign

promises are “irrelevant” — another reminder that the Green tail wags

the bloated orange dog.

[2:00 p.m.]

Which does the Premier prefer? Choose one of the following

answers, sir: (

a) do what he promised or (

b) do what his junior partner

wants. To the Premier, has he chosen (

a) or (b)?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank my learned colleague for his question. Multiple

choice seems to be the preferred option on that side of the House. On

this side of the House, we’re going to follow through on what we

campaigned on, and that is to put a question to the people of British

Columbia: do they want to continue with a first-past-the-post system

that doesn’t reflect the diversity of community, or do they want to vote

in favour of proportional representation?

My colleague the Attorney General is developing the communications

outreach and the consultation process that will lead to a question. I

want to assure members on that side of the House that they will have

ample opportunity to participate in the creation of that, and I’m

encouraging them to join with us and support changing the electoral

system that shuts people out. We want to include people in our

democracy. We’ve banned big money. Now let’s invite the public into our

public discourse.

S. Bond: Well, this survey represents just another consistent pattern, part

of that pattern that’s developing and defining this government. Costly

reviews, but they have predetermined outcomes. Or predetermined outcomes

with little or no consultation. Broken promises and

hypocrisy.

The Premier knows full well that even his own party, the NDP,

requires a two-thirds majority to change their constitution, not a

simple 50 percent that he has determined is good enough for British

Columbians.

Last week this government showed just how far they are prepared to

go when it comes to proportional representation. They were asked: if 25

percent of voters supported a form of proportional representation, would

the result be valid? Well, the answer was nothing short of shocking. In

fact, it was confirmed that even if the voter turnout was as low as 10

percent, the outcome would be valid.

To the Premier, now is his chance to set the record straight and

reassure British Columbians that he will not move forward with a change

of this magnitude with a 50 percent mandate and 10 percent of

voters.

Hon. D. Eby: I do thank the member for the question. I thank the members for

their interest in the consultation process. We brought in four academic

experts in consultation with the public — these kinds of processes,

various backgrounds, various interests. I want to point out to the

member that they worked for free for the government. I want to thank

them for the assistance in that.

Now, I want to just point out that the members are holding us to

account to a standard on this referendum, as they should, but they have

a bit of a mixed record on referendums themselves.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The CBC described their 2002 referendum process as follows. Native

and church leaders “called the plebiscite ‘stupid,’ ‘immoral,’

‘amateurish’ and ‘racist.’ By the May 15 deadline, only about one-third

of the mail-in ballots were returned. Many ballots were burned. Others

were turned into paper airplanes, cut into snowflakes, even toilet

paper.” That’s the CBC report.

That’s unfair. That was a long time ago. Quotes from 2013 on the

transit referendum. Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie: “A recipe for

disaster.” White Rock mayor Wayne Baldwin: “An absolute utter and total

mistake. A total abrogation of responsibility.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Port Coquitlam mayor in….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, may I ask you to sit for a moment until we get

quiet?

Attorney General.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Port Coquitlam mayor in 2005, B.C. Liberal candidate Greg Moore:

“The hypocrisy of this policy platform proposal is

unbelievable.”

I thank the members for their feedback. I hope they fill out the

questionnaire. I hope they provide feedback. It will be taken into

consideration with all of the feedback from all of the political parties

who participate and all British Columbians who participate.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Abandoning regional consideration as part of the threshold for

change is an outrageous affront to British Columbians in many regions of

this province. It is yet another broken promise by this Premier. He told

the lobby group Fair Vote Canada that establishing the threshold would

“be part of the consultation process.” Yet the Attorney General, who

just rose to his feet to speak on behalf of the Premier, said the

threshold was hard-wired and not part of the consultation process.

Apparently another example of “say one thing and do another.”

The Premier also promised to consult and said the federal amending

formula is “similar to the kind of formula we’d need for a plebiscite on

changing how we elect people in B.C.” Once again, say one thing and do

something else.

Again, to the Premier, why has he broken his promises to protect

the voices of voters who live in small communities and rural regions of

this province? Why did he break his promise to consult on the threshold

required? And why is a mandate from 10 percent of voters good enough on

something so fundamental as the manner in which British Columbians elect

their representatives?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for her question. I’m surprised to hear it,

though, on a question as basic as human rights and First Nations treaty

rights.

Attorney General Geoff Plant, who was running that referendum,

said during the referendum: “The government takes a position on these

eight questions. We would answer yes to each of them.”

The standard of neutrality that we are establishing is new, and it

might be uncomfortable for the members. But we will do our best to make

sure that happens. Now, I understand pretending to care about that and

previously not caring about it. That shift in position is not new to the

members on the other side.

It was last Thursday that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena said:

“We don’t see the need for a referendum.” Well, that must have been a

surprise to members across the way who all voted in favour of the throne

speech, which said there should be a referendum, right? It must have

been a surprise.

It must have been a surprise to the member from False Creek and

Langara, who put out a news release about the throne speech which said

that the referendum on electoral reform would be “a positive difference

for British Columbia families.”

It would have been a surprise for the member for Kamloops–South

Thompson, who put out a press release that said: “The throne speech lays

out a stable plan for B.C.’s future that included the commitment to a

referendum.”

They don’t know where they stand on this issue. There will be a

referendum. It will be fair. We will make it happen.

[2:10 p.m.]

TAX CREDIT CHANGES AND

DIGITAL MEDIA INDUSTRY IN

OKANAGAN

A. Weaver: In 2012, Bardel Entertainment, one of the world’s leading

animation service providers, opened a small regional office in Kelowna.

In doing so, they took advantage of a regional and distant location tax

credit brought in by the B.C. Liberals in 2003 and 2008 respectively.

After growing to 50 employees and securing a number of major foreign

contracts, Bardel opened its new state-of-the-art animation studio in

downtown Kelowna on October 1, 2015.

On March 1, 2016, government introduced amendments to Bill 10,

Budget Measures Implementation Act. The amendments made substantive

changes to the calculation of the regional and distant location tax

credit. The changes were retroactive to June 26, 2015. Remarkably,

during committee stage, the then Minister of Finance said this was “a

rather technical amendment that refers to the deletion of a couple of

words that, frankly, were the result of a drafting error.” Well, the

substantive changes had the effect of singling out Bardel and costing

them $5 million.

My question to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology is this:

will the minister take steps to remedy the B.C. Liberal mismanagement of

the digital entertainment interactive media sector and ensure that

Bardel is not penalized by being caught by a retroactive change in this

legislation?

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the Leader of the Third Party for his question and

for his interest in the digital entertainment and interactive media

sector.

For too long, the former government, the old government, ignored

this sector while they focused pretty well exclusively on LNG. This

sector creates good jobs while attracting investment to our province,

and our government wants to build this sector.

Interjections.

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

Hon. B. Ralston: Bardel Entertainment, which the Leader of the Third Party has

referred to, has shared their concerns with me, and I will be meeting

with them very, very soon. I look forward to discussing this issue and

any concerns they want to raise, and I’d be happy to keep the member

updated.

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

A. Weaver: For the first time, Okanagan College launched its two-year

animation diploma program this fall. It’s but the first step in

establishing the Okanagan as a hub for training and accreditation in the

digital entertainment and interactive media industry. Industry leaders

like Bardel Entertainment, Yeti Farm Creative, Hyper Hippo and Disney

Interactive are partnering with Okanagan College, UBC Okanagan, school

district 23 — that’s Central Okanagan — and the Vancouver Film School to

develop a hands-on training program to position Kelowna as a leader in

the new economy.

In particular, Bardel wants to commit up to $1 million to

kick-start and pilot an open badge accreditation for a digital media

skills training program working with these partners, but the $5 million

punitive, retroactive surprise they got from the B.C. Liberals has

brought tough times to Bardel in Kelowna.

My question to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology is this:

will he commit to working with the Ministers of Education and Advanced

Education, as well as local industry and educational partners, to ensure

that the Okanagan emerges as a go-to destination for training and

accreditation in the digital entertainment and interactive media

industry?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for his question.

Kelowna as a centre for technology is a growing one. I’ve met

recently with Raghwa Gopal, who’s the CEO of Accelerate Okanagan. In a

round table, many of the companies that have been referenced were

present and expressed their views about the great potential of the

technology sector in Kelowna.

I really appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Third Party is

raising this issue. I’m hard at work with my colleague the Minister of

Advanced Education to deal with those very issues of training.

Certainly, in Kelowna, Prince George, Vancouver Island and throughout

the province, there is huge potential for this sector. We look forward

to building this industry in our quest to build a prosperous British

Columbia for everyone.

ADVENTURE TOURISM PROPOSAL

FOR LIONS GATE

BRIDGE

J. Sturdy: Earlier this year government published a notice of intent to enter

into a licence to operate with Legendworthy Quest, which is an amazing

adventure tourism business.

[2:15 p.m.]

This proposal, which is similar in nature to operations in places

like Sydney, Australia, would have adventure-seekers climb the Lions

Gate Bridge towers for spectacular views of the city and have an

incredible personal experience. Over three years of due diligence were

done to turn this project into a reality, but the government has

completely pulled the rug out from underneath this tourism entrepreneur

and revoked the agreement to trial this exciting opportunity.

To the Minister of Tourism, did the minister actually stand up for

the interests of the tourism sector when this decision was

made?

Hon. C. Trevena: The member is quite right. The Ministry of Transportation did post

a notice of intent about whether any companies were interested in

following up the proposal. This came after an unsolicited bid came to

the ministry back in 2015 about the possibility of turning part of the

Lions Gate Bridge into a tourist attraction.

That went through due diligence. The ministry, then, could not

take, obviously, one bidder. It put out the notice of intent. At that

time, someone else, another company, came forward to say that they might

be interested, which would have then led to a competition. That was

happening up until the election. Subsequent to that, we have, as a

policy, decided not to commercialize our public infrastructure, our

roads and our bridges, and will not be proceeding with this.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a

supplemental.

J. Sturdy: Well, that’s a very interesting response and will have significant

implications for activities all across the province of British

Columbia.

The Minister of Tourism has refused to, essentially, answer

questions or advocate on behalf of the tourism sector

generally.

This opportunity would have created up to 60 full-time jobs. The

letter sent to the tourism operator says the decision was made after

“much review, discussion and briefing” and was made on “understanding

the mandate of our new government.”

To the Minister of Tourism, was she part of these discussions and

briefings? Why is supporting tourism not part of the mandate of this

government?

Hon. C. Trevena: Obviously, as I mentioned before, this was an unsolicited bid.

Somebody came forward to talk to the ministry about that. The ministry

wanted to know a little bit more about it but was not going to

direct-award any contract on this. After that, there was discussion

about whether such endeavours should go ahead. It was decided that we

are not going to be commercializing our bridges or our highways for

commercial response.

FILM INDUSTRY AND POLICY ON

COMMERCIAL USE OF PUBLIC

STRUCTURES

J. Thornthwaite: The Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture is supposed to look

after the tourism industry. The new policy, according to this letter, is

that the government has “decided not to pursue the commercialization of

any public structures with any vendor.” Let me repeat that: “any public

structures with any vendor.”

We all know that the B.C. film industry needs consistency and

certainty to be sustainable. This policy has the potential to

fundamentally restrict the film industry’s ability to secure ideal

locations for their productions.

To the Minister of Tourism and for film, can she tell this House

today if she has made the film industry aware of her government’s new

policy? Yes or no.

Hon. C. Trevena: This is about the Lions Gate Bridge. It is about a piece of public

infrastructure where we had one person coming forward, a commercial

operator coming forward, with a suggestion for making a commercial

business on the Lions Gate Bridge.

[2:20 p.m.]

My responsibility as minister is the safety of all our vehicles on

the road and our people who are using our highways. It is not to

commercially exploit our bridges or our highways, and that was our

decision.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m going to read the letter, November 19, 2017, by Kevin Richter

from the Ministry of Transportation. “After much review, discussion and

briefing, the ministry has decided not to pursue the commercialization

of any public structures with any vendor.”

The film industry is making record investments, close to $2

billion annually. Restricting fair access to locations for filming would

have a devastating impact on this vital industry and B.C.’s economy.

Riverdale , for example, uses schools in Vancouver for their

filming. Life Sentence is currently shooting in my riding of

Deep Cove. The new policy could put in jeopardy over 44,000 direct jobs

that are generated by film and TV in our province, including 8,000 in

the North Shore alone.

Why hasn’t the minister communicated this policy to the film

industry that she is supposed to be advocating for, and if she has, what

did the industry say?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is missing the

point. This is a tourism venture that wants to establish a business on

the Lions Gate Bridge. It had nothing to do with the temporary permit

that is issued for the film industry.

ELECTRICITY RATES AND REVIEW BY

B.C. UTILITIES

COMMISSION

T. Redies: The B.C. Utilities Commission has soundly rejected this

government’s sloppy attempt to rush a freeze on hydro rates, and that’s

because the government failed to answer the BCUC’s basic questions —

questions that have been asked in estimates for several weeks now. The

government can’t answer because they have no plan, particularly in the

context of a possible $4 billion write-off and a plus-10 percent

increase in hydro bills.

To the minister, what will she do if the BCUC rejects her poorly

planned attempt at a rate freeze a second time?

Hon. M. Mungall: Let’s talk about how the B.C. Liberals like to do

things.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: They love to hear these stories about themselves, I’m

guessing.

For 16 years, they took every opportunity to jump hydro rates to a

total of a 70 percent increase — 24 percent in the last four years

alone. And while they were doing that, they were giving tax breaks to

their rich friends, the top 2 percent in British Columbia.

I know the B.C. Liberals don’t like the idea of making life more

affordable for British Columbians, and I would wager that’s why they’re

over there. British Columbians want life to be more affordable for them,

and that’s why we’re over here.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: The NDP government appears to be on a roll in not answering

questions today.

The minister claims to respect the BCUC on some decisions, but on

rate-setting, it is treated as an afterthought. The hypocrisy of the

minister is blatant. She hasn’t thought through simple consequences of

her actions and rushed announcements, and she avoided questions in

estimates that, lo and behold, the BCUC is rightly asking

now.

[2:25 p.m.]

To the minister, will she tell us where B.C. Hydro will find $150

million, and how will this affect future electricity rates?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for what was a very personalized question.

I understand that the B.C. Liberals have trouble making life affordable

for British Columbians. I understand that they don’t appreciate that

that’s what British Columbians want. So let me just read them a quote

from a letter I received from Mr. Stevens….

Interjections.

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

Hon. M. Mungall: Mr. Stevens writes that he’s 80 years young, and he says: “Thank

you, and your colleagues, for not raising the hydro rates some more.” He

writes that because he’s been paying increased hydro rates for the last

16 years as a result of B.C. Liberal policies.

Now, I know that they don’t like things going through the B.C.

Utilities Commission. They have some trouble with that kind of

process.

On this side of the House, we’re doing appropriate process as we

make sure that life is affordable for British Columbians. We committed

to doing that, and that’s what we’re going to deliver on.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of

Tourism.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 ACT

(continued)

J. Rustad: I’m pleased to continue my comments with regards to Bill 6. I want

to go back to an initial comment I made at the beginning of my last

comments last Thursday, which started off with a quote from Oscar Wilde:

“When the gods want to punish us, they answer our prayers.”

When you think about PR, when you think about what it’s going to

do for this province….

Interjection.

[2:30 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Yes, as the Health Minister says, it does apply to an awful lot.

Yes. Be careful what you wish for.

Anyway, when I think back to the conversation and where we were at

on proportional representation, I was talking about the cases to: what

is the problem we’re trying to solve? Why are we doing this?

I want to start by reading an

article that was printed in the

Globe and Mail on March 22 of 2016, which talked about

it.

“Electoral reform in Canada tends to be propagated under the

pretence of making parliament more ‘representative.’ What reformers

really want is more representation of ‘their’ views. Proportional

representation, or PR, holds out not only the spectre of greater

representation of the left, more seats, but greater diversity of

representation on the left, more political parties. Reformers seemingly

forget that expanded depth and breadth on the left forebodes the same

potential on the right.”

It’s worth noting at this point that I think there are some 29

parties registered in British Columbia already. So when you think about

where proportional representation is going to lead, what is the

long-term result of this? What exactly is it we’re trying to produce

from this? This

article from the Globe and Mail goes on and

says — this was, once again, back on March 22, 2016:

“Over the weekend, we got yet another reminder of the ugly

underbelly of democracy, this time in Germany. The electorate in three

of Germany’s 16 states went to the polls, two in the former West, one in

the former East. A new party with no previous parliamentary

representation garnered 15.1 percent in one of them, 12.6 in the other,

and an astonishing 24.2 in the third.

“In its rhetoric, the Alternative für Deutschland, or AFD, has much

in common with Trump: simple answers to a host of complex problems —

disestablishmentarian, anti-immigration, anti-globalization —

Islamophobic and a platform long on grievances and short on

details.”

Talking about that comment about Islamophobic, just last Monday we

had a debate in this Legislature, a member’s statement about the

challenge of this. Yet PR is what allows that to actually take form and,

potentially, elect candidates in a Legislature, as it has in many

countries in Europe. One of the members that is currently not in his

seat and doing some heckling — which would be great if we could perhaps

contain it — from the members opposite should pay very close attention

to the fact that in Europe there are a number of parties now with

representatives in governments that have that as one of their political

outcomes: Islamophobia.

It’s similar when I think about that platform, which is long on

grievances, short on details.

“It’s similar in tone, although not necessarily in degree of

ideological extremism, to the Front National in France…the Vlaams Blok

in Belgium, to the Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands, a past

governing coalition party, the Law and Justice in Poland, the Fidesz in

Hungary, the True Finns, the U.K. Independence Party. All share the same

electorate.”

This is a difference in outcomes that has less to do with policy

and more with electoral systems. This is, once again, from this

article

from the Globe and Mail . The

article goes on and says the

difference in outcomes has less to do with policies and more with

electoral systems.

“Forms of proportional representation prevail across continental

Europe. By contrast, single-member plurality, or SMP” — which we call

first-past-the-post here — “prevails in the U.K., U.S., and Canada.

Whoever carries a plurality of the vote in a district carries the seat.

PR and SMP have opposite intended consequences.”

The key there is “intended consequences.”

“Usually PR empowers ideological margins. SMP moderates them by

encouraging brokerage politics and parties. Hurdles, such as 5 percent

in Germany, are meant to keep out the ideological riff-raff. But

thresholds are irrelevant when the AfD scores popular support in the

teens and twenties right out of the gate. SMP would not have prevented

the AfD from getting seats here and there, but PR translates into far

more seats for the AfD than would have otherwise been the case. It is

proportional representation, after all.”

[2:35 p.m.]

I think the key here, when you look through this, is:

“Proportional representation risks begetting an ‘Alternative for

Canada.’ Does Canadian democracy really need to put that hypothesis to

the test?”

I said in my previous comments, with regards to British Columbia

and Canada as being these jurisdictions with — not in Canada’s case, but

in British Columbia — balanced budgets, a solid economy, good

performance, a very high quality of life and living standards, labour

laws, etc…. What is the challenge? Why is it that we’re trying to find a

different system that created all of those positive things in Canada and

in British Columbia?

There’s only one answer. It is there for one reason and one reason

only, and that’s to empower the fringe minority parties — and, of

course, by the governing party, to try to maintain power.

There’s another interesting

article I want to read and put on

record from the New York Times . It goes:

“Proportional representation sounds like the ultimate in democracy —

no voice too small to be heard. But its great defect is that it can

spawn too many splinter parties. It tends also to create a permanent

class of power brokers, since national parties choose lists of

candidates and winners owe nothing to their constituencies, providing

less accountability than in other systems.”

The

article goes on, saying:

“Mechanical changes alone cannot make democracy work, turn crooks

into paragons and empower voters. But they might help. Italy has been

reeling from scandalous revelations about deep-pocket politicians,

billions in graft and corruption links between leaders of musical-chair

government and Mafia overlords. This is the bitter fruit of a voting

system that favours collusive coalitions, in which the dominant

Christian Democrats” — which is the dominant party in Italy — “haggle

for spoils with smaller parties.”

Going on:

“Other democracies, notably Israel and Poland, also suffer from the

effects of proportional representation. Dreamed up in the 19th century,

the system is pure in theory, sometimes calamitous in practice.

Typically, parties prepare lists of candidates and voters, either on a

national or regional basis, indicating the preferences. It is rare that

a single party gains a majority of seats. Thus the system favours weak

coalitions and corrupt bargaining.”

The

article goes on and says:

“The procedure contrasts with what the British call

first-past-the-post, in which candidates with the most votes are

declared the winners in single constituencies. That is the method tilted

in favour of big parties, since winner takes all. Depending on how

third-party vote is distributed, a victorious party can turn 40 percent

of the vote into 60 percent of the parliamentary seats.

“Every democracy has to formulate its own approaches to reconcile

reconciling majority rule and minority rights” — but I find this very

curious — “yet it is a historic oddity that Italy, Poland and Israel

have replicated the proportional representation system used by the

Weimar Republic, whose disastrous failure opened the way to Hitler’s

takeover.”

I don’t see that happening here in British Columbia, but it is

interesting to note what sort of challenges that a political system can

lead to.

The

article goes on to say:

“Some jurisdictions let voters recall their rep. PR fails to allow

this. After a PR election, we cannot trace a voter to his

representative, so we cannot know which voters might ethically vote to

recall each rep. Full rep” — or PR — “is promoted most loudly by members

of a few tiny fringe groups, such as the Libertarian Party and the

Greens. They hope PR will give them the balance of power between the two

major parties, as indeed it sometimes does in countries which use PR.

Voters are better served by focusing on realistic policy options

promoted by major candidates.”

There is a tremendous amount of articles that have been written —

all across newspapers, all across various countries — all about the

challenges of PR. It points out some very good issues. It points out the

challenges that we have under a system that is not accountable. As the

leader of the Green Party has said: “Platforms don’t matter.” It’s all

about the backroom deals. It’s all about how the power broking can come

together.

[2:40 p.m.]

Those are the exact same things that led to what those articles

are talking about: the challenges we see in Israel, the corruption and

challenges that we see in Italy, the issues of extremism that we see

popping up in various countries across Europe that have PR systems. This

is what PR does. It’s the inevitability.

You can’t look for examples across Europe or other places in the

world, in the tens, if not hundreds, of countries that use PR that can

come out and show how it has been successful. There are all challenges.

There are all problems.

No democratic system is perfect. There is no question of that. But

a system that has produced good, solid results for a country like Canada

and a province like British Columbia, for other jurisdictions that are

using the first-past-the-post or single-member-plurality…. That system

has led to the kind of results that I think people are looking for, that

people want. It’s hard to imagine…. I want to quote the Premier today

from question period, when he stood up and answered a question about PR.

He said that he personally wants to bring in PR.

Well, first of all, that’s certainly not neutral. Second of all,

it certainly supports everything this government is doing, whether it is

the consultation process that they’re doing in stacking the deck with

people that are looking for PR, or whether it is an on-line form, which

I went and filled out — the questionnaire going out to the public, which

is clearly biased in its questions and how it’s doing it.

It’s incredible to think that a process by a minority government,

a process that came about through a backroom, power-brokered deal, has

the potential to change democracy in this province forever, when they

themselves didn’t even get the threshold needed and are asking us to

disregard the threshold across the province for any of the regions from

across this province and simply have a 50 percent plus one, with not

even a threshold for number of voters that participate.

The question in question period today was: “If 10 percent of the

population participated, would that be enough?” Under what the governing

party has said, it would be enough. A simple 50 percent plus one, of 10

percent of the population, would be enough to enact proportional

representation. It’s crazy to think that our system that has produced

such great results could be changed so simply and so easily.

I just want to requote from the Telegraph of April 23,

2011. “PR fails the challenge of positive electoral reform. Regardless

of the model that is offered, PR may be proportional, but it is not

representation.” To me, that’s the key. It goes back to my original

comments that I made last Thursday.

You think about your riding, and you think about needing to

represent people in the riding. How can an MLA be accountable and

representative of those constituents when there is no constituency

necessarily? There is no way to be able to make that

connection.

I had an issue come up just today, actually. It was posted on

of murder, who admitted to wanting to kill four people and tragically

killed one person before being arrested, has been released on bail to go

back to the community, the community in which he allegedly admitted to

having undertaken this act. The people in that community are outraged.

They don’t want to see this person back in the community. So what did

they do? The first thing they did was contact their MLA. “What can you

do? How can you help us with the situation?”

Under proportional representation, who do they contact? Do they go

off and contact somebody who hasn’t got the connection, who doesn’t know

them personally, who hasn’t had the opportunity to be out travelling

around and representing the area? Who do they contact? That’s the real

problem under proportional representation. Accountability is just not

there.

[2:45 p.m.]

I was reading through a list of countries that have gone through

PR. I want to reiterate something that I mentioned before, which is

Iceland, which is slightly larger than my riding but obviously very

sparsely populated — only about 200,000 voters. Eight parties split 63

seats, with no party…. Political parties elected with less than 15

percent. I think only one party was around 23 percent, and it’s going to

be the one that’s going to be asked to become government — pretty

remarkable when you think about the way that is.

All of this speaks to one very important piece. In democracy, it’s

important to be able to have people understand what’s being proposed and

to have a fair and open system if you’re ever going to think about

changing the way we vote.

Last time around I talked about the reports on proportional

representation, the reports that came out from the previous referendum.

I have copies of them here — Making Every Vote Count: The Case for

Electoral Reform in British Columbia , the 2004 technical report

and final reports. Those reports talked about the importance of getting

out and engaging with people around the province. They talked about the

importance of making sure that people understood what there was to fully

engage in.

For the first time in history — that I know of, in my limited

amount of doing research — no other jurisdiction has had the idea of a

citizens’ assembly to go out and actually formulate the question and do

this kind of purpose. You think about all of that effort that went in

over those years — both leading up to the 2005 election and the 2009

election — all of that amount of engagement, the idea coming forward of

the vote. Yet through all of that, the amount of awareness was

low.

Here we are now, 2017. Now we’re eight years since the last

referendum, and a referendum is being proposed without any of that —

without any of the significant engagement working up to it, without the

understanding of what needs to be put in place, with simple push-button,

on-line agendas and biased perspectives from experts. It’s amazing. It

truly is.

The real challenge, I think, for me is that people don’t pay a lot

of attention to politics — and probably for good reason. They’ve got

lots of other things going on in their life. But this has the potential

to forever change how democracy could work in this province. I’ve been

making the argument that it won’t change it for the better. How could it

change it for the better, when you look at all the examples around the

world and all the challenges that have come up through the

system?

It’s interesting. The Fraser Institute…. I know a lot of folks on

the government side don’t pay a lot of attention to Fraser Institute.

They came out with quite a lengthy report called

First-Past-the-Post: Empowered Voters, Accountable

Government . I went through. Out of the conclusion, I’ll just

read one line from that part of the report. It says:

“First-past-the-post is the only way of voting that assures effective

and accountable government. We abandon it at our peril.” It’s very

true.

When you look at — as I mentioned, from an

article before —

countries around the world that have PR, there’s no way to, as I quote

from the article, “throw the bums out.” It’s not possible under a PR

system. It’s not possible.

The 2001 turfing of the NDP was impossible, the 1991 turfing of

the Social Credit isn’t possible, under a PR system. It just doesn’t

happen. At least, if it…. I suppose it could happen. But the reality in

every jurisdiction around the world is that’s never happened. You can’t

tell me there hasn’t been governments that people have wanted to turf

from time to time. It wouldn’t make sense for that to happen.

Going out and listening to the people, having that way to be able

to have that input, I think, is an important component of what democracy

needs to be, of what we need to be thinking about doing.

[2:50 p.m.]

Another example from my riding is a mine, right now, Mount

Milligan, that is facing a real challenge. It needs to go through a

process to be able to access water. So what happened? They got the

locals of the day…. The locals in various communities have come out and

said, “Can you help us?” because they know they’ve got an MLA that works

in their riding.

I know that if you asked every MLA around the House, around this

Legislature — except for, perhaps, all the new ones, because they

haven’t had as much time in their office — all of them will give

examples. All of them can tell stories about how they had been able to

make a difference advocating for an issue, trying to solve individual

interests or interests in an area. Yet, without a doubt — and I think

about Nechako Lakes — the chances under proportional representation of a

representative coming from my area are pretty slim. It’s just a simple,

straight fact of numbers.

An area that is 2.2 times the size of Vancouver Island, 72,000

square kilometres but only 30,000 people — their weighted concerns are

not the same as an area of, say, Prince George, of 70,000 people, or the

area of other larger communities. So it would be hard to get somebody to

be able to give the same attention as you would under

first-past-the-post, where somebody has to be representing that area.

There are many areas around the province that are like that.

You think about the natural gas industry up in the Peace. The

Peace country is very well represented by the two MLAs that are

currently elected from that area. They know the area. They’ve lived in

the area. They understand the things that go on with the natural gas.

They understand all the issues around Site C, etc. Yet under PR there’s

no guarantee there would be anybody from up there that would be elected.

How could they? With the percentage of population that they have up

there, it’s not even the size of one larger community down in the

southern half of the province. That creates a real challenge.

You think about all the issues in my riding. I’ve got 13 First

Nations that have reserves in my riding, as well as a number of others

that have traditional territory that overlaps into my riding. I’ve gone

and engaged with all of them. Now, it helped, of course, being the

minister for a period of time, but even before that, I had engaged with

all of them. How does that engagement work when you don’t have a

representative for a particular area? It makes it very, very

challenging.

I think, as I went on and did the research.... I encourage

everybody to go out, all the public, members of the elected or unelected

people, and get informed on this issue. It is important. Whether it’s

urban areas or rural areas, it is important.

The biggest issue, I think, is certainly that piece of not having

a representative that is accountable to a particular area. So it doesn’t

matter whether you’re in Burnaby, Richmond, Victoria or Nechako Lakes.

It’s all the same, all the same issue. If a representative is not doing

the job, how do you hold them accountable?

Let’s say you happen to like the party that’s in power but the

representative is not doing a very good job. You don’t have a choice.

You can’t vote out anybody, because they’re on a party list. They’re on

some inside list that’s power brokered and done. There is no direct

accountability.

Was it the NDP government in the 1990s — I’ll look for your

guidance, Madame Speaker, because you were here then — that introduced

recall legislation? I think it was. That was out of the desire that came

out of the 1980s.

Recall legislation. How would that work under proportional

representation? How would they be able to reach that threshold of 40

percent of the registered voters in a particular constituency over a

period of time if PR happens to come in? I’m sure the NDP government of

the day thought recall was a great idea. It was solving a democratic

problem that came out of the 1980s, yet it’s completely abandoned

because something new is coming along.

Well, in this province, something new doesn’t necessarily mean

something better. We need to be able to have the consistency.

[2:55 p.m.]

Last night, Sunday, I had the opportunity to attend the opening

reception for a clean energy conference. I was out talking with a number

of the people that want to move forward projects and want to invest

hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in projects in this

province. And they’re optimistic about potential for growth. They’re

optimistic about the potential need for electricity, the changes to our

system, whether it be electric vehicles or other such technologies that

are going change the way the whole demand curve works. But they also

know that they need to have an environment that they can count on, a

stable environment to be able to invest that money.

Under proportional representation, where you’ve got governments —

as a minority government that you have today — that could fall over

short periods of time, you could have power-brokered deals where you

have no idea what a particular party stands for. It doesn’t create a

very inviting environment for investing.

I think about forestry and what’s happening with forestry, with

softwood lumber, and the negotiations that are going on that have

clearly broken down, the challenges that we have with trade, with NAFTA,

etc. It makes it hard for anybody to invest to begin with in this

province, but when you add that layer of uncertainty…. Capital is

fickle. It can go anywhere. It can go to any jurisdiction to invest and

to create jobs, create prosperity and improve quality of life. If we

have a jurisdiction that is not stable, it just makes it that much

harder to get anything done.

Some people have criticized me in the past for perhaps being too

supportive of economic development and projects. But I’ll say this: I

come from a rural area. When you’re in a rural area, you never know what

project will go forward. You may have a dozen projects that are

proposed, yet over time, maybe one of them comes through and actually

creates the kind of jobs and hope and opportunity for a community.

That’s why you have to support all the projects that come

through.

I mean, they have to, obviously, meet standards. They have to be

respectful, etc. But the challenge of trying to attract that capital and

that investment, whether it’s a new mine that…. AuRico Gold is currently

being bought out for the Kemess Underground. It’s going to be about $650

million that’s needed to be attracted to build that underground mine.

That’s a lot of money for people to make a bet on a jurisdiction where

they have no idea what the rules could be or how things could

change.

Under the system we have — and there have been switches back and

forth between the New Democrat Party and whether it’s a Conservative or

a Liberal or a Social Credit Party on the other side — at least it

creates some predictability because party platforms outline exactly what

they’re going to stand for. That doesn’t exist under PR. Platforms don’t

matter. Horse trading, all those kinds of components — the examples that

I’ve given — create those challenges and that amount of

uncertainty.

I think as we go through this debate…. Many of people have added a

lot of comments. Many people have said the challenges that they see

within their area. I just can’t understand, once again, how it is that

we want to change something that has worked so well. One might argue

that the current situation did not work well. The party that won the

most seats didn’t form government, but that is our system. Even though

I’m not happy with the results — as, I would argue, a majority of people

in the province are not happy with the results — it is what it

is.

It’s no different than the elections that have happened throughout

the past. Democracy is not perfect, as Winston Churchill has said. So

many people have given those examples as to why democracy is

challenging, but this experiment called proportional representation is

not the answer.

The member from Nanaimo argued with me. “Well, you know, if we

don’t like it, in a couple of terms, we can get rid of it.” There has

been a number of jurisdictions with forms of proportional representation

that have tried to get rid of the system that they have. They’ve held

referendums. They’ve tried to build coalitions, but the bottom line is

they could never quite get to the threshold to get rid of it. Not that

people weren’t happy with the system that they have, but people could

not see how to change it. You couldn’t get enough consensus to go back

to a different model.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s a real challenge, because once, particularly, small fringe

groups like the Green Party or other small factions get power, they’re

not going to want to change. Whoever they’re making power deals with,

they’re not going to want to change it. So how do you get the momentum

to actually get back to a system that works?

As designated speaker coming through this, it’s been an honour to

be able to share comments through this. But I am also forced to move a

motion associated with this, and that is:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 6) intituled

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act be amended by deleting

the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”]

On the amendment.

J. Rustad: Upon moving this motion, the intent of this motion is to allow

people, government and the various parties to be able to go forward,

have more consultation and get people to have a better understanding, a

more full understanding, of what this proposal is for proportional

representation, because it’s so critical to the future of this province.

It’s critical to all regions of the province, both urban and rural. It’s

critical that we’re able to move forward in a way that people fully

understand the consequences.

I would argue that what is currently being proposed by this

government will not allow that. It will not allow for that fulsome

discussion. It will not allow for the ability of people to have the kind

of engagement that I feel and that I’m sure many other members in this

Legislature feel is critical for making this decision on proportional

representation.

This amendment allows for that extra time. It allows for the kind

of engagement that I think all members in this House stand for — to be

able to go out, spend time in the constituencies, have those discussions

to allow the yes and the no sides to be able to fully develop, get out

there and have a more fulsome engagement. It allows the electorate to

become more engaged and understand what’s going on with this.

Quite frankly, it would be better if we ran a full election rather

than a mail-in ballot on this, but it will at least allow for more time

for that wholesome debate and discussion to happen, which is why I

consider this to be a reasonable amendment in terms of bringing this

forward. That engagement is fundamental to democracy.

Anything short of having the full type of engagement that’s

required in something that’s so fundamental to the fabric of our society

and our democracy is, quite frankly, an affront. I think it should be

opposed — to try to rush through to this. We need to be able to have

that fulsome debate.

By moving this motion, I’m hoping that it will find the kind of

support that’s needed to allow for this type of engagement and knowledge

and allow government to get the type of full feedback that is going to

be needed to be able to make the decision. Quite frankly, a clear

question can be developed, hopefully a question that is simple, that is

yes or no and straightforward so that the electorate can be clear as to

what it is they’re voting on.

Right now, when you go out and talk to people about this, a lot of

people aren’t paying attention to what’s going on here. We have the

circles, we have the people, obviously, that we’re directly in contact

with, but you go out and talk to the average person — they’re not aware

of this. And not without a significant plan and strategy for engagement

will that level of awareness be high.

I quoted before, from the past two referendums, the level of

penetration in terms of the knowledge. Only 15 percent understood what

STV was, and 60 percent of the people either didn’t know or didn’t have

an opinion with regards to it. That is unacceptable for that referendum,

and quite frankly, it’s why it failed. Certainly that level of awareness

needs to be raised if we’re going to have any hope at all of having a

good, solid debate on the issue of proportional

representation.

[3:05 p.m.]

I know there’ll be many other comments that people will want to

add with regards to the motion that I have moved. With that, I will take

my place and let the debate carry on.

L. Throness: I would like to support the motion of the previous member. I want

to remind my constituents that I’m speaking to Bill 6, which is the

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

The motion to consider it now has been amended, or proposed to be

amended, by my hon. colleague, by deleting the word “now” and

substituting the words “six months hence.” That would simply postpone

the consideration of the bill for six months.

I think that’s important because my constituents are not engaged

on this bill. My constituents don’t really know what’s going on. They

don’t know the referendum bill that has been proposed by the government,

which has not informed British Columbians about the content of the bill.

I think that if they knew what the content was, they would be angered.

So I want to speak in support of this motion.

I want to give a number of reasons why I will support this motion,

and I want to do so by addressing several myths. I want to do it by

addressing four myths of proportional representation, the first being

the myth of collegiality.

The myth is that proportional representation would bring about

more agreement, more cordiality and more collegiality in this place,

that people would work together, better and more closely, that we’d all

cooperate as a big happy family, that we would rid ourselves of the

messy adversarial nature of the Westminster system, which we inherited

from the U.K., where the opposition and the government are always

bickering with each other.

I’ve made the case, and I’ll make the case again, that it will do

just the opposite. The House we have now is much more peaceful than it

would be under proportional representation. PR will cause even more

division, more fractious debate than exists in this place already

because the fracturing of the political spectrum would splinter politics

into smaller political parties, which would cause them to dig in to

their policy positions.

I want to describe why. When you think of it, why does a new party

form in the first place? It’s because people have a cause. They have a

great idea. They’re dedicated to their cause and their great idea. They

go public, they go political and they go to the enormous effort that it

takes to create a political party to try to make a difference across the

province. The smaller the party, the more likely it is to be focused on

a narrow issue or a narrow range of issues, and therefore, the more

committed they would be to the cause, to their issues.

They’re not going to compromise on policy. Why would they? The

reason they’re in the Legislature is because they would have held

uncompromisingly to the policies that got them elected. To turn their

backs on those policies could result in their defeat next time. So, in a

structural way, even more disagreement than there is in the Westminster

system of government would be built into the PR system, as every

political party would have less incentive to compromise, more incentive

to disagree, to dig in, to fight for their policy.

That’ll mean more debate, more factions, more fractions, more

splinters, more stalemate, fewer bold decisions and less activity in

this place, as the ruling coalition would have to devote time and energy

struggling to put together a policy program that would please all the

parties they need together to govern. Some of those parties may be poles

apart in terms of policy and language and tone — very difficult to put

them together.

A year ago we had two parties in this place, two main blocs of

disagreement, and often, although people don’t know this, the NDP voted

with the B.C. Liberals on bills that we would propose. They even voted

for a B.C. Liberal budget a couple of years back, which I found

astounding. Even in this place now, we vote with the government. We did

last week on a smaller bill. So we do find ways to agree in this place,

with two political parties. Now that we have three political parties in

place, I would say that there’s one third more debate in this place, as

well, than there was a year ago, and that is quite enough.

I want to move on to the second myth of proportional

representation, which is the myth of positive international experience.

There’s really a good object lesson in this regard from the experience

internationally. When you read the writings of those who advocate for

PR, they’ll point to the fact that most western democracies have it,

therefore we should too — sort of an international

keep-up-with-the-Joneses policy. It’s the fashion, the style of the day,

so we all ought to jump on board.

I want to talk about a couple of experiences. I want to talk about

the best and the worst experience with PR internationally. PR supporters

will argue, for example, that it’s unfair to talk about places like

Italy, which is sort of a fringe country in this regard since it’s had a

notoriously bad record. It’s had an unstable government for

decades.

[3:10 p.m.]

On the other hand, I would argue that it’s perfectly fair to talk

about Italy. In fact, I want to especially talk about Italy, because

they held a referendum in 1993 that was supported by 95 percent of the

electorate, after a whole bunch of sleazy corruption scandals rocked

that country in the years prior to 1993. That referendum in 1993

mandated Italy to leave its former full reliance on proportional

representation that had been in place since the Second World War and

introduce a first-past-the-post system for 75 percent of the seats in

the national assembly.

Why did they do this? I want to quote here. I could have chosen

many quotes — I found many quotes — but I thought Wikipedia’s was

concise and really to the point: “The nearly pure proportional

representation system of the First Republic had resulted not only in

party fragmentation and, therefore, governmental instability but also

insulation of the parties from the electorate and civil society. This

was known in Italian as partitocrazia , in contrast to

democracy, and resulted in corruption and pork-barrel

politics.”

Now, I would quickly say that partitocrazia , in Italian —

“party-ocracy.” Instead of autocracy or plutocracy or democracy, you

government where one or more political parties dominate the political

process, rather than citizens and/or individual politicians.

Why would we want that kind of a system here in B.C., a

porkbarrelling, party-dominated system that was largely rejected 25

years ago by the western government with the worst political record in

Europe? It’s amazing that we are thinking today of establishing PR here

in B.C.

Lest members be skeptical about my analysis, lest they think that

I’m biased, allow me move on to talk about another country with

proportional representation that’s the opposite of Italy. Let’s talk

about the country with the best record in Europe. Let’s talk about a

country which PR supporters love to talk about. It’s regarded as a

European model of political stability and modernity and progressiveness

and all of those other good things. It’s one of the G7. It’s the

fourth-largest economy in the world.

Of course, I’m talking about Germany, which has had proportional

representation ever since the Second World War as well. It was

introduced in 1949. They’ve had it for a long, long time.

Well, there was an election in Germany on September 24. This is

after Germany chose some very controversial immigration policies. They

brought in more than a million immigrants since 2015. There have been

tremendous problems with crime and with integration. Now those new

Germans are clamouring for their family members to come to Germany,

which would augment their numbers by millions.

The political result is that the AfD, which is called the

Alternative für Deutschland, or Alternative for Germany party — a

brand-new, previously marginal Eurosceptic party founded in 2013, just

four years old — was not happy about immigration. It has burst into the

mainstream, with 13 percent of the votes and 94 seats in the Bundestag.

So in the election on September 24, there was no majority

government.

True to form for proportional representation systems, as always

happens, the required negotiations began in earnest to try to cobble

together some kind of a coalition government. But the many sides are

far, far apart. Negotiations began two months ago. We just learned in

the news a few days ago that those negotiations have now broken down.

There’s no obvious partner for Angela Merkel and her Christian

Democratic Union, the CDU. She can’t come to an agreement with a

minority.

Here’s what the AFP — all sorts of acronyms today — the French

press agency, has to say: “Germany now faces weeks, if not months, of

paralysis, with a lame-duck government that is unlikely to take bold

policy action at home or on the European stage.”

Well, why didn’t the negotiations work out? During the two months

of negotiations, party after German party stuck to their special issues.

The FDP’s issue is business. They walked away from negotiations. They

weren’t happy. The AfD party’s issue is immigration. They’re not happy,

obviously, about their main issue. The Green Party’s main problem is

energy. They want to phase out coal.

I would remind this House that Germany, which is supposedly a

green wunderkind, which elected Green Party members beginning in 1993 —

and there were various iterations of pre-Green, similar parties for a

decade before that — still depends on coal for 40 percent of its

power.

[3:15 p.m.]

The Greens in this House oppose the Site C dam, which would be

entirely green in its electricity. The German Greens would be green with

envy of their B.C. cousins and would sure love to switch places with

them, even though the Greens here in B.C. don’t seem to appreciate just

how good we have it, with more than 93 percent of our electricity being

clean and green already. We don’t use any coal at all to produce

electricity in B.C.

In any case, I digress. The German Greens won’t budge unless they

get their way on coal.

Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the amendment, Member.

L. Throness: I am speaking to the amendment, and I continue to speak to the

amendment, Madame Speaker. I just diverged for a moment.

The SPD, the Social Democratic Party, won’t even start

negotiations. They lost big-time in the election in September and have

altogether refused to come to the table with Angela Merkel’s CDU, and it

goes on and on. So what is Germany looking at after two months of

non-stop political turmoil? Thanks to the intricate machinations of

proportional representation, they’re now faced with the possibility of a

snap election two months later, two months after the last

one.

Does that remind you of something? Does it remind you of what

nearly happened this summer in B.C.? A snap election a couple months

after the May 9 election because of the difficulty of forming a

government, given the entry of a third party into the scene. That is a

portent of what would come to B.C. as a regular occurrence under

proportional representation.

Why does Madam Merkel want another election? Because, she says to

the press, she wants a majority government. In other words, in her view,

proportional representation failed to deliver what is in the best

interests of Germany. Maybe Germany should move toward a majoritarian or

first-past-the-post system like Italy did. And you might well see that

in the coming months, after the train wreck that is in full swing over

there.

Well, there’s just one word for the situation in Germany, and that

is “chaos.” It’s political chaos. It’s another object lesson for B.C.

For the past 114 years, since 1903, we have had party government here in

B.C. Since 1952, we’ve always had majorities, except for this past

election. Our political system has delivered a stable government almost

every time, and that’s thanks to the majoritarian system.

We would be looking at something more like Germany in the future

with proportional representation — heaven forbid. The people of B.C. saw

this twice before, in two referendums, in 2005 and 2009. With our help

on this side, they’re going to see it again, I trust, and vote it down

one more time.

I want to continue on with my myth-busting. The third myth is the

myth of the equally weighted vote. The way a coalition forms: there’s

usually a larger party that negotiates with a smaller one in the

Legislature to form a government. It has to negotiate with a smaller

one, and it often gives in on key policy issues in order to get the

support of the smaller party. This means that smaller parties can exert

disproportionate power on government in legislatures with PR election

systems.

We see this at work in the Legislature today with the Greens

having a very significant effect on what the NDP government does. With

only three members, they can hold the threat of an election over the

heads of 41 other MLAs. The tail is effectively wagging the dog in this

place. This is important because those who support proportional

representation always argue that PR provides everyone with an equal

vote. The proportion of votes in the province is mirrored by the

proportion of the seats in the Legislature.

In fact, it’s written into the name of the system — proportional

representation — and, therefore, is supposedly fairer than other

systems. But of course, that isn’t true. Proportional representation

disproportionately empowers voters for smaller parties, even fringe

parties, at the expense of the majority of voters who tend to vote for

one of a few main parties, as they voted for the B.C. Liberals in a

majority way in the last election.

Allow me to give an international example. In Ireland in 1989,

there was an election, which was the fifth one that decade under

proportional representation. It resulted in eight parties being

represented in that House. The Republican Party, which is known as

Fianna Fáil, just one of the two larger parties in the House in Ireland,

won the most seats, 77 seats, but had to negotiate with the Progressive

Democrats, who had only six seats in the Legislature. The Progressive

Democrats demanded and received two cabinet posts, which was all out of

proportion to their vote. The weight of a Progressive Democrat vote in

Ireland was much greater than a Republican vote.

[3:20 p.m.]

Another example is found right in this House. One single vote of a

person who voted for the B.C. Liberal party in the last election counted

for less, had less weight, was less effective, was less powerful and

meant less than one single vote for the Green Party. Just think: three

members in this place can make or break the NDP on any vote it chooses.

It could even topple the government and cause a snap election if it

wants. That is pure political party.

As a result, the NDP will do anything to please them. It has no

choice. It will even offer a referendum on proportional representation

that we’re debating today, even though it’s contrary to their own

interests, since proportional representation could decimate the NDP as

well as the B.C. Liberals on this side of the House.

There are different combinations of left that could band together

on the other side, which would have every incentive to splinter and

fragment into little parties. That is raw power put into the hands of

just 17 percent of the voters of B.C., while all the other 80 percent

have proportionally far less power in their votes.

It’s almost as if those three constituencies now held by Green

members each had, say, maybe 200,000 voters in them, instead of 35,000,

in terms of sheer voting power — six times the weight. So let’s explode

the myth of equality of votes under proportional representation. They

are not by any means equal.

Let’s go on to a fourth myth. Let’s talk about the myth of

fairness. Let’s expand on it a little. Supporters of proportional

representation say that PR is fair because members in this House would

be apportioned on a percentage basis according to the percentage of the

vote. So 50 percent of the voters would vote according to the policies

they liked, supported by different political parties. They might vote

for Green or NDP or B.C. Liberal policies. If they voted for those

policies, they’d win half of the members of this House and get their

policies enacted.

Well, the question is this: on what basis is this system fair?

Now, I don’t argue that the proportion of seats would be roughly equal

to the proportion of votes. First-past-the-post is also a proportional

system, but the proportions are on a different basis. In a majoritarian

system, proportionality refers to geography rather than

policy.

Here’s how it’s proportionate. For each constituency, all across

the province, the candidate who pulls the highest vote is elected. That

allows each constituency to be represented in proportion to its

population on a geographic basis.

The PR system, on the other hand, is about proportion in policy

preference. There’s no reason why proportion by policy preference is

more fair than proportion by geography. Indeed, I would say by allowing

fringe and potentially dangerous policy preferences a seat at the table,

proportional representation threatens the stability of

government.

Our province is a combination of people, of policy and of land.

Local issues matter. That is so important in our context because B.C. is

a big place. It’s huge in geography. It’s spread out. But the NDP lost

heavily in rural areas. It lost heavily on a geographic basis. They won

in urban areas, so they have jettisoned the areas in which they didn’t

win.

They’ve not mandated in the referendum, in the bill before us, any

geographic representation at all. They’ve totally rejected and forsaken

rural B.C., which will be cut out of the decision-making, because most

people live in Vancouver, and they will be able to call the shots for

the entire province — not just in the referendum but through

proportional representation forever. I would say that’s terrible for our

democracy.

I can’t believe that the NDP would do this to our province, by

cutting out the influence of rural B.C. I hope the Attorney General is

giving close attention to these words because these are

important.

I’ve addressed the four myths of proportional representation. It’s

not collegial, it’s not internationally successful, it’s not equal, and

it is not fair.

I want to move on to a couple of other topics. I want to talk

about economics for a moment. I want to talk about the economics of

countries which have proportional representation now. Here are some more

instructive, object lessons.

It’s a well-known fact that government spending in countries with

proportional representation is markedly higher than spending in other

countries. Well, the Greens say they love data. We have lots of data on

this, and it is irrefutable. The data is in. It’s not just an opinion;

this is a factual issue.

For some local examples, just to manage the relationship between

the NDP and the Greens will cost a million bucks over the next four

years. The Greens are pushing the NDP to cancel Site C. What would be

the cost of that? Four billion dollars to the economy and an immediate

jump of 10 percent in higher hydro rates.

[3:25 p.m.]

What’s the cost of cancelling the Massey Tunnel replacement bridge

at the behest of the Greens? It’s incalculable. How do you quantify

missing your kid’s soccer practices and the cost of other delays spent

sitting in stalled traffic? Multiply those delays by 80,000 a day, year

after year after year.

You talk about the cost to the province of $1 billion over 20

years if we lose the Trans Mountain Pipeline. There are already tangible

costs to the coalition.

I want to move on to talk about data. I want to cite a 2016 study

called Electoral Rules and Fiscal Policy Outcomes by Jason

Clemens, Taylor Jackson, Steve LaFleur and Joel Emes of the Fraser

Institute, a study that found that the average size of central

governments from 2000 to 2014 in countries with PR was almost 25 percent

larger than in countries with majoritarian election rules, similar to

what we have here in B.C.

We’re looking at 25 percent larger government because of PR over

time. If our annual budget is $52 billion today, a 25 percent increase

would be $13 billion more added to that, a $65 billion budget. I don’t

think that’s far-fetched at all, given what we have seen already in the

past couple of months of coalition government.

The same study also found that PR countries tend to finance this

extra spending by running larger deficits. Why would this be the case?

As I have pointed out before, PR systems tend to elect more parties to

the Legislature, increasing the likelihood for more coalition

governments. In order to form coalition governments, there has to be

negotiation, larger parties with smaller parties. Larger parties have to

capitulate on some of their spending promises in order to gain the

support of smaller ones, which leads to higher levels of government

spending.

I would add to that. The larger a party you have, the more

responsible it has to be in proposing policy, because these policies

might actually happen. The smaller the political party, the less

responsible it tends to be, because its policy is less likely to be

implemented. So a small party can call for all kinds of radical change

and negotiate big compromises from larger parties, all of which leads to

the abandonment of balanced budgets. It leads to larger governments,

bigger deficits and debt.

Other academic studies have reached similar conclusions. I’ll just

refer to one more. We could talk about a book called The Economic

Effects of Constitutions written by economists Torsten Persson

and Guido Tabellini. They look at the impact of electoral rules on

government spending in 85 countries. That’s pretty definitive. Their

research found that spending was almost 6 percent of GDP lower in

countries with majoritarian systems — in other words, a

first-past-the-post system, like we have now — than in countries with PR

election rules.

British Columbians who care about balanced budgets, lower debts

and lower deficits should oppose the adoption of the proportional voting

system. They should also oppose it on the grounds that the resultant

bigger size of government reduces economic growth in the longer run.

Interestingly, the higher government spending in PR countries is

financed to a greater extent with deficits than spending in other

countries. So just another reason for British Columbians to vote against

PR.

Now I want to move on to the issue of accountability. I want to

talk about several issues here under the broad heading of

accountability. First is the problem with local accountability in

proportional representation.

Right now we have recall here in B.C. Voters can recall a member

if they don’t like that member, if they can get enough signatures to

force a by-election. The measure is not dormant. Although we’ve never

had a by-election generated by the recall law, there have been 26 recall

petitions launched since the law went into effect in 1995. So although

no by-election has actually been triggered, the process is there, the

process is active, and it serves as a check on an MLA’s behaviour since

he or she knows that at any time, a recall initiative could

begin.

Proportional representation would eliminate recall because after a

PR election, we can’t trace a voter to his or her representative. The

people who voted for an MLA may be thinly scattered across a very wide

area. When you have more than one MLA representing a large conglomerate

area, maybe the size of seven ridings now, to which voters within that

super riding is the MLA responsible? We can’t tell, so there would be no

recall. The accountability that it requires would be gone under

proportional representation. I would add accountability for local issues

to this. They’re lost in PR. In first-past-the-post, politicians

represent local constituencies, so they’re much more likely to tackle

local issues.

[3:30 p.m.]

Why would an MLA who lives in Harrison Mills, for instance, be

concerned about an issue in Cloverdale, or vice versa? They might if

they’re a virtuous person and a good MLA, but my point is that there’s

no built-in structural requirement or democratic incentive giving them

an incentive to pay attention to local issues.

Right now an MLA has what I would call the democratic imperative.

He or she wants to get re-elected. Therefore, he or she has to pay

attention, is forced to pay attention, to the little issues in his or

her riding, and that’s a very good thing, but that would be lost under

proportional representation. There would also be a lack of

accountability on policy. Although a person may vote for a party because

of its policies, because of the negotiating process after the election,

a voter never knows whether their favourite policy might be traded away

in order to obtain power.

In fact, there are several proportional representation countries,

including New Zealand and Denmark, which are now pushing parties to

declare their preferred allies before each election so that voters have

some predictability. There’s no such guarantee with PR, but I would say

that’s a step toward the majoritarian system — declaring your preferred

allies before an election.

I want to add to this the issue of accountability in the broadest

sense. Under a PR system, it would be very difficult to remove a

reasonably sized centrist party from power. When governments are usually

coalitions, some political parties are always there in

government.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

For example, I would cite the Free Democratic Party in Germany,

which was a member of the governing coalition for all but eight of 50

years, from 1949 to 1998, although it never gained more than 12 percent

of the vote — pretty tough to get rid of a party like that.

Some parties will have an incentive to race towards the middle in

policy, to head for safe ground, with policies that are watered-down,

middle of the road — a mishmash of policy that doesn’t represent,

really, anyone’s views. It adds to the fact that it’s an indecisive

system.

Let me move on. The centralization of parties in the political

process is really a profound concern that I have, so I want to deal with

this for some time. We all have political parties. They’re not

technically necessary to the political process, although it would be

hard to get along without them, of course. We could all be independents

in this place. For example, very few municipalities in B.C., except in

Vancouver, have municipal political parties.

The larger the electorate is, the more you need political

groupings, coalitions of like-minded people, in order to get things

done. We call those groupings parties. Vancouver has such groupings, but

Vancouver’s parties are not usually known as parties. For example, we

have the Non-Partisan Association. That’s an association, not a party.

We have Vision Vancouver, which doesn’t attach to it the name “party.”

We have the Coalition of Progressive Electors. It, too, does not take on

the name “party.”

Only Vancouver’s Green Party uses the title “party,” and for good

reason. There’s a distaste for political parties on the municipal stage.

People prefer a non-partisan process, and I’ve found that on the

doorstep. People don’t like political parties very much.

In this House, we could all conceivably sit as independents. It

would be impossible to govern in this way, so we need the political

parties. But all around the world, for the last century, political

parties have vied with the legislatures of their countries for control.

Think of the communist parties of the former Soviet Union, the Communist

Party of China. They’ve vied with the legislatures.

Even here in Canada…. I’ve been involved with political parties

for a long time and have found that there’s always something of a

tension between a political party and the elected members. That’s why I

would oppose proportional representation in this place. It accords a

formal, irreplaceable and central role to the political parties in B.C.

It would make political parties much more powerful than they are

today.

Some MLAs would be chosen off party lists. Those people would be

directly or indirectly beholden to the party in a new and important way,

but the party is not elected to the Legislature. Invisible party

officials would be lurking in the background, manipulating Byzantine

rules of proportional representation, and they would wield real, formal

party power, although unelected, and that’s wrong. It’s undemocratic.

The people of B.C. should reject it when the referendum comes this next

fall for this reason alone, in addition to all the others I have

cited.

I would close by saying that the U.K. has a majoritarian system.

In 2011, they had a referendum, and 68 percent of voters in the U.K.

voted to continue their majoritarian system and reject proportional

representation. That was a very good idea.

[3:35 p.m.]

So 2.4 billion people in this world today are governed by

majoritarian systems. It serves them well. It’s served us well for 100

years. It’s served Canada well, and I would encourage us to keep that

and vote against this motion.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure today to rise to speak to the amendment on

the proportional representation bill.

Fortunately, one of the benefits of having such a large opposition

is that there are a good 40 of us that all have varying opinions on this

bill and the amendment. I’m sure we’ll hear from the vast majority of

us.

I will stick to the points that particularly bother me around the

bill and why I think the amendment to give that six-month period is wise

and, hopefully, supportable by this House to make sure that we really

are, as a House, moving forward to the public, making sure that we go

into a referendum with the most informed public that we possibly can

around a referendum.

We’ve heard a lot about the 2005 and 2009 referendums. Those two

referendums, and the outcomes of those two referendums, really drive my

belief that the six-month period that this amendment would bring forward

is crucial for us to better inform the public. When you look at the

results of 2005 and 2009, they very much mirror what is going on in this

House. I’ll get into that in a little more detail.

In 2005, we saw a referendum that actually almost passed. It was

at 57.8, 57.9 percent in favour, but it didn’t pass on the second test,

didn’t come close on the second test, around the number of ridings

needed. Why that’s important is because if we think back, historically,

on what drove the 2005 referendum, it was the result in a general

election where we saw 77 to 2 in this House — elected B.C. Liberals

versus the NDP.

I think that put a bit of unease to the electorate, and I can

understand why. A strong opposition in our Westminster system is vital

to having a strong, functioning democracy that we all count on in this

province and in this system. Regardless of political stripe, in

government or in opposition, having a good and strong opposition is very

important. It creates better legislation, holds the government to

account and makes them think twice before they bring forward

legislation, even, to make sure they don’t push things too

far.

When we have a result like 77 to 2, a vast and wild anomaly when

you look at the history of voting in British Columbia, it’s no wonder

that the public were clamouring to try to maybe right what they felt was

a wrong with the electoral result based on the percentage of vote that

happened. So we saw a referendum that wound up actually being very close

to being successful to bring in proportional representation. Then we had

the general election, and we had a more balanced redistribution of the

seats based on the vote.

I should point out that in the election previous to 2001, in fact,

the NDP managed to govern in this House even though they did not receive

the majority of actual vote. Yet I did not hear the NDP back then

screaming that proportional representation should be enacted and there

should be better fairness to the system and we actually shouldn’t be

government because the majority of the population did not vote for us to

be government. However, the rules state with first-past-the-post that

that was the result. That was upheld, and we accepted that, and we moved

forward as a parliamentary system.

You don’t go and change a whole voting system based on one result.

It’s the equivalent of watching my kids playing heads or tails and

saying “best two out of three,” and then, when they lose the first two,

saying, “Well, maybe we should make it best three out of four, best four

out of seven,” and so on until the result that you may want suddenly

happens.

The six-month extension in this amendment, I think, helps to

provide a bit more clarity for people. As I say, the 2005 in the context

of the 2001 vote…. The lead-up to the 2005 referendum and the subsequent

result of the 2005 election would indicate that the public rebalanced

things and this House was back to how it’s always operated.

There was a second referendum, though, in 2009, with that new,

balanced House back in place and people feeling like their needs had

been served in the general election. That referendum didn’t even come

close to passing.

I believe there are two reasons for that. This House, the result

of the general election, had given the people comfort that the system

was working properly. Although there is no absolute perfect system —

proportional representation or first-past-the-post — out there, the

people were comfortable with what had been decided in the election, and

it felt right.

[3:40 p.m.]

The second reason…. This is why the amendment is so important. I

firmly believe that as people got more and more educated on proportional

representation and what, particularly, this single transferrable vote

would mean…. The confusing and complicated fashion that they would not

only be voting and selecting people but how the province would even

operate played a big role into that massive change of almost 20-plus

percent of people suddenly changing from a yes vote to a no vote for

proportional representation.

For the government to rush this bill forward, strictly because

they’ve made a backroom deal with the Green Party to move forward with a

proportional representation vote, does not really serve the democratic

process very well. We’ve heard from the Attorney General that, in fact,

we don’t even need to have a referendum for this.

The troubling part of that statement is we’ve heard that exact

same language from the leader of the Green Party earlier on, in the

early days of this new government. You have the Attorney General, who’s

in charge of the referendum, and the leader of the Green Party, who is

propping up the government, both saying that, in fact, we don’t need to

have a vote: “If we wanted to really just do this, we would do it

anyways.” I think that starts to maybe give us insight into why the

rules and the lack of transparency in this bill, around what the

ultimate vote will be, seem to be the way they are.

Having an extra six months to talk to the public, to better flesh

out what exactly it is being proposed, I think would be very valuable.

When I talk to my constituents — even some of whom were former Green

candidates and others that have run provincially and federally before —

they were actually quite surprised that there wasn’t more definitive

language in this bill as to what this bill intends to do.

The fact that in this bill, they’re open-ended questions that will

be answered at a future date really does raise a lot of alarm bells out

in the general population. With this amendment of a six-month extension,

I think that provides the vehicle to make sure that people really do

understand what is being asked of this particular bill, let alone moving

forward to a referendum question.

That is why I think people are starting to understand the rush and

are starting to really describe this as a rigged game and something

where a predetermined outcome is trying to be found with the rules of

the game. As we see this being rushed through, there is no citizens’

assembly. Last time it was around 160 people, I believe, selected by a

broad base throughout the population, from all over the province. They

spent year or a year and a half deliberating, coming up with a system,

educating the electorate. We’ve seen that happen in the last two

referendums.

This time, for some reason, we want to try to have all of this

done, start to finish, in less time than that public assembly even took

place. Oh, by the way, this bill says: “Trust us. Later we’ll tell you

what actually is going to happen in the referendum, after you give us

the authority to set up the rules based on all of these possibilities

within the bill.”

I suggest that’s a very troubling piece of legislation for this

House to pass. I can only imagine what the members opposite would be

thinking if the former B.C. Liberal government had brought in a bill

worded this way, had come up with a questionnaire worded the way it is

and had come up with the rules the way they have on an issue that the

members opposite felt was being rushed through. And the rush is really

the key to all of this right now.

We have broken promises by the Premier, at this point, around it

being a simple yes-or-no question. We have all sorts of other broken

commitments. That is really problematic when you look at this bill as a

whole.

A six-month delay with this amendment would allow us to reach back

out into the community. We’re already seeing within the media — and not

just what you might consider typical right-wing media. You’re seeing it

even in reporting that is normally much more favourable towards the

Greens or to the NDP — commentary that the fix is in with this system of

voting.

I think there is starting to build a level of distrust with this

government’s intention around this bill out in the general public. I

think another six months to review this, to be able to better consult

with people and make sure that if we’re going to have an election on

something that is going to fundamentally change democracy in this

province moving forward, people have the respect given to them by

government to actually know the ins and outs of what is being

proposed.

[3:45 p.m.]

There is a fundamental lack of respect towards the electorate

being shown by the Green Party and the NDP in this bill, in the rush. I

would note that, coincidently, actually, the six-month extension…. Given

that this government, which is being held together by a Green coalition,

has taken it upon themselves to feel they have the mandate to extend a

term by six months, instead of having the fall election date fall six

months earlier in their mandate, an extra six months on this bill really

shouldn’t be a problem.

They seem to be totally okay with extending things by six months

when it suits their own interests of clinging to power. But when it

comes to something as simple as making sure that we’re properly

consulting with the public, having the public know exactly what’s going

to happen, making sure the media is getting that message out in an

uncluttered fashion…. Especially with the holiday season fast

approaching, there will be less attention given over the next month or

month and a half, naturally so, with people getting together with

friends and family. To have an extra six months so that that messaging

can get out properly to people — suddenly six months seems to be a

problem with this government.

As with other electoral reforms that we’ve seen brought forward in

this session, it seems that as long as it’s good for the government and

the Green Party, that’s okay to rush things through and not consult and

not talk and not be forthright and out there in front of this. Instead:

“Let’s just rush it through. If it’s anything else, any other type, we

need to delay, to talk, to put on hold and not move forward with it. If

it comes to extending our own term and making sure that we can cling to

power for six months longer than the current rules would allow for, of

course, the government is all for that.”

One would think that extending consulting with the public for an

extra six months, the people that everyone in this House waxes so

eloquently on, time and again, about how they’re here to serve…. One

would think that the members opposite would have no problem with

extending consulting with the public for an extra six months on

something as fundamentally important as the democratic process within

British Columbia. When you look at the overall problems, what would come

forward?

We already have had some changes in terms of what constitutes a

party in this House. We’re down to now two members constituting a party.

Now, given that the last filings by Elections B.C. indicated that there

were 28 or 29 recognized electoral parties in British Columbia in the

last provincial election, one would only have to wonder what would

happen when some of those extremist-type parties do wind up with a seat

or two, or two get a seat each and decide to get together and be a party

in this House.

Right now we’re already hearing “Leader of the Third Party” when

we’re in question period. I can’t imagine the days when we’re hearing

“leader of the ninth party” and questions from “leader of the tenth

party.”

Operationally in this House, it would actually create big

problems, when you start getting past about a three-party system in this

House, in terms of how the House functions to the betterment of the

public, how decisions get made moving forward and how investment

decisions, in terms of economic growth in this province, get made. If

people are not sure what election platform has been elected to

government, it makes it impossible for them to try to invest.

Now, we have seen where the NDP gets elected into provincial

parliaments. It happens from time to time across this country. I say

“time to time,” because usually they only last one term, and then

they’re removed. Nonetheless, that seems to be the practice. Business

still does somewhat operate when there are NDP governments in place.

They at least have a sense of, maybe, the direction of the government or

what the rules may be.

Right now in B.C., with an unprecedented outcome in an election,

people don’t know what platform got elected. You never know what day

you’re going to see some change to a proposal brought forward that the

government campaigned on yet sees no problem in breaking their campaign

promise. As the leader of the Green Party said, campaign promises are

now irrelevant in this form of parliament. That is very

problematic.

Although we hear about how well both sides of this House can work

together if we would just give things a chance…. It sounds like we’re

almost trying to paraphrase a John Lennon lyric there. That’s why the

six-month extension is so critical.

Just last week we saw about as benign an amendment brought forward

on local government finance for elections as could possibly be brought

forward by an opposition party that had worked together. Although some

members of the Green Party were unhappy with how quickly in the timeline

of the amendment being brought forward….

[3:50 p.m.]

On the overall theme and context of the amendment, we thought we

had a supported amendment with the Green Party. The fact that even

something as benign as that amendment could not see the support of the

Green Party — for fear, is all I can assume, of annoying their governing

partners in the NDP is all I can assume — was quite shocking to me,

especially given the amount of rhetoric we have heard in this House

about how we just need to all start to cross party lines and work

together. If an amendment of no huge consequence being brought forward

by the official opposition is unsupportable by the Third Party in this

House, I don’t know what type of amendment would be.

I don’t understand how everyone on the sides opposite is able to

point to this current iteration of parliament as, actually, a microcosm

of proportional representation. It’s not. It’s, essentially, a coalition

government that is ideologically joined at the hip, to begin with, and

that has decided to cling to power together.

Albeit yes, absolutely, we did try talking with the Greens as

well. One could only imagine the howls of outrage with the NDP had the

Greens actually decided not to sign an agreement with any party, had

they actually tried to enact what proportional representation would

truly look like in this House and just decide to work, vote by vote, and

see where that took them and how long government could last trying to

have people work together. No, they wrote down a formal agreement that

has led us to where we are right now with this vote.

The extra six months of this amendment would allow a brighter

light to be shone on this whole process.

We just heard today conflicting commentary coming from government

during question period, where we were hearing that there’s going to be

impartiality from this government around this vote. The fact is — within

the confidence and supply agreement, unless that has changed, with the

Green Party to stay in power — this government has guaranteed that they

will be campaigning strongly in favour of p