Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act. In Committee A, I call continued estimates of the Jobs, Trade and Technology Ministry. When they are finished, we will be calling the Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Ministry.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2017

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On section 12 (continued).

S. Bond: We have a number of questions, obviously. As I mentioned earlier in our discussion, this is the heart of the discussion around the carbon tax increases. As I said to the minister before lunch, we’re not arguing about the existence or perhaps even the necessity of a carbon tax. In fact, we introduced it. We’re talking about the pace, the magnitude of the increase and the reporting requirements, which we had a discussion about.

Just before the break, the minister talked about the definition of who would receive the Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit. I think the answer was a family earning less than $50,000 — so $50,000 or less. Can the minister confirm that that’s what I heard?

Hon. C. James: I want to make two distinctions. One is that everybody gets an increase, because the carbon tax credit goes up based on the carbon tax. So everybody will get that 17 percent increase. Remember we talked yesterday about the credit going up to match the increase in the carbon tax? Everyone will get the increased amount. It will go up. Then again, like other programs that are income-tested, it will be phased in.

I can make sure we get the chart for the member as well. It varies depending on whether you’re single, whether you’re a couple, whether you have two kids, whether you have three kids. At roughly $38,880, you get the full amount, and then it starts to taper down. But that, as I said, will vary depending on the mix of the family and the composition of the family.

S. Bond: That is, then, a clarification. The issue is the definition of low-income earners who would receive the additional Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit. I think the minister has now said that it’s $39,000. Could she confirm that?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: It’s $38,880. The member is quite right. It’s close to $39,000. Then it tapers. So people will still receive the credit. They won’t get the full credit.

S. Bond: Has the ministry done modelling on the impact, for example, on middle-class British Columbians? Let’s take an example. A middle-class family lives in a northern community, and I certainly understand that there are going to be investments in green technology and a variety of other things, including probably transit, etc.

Has modelling been done to look at what the impact would be on a middle-income-earning family? We’ve now determined that low-income earners, $38,000 plus, will receive some additional benefit. So what are the changes, and what is the impact on a middle-class family, say, living in a region that has heating costs, geography where you can’t hop on a transit bus and you have to use a vehicle to drive to get back and forth, cold weather, those kinds of things?

Has modelling been done to look at the issue? It’s particularly important, I think, from the perspective of…. This is a government that ran on an agenda of affordability. So I’d be interested in knowing what kind of modelling has been done to demonstrate that there’s a recognition that for some families there is going to be a significant impact, depending upon their income bracket.

Hon. C. James: Just for the member, page 67 in the budget goes through some of the examples. Again, you certainly can’t look at every family, because it depends on the composition. It depends on the individual. But just to give you a rough idea of some of the work that was done…. Raising the carbon tax by $5 a tonne will increase the carbon tax paid by British Columbians. If you take a look at a family of four, for example, making $50,000, as their annual income, a $5 increase could result in an additional $50 in carbon taxes.

S. Bond: Does that $50 contemplate regions of the province? I can’t imagine that if you live in northern British Columbia…. The weather is much colder than it is in urban B.C., and in fact, driving distances are significant. How has regionality been considered in the modelling?

Hon. C. James: I’ll just come back again, as we had the discussion earlier with the member, to the fact that there are puts and takes when it comes to the north and to urban areas. For example, as I mentioned earlier, there is actually a higher use of fuel and a higher cost for fuel in the Lower Mainland, because of idling, because of traffic, than there is in the north.

When you look at heating costs, again, there have been comparisons around insulation in houses in the north. That doesn’t take away from the challenges of not having enough transit or not having the options, but this is a provincial average based on family composition and based on household use of taxing fuels for heating, for cooking and for transportation.

S. Bond: Is vehicle usage calculated by a single vehicle assigned to a home? Or is it based on how many vehicles are in a household?

Hon. C. James: Part of coming up with the average is that we look at all kinds of families. We look at the number of people in the family. We look at the number of vehicles they have. So we do calculations based on one vehicle; based on two vehicles; based on more kilometres travelled; based, again, on regional comparisons. Then we come up with this average.

S. Bond: My colleague is going to ask some questions on the impacts on industry.

[1:45 p.m.]

I just have one other question. It was posed recently by the Lower Mainland Mayors Council that perhaps the transportation plan that they have, which is aggressive and expensive, be funded out of carbon tax revenue. Is that being contemplated by the minister?

Hon. C. James: We’re, of course, in the planning processes for the budget. That question might have to go to the Minister of Transportation, but I know the mayors are coming up with a plan later in the spring. So we haven’t seen any ideas come forward yet.

T. Redies: The 66 percent increase in carbon taxes over the next few years is going to have a significant impact on a number of industries. B.C. Ferries, for example — the math is that it’s going to cost an extra $10,000 a day for the larger ferries in 2018, and it will rise to as high as $15,000 extra in carbon tax fuel by 2021, based on the numbers that the government has provided us. That’s — just to do the math — again, an extra $5.5 million, and $60 million extra a year for one ferry.

The government campaigned on an election promise that it was going it make the cost of using B.C. Ferries more affordable, cheaper. Can the minister outline what analysis was done or perhaps a rationale behind this increase in carbon tax? Does it not conflict with one of the election promises of the government?

Hon. C. James: Again, we had some of this conversation in estimates, but I’m happy to go back again to the response that I gave yesterday. The purpose of the carbon tax is to provide opportunities for, yes, climate action, but also a change in behaviour — a change in behaviour by individuals, a change in supports by industries.

As we talked about yesterday, there will be support for industries that are energy-intensive, trade-exposed to help them transition and to support them in transition, just as there was for the cement industry and for the greenhouse industry. Both of those industries, in the previous government, were given support to be able to look at their transitions, to change their behaviour. That expectation will continue.

T. Redies: Does that mean, then, that B.C. Ferries will be one of those industries that the government will work out a plan with? Because how can B.C. Ferries continue to operate with more than $60 million extra a year in costs without passing that on to their customers?

Hon. C. James: I think the question is specific to B.C. Ferries, but it applies, in fact, to other industries. There will be ministries that may have Crown corporations or other industries where they will want to have those discussions, with the Minister of Environment and with cabinet. Those discussions will come forward. I certainly know that with B.C. Ferries there have been discussions around natural gas as an option to be able to look at some of their savings. I expect those discussions will continue with industry.

I think part of the reason that we’re looking at supporting the pan-Canadian agreement — this is an agreement that all of the provinces across this country will be reaching — is it gives that ability for businesses to plan. There is certainty around the increases as they come forward each year. That has been laid out in a plan and gives the opportunity for those kinds of transitions to occur.

T. Redies: Well, that’s an interesting response. There’s certainty, certainly, around the costs that are going to be attributed to business, but there’s not, I guess, a lot of certainty in terms of how this is going to impact their business operations and, if they pass on the costs of their goods, the increased costs of goods to their customers.

[1:50 p.m.]

Again, I ask the minister. When you’re looking at a broad carbon tax across, whether it’s transportation…. We talked about the ferries and the airline industry. We talked about the cruise ships. How can she talk about her government making life more affordable when all these industries are going to have to pass on the impact of this carbon tax to their customers?

Hon. C. James: I think the member has made it clear how she feels about the increase in the carbon tax. That’s very clear.

I think it’s important for us, as a province, to be a leader and to continue to show that we are doing our part around climate action. I think the public expects that of us all in this Legislature. Certainly, in any discussions that I have, that is an expectation. I think there are opportunities for not only businesses but individuals and industries to look at how they can be leaders, which, in fact, could create growth in our economy. We could, in British Columbia, be a leader when it comes to industry, when it comes to mitigation, when it comes to support for transition.

There are all kinds of opportunities in British Columbia to be that leader. We’re ideally positioned. We’re ideally positioned in our location and in our connection to our neighbours down south who are also looking — California, Oregon, Washington — at other climate initiatives. I think there are opportunities to not only show that we are a leader but to also see growth in our economy as well.

T. Redies: I want to clarify to the minister. There was an implication that I’m, perhaps, not supportive of the carbon tax. I actually am. However, I’m supportive of the revenue neutrality as well. I know a 66 percent increase on a tax to businesses is going to be very, very consequential. I don’t think, when British Columbians were voting this year, they knew that the government was planning to introduce a 66 percent increase in carbon taxes without revenue neutrality.

Again, I’m really curious about the analysis that was done on this in terms of the ongoing impact to businesses, to industries and to our economy. We’re not really getting a lot of specific responses. So maybe I’ll try another one. How about the agricultural industry? What analysis was done in terms of how the carbon tax increases were going to impact that industry?

Hon. C. James: Just a reminder that revenue neutrality was revenue neutrality to government, not to taxpayers. I think that’s important to note. Carbon tax revenue neutrality, from the previous government, did not mean revenue neutrality to taxpayers at all. It meant revenue neutrality to government.

We, in fact, had many, many conversations around climate action and many, many conversations about getting rid of revenue neutrality. That has been our position and was our position during the election campaign and was embraced by British Columbians, who actually say that if they’re going to pay the carbon tax, they want it used for green initiatives.

They actually want their money to go towards climate action. They want to see change occur in communities. They want to know that the resources that they are contributing to are making a difference for this generation and future generations. That’s exactly what British Columbians are looking for — opportunities to be able to contribute.

Getting rid of revenue neutrality and moving to providing support to low-income taxpayers so that they aren’t impacted — and we address the inequality issue that can occur with increases in the carbon tax — and using the resources to be able to provide for green initiatives is exactly the kind of approach that will move us ahead in climate action.

T. Redies: Does the minister’s response mean there was no analysis done on the impact to the agricultural industry?

Hon. C. James: On individual ministries, those ministries will take a look and have discussions with industry — as they did when we talked about the cement industry, as they did with the greenhouse industry — to look at changes that need to occur.

[1:55 p.m.]

A member raised the issue earlier of the cruise ship industry and some challenges there. Those are issues that come forward to the individual ministries that have those programs and will bring them forward during the budget process.

T. Redies: I think what you’re saying — and I’ve heard this from the minister — is that they are going to be in consultation with industry after the fact. Are you saying that there was absolutely no analysis done prior to the decision to raise the carbon tax by 66 percent from now until 2020?

Hon. C. James: If we take a look at the pan-Canadian agreement, which was signed on to by the previous government and supported by this side of the Legislature before we became government, I think it is no surprise to anyone that you were going to see an increase in the carbon tax. I think that was expected and, in fact, signed on to by the former Premier, on that side of the Legislature — to increase the carbon tax. I don’t think it was any surprise to anyone.

Analysis always goes on and will continue to go on. We will work with industries, as I said earlier, to look at supports that industries need to get through any of the challenges that they face and help them, through mitigation, to make the kind of changes that they need to make. As I said earlier, I believe this will not only be doing the right thing for climate action in our province; it will also actually spur on new industry in British Columbia.

T. Redies: I think the difference between this government and the previous government is that the previous government was actually going to take some time to look at the increase to see how it was going to impact business and industries going forward before they implemented.

A. Weaver: The remarkable irony that is happening here in this House is truly something to believe. It truly is something to believe, where I’m standing here, listening to the B.C. Liberals stand up, the B.C. Liberals arguing against the carbon price increase, when they were so….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has the floor, please.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Chair. I listened and held my tongue. I didn’t heckle as the members opposite asked questions showing, in my view, hypocrisy.

When they brought in their carbon pricing and they increased it at $5 a tonne to $30, they argued that it was going to lead to an incentivization of clean energy, clean industries — and it did. Our economy outperformed the rest of Canada at exactly the time we introduced the carbon price. Why it outperformed…. It was before the reckless real estate speculation that was going on. It outperformed because of expansion of innovation.

Now, I commend this government for bringing this carbon pricing forward, in a manner that gives British Columbians certainty and gives industry certainty. I will ask a question in just a second, but it’s important, hon. Chair, that we stop this fearmongering.

The B.C. Liberals have no solution. The industry in British Columbia has had uncertainty for years, since they stopped the increase in the carbon price. B.C. industry was ready and waiting and willing to adapt to the introduction of a cap-and-trade scheme for the heavy industries. This government gave them uncertainty for many, many years as nothing actually happened — the previous government.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. How does the $5-per-year increase compare with what is going to happen anyway federally, and to what extent are we coming ahead or after what’s going to happen anyway?

I will finally conclude by saying that to suggest that there was no CGE modelling on the issues is, again, revisionist history. The climate leadership team, which had access to economic models, suggested a $10-a-tonne increase. This doesn’t even meet what they suggested through their economic analyses.

Over to the minister.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. In fact, this will put British Columbia one year ahead of the pan-Canadian agreement. We believe, again, that it provides an opportunity for B.C. to be a leader and, just as the member has talked about, provide the opportunity to spur on the industry.

I think we have a number of initiatives — in fact, some of them are built into this budget, whether it’s the innovation commissioner, whether it’s the new economy task force — to actually look at opportunities for B.C. to be a leader when it comes to transition, to be a leader when it comes to mitigation for industries, to in fact spur on new industry in British Columbia.

We will, in fact, be one year ahead. Everyone else will catch up in the following year. That is an agreement signed on to by, I believe, all but one province across this country. I expect that will address some of the concerns that have been raised about competitiveness when it comes to province to province. There are still issues, obviously, with our neighbours south of the border, but this will certainly address the issue across Canada when it comes to competitiveness and ensure that our industries are on a level footing.

S. Bond: While I appreciate the passion of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, let’s take a little look, a walk back down memory lane here.

The interesting thing is…. When we have a conversation about being leaders on the carbon tax, I would remind the members opposite that it was this government that was the first jurisdiction to actually create a carbon tax, and boy, that was not an easy thing to do.

The other thing to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the minister — our job here is to ask questions on behalf of all British Columbians. There is not unanimity, as the minister would have suggested, about people wanting to see their carbon tax go to green initiatives. There is significant concern in parts of this province, where people have temperature issues, geography — all of those things. We’re not arguing against the carbon tax. We are talking about a reasonable implementation schedule.

It was this government who said to the federal government: “You bet we’ll increase the carbon tax — when the rest of the country catches up.” So to suggest, as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head did, that there’s some hypocrisy, I would suggest we take a look at the record here.

The irony of the comments today is the member knows full well what she said when she was running as the leader of the B.C. NDP. She led the axe-the-tax movement related to the carbon tax in British Columbia.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head might want to look a little more generously around this chamber, because the person who led the axe-the-tax movement is actually the Minister of Finance. In fact, at that time, she said: “I understand the carbon tax is a symbol.” Well, this government, the previous government, realized it was much more than that.

As we move through these changes, what we’re trying to establish here today is not about backing up the carbon tax. It’s about real impacts.

We’ve talked about cruise ships. Why don’t we talk about airlines? There is the ability to impact the consumer in British Columbia because this list includes aviation fuel, gasoline, heavy fuel oil, jet fuel, kerosene, light fuel oil — the list goes on. All we’re asking is a reasonable question. What analysis has been done, based on the chart that’s provided, with industry to ask what the impacts to consumers will be?

Hon. C. James: Just a couple of comments. I think the member across has pointed out exactly the reason that we are eliminating revenue neutrality to government. We’re going to use the carbon tax revenue to provide those alternatives for communities that will be impacted.

That’s exactly the rationale around making sure that you utilize the resources: to provide support to those communities who will receive greater impact with the carbon tax, in addition to providing low-income families with a credit so that they will in fact see that they will not be worse off with the carbon tax, and it addresses the issue of inequality. I think the member has presented exactly the rationale around getting rid of carbon neutrality and how important that is.

The member mentioned flights. The member mentioned airlines. I’ll just give a couple of pieces of analysis around the airlines. A flight from Victoria to Vancouver, with a $5-a-tonne increase, would be an additional seven cents for each passenger. Vancouver to Prince George would be an additional 23 cents, and Vancouver to Fort Nelson would be an additional 48 cents. So that’s just an example of the impact when it comes to flights.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

[2:05 p.m.]

S. Bond: This section sets out the tax rates for combustibles. Can the minister walk through the impacts that the changes will have?

Hon. C. James: I’ll just give three examples in the table on combustibles. These aren’t fuels, but these are combustibles.

Peat, for example. The rate of tax starting on April 1, 2018, is $35.77 per tonne. The increase for April 1, 2019, will be $40.88 a tonne and, in 2020, would be $45.99.

Tires. I’ll give you the example of tires. There are two categories for tires, shredded and whole. Tires, on April 1, 2018, is $83.69 per tonne. The rate of tax on April 1, 2019, will be $95.64 per tonne, and the rate of tax in 2020 would be $107.60. Then tires whole, just to give another example to the member, $72.80 on April 1, 2018, $83.20 on April 1, 2019, and $93.60 in 2020.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

S. Bond: I believe that section 15 is likely identical to what our government introduced in the February budget. Can the minister indicate whether there have been any changes and also what the benefits of the information-sharing agreement will provide?

Hon. C. James: The member is correct. This is just continuing on. There have been no changes.

Again, if we look at the unaffordability in real estate and the challenges in the real estate area in British Columbia, this is going to improve the administration and the enforcement of the Income Tax Act. It’ll help identify individuals who have not filed tax returns, despite a requirement to do so. It will ensure that capital gains from property transfers, for example, are accurately reported.

It’s really to look at making sure we can share information with the federal government, which will ensure that people are paying the taxes that they are due to pay.

S. Bond: With freedom of information comes the requirement to protect privacy. Can the minister assure British Columbians that their information will be protected, as per the act?

Hon. C. James: Yes.

T. Redies: The new tax bracket that is being introduced for individuals earning above $150,000….

The Chair: Member, are you on section 15 or 16?

T. Redies: Sorry. My bad.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

T. Redies: With this particular section, I’d like to ask the minister if they have done any analysis in terms of how this increase will affect B.C., relative to nearby provinces and other jurisdictions like Oregon and Washington.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the question. I’ll give a couple of examples of analysis. Certainly with analysis related to other provinces, that’s one of the first things, obviously, that’s looked at. With this increase, we will have the third-lowest top rate for taxes, so we continue to remain competitive. Saskatchewan is at 47.5, Alberta is at 48, and B.C. is at 49.8 — so again, continuing to remain competitive.

We have the recent experience with this tax bracket from the previous government in ’14 and ’15. This tax bracket was in place for two years. Again, we didn’t see a huge change in behaviour, a huge change in revenue. Again, that’s taken into account when we take a look at this tax bracket.

Comparing other jurisdictions, particularly international jurisdictions or south of the border, is tough to do because of the differences in taxes. For example, some of the states have very, very high property taxes compared to British Columbia, so it’s very tough to take a look and do a comparison that would be useful when it comes to the other states. But certainly we’ve done the analysis around the experience that B.C. had in ’14 and ’15, in those two years when in fact this exact tax bracket was in place from the previous government.

T. Redies: Did that analysis also take into consideration the impact on high-technology jobs and financial services, which all tend to pay relatively higher scales of pay? And did that analysis show any impact?

Hon. C. James: I just want to emphasize a couple of pieces. I know we went through this yesterday as well, but I think it’s important for those couple of people who may be watching or listening. We are talking about an increase in the amount of tax over $150,000 — not up to $150,000, over $150,000. It’s that amount that gets taxed. This is individual tax, not family tax. I think that’s important.

We’re talking about 2 to 3 percent of taxpayers in British Columbia that are impacted — about 85,000 taxpayers. Compared to the majority of taxpayers in British Columbia, we believe this is certainly something that is manageable and provides support for programs and services that everyone benefits from, including people who make over $150,000.

T. Redies: Yes, we’re well aware on this side that it’s the amount over $150,000 where the tax increase is happening.

I guess what I’m trying to understand is: did the ministry do any analysis in terms of our ability to attract people from outside the province, from the United States, with respect to the tech sector or financial services sector? Again, oftentimes it’s very difficult to recruit these people, particularly to Vancouver, where the cost of housing, as we all know, is very high. So I’m just wondering if the ministry did any analysis as to whether or not this might impact the ability of financial services firms or high-tech firms to attract workers.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’m sure the member has had the same kinds of conversations that I’ve had and that I know other MLAs have had, across the province, where we talk to investors, particularly in the area of tech or, as the member mentioned, the financial area.

Certainly, in the discussion that I have, yes, taxes are one consideration, along with a number of other considerations. B.C. has the advantage because of our location, because of our proximity to not only, as I mentioned earlier, the coast but down south we have the access to quality talent, to education, to health care. Those are areas that are also looked at. When business takes a look at investing in British Columbia — and you can certainly see a number of studies that have come out, pointing out what business looks at — taxes are one factor that is taken into account, not the only factor.

T. Redies: Again, I appreciate that. The challenge is that we are facing lots of uncertainty, headwinds and additional costs to individuals that might detract them from coming to the province. It’s not probably what we believe is the step in the right direction, but I’ll end my questions on this section now.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

S. Bond: Can the minister tell us how many families benefited from the child fitness credit, which is being repealed, other than…? Of course, this section allows a claim in the 2017 taxation year. How many families benefited from this tax credit?

Hon. C. James: I think you’ll see this in the next few sections. We’ll just make some kinds of general comments around the direction on these tax credits, whether we’re talking about the children’s fitness credit, the education credit or the fitness equipment credit.

A number of these were credits that were put in place by the former Conservative government, the former Harper government, at the federal level and matched at the provincial level. The new federal government, the Trudeau Liberal federal government, is actually repealing, and has repealed, most of these credits, recognizing that the amount that was received by the credit is small. But more importantly, these were credits that benefited those who were higher income than lower income.

In most programs and services, particularly with something like a children’s fitness support, you want to provide support to families who may not be able to participate, who may not be able to afford it. If we take a look at these tax credits, they’re all non-refundable, which means if you didn’t make enough money to be taxed, you weren’t getting a credit. You weren’t receiving the credit. It disproportionately impacted higher-income families than lower-income families when it came to getting the credit.

The member asked how many people had claimed this credit. So 218,730 claims came in, in 2015. That credit is worth $12.65. So when it comes to credits, from our perspective, you are much better off providing support for children’s sports groups, for education, so that children can participate, than providing a credit worth $12.65.

S. Bond: I appreciate the minister laying out clearly that this tax benefit basically benefited middle-class families. The choice is to eliminate that possibility and redirect tax credits. No one can argue with the minister’s laying out of that program, but I think there also needs to be a wide range of incentives. When we talk about the issue of affordability — the very mandate that the minister and her government ran on — affordability impacts middle-class families as well.

[2:20 p.m.]

In light of the fact that this is being cancelled — I think I heard 218,000 applications — what is the government planning to do, then? Are they looking at some other form of benefit, not just for low-income British Columbians — obviously important — but looking at the issue of child health and fitness, and looking at expanding that benefit to include middle-class families?

Hon. C. James: In fact, the largest benefit to families in the budget is a 50 percent cut in the MSP premiums. To give a comparison for the member, if a family claimed the back-to-school tax credit, the children’s fitness tax credit and the fitness equipment and arts credit for one child, they would receive $75.90 as a tax benefit. Families with children, in the 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums, will save up to $900.

When you take a look at the comparison and take a look at where the resources are focused, we are focused on ensuring that families receive the best and strongest benefit that they can. The MSP changes will impact 400,000 families with children, and 900,000 families all together.

S. Bond: I am aware of the MSP reductions because, in fact, it was our government who announced we were going to do that. We didn’t announce we were going to take out the child tax credits on top of that.

I think what’s important…. I think the question to the minister is…. Obviously, we’re looking at reductions in other tax programs to help fund the MSP reductions, and those are choices the government will make. The question I asked was: is the government considering any other type of incentives related to children’s health, wellness and activity?

Hon. C. James: Well, I would, again, point the member back to the budget. I would point back to the budget in a number of areas where there have been changes that will positively impact families. I think that families will utilize those resources, but MSP is certainly one example.

Income assistance, support for people with disabilities, increases in those amounts — again, those are not always just individuals. Those are individuals and families who are receiving the additional benefits, so those are just two examples where there has been a focus.

I could talk about the tolls on the bridges and the difference that that makes for families and the amount of money that those families are saving when it comes to their budgets. I think there are a number of initiatives that I’m very proud of that are in this budget that will provide families with the support.

When we take a look at these fitness credits, and when we take a look at other provinces…. Let’s remember that when it comes to repealing these credits that were put in place by the Harper Conservatives, you have seen Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia all repeal these credits. You have seen Alberta, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Newfoundland with no credits.

I think there are governments across this country — the majority of governments across the country — that have recognized that the support to be put in place for families is important and have looked at ways to maximize that, which is what we’ve done in this budget as well.

A. Weaver: I had a question with respect to budgeting using this tax credit. This will also apply to the other tax credit systems. My question first is: does government need to budget, in the actual fiscal budget, as if every eligible child in this province will claim that tax benefit, or not?

Hon. C. James: Good question, Member. The total amount of those who would be eligible is not built into the budget. We do it based on past experience of tax credits and families and how many people would utilize it.

A. Weaver: What I was getting at, in terms of a question, is that in the budgeting process, when a child fitness credit is there, one has to assume a certain amount of people will claim it.

[2:25 p.m.]

Through undersubscription of this tax credit — because, honestly, a lot of people don’t know it exists — does the budget end up with surplus after surplus, year after year, with respect to the implementation of these tax credits, which then leads to artificial surpluses at the end of the year?

Hon. C. James: No, it doesn’t end up with a surplus, because we take into account underutilization. That’s the practice for most of the tax credits. They are underutilized, as I mentioned earlier, particularly for low-income families, who either don’t get the information or don’t have an income so therefore aren’t able to utilize these tax credits.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

T. Redies: I appreciate the insight with respect to the mechanics on the reduction of these various credits.

My learned colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head and I have, with other members of the Finance Committee, travelled around the province. Actually, a common theme that has come up is about the importance of arts in communities. With this particular credit now going out the door, does the government have any other plans to encourage arts, and a love of arts by children, in their plans coming forward?

Hon. C. James: Thank you very much to the member for the question. I certainly agree around the importance of arts in our communities and for our economy. It’s not simply a good thing to do and a wonderful thing for everyone in communities but, in fact, a smart economic investment as well.

The Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture certainly has support for arts in her mandate. I expect you’ll see, as we go through the budget process, that some of those requests will come forward.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

S. Bond: The B.C. back-to-school tax credit was a non-refundable tax credit of $250 per child. Can the minister explain the rationale for the steps that she’s taken in section 21?

Hon. C. James: Again, similar rationales, as I mentioned, on all these tax credits. This was worth $12.65 per child. It was non-refundable, so again, low-income families did not benefit from this tax credit, because you have to have an income to be able to pay, to be able to get a non-refundable tax credit. From our perspective, providing more money for a public education system, investing in education, is an investment that will support families and will support children. We believe that’s a smart investment to make.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

S. Bond: Can the minister confirm that this is the exact same tax credit that was announced by our government in February?

Hon. C. James: Yes, I can confirm that. In fact, on budget day, I recognized the previous government for bringing this forward — this being one of those rare times that there was wide support across the Legislature, regardless of politics, to support this credit.

S. Bond: I know that when this was announced, there were some questions about eligibility. In fact, I had one in my own community. It involved search and rescue versus…. We should mention the name of the tax credit, because it is important, and our government thought it was. I’m relieved that the minister has chosen to keep this.

It is the volunteer firefighters or search and rescue volunteers tax credit. We’re very grateful for those people. Many of us live in communities where volunteer fire departments are the only hope that our communities have during difficult circumstances, and of course, search and rescue — unbelievable organizations right across the province.

Can the minister assure me that the criteria, the issues around eligibility, have been sorted out and that there is a broad-based program? Has this information been communicated to those firefighters and search and rescue volunteers?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the member probably knows this if she’s had an individual or individuals come forward. The taxpayer has to be eligible for the federal volunteer firefighter tax credit or search and rescue volunteer tax credit. That’s where there have been some gaps. We need to designate the group to be able to be recognized as a designated search and rescue or a designated volunteer firefighter to be able to be eligible. We’ve had a group come forward. We’ll continue to look at that, if there are gaps. We’re happy to do that.

Then just one clarification. One change that has been addressed in this credit compared to February is that the person must be a resident of British Columbia. That wasn’t clarified, so we ensured it’s clarified in this bill.

Sections 23 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

T. Redies: Can the minister explain why the decrease to 15 percent was chosen and perhaps give us some insight as to whether or not this relates to the reduction of the small business corporate income tax rate in any way?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: The member is correct. When there’s a change in the corporate tax rate, we always make a change, an adjustment, to the calculation of the dividend tax credit as well.

Section 35 approved.

On section 36.

T. Redies: A similar question. Can the minister explain why the increase specifically to 43-11/19 percent was chosen and give some insight as to how this relates to the increase in the general corporate income tax?

Hon. C. James: As the member knows…. Correct, similar to the previous one, this is related to the increase in the corporate tax rate. We make the changes in the dividend tax credit to reflect that as well.

Sections 36 to 47 inclusive approved.

On section 48.

T. Redies: This section deals with the corporate income tax increase from 11 to 12 percent. I’d like to hear from the minister what analysis was done to determine the impact of this tax increase in terms of B.C.’s competitiveness relative to other provinces and nearby U.S. jurisdictions.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: As we did with others, as we looked at any of the changes in the budget, we looked at, as I mentioned before, maintaining our competitiveness, ensuring that was there. We felt the 1 percent increase — which continues to keep us in line with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, with the western provinces — continues to keep us competitive in that regard.

We’re much lower than the U.S., when it comes to corporate tax rates, and much lower than international rates as well. From our perspective, a 1 percent increase to provide for programs and services which, in fact, benefit corporations….

The investors that I talk to in British Columbia certainly talk about how important it is to invest in housing, for example, or how important it is to invest in education. So the rule of people contributing to programs and services that everyone benefits from…. We felt a 1 percent increase was keeping us within our competitive range, ensuring that this is a province that people still want to invest in, while investing in supports and services that make a difference for people in British Columbia, including corporations.

T. Redies: You mentioned the United States. I’m sure you know that the current administration is looking at some very significant tax cuts. My question: is the minister not at all concerned about the potential reduction in the competitiveness of B.C. if these tax changes go through?

Hon. C. James: I think, certainly, people that I talk to, businesses that I talk to, talk about stability being critical when they look for places to invest. There are very few people right now who would look down south of the border and call anything stable. There’s a great deal of concern around the political environment, around the changes around NAFTA and softwood, etc. When you look at stability and look at predictability and look at a government that continues to look at competitiveness and look at the advantages in British Columbia, I am confident that businesses will continue to look favourably on British Columbia.

T. Redies: That’s good to know. I would say…. The minister referenced NAFTA and softwood lumber. Those are creating great degrees of uncertainty here, as is the cancellation of infrastructure projects or projects that are currently at risk, based on what this government is doing. I think there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty here, as well.

I think we obviously need to keep an eye on what is happening in other jurisdictions to ensure that B.C. does remain competitive. I’m not sure if the minister is aware that the Premier of Saskatchewan recently announced that they won’t be reducing their corporate tax rate because they don’t need to now because B.C. has raised theirs.

Sections 48 and 49 approved.

On section 50.

T. Redies: This particular section is near and dear to my heart, based on my previous life. But I would also like to hear from the minister as to what the minister believes will be the expected benefit or outcome of this change.

Hon. C. James: I was really pleased to be able to include this in the budget. I think credit unions have done an extraordinary job in British Columbia, but they’ve also done an extraordinary job in talking about what a positive impact a change in this way could have for communities in British Columbia, particularly rural communities.

It’s important to note that in rural communities, small communities, often the credit union is the only financial institution in those communities, and in other communities, often the credit unions are the only ones which will take a look at small businesses.

[2:40 p.m.]

Because of, again, economy of scale, many of the big banks want big customers. For small businesses, the ability to be able to go to a credit union, to be able to receive the loan that they need, to be able to perhaps expand a business, open a business…. Often the credit unions are the ones who are there for them.

I think the other important point to note is that increasing lending in communities by credit unions increases economic activity in communities. Those dollars are not taken overseas. Those dollars are spent in local communities and local investments. This is a smart decision for communities. It’s a smart decision for credit unions. It’s a smart decision for the economy, particularly for small communities.

Section 50 approved.

On section 51.

S. Bond: We have here a consequential to the amendment made in the bill. It strikes out “before 2017” and substitutes “before 2018.” It also talks about the definition of an “excluded expense.” Can the minister just walk through what the changes mean for the B.C. flow-through mining tax?

Hon. C. James: This, basically, prevents double-dipping when it comes to the tax. We have a provision that states that the mining flow-through tax credit…. You want to prevent taxpayers from claiming a mining exploration tax credit in respect to expenses that they are eligible for in the mining flow-through share tax credit. So it’s to prevent people from being able to claim both, basically.

Section 51 approved.

On section 52.

S. Bond: Can the minister just provide a brief explanation about the benefit to the mining industry? This is related to exploration. Could the minister just explain the benefits as a result of this amendment?

Hon. C. James: This amendment will parallel the federal government changes that now provide for environmental consultation. It will allow those expenses incurred for environmental studies and for community consultations undertaken. When companies are looking at a licence or a privilege during the exploration stage, this will ensure that those expenses are not excluded. They will in fact be included, as the federal government does, through this amendment.

S. Bond: Perhaps just a comment from the minister on the retroactive nature of the amendment.

Hon. C. James: Good question. It goes back to the federal changes, so this will go back to March 1, 2015.

Sections 52 and 53 approved.

On section 54.

T. Redies: Could the minister explain the change that is occurring here, with respect to what information is actually going to be provided to the Commissioner of Income Tax?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This again, as we talked about earlier, relates to information-sharing, particularly in the area of housing and real estate. That’s really where the big concerns are being raised, so this will facilitate information with Revenue federally. B.C. Assessment data, for example, will be information that is shared — property values. Information that is gathered now will now be shared with the federal government so they can look at how they identify individuals who haven’t filed a tax return despite their requirements. So closing those loopholes and assuring that people pay the tax that they should.

Sections 54 and 55 approved.

On section 56.

S. Bond: I want to just ask the minister to perhaps explain. Earlier in the discussion, the minister talked about having certainty as an important thing. In March, the previous government actually announced and extended this program for two years. I’m wondering why only a single-year extension has been included in this update.

Hon. C. James: The one-year extension was given so that we could sit down and review the tax credit, work with book publishers and make sure that the credit they were receiving was helping them and encouraging publishing and booksellers in British Columbia. So it’s to give time for the new government to be able do that consultation.

Section 56 approved.

On section 57.

T. Redies: Can the minister provide information as to how many individuals and, specifically, apprentices benefit from this credit?

Hon. C. James: Approximately — this is for the 2016 tax year — 4,210 apprentices, individuals, put in claims, and approximately 1,020 employers.

T. Redies: Can the minister also explain why this credit was only extended for one year as well, not through to 2020?

Hon. C. James: One of the priorities we have is to look at opportunities to expand trades and apprenticeships. We’ve extended for one year so that can be part of that full review and to make sure it was a comprehensive conversation.

Sections 57 and 58 approved.

On section 59.

T. Redies: Can the minister provide any examples as to what corporations the expanded eligibility will apply to with this new section?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Both of these are relieving measures or enabling measures. You may have a company that may have more than one line of business, for example. It may have interactive digital media as one part of their business and another part of the business not related. Previously, they had to have, basically, 100 percent of their business to be able to access this credit. This will provide an opportunity for them to be able to access the credit for the portion of their business that they’re taking a look at.

Also, the second part of this section amends the bill to remove the restriction that prevented corporations that were registered under the Small Business Venture Capital Act from claiming the credit. Basically, both of these are enabling provisions to allow businesses to be able to access the credit they previously couldn’t.

T. Redies: Just a follow-up question. What is the anticipated economic benefit of this expanded eligibility?

Hon. C. James: It’s important to note that when the change comes in, I think we’ll be able to track the change and the impact. I think the reason we’re making the change is because there were concerns that had been brought forward about companies that were looking at expanding in parts of their business or looking at expanding in the digital media area. This is a business, as I’m sure the member knows, that changes very quickly. We’ve got to make sure that the tax changes keep up with the changes in the industry. This, hopefully, will provide opportunities for expansion.

Section 59 approved.

On section 60.

S. Bond: I know the minister is not going to be surprised that I’m going to take a few minutes to talk about this. I think that, certainly, the minister has likely, as has the leader of the Green Party, received a significant amount of correspondence about this decision.

Just so that we’re all on the same page, section 60 begins a number of sections that talk about discontinuing the international business activity program. Maybe just a quick reminder here that the program was established by the province in the late 1980s to encourage the growth of the international financial sector through the provision of rebates of provincial corporate income taxes for eligible international financial activities.

As we look at the program over the years, we certainly have seen…. While there may be a debate today about whether or not it’s had an impact, certainly there is a view, and a strongly held one, that there has been a significant positive impact as a result of this program. I think the thing that I find most interesting about this decision is the fact that, in essence, when you look at the fiscal implications for the province, the net revenue implications for the province of continuing with the program are basically assessed as likely to be positive. In other words, even at the low end of the incrementality range, the province collects more money in taxes than it issues in tax rebates.

We’re getting rid of a program that actually has the potential to continue to attract international investors and companies. We’re getting rid of it, despite the fact that there are very likely and highly unlikely revenue implications for the province. Can the minister explain the rationale for the cancellation of the international business activity program?

Hon. C. James: Yes, we did have a good conversation, and yes, I expected this issue certainly would arise. I think I’ll just run through a few pieces that the member mentioned and a few pieces to again talk about why this program is being proposed to be eliminated in this bill.

I think it’s important to note that the program has been analyzed. It was thoroughly analyzed in 2010, in a report that was done and provided to the previous government. That report was based on actual taxpayer data. I think it’s important to note that the Advantage B.C. report that came out is based on interviews with the individuals who were receiving the tax credit. That’s very different than a report that is based on actual taxpayer data.

[2:55 p.m.]

What that report in 2010 clearly showed is that the subsidy wasn’t delivering the promised jobs or the economic activity. In fact, a large portion of the businesses were already in British Columbia, already doing business in British Columbia, and benefited.

I do think it’s interesting that that report that the member had access to, that the other side had access to in 2010 — that we received as well — clearly pointed out that there was not a link. Yet the government continued to move ahead with the program and, in fact, expanded the program without the facts to show that there was a link between the work that was being done.

I think it’s important to always take a look at programs and services across government, to take a look at taxpayer supports to businesses. We want to encourage investment in British Columbia. That’s an important piece of our budget. That’s why we’re doing things like lowering the small business tax rate. That’s why we’re getting rid of PST on electricity and continue to look at how we encourage investment in British Columbia.

I do believe that if a tax measure is being used, we need to be able to do the due diligence and the rigour that a tax measure deserves. It certainly seems clear from the report, which the member would have seen or other members would have seen in 2010, that there was not a clear link between the work that was being done, the tax break that was being given and jobs being created. As I said, most of those jobs and existing activities were already being done in British Columbia, so from our perspective, this was not a good use of dollars. That’s why we proposed that the program be eliminated.

S. Bond: I think the debate here today is less about the merits of the program, because we really can’t have an informed debate about that. The last time…. The minister is completely within her scope to correct me if there has been a thorough analysis. Yesterday in estimates, the minister talked about: “Well, it’s reviewed annually.”

Yet today we talk about…. The most recent thorough analysis of this program was in 2010. Did the minister ask for a thorough analysis to be done before deciding to axe the program?

Hon. C. James: I’ll reiterate. As I said yesterday, the 2010 report was a thorough report that developed a model, an economic model that was then used each year to take a look at the program and to take a look at the impact of the program. Was that information that I considered when I made the decision and our cabinet made the decision around the program? Yes, it was.

I think the other important factor to take a look at is that when the program started — and the member mentioned when the program began — the corporate tax rate at that point was 51.37 percent. We are now looking at a combined federal-provincial tax rate as of January 1 of 27 percent. So you are looking at a very different environment than when the program first began.

As I said to the member yesterday, who came in to express worries about the loss of the program and the impact that that would have on existing businesses, we are always — and I, personally, am always — open to ideas and approaches to increase activity in British Columbia, to increase investment in British Columbia. Whether it’s in the financial sector or in other sectors, I am more than happy to receive any ideas and approaches that the members feel would be successful.

I think that’s part of what we should be doing in this Legislature — having those discussions. It’s part of why I believe so strongly, having sat as a member in opposition on the Finance and Government Services Select Standing Committee, because I think getting good ideas from all kinds of places is what we should be doing in democracy. Good ideas are not limited to one side or another or to one political party or another. Good ideas come from everywhere.

I would certainly encourage the members. If the member, as she says, really wants to look at strengths that might have been there, or strengths to look at, I’m more than happy to take a look at those programs and services that the member feels may be worth taking a look at.

S. Bond: I appreciate the fact the minister has just noted that it’s always important to look at programs. I think this is one of the programs that the minister decided to axe pretty quickly. Virtually every other program, every other initiative, every other promise this government has made is going to some long consultation process. Yet for this one, it was decided: “Let’s just get rid of it.”

[3:00 p.m.]

Now, granted a model was created in 2010, but certainly, from the information that we have and the briefings that we had, the last thorough analysis, complete thorough analysis, of this program was in 2010 — yet let’s get rid of it.

Let’s talk a little bit about what kind of gains this program has delivered. It actually grew B.C.’s international financial and business sectors. It helped diversify the economy of British Columbia, and, in fact, it built B.C.’s reputation for international business. So to suggest that there hasn’t been impact would simply be inaccurate.

The minister said she’s open to ideas, and I’m really glad to hear that, because I’m going to present her with one momentarily here. But before I do that, I want to just ask the member about the process that was used to determine that this program should disappear.

I find it ironic that on October 4, 2017, the New Democrat caucus issued a press release about this program. They didn’t talk about the merits of a policy-based decision. Let’s look at what it said: “…undeterred by the lack of evidence and is working hard to save the B.C. Liberal giveaway scheme.”

Minister, let’s take a look at the real rationale here. That press release was sent out. There are a number of quotes in it. It says that: “Following advice from ministry experts that the program doesn’t do what it intended, the current Finance Minister has proposed ending the failed scheme.” So Minister, is this a decision based on policy or politics?

With that in mind, I would like to propose an amendment to section 60.

[SECTION 60, By deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

60 Section 8 of the International Business Activity Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 49, is amended by adding the following subsections:

(3) Subject to subsection (8), this Act does not apply to a corporation or an individual for taxation years beginning after September 11, 2017 September 17, 2018.

(4) In this section the “Emerging Economy Task Force” means a task force to be appointed by government that is to include but is not limited to business and industry representatives.

(5) The Emerging Economy Task Force must conduct a review to determine if the International Business Activity Program provided for in this Act should be modified, retained or eliminated for taxation years beginning after September 17, 2018.

(6) Within 6 months of being appointed, the Emerging Economy Task Force must submit a report to the Minister of Finance respecting the results of the review under subsection (5).

(7) The report under subsection (6) must be made public by September 10, 2018.

(8) Subsection (3) does not come into force unless the Emerging Economy Task Force has recommended in its report to the Minister of Finance under subsection (6) that the International Business Activity Program should be eliminated for taxation years beginning after September 17, 2018.]

I have copies of it that I’d be happy to provide to the Clerk, obviously, and I have copies — I’m sure — for the leader of the Green Party and the minister.

On the amendment.

S. Bond: I just want to speak to the amendment while the minister takes a couple of minutes to read it. It’s really not a complicated amendment. It has a number of sections to it, but in a nutshell, here’s what it says: that the date for the end of the program, if there is going to be one, be extended a year.

The whole point of making amendments is…. They’re called reasonable amendments. I think that, considering the history of this program, which has gone through successive governments, this is not a “B.C. Liberal giveaway scheme.” This is a program started in the 1980s, followed by successive governments.

The recommendation in the amendment is to simply ask…. The government intends to create an emerging economy task force. I think that it’s completely responsible and reasonable to ask that the emerging economy task force take a look at this program and make a recommendation to the minister. Her very own task force can make that recommendation after having a really good look at this in the context of emerging economies.

One of the benefits of this program has been to do with clean energy, green technology — all of those kinds of things. So all this asks is that we’d like the emerging economy task force to take a look at this, to bring a recommendation back to the minister, and to present that in public so that, in fact, there can be a really transparent look at whether or not this program should remain in existence — rather than simply making it one of the first difficult decisions that has been made, to axe the program without a thorough and thoughtful review.

Those are my comments to the amendment, and I know that several of my colleagues want to speak to it as well.

T. Wat: I rise in support of the reasonable amendment proposed by the member for Prince George–Valemount to Bill 2, to postpone the decision to eliminate the IBA program until the emerging economy task force can take a very detailed look at this program.

First of all, I’d like to say thank you to the Minister of Finance for saying that you’re open to ideas, that if members from the opposition or any members from this Legislature have any ideas of how to grow the economy, you are more than willing to look at our ideas. And here it is. We have excellent ideas coming from my colleague, the member for Prince George–Valemount.

[3:05 p.m.]

We are not going to disagree with the Minister of Finance to eliminate a program immediately. But having said that, I still cannot understand, as my colleague already mentioned, that since the NDP government was in power, on every single policy initiative, the government will go through review after review or one public consultation after one public consultation. This particular one, the international business activity program, is a ratified decision.

As the minister said, the last thorough review was done in 2010. It was seven years ago. Even though the Minister of Finance every year does a review, as part of the budget review, that’s not a thorough review. Whatever information you got seven years ago I don’t think is applicable today.

I want to iterate once again that this program is designed to attract — and, in some cases, to retain — international business activity that would have otherwise not been located in British Columbia. We, as a province, benefit from international commerce, and we cannot attract international companies if they don’t have ready access to international financial services.

Financial services have really become a very important job generator in B.C., and international commerce is a huge part of the economy. I’d just like to remind the minister of the original intent of this program, as the then Finance Minister, Mel Couvelier, said in 1987: “It’s to develop an international financial centre in Vancouver.” He said: “We can be Canada’s and North America’s financial gateway in the Pacific Rim….”

It is worth noting that in the late ’80s, Vancouver did not rank anywhere as an international financial centre. But in 2008, an organization in the U.K. started a ranking of global financial centres, and by then, Vancouver was ranked No. 33 — from not even appearing on the list to ranked 33 — and today we have climbed to 17. From a lot of the business community and a lot of financial experts, they all come to the conclusion that this is largely a result of our IBA program.

I know that the minister has pointed out another report, prepared by MMK Consulting in July. You think that because they interviewed all of the participants of this program, that’s why you don’t think it’s independent. I beg to disagree, because it’s exactly those participating companies involved in the program that will know what kinds of benefits the program brings to them. Without the program, we understand that many of them will be relocated to other places. They won’t stay in British Columbia.

I would also like to once again put on record that IBA-eligible activities are estimated as representing close to $2 billion in direct economic output in B.C. in 2015 and direct employment of 7,800. It certainly does not make sense to eliminate this program without a comprehensive and thorough review, given such a significant economic benefit.

The minister yesterday said that when the program was started, the corporate tax rate was much higher in British Columbia. Then we have seen a drop in the corporate tax rate, which the minister said certainly assists corporations when they are taking a look at investing in B.C. This is certainly true, Minister, but this is only true before this NDP government amended the Income Tax Act to increase the general corporation income tax rate from 11 percent to 12 percent in your 2017 budget update. B.C. is going from having the lowest corporate income tax rate across the provinces to being tied with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the fourth-highest corporate income tax rate.

So here we are. This NDP government is sending a chilling message to investors that it’s going to be more expensive to do business in British Columbia. If the minister is going ahead with the elimination of this program, without a thorough and comprehensive review of the value of the program, this is yet another troubling message to investors that B.C. does not welcome investment.

I was going to comment on the minister’s remark yesterday that the top-five biggest recipients of the IBA program were actually already located in British Columbia prior to the program expanding and receiving those additional breaks in 2005.

[3:10 p.m.]

It is worth noting that the world is now a global village. Business people can easily move their business from one place to another if they have found that a government does not provide a favourable business environment. It is exactly because of B.C.’s lowest corporation tax in Canada and the attractiveness of the IBA program that many businesses have decided to stay behind. Once these are gone, these businesses, even though they may have been around in B.C. for a number of years, I’m afraid, can easily move out of province.

Having said all that, I’m still encouraged to hear the minister’s comments, both yesterday and today, that the minister is willing to look at all kinds of suggestions. I am speaking in support of the amendment and urge the minister to do so in order to ensure that B.C. will continue to be an attractive place for investment and business.

T. Redies: I’m also pleased to rise to support this amendment to Bill 2, as put forward by my colleague the member for Prince George–Valemount. My colleague from Richmond North Centre very eloquently explained that this program actually has contributed a significant amount to B.C.’s economy: over $1 billion in direct GDP growth and $1 billion in direct employment with 7,800 jobs. That’s not inconsequential.

We’re troubled that — based on an outdated review done in 2010, seven years ago — the minister would consider axing this program, a decision that…. Frankly, we’ve had many businesses contact us, very concerned about it. These include technology companies and financial services companies, but it also includes firms from the Interior.

I mentioned that I had been going around the province with the Finance Committee. We had the pleasure of having Tolko present to us in Williams Lake. I’m sure the minister is aware that Tolko is a major producer in the forestry industry. They asked us to reconsider the decision to eliminate the international business activity program. I’d like to quote from their submission.

“Tolko supports the international business activity program as it offers businesses some risk management when exporting B.C. products. The forest industry survived a severe and prolonged economic downturn due to the U.S. housing crisis. The industry responded by adapting to change and increasing our exposure to new markets in Asia and abroad.

“In the absence of this response, the international business activity program, B.C. sawmills would have closed. Cancellation of this program will mean a less favourable business climate for international activities, resulting in the export of fewer B.C. products.”

This is the forestry industry, which is already under a lot of duress and experiencing a lot of uncertainty. They have asked us, numerous companies have asked, to ask the government to reconsider this decision.

As I said, we’ve received many letters from businesses, and in the absence of any real, thorough review, especially for a government that does tend to send everything else out for review, we are asking you to reconsider this decision and support the amendment.

A. Weaver: I thank the member for Prince George–Valemount for putting forward the amendment. I also wish to thank her sincerely for providing me with information, including a copy of the MMK Consulting report Building B.C.’s Brand and Assessment of the International Business Activity Program.

I have sought two briefings on this particular section of the bill out of concern, as expressed by the member for Prince George–Valemount and others on the opposition side, with respect to: what are the unforeseen or unintended consequences of perhaps cutting this program?

I will say also that I do commend the present CEO of the program, who has clearly taken steps since a previous review to get it on its right track. But if we come, in speaking to the amendment, back to the history of this program, the international business activity program was actually brought forth in 1988 at a time when the corporate tax rate — combined province and federally here in British Columbia — was over 50 percent.

[3:15 p.m.]

At the time, the rationale for bringing it in was that in British Columbia we were not competitive with other jurisdictions in terms of the corporate tax rate. Now, as of January 2018, the corporate Canada-plus-B.C. tax rate will be 23 percent. The corporate tax rate has come down 23 percent since the introduction of this program.

If we look, very recently, in terms of what this program is being used at, I have, in the briefings that I’ve sought to get to the full details here…. I understand that, in terms of what’s using it, factoring contributes about 29 percent; dealing in securities, about 28 percent; foreign exchange, about 33 percent; and other issues, such as with the film industry, etc., 10 percent of the usage.

Now, the issue of factoring is an interesting one. What it allows to occur, for example, is British Columbia…. It’s done in a non-arm’s-length fashion. You can set up, in a non-arm’s-length fashion, businesses in other jurisdictions. For example, if I’m a business, I can trade amongst myself by setting up a corporation in America, say, and have a company in Canada. I can go back and forth between myself and take advantage of the tax credits in this program, when really all I’m doing is taking advantage of something that is finding a means and ways of taking advantage of a specific tax break.

Where it gets particularly egregious…. This is a 33 percent that comes in with foreign exchange. I’d like to give a specific example. Let’s suppose that I would like to loan you $100 million U.S., and in order of doing that, I’m going to not loan you but find you $100 million U.S. as capital, so you’re going to get access to it. There may be, say, a 5 percent or a 3 percent commission attached with that. Well, now, if I’m registered in this, I can go and get the B.C. taxpayer to give me a 12 percent tax credit on that 3 percent commission.

The problem here is that that’s just not right. Why should the B.C. taxpayer…? This is 33 percent of the business model within this international business activity program. One-third of all the activity involves foreign exchange. Any service fee associated with getting money from somewhere…. And it just has to be the money. It doesn’t have to come from another jurisdiction. If it’s another foreign currency, it’s eligible for the money. One-third of the business model, and you get a 12 percent tax credit. The B.C. taxpayer is subsidizing those who don’t need a subsidy just for the commission. It’s just wrong. I can’t see any justification for that.

I’ve looked at this in detail. I understand that this report is a thoughtful report by MMK Consulting. Unfortunately, it only relied upon interviews, and pre-audited fees were looked at. That is the information that was used. That’s my understanding. The claim of 7,800 jobs that was embedded in this report is actually based on a large number of assumptions that I think could be challenged by the civil service and government if the actual income tax reporting data were available.

I’m not saying that this isn’t a thorough report, but I’m saying the analysis in this report did not have the actual data, the income tax data, that would allow it to make exact or precise assessments of jobs and income.

I took this very seriously. I took the suggestion of the member for Prince George–Valemount very, very seriously. It was not until the second extensive briefing from the civil service…. I’m very grateful to the minister and the staff of the civil service who have provided me with this briefing. It is only after extensive briefing that I must say now that I support the rationale here in recognition of the good work done by the present CEO, and I cannot support this amendment.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the members who have made the comments, and thank you to the member for bringing forward an amendment. I think it’s exactly, as the previous member said, the kind of process that we want to encourage — an opportunity to have a thorough discussion on this issue and on other issues that come forward in the Legislature.

But I want to start again with the foundation of this tax credit and the basis of the tax credit at a very different time in British Columbia, a very different time when it comes to tax rates.

[3:20 p.m.]

As has been mentioned, over 51 percent tax rate on corporations. We’re at a very different place now, at 27 percent. That’s with the 1 percent increase that will occur on January 1. We’re in a very different situation. And while I appreciate the member’s comments around the report from Advantage B.C., I think it is very important to take a look at the rigour that was done. The report that came forward in 2010, that was given to government, pointed out very clearly that there was not a link, a correlation, between the jobs being created and the tax credit that was being provided.

In fact, just the opposite, as one of the members mentioned. There were a number of businesses — five of the largest recipients under the program — already located in British Columbia before the program even expanded in 2004.

The member mentioned the issue of green energy. That was never expanded to the program. It was talked about by the previous government, but it never happened. In fact, 90 percent of the refunds — and the member mentioned this as well — subsidized three kinds of activities: foreign exchange, securities trading and factoring. I think the member identified the issue of factoring.

I think it’s also important to look at technology and the changes that have occurred in the world since this program and tax break were put in place. Foreign exchange traders — that trading has become more and more automated, requiring fewer people. There aren’t the same kinds of jobs as there were 20 years ago when this program was put in place. You don’t see the same kinds of opportunities for jobs. So that’s not there.

While I appreciate the member’s interests in referring this issue to the emerging economy task force, from my perspective the opportunity for the emerging economy task force is to take a look at the kinds of issues and priorities that they believe are important to be looked at — not for us to refer an issue to them and say that this is something we want to continue on, but in fact to take a look at opportunities.

There may be some ideas and approaches that come forward that would provide support, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that when you’re looking at foreign exchange, security trading and factoring as the majority — 90 percent of all the refunds and the majority of businesses already based in B.C. — it does not seem to me that the rigour is there for this program to continue.

I want to emphasize again that the model that was developed in 2010, with the thorough report, was the model that was used each year to examine this program, to take a look at the information that came forward, to take a look at the opportunity to compare jobs with the credit that was going out.

I think the previous member mentioned it as well. The Advantage B.C…. While I appreciate the work that the CEO has done and I appreciate the report that came forward, the report itself said that there were limitations to what they were able to provide, because they do not have access to actual taxpayer data. That’s not something that they had access to. Therefore, they were not able to verify the information that was being provided by the recipients who received the program. I think that’s not the kind of rigour that the public expects when it comes to this kind of program.

While I appreciate the members raising the issue and I appreciate the attempt to look at an opportunity to be able to address this issue, I think that there is no reason why…. Ideas around investments in British Columbia continue to come forward. There are opportunities to be able to include that information in the budget preparation as we move to February. And I will be speaking against this amendment.

S. Bond: I appreciate the comments that have been made. I go back to the fact that the quote that I….

You know, this is a reasoned amendment. It’s not saying that eventually this program needs to be tweaked, modified, changed. But the minister has moved on this issue more quickly than anything else that she’s undertaken. I go back to the words in the NDP government caucus release that “there is a lack of evidence and this is a B.C. Liberal giveaway scheme.”

The request is a simple one: take a look, extend the time frame. The program has shown benefit. I think our job in this House is actually to ask those questions. While there may be some amusement about that on the other side, the fact of the matter is that this has made a difference in British Columbia.

[3:25 p.m.]

The question is simply: why so quickly? Why not give it the opportunity…? To the minister’s “while I’m not interested in referring it to the task force,” that’s exactly what a task force is created for. It’s simply the opportunity to take a look at a program that’s existed, look at its merits and its weaknesses, and take the opportunity to take some due process here.

In fact, in our view — and that’s why the amendment has been tabled — there was a significant lack of due process, quick action. We’re simply asking for reconsideration and allowing there to be some time before the decision moves forward.

A. Weaver: I wanted to stand and support the member for Prince George–Valemount’s comments, with respect to this being a Liberal giveaway.

Clearly, this is not a B.C. Liberal giveaway. It’s a program that was established under the Social Credit government in 1988. It was developed and continued through the NDP governments of the 1990s and continued through the 2000s under a B.C. Liberal government.

I think it’s very unfortunate wording that it’s been phrased that way, but it doesn’t change my views with respect to the actual amendment itself. I do respect the fact that it was brought forward. I think it’s a very reasoned amendment. But in light of the briefings that I’ve had with Finance staff, I remain still committed in opposition to this amendment.

[3:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 38
Cadieux	Rustad	Bond
de Jong	Coleman	Kyllo
Stone	Bernier	Wat
Johal	Lee	Hunt
Barnett	Tegart	Martin
Throness	Davies	Polak
Morris	Stilwell	Ashton
Oakes	Thomson	Sturdy
Ross	Isaacs	Milobar
Thornthwaite	Yap	Redies
Paton	Gibson	Sultan
Shypitka	Reid	Letnick
Larson		Foster
NAYS — 43
Kahlon	Begg	Brar
Heyman	Donaldson	Mungall
Bains	Beare	Chen
Popham	Trevena	Sims
Chow	Kang	Simons
D’Eith	Routley	Ma
Elmore	Dean	Routledge
Singh	Leonard	Darcy
Simpson	Robinson	Farnworth
Horgan	James	Eby
Dix	Ralston	Mark
Fleming	Conroy	Fraser
Chandra Herbert	Rice	Krog
Furstenau	Weaver	Olsen
	Glumac

[3:35 p.m.]

Section 60 approved.

On section 61.

S. Bond: I appreciate that, and I do appreciate the decision and the conversation. Certainly, we’ll be monitoring the impacts. We are concerned about a couple of potential investments, for sure. But I do appreciate the minister’s willingness to receive ideas and input about other possibilities related to the important work that does need to be done when it comes to the attraction of international investment.

With the indulgence of the Chair, as we move through these sections related to section 60, I’m simply going to ask the minister for a summary-type of comment on what now happens with people who are currently registered and with registration. I think, in terms of being efficient, just a summary of what the next steps might be. What happens to those who have registered? Is registration stopped at this point? That will move us, I think, through to section 66.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the comments. I think this is exactly the kind of process that people expect us to go through, which is a good, healthy debate on issues and looking for an opportunity to find solutions.

I am serious when I mentioned to the member and to other members, if there are opportunities and specifics that they feel…. The member mentioned a couple of businesses that they’re concerned about. If there are issues where you believe an outreach needs to occur, then I’m more than happy to take those names and more than happy to assist in that outreach as well.

For the individuals who are currently in the program and registered for the taxation year, that continues. No activity as of September 11, 2017, will be counted, but they continue to be registered for that taxation year. They have 18 months to file, so there’s a time period for everybody to be able to file as the program winds down.

Sections 61 to 76 inclusive approved.

On section 77.

T. Redies: We’re getting to the end of this process.

Previously, in February, the government had committed to a specific effective date of October 5 for the reduction of PST on electricity to 3½ percent, with the aim to fully exempt electricity from PST, effective April 1, 2019. Can the minister explain why no specific timeline is provided for in this legislation for the reduction?

Hon. C. James: To clarify, I think the member is speaking to section 75.

T. Redies: Section 77.

Hon. C. James: This is, again, another one of those transition issues. Where a new budget was brought in, the measure had to be brought forward. We will have to wait and see when this budget is passed. Then we will look at the regulation to set a date. We’ll look at that as quickly as we can, but we have to wait. We couldn’t prejudge when this budget may or may not pass in the Legislature before the regulation could be written.

T. Redies: Thank you for that. Just to clarify, if it passes, will there be any delay, or will it pass immediately after royal assent? Or will it be put into place? How long will it take to get it effected?

Hon. C. James: The previous bill suggested 30 days after a budget was passed. We tend to make changes on the first of the month. It’s just easier for accounting purposes, so that’s what we’ll aim for. To be as quick as possible, we’ll look at those 30 days, and we’ll look at the first of the month to make it easier for businesses.

Sections 77 to 79 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2017

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 11, the Provincial Court Amendment Act, 2017, second reading.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — PROVINCIAL COURT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. D. Eby: This bill will amend section 30.2 of the Provincial Court Act to extend the term of appointment for judicial justices of the Provincial Court. Currently judicial justices are appointed for a single ten-year term. The bill would change the term to 12 years. It would apply to all future appointments as well as to past appointments made since this form of appointment for judicial justices was created in the act in 2008.

The 2008 amendments were made to accommodate changes to the judicial justices’ role, initiated by the office of the chief judge. Up to that point, all judicial justices were appointed full-time and to age 70. The ten-year appointment provision allows for both full-time and part-time judicial justices, with the latter being guaranteed a certain number of working days per year.

[3:50 p.m.]

Another change was to require all prospective judicial justices to be lawyers in good standing in the province. This arrangement has proved successful. Now with a number of the initial appointments set to expire next year, the chief judge has requested an extension to permit the court to retain these experienced members of the bench for an additional two years.

I think it is a worthwhile change that will assist the court and help to ensure the smooth functioning of those areas of adjudication undertaken by judicial justices — namely, hearing provincial offence matters, local government bylaw matters and small claims payments, as well as conducting bail hearing applications and issuing search warrants. These are important facets of the justice system in British Columbia, and I hope that all members of the House will support the amendments proposed in this bill.

J. Sturdy: I rise today to notify the chamber that we will be supporting this amendment, Bill 11, which really is a very simple piece of legislation.

It is essentially striking out “10 years”, substituting “12 years” and then putting in place a transition period and some definitions of a transition provision. It is, as the Attorney General said, a very straightforward and logical piece of legislation. It extends the term of the judicial appointments from ten years to 12 years. The 12-year term applies to all future judicial appointments, as well as any made after April 1, 2008. These amendments respond to a request by the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court and will help the court retain experienced judicial justices for a longer period of time. I think we all understand the value of experience.

The head of the Provincial Court is the chief judge, who is the official spokesman, and the chief judge has the power and duty to supervise judicial officers. The court’s daily work of deciding matters in a full and fair manner is carried out by its judicial officers, which include judges, who make decisions in all areas in which the court has jurisdiction; judicial justices, who preside over a limited range of matters in court and also perform duties in a justice centre; judicial case managers handle trial scheduling and initial court appearances; and justices of the peace work in court registries as court services justices of the peace.

This amendment in Bill 11 applies to all judicial justices and to the British Columbia judicial justices or judicial officers who exercise authority under various provincial and federal laws, as well as duties assigned by the chief judge, which may include, as the Attorney said, presiding over court to hear traffic and other ticketable offences, some municipal bylaw matters, some payment hearings in small claims, and applications for bail and search warrants at a justice centre. They also, at times, conduct criminal arraignment hearings and deal with applications under the Criminal Code at the Victoria Integrated Court.

Judicial justices do not deal with applications under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or with offences that may result in imprisonment. As a result, when a Charter issue is raised in traffic court — or another matter that’s normally heard by a judicial justice — the matter is referred to a judge. The point here is the value of experience. The difficulties in replacing members that have left the service is always an ongoing challenge. The longer-term tenure for these positions is of value to the province of British Columbia. We will be supporting this bill.

S. Furstenau: I rise to echo the comments of the Attorney General and the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky in my support for this bill. There’s a shortage of judges in our system and other challenges facing our court system, which are slowing down cases and leading to inefficiencies and breakdowns.

[3:55 p.m.]

This bill will extend the term of appointments for judicial justices in the Provincial Court from ten to 12 years and include the transitional provision to all justices appointed after April 1, 2008. I understand that this bill has been introduced in response to the recommendation of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court and will enable experienced judicial justices to continue to serve longer than they are currently allowed.

There are lengthy delays throughout all levels of our court system, and this is hampering the ability of British Columbians to have timely and fair access to justice. Through extending the term of judicial justices, I hope this bill will go partway to addressing delays in these court hearings. But the problem is, as I’m sure the Attorney General knows, much more widespread, affecting the B.C. Supreme Court with the lack of judges appointed by the federal government to the B.C. Supreme Court bench and the lack of judges and other issues resulting in delays for our trials at the Provincial Court overseen by judges and justices of the peace.

One significant problem that we are experiencing in our justice system is a shortage of sheriffs across B.C., which is resulting in delays in courtrooms and courtrooms being closed, sometimes for days on end. It’s also resulted in judges having to toss out cases. I know that the Attorney General has said he is working on this issue. I look forward to seeing what progress the government is able to make to ensure that we are attracting and retaining enough sheriffs to make our courtrooms run in a timely manner.

This bill focuses on one aspect of our judicial system, extending the term of judicial justices, and may provide some relief for British Columbians in court over violation tickets, local government bylaws and small claims. I am happy to support this bill. I look forward to seeing more measures from government to address the challenges we see in our court system.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

(continued)

A. Weaver: I rise to continue my place in this debate on Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. As I was speaking yesterday evening, I am delighted to stand in support of this bill.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

One of the things I would like to address now — I didn’t have a chance to complete it yesterday — is some of the various types of proportional representation that will be explored in this extensive consultation period that we’re beginning to embark on under the direction of the Attorney General’s office.

If we go to the Angus Reid Institute, they did public interest research, which they released a couple of years back. I forget the exact date, but it was a very thorough analysis. They looked at a number of voting systems, and they talked about a number of ballots to get a sense of what people felt. They talked about the first-past-the-post system as one example. They explained, in a very straightforward manner, how it would be used and how it could be voted. They talked about a double system, whereby you could vote for a candidate and a party in a two-type system. They talked about the single transferable vote as one possible approach, an approach that has twice been used here in British Columbia, and they talked about numerous others.

I do recognize that I have not got much time left here, although I do so wish that we had royal assent of the bill, granting the B.C. Green Party party status, because I have at least another hour and a half that I could talk on this very important…. I know members opposite would be delighted. I will say, though, that it is inappropriate for members opposite to continue to spread information that is not correct with respect to the process being followed.

It is not correct that regional parts of British Columbia are at a disadvantage. As I pointed out yesterday, proportional representation would give them an advantage over what the status quo is. It would allow members in the Okanagan to be serving in government. It would allow members of the opposition to be serving on southern Vancouver Island if a form of proportional representation were in place.

[4:00 p.m.]

To suggest somehow that the allowance of other parties to be in this Legislature is giving rise to a national socialist party or some other party is rather absurd. The parties reflect the will of the people. Societal changes occur on short and long terms, and we are here to represent society. We’re not here to suppress other parties.

To suggest that we don’t want other parties because it’s bad for democracy is actually an affront to democracy. I would hope that as time goes forward, the members opposite realize that this is not the approach we want in British Columbia. We want to recognize society as a whole, and this approach to having a referendum does just that. I’ll end there.

M. Hunt: It’s my absolute delight to rise and speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. In my opinion, this bill proposes to change the fabric of our democracy, which is built on the British parliamentary system of representative government. It will affect British Columbians across the province, regardless of who they vote for.

It is in fact my pleasure to follow the leader of the Green Party, who I think should actually spend more time reading Bill 6 than he did in reading old Hansards. I have serious concerns about how the question is to be determined. Ultimately, the bill ensures that the question will be decided by the NDP cabinet behind closed doors after, I assume, consultation with the coalition secretariat. Now, that’s code for meaning the Green Party will decide.

Ultimately, what form of proportional representation is not in Bill 6? So what form are we actually going to end up with? What form is actually going to be put to the vote? We don’t know. Bill 6 doesn’t say. There are dozens of forms of proportional representation, and there are new ones being proposed all the time. The leader of the Green Party spoke of many wonderful benefits of this new proportional representation system, but that isn’t what is in Bill 6. I submit that it’s in his imagination, and that’s wonderful.

This is the third time there has been a referendum, as British Columbians voted on this in 2005 and then again in 2009. They’ve said twice now that they do not want proportional representation. I have further concerns with the nature of the public engagement process that is to be determined. For the 2005 and the 2009 referenda, the independent, non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform defined the process and the question. Each time, the assembly ensured that British Columbians from every corner of this province were consulted.

In this bill, there is absolutely no duty to consult. As a matter of fact, the words “consult” or “consultation” aren’t even to be found in this bill. Yet the leader of the Green Party would like to tell us that it’s there, and he’s going to be a part of it. Well, I’m sorry. It’s simply not in the bill. It simply says a bare majority of 50 percent plus one is the bar, and that bar is being lowered as low as it can possibly go.

It ignores the need for regional support. We heard just recently from the leader of the Green Party. He says that regional concerns are going to be addressed. My question is: where? It’s not in this bill. There’s a lack of respect for the public, as far as I’m concerned, and it’s a desperate opportunity that is being taken here to try to secure the shaky political alliance that we have in this House today. In fact, I believe that this bill will guarantee that the Greens or another small party will perpetually hold the balance of power here in this province.

It shouldn’t be this easy to change what is fundamentally important to our democratic system. Strata councils, for example, need 75 percent for a special resolution. Not-for-profits and charities also require 75 percent for special resolutions. Canada’s constitution requires both the House and the Senate to agree, and two-thirds of the provincial legislatures must approve it, as well as 50 percent plus one. That is, it needs both regional and popular support.

[4:05 p.m.]

Now, if we look at the NDP’s campaign platform dealing with the referendum, it says: “We’ll ensure B.C.’s regions are all represented fairly.” Well, that simply isn’t the case in Bill 6. There is no mechanism for a regional voice in this bill. Metro Vancouver will decide the issue, and the rest of the province will be ignored.

That’s right. I’m sorry. The leader of the Green Party confirmed that the NDP’s campaign platform no longer has any meaning, because the NDP-Greens have their backroom deal that matters now until the next election. So this is a simple example of the power of minority parties in a coalition minority government.

Prince Edward Island recently had a referendum, with 52 percent of voters in favour, but only 36 percent of the voters showed up to vote. The government rejected the referendum because the turnout was not enough. That’s Prince Edward Island. Remember, we can fit it into Surrey, and much less population. But they said that wasn’t good enough. Well, the NDP coalition thinks that 50 percent plus one is just fine, no matter how many show up, and even if only Metro Vancouver makes the ultimate decision.

I come from local government. In local government, we have a thing called R and D. It’s research and duplicate. We look for best practices. We look all over the world to try to find the best practices and try to see how we can modify those and make those work at home. Just like a farmer. A farmer will pick the best variety of whatever it is he wants to grow, looking for the attributes that he is wanting in that particular crop. So what have the NDP-Greens found in proportional representation that they want to emulate here in British Columbia?

There are 86 countries who use some form of proportional representation. Now, who are we trying to emulate? Well, let me read them. Let me read them to you: Albania; Algeria; Angola; Argentina; Armenia; Aruba; Australia.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: I’m doing it in alphabetical order, please. I’m keeping the order, okay?

Austria; Belgium; Benin; Bolivia; Bosnia-Herzegovina — that’s a great one; Brazil; Bulgaria; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cambodia; Cape Verde; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Dominican Republic; East Timor; El Salvador; Equatorial Guinea; Estonia. All countries we’re trying to emulate here. Of course, there’s the European Union. We’re at “e” right now. Each member state gets to choose its own PR system going into this. There’s Faroe Islands, Fiji, Finland, Germany. We’ll talk more about that in a minute.

Then there’s Greece. Greece is a very interesting one. In Greece, not only do they have their party lists, but in fact, whoever gets majority gets an extra 50 seats out of their 300-seat House, which means that whoever the majority is and whoever the government is has at least 40 percent of the government seats coming from party lists, not from the choice of the electorate.

No. 37 is Greenland, then Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland.

Interjections.

M. Hunt: I’ll get to Germany. Just hang on. I’ll get back to that.

Indonesia; Iraq — now there’s a place we want to emulate; Ireland; Israel; Italy. Oh, also in Italy, they do as well have a bonus that goes on. For those who get the majority, they get a bonus. Even more of the party lists are added in.

Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia. I’m at 60, so we’ve still got a few more to go. No. 61 is the Netherlands.

Interjections.

M. Hunt: Yes, yes, alphabetical order. Very good.

New Zealand, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania. Here’s another great one — Rwanda.

[4:10 p.m.]

San Marino; Sao Tome and Principe; Serbia; St. Maarten; Slovakia; Slovenia; South Africa; Spain; Sri Lanka; Suriname; Sweden; Switzerland — I’m at the “s”; Tonga; Tunisia; Turkey; and Uruguay. Like I said, 87 of them.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Hunt: What is the most common thread in the 87 countries?

Interjection.

M. Hunt: No, Scotland isn’t on the list.

The most common feature we find is, of course, party lists and instability, minority coalition governments producing instability for both the voters and for investors.

Now, let’s take a look. I had Belgium in there.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Well, hold it a second. Australia, you have to remember…. It isn’t the House of Commons that is by proportional representation; it’s the Senate. Now, at least they get to vote for their Senate. We give them that benefit over Canada, but by the same token, it actually is only the Senate. The House is not elected that way.

In Belgium, in 2010-11, it took 589 days for the parties to get together to try and come up with a coalition to govern. Meanwhile, the government operations continued. The bureaucracy worked just fine, but major decisions, like the migration legislation, the eurozone crisis, were all delayed for over a year. Their six-party coalition is what actually makes up the government — there are 11 parties that are in parliament — and that government lasted two years.

In the Netherlands…. My friend raised the issue of The Netherlands. In 2017, it took 208 days before the government was formed. The government consists of four coalition parties, and there are 13 parties in the parliament, including, I would add, a coalition that is an anti-LGBTQ party. In Spain, in 2015, it took 314 days for them to form a coalition. In fact, no coalition was formed in Spain after 314 days, so they had to have an election six months later. Spain has 12 parties in their parliament.

Italy. Now, Italy is a very interesting one. Italy has, in fact, tried twice — two different PR systems since 1993 — but in the 70 years between 1946 and 2016, they have had 65 different governments in 70 years. Now, that’s real stability, isn’t it? Currently there are 28 parties in six separate alliances, and the average length of their government is 21 months.

Yes, you wanted me to talk about Germany, so let’s talk about Germany. Well, in fact, in Germany, they just had an election in September. Well, we won’t know who the next government is until sometime in 2018 while they’re trying to work it all out. And by the way, the far-right party, the Alternative for Germany, will, in fact, have 94 seats in their parliament, and that same party advocates for the return of Nazism. Some very well-founded thing by my friends across….

All of this is in the context — at least, these ones here that I referred to specifically in Europe — of the European Union, which is a government that is elected by PR, but it simply has the ability to overrule the national governments of the union. So they really don’t care. By the way, no, I didn’t talk about Greece, because we all admit that one is a disaster all by itself.

Now, the leader of the Green Party brought up Northern Ireland and New Zealand as two countries that have the British parliamentary system that use proportional representation. Well, let’s take a look at these two.

Northern Ireland. Well, they re-established parliament in 1998, which means they’re just under 20 years. Their term is five-year fixed term elections. Since the re-establishment of parliament in 1998, they have had six elections. That means there’s an average of three years that the governments have lasted where in fact they were given a five-year term. The last parliament — well, I’m sorry. It only lasted for one year. There are eight parties in that parliament. Their election was on March 2 of this year, and a coalition still hasn’t been established in Northern Ireland. They’re still working on trying to figure out who is going to govern them after an election back in March.

[4:15 p.m.]

New Zealand. Yes, New Zealand has a form of proportional representation that is a multiple-member parliament. That was, first of all, introduced in 1996, so again, just around 20 years ago. There are 120 members in the House, and 71 of them are elected in the first-past-the-post. So they still have first-past-the-post within New Zealand, even though some members don’t want to admit it. The other 49 come from party lists. That means there are over 40 percent who are appointed by political parties, and only 60 percent are actually accountable to their electorate.

You see, under this system, in the 21 years they’ve had it, they’ve never had a majority government. Currently there are five parties in the parliament, and that actually is the lowest number they have had since they introduced multi-member parliament. And you know, they recognize its instability. Their term of office is only for three years, because they know it isn’t going to last that long anyhow.

When we look at proportional representation across the globe, we recognize it’s a global disaster. Now we have a lobby group that is pro-proportional representation that has created their own system. They’re calling it local PR, which they hope the cabinet will adopt. Well, wish them luck.

What about accountability? The proportional representation systems make it difficult for voters to hold their governments or even their local representatives to account. Of course, the Green Party has already demonstrated that in the alliance they have made with the NDP. Some parties are ever-present in governing coalitions under the PR system, despite their weak electoral performances. Now, maybe this is the attribute that the Green Party is looking for.

In Germany, the Free Democratic Party has held the balance of power for 45 out of 64 years between 1949 and 2013. During that time, their average vote was only 7 percent of the vote, and it never eclipsed 12.5 percent of the vote. Yet they held the balance of the power.

We see that countries that use proportional representation use party lists. That’s where the party decides who sits in the House, not the voters. Even if some members are elected by the voters, the difference between the seats won and the percentage of the seats in the House is made up from party lists. That means that those members are only accountable to the party who appointed them, not to the citizens of their country.

If people think parties are bad today where we have party discipline, where the Premier or the Prime Minister chooses cabinet posts and members of that party are obliged to do his or her bidding in order to be considered for cabinet, what will it be like when the party is deciding who actually sits in the Legislature? The loyalty will not be to the citizens; it will be to the party.

Now, what about the extremes, the far-left and the far-right parties? Well, the PR system legitimizes those extreme or fringe parties from the far right or far left with their political ideology. Usually, they don’t get directly elected, but they can get a seat by their percentage of votes. Far-right leaders and political parties are in fact rising in popularity around the world.

We saw the far-right party — Oh, I’m sorry; that’s Germany again, isn’t it? — the AfDreceive 13 percent in Germany’s 2017 general election, which was up from the 4.6 percent that they had four years ago. We have Marine Le Pen, the French far-right leader, who won a seat in the parliament in France’s 2017 general election.

What about broken promises? We’ve heard a lot about that since the election. We find that the Premier of the province said, back in May, before the election: “We’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no.” The question was asked of him: “So you’re going to give them one system to vote on?” The Premier said: “Yeah, exactly.” Well, now with Bill 6, instead of a simple yes-no ballot for proportional representation, the voters could have multiple choice, because in Bill 3 there is the option to have more than two choices on the ballot.

[4:20 p.m.]

That means voters who want first-past-the-post…. Well, if they have more than one. They are then feeling obligated that they have to do a multiple choice. They have to put a second priority or a third choice. That ultimately forces them to vote for proportional representation as a second and/or third choice, which they really don’t want. So in fact, first-past-the-post — if it doesn’t win on the first ballot, not much hope.

It’s simple to see an example of this. I love this example, because this is one of those wonderful pieces of trivia. It’s that when you have more than two choices on a ballot how the question becomes so critically important. I give you the choices that happened with the amalgamation of Fort William and Port Arthur in 1970.

For those who are geographically challenged, that’s at the end of the Great Lakes. That was a great port where the grain from the western provinces all went up through the St. Lawrence Seaway and the rest of it. In 1970, the two cities came together, as well as the counties around them, and they had a vote on the new name for the amalgamated city.

Now, rumour has it that those who were deciding the ballot question wanted the name “Thunder Bay.” But alas, they knew that the name “Lakehead” was more popular with the electorate. So they had a problem. How were they going to make this work? Well, they also discovered that there were some people that not only wanted to call it “Lakehead,” but they wanted it as “the Lakehead.”

Guess what was on the ballot. The ballot had three choices. The final count: “Lakehead” got 15,302; “the Lakehead” got 8,377 votes; and the winner, “Thunder Bay,” snuck through with 15,870 votes. Split the vote, come up the middle, and they ended up with what they wanted — the name “Thunder Bay.”

When you have more than one choice, more than one possibility on the ballot, you now start to have….

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Well, this is a referendum. This isn’t an election, okay? So the actual question is very, very important. But that will be decided, again, in Bill 6. That will be decided by the cabinet after they consult the coalition secretariat behind closed doors. I’m sorry. I just don’t think that’s good enough.

But what are the strengths about first-past-the-post? Well, the reality is that there are clear choices between political parties. All you have to do is look at the three major parties that we’ve had and the different members of them. We can all see that there are different options. On our side of the House, we have the free enterprise coalition — those who are Conservative, those who are Liberal, each working together and coming up with a platform that works together. We find the same thing with our friends on the other side of the House. But there are clear choices within the main political parties.

We also see that there’s stability, because usually, very often, there is stability because majority governments are produced. Strong oppositions are produced to perform the role of keeping the government in check. It tends to exclude extremist or fringe parties simply because we have to work together in the Legislature and within our parties themselves.

It promotes strong links with our constituents because our constituents know who they elected, they know who won, they know how to get a hold of them, and they know they are there as their representatives. This also moderates the opinions, because I know I have to work with all of my voters, not just my political party. The emphasis is on strong individual candidates rather than on those who are just saluting the party flag. Popular independent candidates can, in fact, get elected without a political party, and it’s simple to use and understand.

Whereas when we look at proportional representation, you go through that long list of 87 countries, you’ll find coalition governments that lead to legislative gridlock and inconsistent policies. We find the horse trading, as we’ve seen since the election in May, of party platforms and promises during the post-election transition period. We see the fragmentation of party systems leading to extreme minority parties holding larger parties to ransom for their support. Boy, that sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Smaller parties get disproportionate amounts of power because, ultimately, they have the power of a veto here.

[4:25 p.m.]

Voters are unable to enforce accountability by throwing a party out or even by throwing a particular member out of office because, ultimately: “It’s the coalition that made me do it.” It’s difficult for voters to understand.

Boy, I can tell you, some of these elections — when I was doing my research — took months to figure out who actually won and what was going on.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Yeah, that happens sometimes when you get really close ones. Absolutely true.

But we find out in relatively short order. Within two weeks, we had the final count. All the ballots were counted in relatively short order. It’s difficult for voters to understand and the electoral administration to implement some of these complex rules of the system.

There’s no accountability for the parties or the politicians to keep their platforms. After all: “The coalition made me do it.” These have all been shown by the current coalition to be true. The leader of the Green Party has, in fact, said that campaign platforms are irrelevant. Only the backroom deal — that’s what matters today.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Well, I know he didn’t quite say it that way. That’s my rephrasing of it, okay? Well, I never said “quote.” I gave it as a generality.

Let’s look at what happened in the two referendums that went on previously. The referendum from 2005 was a provincewide vote on whether to retain the existing first-past-the-post electoral system or change to the single transferable vote electoral system. There was a citizens’ assembly for that electoral review. The citizens’ assembly was set up to assess all the models for electing the MLAs, and they issued a report as to whether to keep the current system or to change it.

After review, public hearings, public submissions across the entire province, the citizens’ assembly released their report suggesting this single transferable ballot. Now, the Electoral Reform Referendum Act required the referendum to be held in conjunction with the general election of 2005. We find that the level of voter approval needed for the result to be binding on the government included two sides. They had to have a minimum of 60 percent of the general vote and 48 out of the 79 electoral districts.

Now, Elections B.C. ensured that voters were given the information that was needed regarding the process and the two alternatives. What was the question? The question was: “Should British Columbians change to the BCSTV electoral system as recommended by the citizens’ assembly?” Well, the results were interesting.

First of all, when it came to the need for a threshold of 60 percent, no, it didn’t make the 60 percent. But it did get 57.69 percent, so it wasn’t up to the super majority that was needed. When it came to needing 48 of the 79 electoral districts, it, in fact, received 77 of those electoral districts saying yes. But it didn’t…. It needed both of those, so it was defeated.

Now, being defeated by such a close margin. Yes, there was a decision to have this again and work through this process again, so in 2009, we had the second provincial referendum. In this second one, it was held again at the same time as the general election. Once again, the voters were given the choice between first-past-the-post and a single transferable ballot. But interestingly enough, this time, the government split $1 million of funding between registered proponents and opponents of the resolution. There were no spending limits for the registered referendum advertising sponsors, the proponents or the opponents group.

The question was which electoral system should British Columbia use to elect members of the provincial legislature? The existing system was one. The second one was the single transferable vote, which was proposed by the citizens’ assembly. Interesting, again, this time the threshold was 60 percent of the popular vote and needing 50-percent-plus-one in 51 of the 85 electoral districts. The result? Astonishingly, this time, the popular vote was only 39.09 percent, and only eight electoral districts gave more than 50 percent.

[4:30 p.m.]

Now, I find it interesting. I find it interesting that with $1 million being spent by both the proponents and the opponents, the electorate was informed. This time when they were informed of what was happening by both the proponents and those who were against it, they resoundingly defeated and rejected PR.

In conclusion, even the proponents for proportional representation have found that the models used throughout the world are so bad that they’re proposing a made-for-B.C. proportional system. That’s how bad it really is.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

As a matter of fact, there is a reason why the federal government has given up on its campaign promise to bring in PR — simply because it’s too complicated, and it doesn’t produce better results. That is why I will not be supporting Bill 6.

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today to speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, with great consternation. I rise today in recognition of the profound importance of this bill debate today and the fact that this bill has the potential to totally change the fabric of our democracy here in British Columbia.

Like my colleagues who you’ve heard speak before, I have serious reservations about this bill. But to better understand this piece of proposed legislation, I believe we need to take a step back and look at where this bill fits amongst the package of legislation brought forward by this government in recent days.

So far this session, we’ve seen a bill that proposes to change the laws surrounding campaign finance fundraising, a bill that amends the Constitution Act to ascribe different meaning to the definition of what it means to be a political party, and now this bill, which attempts to make wholesale changes to our voting system and the way we pick our elected officials.

Campaign finance reform, modernization of our Constitution Act and electoral reform are subjects that deserve debate, and being open to their discussion is good for democracy. But the cumulative effects of these bills sets to change our democratic system in a way that stacks the deck for both the NDP and the Green Party, two parties who, incidentally, did not win the most recent elections and were not supported by the majority of British Columbians.

Last May we saw the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head sign a behind-closed-door pact aptly named the supply agreement — aptly named as it serves the shared agenda of these two parties and attempts to maximize their supply of power. Part of their agreement outlined their plans to radically reshape our electoral process, and it was in this moment that this trifecta of legislation and this bill were born.

We now have the Green Party, a party that had the support of only 16 percent of the popular vote, dictating policy for British Columbians for, potentially, generations to come. Let’s take a moment to look at the statements that were made a few days ago by the member for Cowichan Valley.

In assessing the 2013 election results, the member cited the fact that the Liberals got 44.4 percent of the popular vote, which gave them 59 percent of the seats in the Legislature and 100 percent of the power. She goes on to say: “Every decision, every piece of legislation, was made and passed without needing the support of a single MLA outside of the Liberal caucus…. Three out of four eligible voters did not vote for the party that had 100 percent of the power. Does that sound like a success story for democracy?” The member likes to refer to this outcome as a “false majority.”

Well, shall we take a look at what’s happening in the House today? In 2017, the Liberals won 40.36 percent of the vote, with 43 seats. The NDP came second with 40.28 percent of the vote and 41 seats. And the Greens, with only 16.84 percent of the vote, got three seats. Well, her party now, with less than 17 percent of the vote today, wields the balance of power in this House. I think that’s a false majority.

Under our current first-past-the-post system, each voter gets one vote and chooses one candidate to represent their constituency. The candidate who wins more votes than another is elected. Thus, each first-past-the-post constituency has one MLA who is personally accountable to their voters and their respective constituencies. And yes, everyone’s vote is counted.

[4:35 p.m.]

Just as the first-past-the-post system is more likely to produce stable majority governments, it also produces strong opposition parties, which perform the role of keeping governing parties in check. With a stronger link between constituents and their elected representatives, accountability is increased, and extremist or fringe parties are more excluded from representation. There is a reason that first-past-the-post is the most-used system in democratic elections around the world.

Further exploring the words of the member for Cowichan Valley yesterday, I find it remarkable for her to state: “Collaboration between political parties in this province, until recently, was unheard of.” I can appreciate that that member is new to the House, but I’d like to get her caught up to speed with some of the notable pieces of collaboration that happened before she arrived.

The first one that I’m the most proud of is the Standards of Care for Breeders of Companion Animals Act, 2012, a private member’s bill that eventually made it into government that was introduced, passed and supported by all members of the House.

Then there was the Human Rights Amendment Act, 2016, legislation that was passed in collaboration with the member for Vancouver–West End, and the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act for post-secondary institutions, legislation that was passed with the collaboration of the single member of the Green Party.

Plus, I might add, that member also brought forward an issue with regards to high heels being required to be worn on job sites, such that our government at the time adjusted regulations. They were changed in an order-in-council through WorkSafe B.C., who met those requirements to eliminate the requirement for high heels in workplaces.

Those prove that collaboration does in fact occur amongst all three political parties when there is a majority government, or at least when we were in a majority government.

In contrast, since the member for Cowichan Valley was elected in this session, both the Liberals and the Greens have introduced several bills before the House, and how many of them have been called to date? None. Is this the spirit of collaboration that the member for Cowichan Valley refers to? I don’t see it. Or does the member know something about the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head’s ride-sharing bill that I don’t know? Am I to be hopeful that somehow this government is listening to the majority of this House who support ride-sharing? I’m not holding my breath.

But don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting our democratic institutions should remain static and not subject to debate. That’s why the B.C. Liberals have already held two referendums on proportional representation, once in 2005 and again in 2009. In fact, this proposed referendum would be our third referendum on proportional representation, on PR, in 13 years.

Let’s look at what’s different about this referendum when compared to the other two referendums. Prior to the 2005 referendum, the process was handed over to the public through the creation of a 161-member panel on electoral reform. The B.C. citizens’ assembly was created in an effort to determine what kind of improvements needed to be made and how the referendum question would be proposed.

British Columbians from all over the province were consulted, and the process was universally lauded for its independence and impartiality. From this extensive consultation, the citizens’ assembly recommended a referendum on the single transferable vote model of proportional representation, and a yes-or-no ballot question was put to British Columbians.

After being put to a vote in 2005 and, ultimately, failing to meet the threshold requirement, the question was again posed to British Columbians in a 2009 referendum. The government was responsible for promoting public awareness and understanding of the two electoral systems and, accordingly, provided equal public funds to supporters and detractors of each system. Each side had equal access to $500,000 in public funding, and an equivalent amount funded a neutral public information campaign.

While the first referendum was close, the second time around, STV suffered wholesale defeat, with only 39 percent voting in favour of the proposed reform.

What else can be gleaned from these lengthy, rigorous and expensive public engagement processes and subsequent reforms other than confirmation that British Columbians have said now twice that they don’t want proportional representation?

[4:40 p.m.]

The member for Cowichan Valley went on to say the other day, regarding the bill before the House today: “The Attorney General has taken on the responsibility for establishing and overseeing this process, one that must be independent of partisan influence. This is a significant undertaking by the minister, and one that he will have to have on his mind every day as he works through this process and the submissions that highlight the ideas and concerns of people across this province about how our system currently works and how it could work better.” Really? Our Attorney General “must be independent of partisan influence”? Who believes that?

Furthermore, the decision-making power will be made by cabinet. That’s 22 members, plus the Premier, from the party that had 40.28 percent of the vote, came second in the election and is making decisions that will profoundly change the electoral system for 4.7 million people in British Columbia. Perhaps the 161-member panel of the citizens’ assembly got it wrong, and STV was not the right system of proportional representation that should have been put on the ballot. The Attorney General must certainly feel so. After all, he argues that changes being tabled in this bill are “aimed to bring B.C.’s democratic institutions into the 21st century.”

Well, what exactly is his vision of 21st-century democracy? What other present models currently in place around the world does the Attorney General feel would be better than what is going on right now in British Columbia? The previous member, my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale, did a far better job of going through different models all around the world than I’m going to do right now. I’m just going to talk about Europe.

Following the financial crisis of 2008, European voters seemed particularly attracted to the political rhetoric of the extreme right. In fact, far-right leaders and far-right populist parties are today rising in popularity around the world. Just when Europe needed it least, a recent string of confusing and inconclusive elections have eroded political stability throughout the continent. From Spain to Ireland, to Slovakia and Portugal, elections across the EU have produced fractured parliaments; improbable and unstable coalitions; weaker, more divided and more extreme governments.

Knowing this, I’m curious. Is the Attorney General partial to the system of proportional representation currently in place in the Netherlands, where there has been a proliferation of no fewer than 28 smaller special interest parties and where 13 of them currently sit in parliament? Perhaps the Attorney General is partial to the system in Belgium, where it took 589 days without government to form a six-party coalition government. Certainly, the Attorney General can’t favour the model in Germany, where just months ago, the far-right anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany, secured 94 seats in parliament.

Unfortunately for myself and all British Columbians, we’ll have to wait to find out what system or systems are being proposed, as the NDP won’t be releasing the ballot question until after the debate of this bill is over. Rest assured that we will get an anti-immigration party if this model is adopted — plus, probably, a communist party or even a marijuana party. But by that time, we probably won’t need a marijuana party.

Generally speaking, proportional representation tends to lead to an erosion of political stability, as proportional representation models boast a low entry threshold for smaller parties vying to seek representation. Thus, with the fragmentation of the vote comes a fragmentation of the party system. With coalition governments the new norm, policy becomes inconsistent, and legislative gridlock becomes standard.

Politicians and their political parties are less accountable to their election platform promises. The Green Party has already said that, prior to the NDP-Green confidence and supply agreement, their campaign promises are now irrelevant. Now we are being governed by a coalition that nobody voted for, with an agreement deal that was cooked up in private, which also nobody voted for. Furthermore, smaller parties get a disproportionate amount of power, which leads to horse-trading between parties during post-election transitionary periods. That sounds familiar.

British Columbia should be proud of the strong plurality of religious, regional and ethnic diversity that exists throughout our province. But when coupled with Bill 5, a bill that is set to lower the official-party-status threshold to just two seats, proportional representation has the potential to incentivize marginal, extremist parties to enter the political arena. Look no further than the B.C. election last spring, where the Libertarian Party took 0.4 of the vote, the Christian Heritage Party took 0.17 percent of the vote, the Vancouver Island Party took 0.03 percent of the vote, and the Communist Party of B.C. took 0.04 percent of the vote.

[4:45 p.m.]

The single biggest demarcation from the referendum proposed in this bill and referendums of 2005 and 2009 is the lack of transparency in the public engagement process. Gone is the report from the independent citizens’ assembly. Instead, the Greens and the NDP say the government will ultimately determine the outcome after they hold non-binding public consultations on a new system of proportional representation.

Under the guise of public engagement, the NDP has stated: “Public engagement is expected to place significant measures on education through social media and on line, as well as a dedicated website where British Columbians can join the discussion and provide their feedback and options.” As for the specifics of the engagement process, the NDP says they will be “announced in the coming weeks in a formal launch.”

Again, what are we voting for here? If the ambiguous date wasn’t enough to give you pause, also gone is the impartiality of the government throughout the engagement process. In both the NDP election platform and again in the September throne speech, the NDP stated that they will actively campaign in favour of proportional representation. Well, I will be actively campaigning against it.

With that in mind, it only makes sense that they’d engineered the referendum to greatly improve their chances of success. It truly lowers the bar. Strong majorities may not be important to parties that feel entitled to govern with weak minorities, but I don’t think it should be this easy to change something as fundamentally important as our voting system.

Making this proposed referendum even more shambolic, this government can’t even commit to how many questions will be on the referendum ballot. We don’t even know what we are voting for. There is no question and there are no number of questions, that we’re aware.

Despite assurances from the now Premier, back in May, that the referendum question would be a binary yes-or-no option, that assertion has now been proven to be nothing more than another broken promise. In reality, the bill is structured so that a ballot will be more than one question, could be accommodated, and voters will have to choose between multiple proportional representation systems, against the first-past-the-post model.

It is also yet to be decided how they will be ranked on the ballot. If no option reaches 50 percent on the first count, then the second and third choices would be redistributed and counted. With such a low threshold for ratification, I don’t like the chances for any options but PR. But what type? The STV system was voted down twice. The MPP, funnily, favours the Greens, where regional representation is actually reduced.

People do not necessarily have a choice of who their local representative is. Political parties make that choice for them from their list. Let’s repeat: the political parties decide who represents you with people you didn’t elect. This system totally favours political parties, not people.

I think it’s important to mention that some models of proportional representation have the potential to eliminate up to half of the seats currently distributed throughout the rural parts of the province. Any form of proportional representation would eliminate protection of those rural ridings. With densely populated areas like Metro Vancouver, it would make it mathematically impossible for the Interior and the north to have an equal voice in the Legislature.

Before I wrap up, I’d like to just go over some of the items that the member from Oak Bay brought up. He went through a list yesterday of many B.C. Liberals that had commented about their opinions about PR. I’ll just quote right here: “The member for Kamloops–South Thompson, seeking leadership here for the B.C. Liberals, had this to say. ‘We are committed to enabling a third referendum with a clear question and absolute protection for rural representation.’” Then the member from Oak Bay says: “I look forward to him voting in support of this bill as well.”

I don’t know how he gets that connection. Just because we may agree that electoral reform may be required, that doesn’t mean that we have to support this bill, which doesn’t even list the ballot question let alone what voting system we would be voting for. That’s just dumb.

Then the other point that I’d like to make is…. I quote the member from Oak Bay again: “You know, the reason why this is happening is government recognizes that a referendum on electoral reform can’t be based on what politicians want but rather what British Columbians want.” Well, that’s wrong again.

[4:50 p.m.]

Instead of the citizens’ assembly — which was devoid of politicians and took five years to come to fruition and offered two referendums in 2005 and 2009…. Now, in this bill, we are relying on the Attorney General, one politician and a cabinet of 22 individuals — and your secretariat, I would assume. The NDP members and the Greens will therefore make the decision for the almost five million people in British Columbia.

As I wrap up my comments, then, on this bill, I’d like to reinforce my strong objections to not only the content of the bill but the spirit of it. To radically change our electoral system because of the NDP’s capitulation to the backroom demands of the Green Party strikes me as a rotten deal for British Columbians. Should this bill pass and should British Columbians be forced into a referendum, I feel we are destined for weaker governments, more frequent elections and a politically splintered Legislature. In other words, not much will get done.

In closing, I’d like to finish with the words of my constituent Keith, who has written to me extensively on this subject of proportional representation. And, I might add, he did not vote for me; he voted for the NDP. This is what he said: “I would like to try and understand why the NDP think proportional representation is a better system. I have talked to many people, and I’ve never heard a reasonable argument for it or against the current system of regional representation. Proportional representation should not come at the cost of proportionate representation.”

He continues on and says: “I hope it is clear why a system with regional representation is the preferable one to one defined on partisan lines — i.e., proportional representation. We currently have a non-partisan system, and the parties are doing well. A local representative is intended to have more expertise on the matters being decided and to understand the will of the riding.” I assume all of us are doing that on behalf of our constituents. I certainly am doing that for my constituency of North Vancouver–Seymour.

Do we want regional representation or, rather, fairness to political parties and political lists? Do we want to choose our local representative, or do we want political parties to do that for us? In my opinion, proportional representation is fairness for political parties, not people, not you and not us.

R. Kahlon: It’s my honour to stand up in the House today and speak to Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. It’s quite the long title, but it’s a fundamentally important piece for me.

In the campaign, I had the opportunity to spend six months knocking on doors in my community. As I’ve said in an earlier speech, I spent four hours, on average, every day — well, six days a week. I’d take one day off. I was shocked at what I heard. I think the biggest underlying theme from all the conversations was that people are losing faith in their political system. They don’t think that the political system works for them.

Now, there will be much more debate in this House on what the political system can look like and what the question will look like. I’ve heard from members opposite that the question is not a good question. Well, there is no question yet. Some are saying the fix is in. Well, it’s funny. As I’m knocking on doors, I’m hearing from people who have become cynical after 16 years, and it appears the members of the opposition themselves have become quite cynical.

We are committed to doing a consultation process to ensure that people’s voices are heard and ensure that the question reflects that. Our government believes it’s time for all British Columbians to have their say on the fundamental question of how we elect our MLAs.

We are introducing the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act to allow a referendum on proportional representation no later than November 2018. If a new voting system is approved, we will introduce legislation in time for the 2021 provincial election. The referendum will be conducted by mail-in ballot, which the Chief Electoral Officer will oversee, and the threshold will be 50-plus-one provincewide.

[4:55 p.m.]

Public engagement will begin in the fall on which voting system or systems should be on the ballot. We will promote active, healthy debate, and a discussion will provide information on our current voting system and systems of proportional representation to ensure British Columbians are able to make an informed decision. The ballot construction will be determined following the engagement process.

The question is: what is the role of political parties? Well, all three political parties in this House will have an opportunity to make their case to the electorate, to talk about what they believe.

Perhaps the opposition will campaign for the status quo. I’m not sure what they’ll do. Or perhaps they’ll find a system that maybe reflects a little bit closer to their leadership vote, which is not one vote per person. They’ve got a proportional system set up themselves for their leadership race, which gives point systems to every single riding, and it breaks down according to how much of the percentage vote you get.

I think that even in their leadership race, they have identified that maybe perhaps the traditional system of electing their leader doesn’t work, and they’ve adapted their system for the leadership race. Now they turn around and they tell the public, across the board, that we can’t change, that it’s too scary, when they’ve adapted that themselves. I find that quite ironic.

Fifty-plus-one is what we’re proposing. P.E.I. had that recently. New Zealand has had that recently. The majority of voters has been used in referenda on electoral systems. Since 1928 there’s only been one general election where a single party received more than 50 percent of the vote. So 50-percent-plus-one sounds quite reasonable to me.

Now, I think that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale read off a very extensive list of countries that have proportional representation. It took almost ten minutes of a 30-minute speech. I’m not sure if he was trying to help make the case for why this is needed, because he certainly did. It was quite the extensive list. At some points I thought that maybe he was mocking the countries as he was naming them off, just because, perhaps, he doesn’t know much about them.

Was he talking about the countries as not having population size? Well, many of the countries he named have greater populations than us. Was he referring to perhaps that their economies are not that great? I mean, he named Brazil. Brazil’s economy, in GDP, is bigger than ours. I wasn’t quite sure what point he was trying to make. I have a great deal of respect for the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, but I think he was a little bit off base on that.

Yesterday something jumped out at me, what I’ve heard from a lot of the members. It’s fearmongering — fearmongering about the political system. Many of them have said, “Oh, well, God forbid we end up getting some people in the Legislature who are anti-LGBT community,” or “God forbid, someone gets elected in a legislature that has racist beliefs.”

Well, I agree. Those systemic issues in our society need to be addressed. That’s why our side has introduced the Human Rights Commission. We’re going through the process of engaging with the public to ensure that we address those issues at the core.

There is certainly a rise in Europe, and that’s being reflected in the ballot box, but the question that I am grappling with, after listening to the members opposite speak, is: are we more afraid of them being elected, or are we more afraid of the views in our public rising? I think we should be afraid and worried about the rise of hate in our society. We should be worried about the rise of people not supporting the LGBTQ community.

The reality is that people are getting elected in this system that we have now. There’s the member of the House here — we had a serious exchange the other day — who has shared views against the LGBTQ community. Are we saying that he shouldn’t have a voice in this Legislature? Well, he’s been elected by the people of his community. He’s raising his opinions, and he’s got the right to do so. Do I agree with his opinions? No, but we can have that debate in this House.

There’s a federal Conservative MP who campaigned for the leadership of their party, who basically ran a campaign against the Muslim community — very loaded with racism, the campaign. We’re seeing that in the U.S.

People get elected in legislatures. It doesn’t matter the political system that you have in place; if the views in society are that, that will be reflected in this Legislature and other legislatures.

[5:00 p.m.]

This level of fearmongering that I heard from the other side is completely, I think, ludicrous. And linking the two….

S. Bond: Because we disagree, it’s not fearmongering; it’s just a different opinion.

R. Kahlon: Oh no, no. You can have different opinions, but my….

S. Bond: Well, then, don’t suggest we’re fearmongering.

R. Kahlon: No, it’s fearmongering.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

Interjections.

R. Kahlon: Through the Chair. Thank you, Chair.

It is fearmongering. To suggest that if we change the political system, we’ll have more voices that have those views in the Legislature is not necessarily correct. It’s driving up fear.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: I’ve been to northern B.C., actually.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: I’m sure the people in northern B.C. are perfectly fine people. Unless you’re suggesting there’s more racism in northern B.C.? Perhaps there is. I’m not sure. You do represent a different riding than me. Perhaps you believe your constituents have racist views, and that’s what you’re suggesting. But I don’t know. I’ve had good experiences in northern B.C.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the debate will be conducted through the Chair.

Prince George–Valemount.

S. Bond: Madame Speaker, that is an absolutely unacceptable comment and needs to be withdrawn.

R. Kahlon: It’s merely what she was suggesting, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: The member will withdraw the comment.

R. Kahlon: I will withdraw the comment, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. Please proceed.

R. Kahlon: I’ll go back to the point I was making. It doesn’t matter the political system. People can get elected with those views whether we have this system or we have a different system, and to suggest otherwise I think is ludicrous.

There was a question about coalitions. Again, the members opposite essentially have a coalition. They have a coalition with two different views. These things happen in legislatures all the time. We have an agreement with the Greens, no coalition. They like to get up and criticize us whenever they get the opportunity, and they have the perfect opportunity to do so.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: They can heckle as well, which is quite acceptable. But coalitions happen all the time.

I will say that I’m grateful to have the ability to speak in the Legislature. I think there’s been much said. The last throne speech that we heard in this House, prior to ours — also by the opposition now — said excellent things about the electoral reform.

I believe the member earlier used the quote from the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who said: “Despite the fact that British Columbians voted against moving to a new political system in two referendums on electoral reform in 2005 and 2009, we are committed to enabling a third referendum with a clear question and absolute protection of rural representation.”

The member for Richmond-Steveston: “The discussion around electoral system is a key facet of our democracy, and renewing a healthy debate on our system is important. That’s why we have committed to a third referendum on electoral reform. As before, our third referendum will develop a clear question which reflects the needs of all British Columbia, protecting key populations and ensuring rural areas are ensured fair and clear representation in our assembly.”

The member from Langara: “For many, it’s important that we conduct a third referendum on electoral reform to give British Columbians an opportunity to consider once again what is the best electoral system for the province and its people. Again, we’ve listened and we have acted.” I don’t understand.

The member for Abbotsford-Mission:

“Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized by our time in government. Discussion about the electoral reform will allow us to open up that dialogue and has been a source of discussion around the province. Our government is addressing that. It’s something that we make a top priority. We are also looking at electoral reform. Electoral reform, I know, is something that is of particular interest to our friends in the third party” — unnamed party, he said. “We’re going to develop another referendum and develop a fair question.”

That was in the throne speech, and I believe every member of that side voted in favour of it. So I certainly hope that at least those seven members that spoke in favour of the referendum in their throne speech will be supporting this measure.

It’s my privilege to be standing here to speak on this. Thank you, and I’ll pass it over to someone else.

[5:05 p.m.]

D. Barnett: I represent the electoral district of Cariboo-Chilcotin. We have a population of about 63,000 people, spread out over thousands of kilometres in the central Interior of British Columbia. That 63,000 people includes the central Interior, not just the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

It has a diverse population with many different cultures, including First Nations communities spread throughout. In other words, we have a relatively small population compared to the vast geographic footprint that Cariboo-Chilcotin occupies.

When it comes to protecting our economic interests and promoting job growth in our region, it is vital that we have an elected representative who is directly accountable to our region. Our challenge has always been to make sure that our voice is not drowned out by larger urban populations in the province. So without that direct connection to our region, the needs of rural communities would surely get left behind, and I deeply rely on my fellow rural MLAs to echo our concerns in the Legislature.

People in the Cariboo face many of the same issues as other resource-based economies in northern British Columbia. We recognize the unique challenges of delivering health care services in remote locations. We are all too familiar that people in our region deserve the same access to educational and job opportunities that people in the Lower Mainland have. We know we have to work a little harder, raise our voices a little louder, and make sure that the people who elect us get the representation they deserve. And pardon me, hon. Speaker, but you can be sure that we will not allow our voices to be silenced. Yet that’s exactly what this legislation will do.

Bill 6 is the product of a hastily arranged marriage between the Green Party and the NDP. In their quest for power last May, both parties compromised their principles. They signed a hasty prenuptial agreement to serve their own interests. Not much thought to what mattered to the people of B.C. No, what mattered was an agreement that satisfied two politicians. In that process, they tossed away everything that distinguished the difference between Green Party members and what many thought the NDP stood for.

Both parties ditched their platforms and the voters who took them at face value on election day. The so-called confidence and supply agreement signed between the Green Party and the NDP made any previous election promise null and void. I can tell you that I talked to lots of people who voted for the Green Party in the last election, and they are now furious. These are people that voted Green because they wanted a real alternative. They never signed on to an NDP agenda, but that’s the bill of goods that they sold.

You can see it in the legislation we have before us. The terms and conditions set forth in this bill stipulate that the Green Party has to stay in bed with the NDP for the next 4½ years. Otherwise, the marriage is over. According to the October 4 press release: “If a new voting system is approved, it will require government to introduce legislation to implement the new system in time for a provincial general election to be called after July 1, 2021.” Well, that’s pretty clear. We have an NDP minority telling their junior coalition partners that you “have to prop up our government or else.” And while the NDP like to say we are living in a new era of cooperation, that sounds like bullying to me.

This Electoral Reform Referendum Act is not directed to benefit ordinary British Columbians. It clearly represents a veiled threat to the Green Party. It becomes more and more obvious when you take a look at the big picture.

[5:10 p.m.]

It’s only four months since the NDP and Green Party coalition came to power, and when you look at their legislative agenda so far, we see that one-third of all current legislation is dedicated to rigging the outcome of the next provincial election. You have to wonder why a brand-new government suddenly makes it their first priority to change the constitution. But that’s exactly what Bill 5, the Constitution Amendment Act, intends to do.

In order to extend their presumed mandate, the Green Party and NDP want to push our fixed election date from the second Tuesday in May to the third Saturday in October. That buys an extra six months of marital bliss between the Green and NDP odd couple. So instead of having a fixed four-year term under current laws, the NDP and the Greens want to change the constitution to buy more time in government.

That’s pretty cynical, and it is not going unnoticed by average voters. They are still smarting from the surprise that taxpayer dollars will now be used to support political parties that they didn’t vote for. But that’s part of their legislative agenda. It’s all contained in Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act. No one talked about this during the election.

If you look back at the election platforms of the NDP and the Green Party, there was no mention of using tax dollars to fill their coffers — 28 million tax dollars to be precise. Who voted for that? I don’t know anyone in my riding who said: “I want my hard-earned paycheque to go towards the NDP and the Green Party. Forget health care and education. My priority, as an average voter in British Columbia, is to make sure that political parties like the poor NDP and the Greens don’t have to go out and raise money on their own.”

That’s nonsense. The B.C. Liberals want to take big money out of politics by limiting the amount that unions and corporations can contribute. But no one in B.C. said: “Hey, let the taxpayer fill the gap.” Using public tax dollars to support political parties is wrong. But if the NDP and the Greens get their way, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

So, hon. Speaker, if you can see a pattern for me here, then you are quite correct. All of these pieces of legislation add up to a single-minded agenda: how to rig the next provincial election. This legislation is no exception.

The NDP and the Green Party are rather silent about what proportional representation might mean. It’s not defined in this bill. As a matter of fact, the Electoral Reform Referendum Act only spells out a process for them to implement any system they desire.

Make no mistake. The B.C. Liberal Party is not opposed to electoral reform. We were, after all, the government that held not one but two provincial referendums on proportional representation, one in 2005 and another in 2009. The difference lies in the fact that the B.C. Liberals put electoral reform at arm’s length. Rather than stack the deck, like the NDP and the Greens, the B.C. Liberals turned the whole process over to the public and then stepped away.

The B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was comprised of 161 individuals selected at random from each provincial riding. This ensured a fair process that was at arm’s length from government interference. It was a fair process, a public process, and it was the Citizens’ Assembly that decided what proportional representation looked like and how the question would be posed.

Fast-forward to 2017, and we see our democracy under attack by the hasty agreement between the Green Party and the NDP, called the confidence and supply agreement. It is here that you will see origins of this bill.

[5:15 p.m.]

On May 30, the NDP and the Green Party signed a prenuptial marriage agreement stating the following:

(1) A referendum on proportional representation will take place in the fall of 2018, concurrent with the next municipal election.

(2) The form of proportional representation approved in the referendum will be enacted for the next provincial election.

However, the fact that government has already flip-flopped on this agreement is quite telling. Now we are being told that they can’t hold a new referendum in conjunction with municipal elections. Didn’t think that through, did they?

According to their press release, the NDP and the Green Party are going to “bring B.C.’s democratic institutions into the 21st century” by a mail-in ballot. That’s right, you heard that correctly. We are now going to revitalize democracy through snail mail. Some time next fall the government is going to slip an envelope through the door, along with all the junk mail and grocery flyers, so that they can modernize democracy.

All of these flip-flops and broken promises just speak to an ill-thought-out plan by the NDP and the Green Party. They are attempting to manipulate the voting population through the back door. How many people are going to be paying attention to their mailbox, anxiously awaiting their opportunity to be hoodwinked by the NDP and Green coalition? What kind of voter turnout is sufficient to fundamentally alter our system of democracy?

The voter turnout in Vancouver’s municipal by-election was just a little over 10 percent. How legitimate will a mail-in ballot be? Are the Green Party and the NDP really interested in gaining popular support for their changes? Or are they just looking for the most expedient method of rigging the outcome of the next election? Well, let’s just take a look at this bill. It says that a bare minimum of just 50-plus-one percent is enough to legitimize their plans.

Let me ask you this, hon. Speaker. Is the Premier of British Columbia willing to follow the example of what the Premier of Prince Edward Island had to do in 2016? I will remind the House that P.E.I. held a referendum on electoral reform, and just 36 percent of the population turned out to vote. Now, the referendum on mixed-member proportional representation passed by more than 52 percent of the vote. In other words, the referendum actually passed. But the Premier and the government had to back down because it was obvious that the majority of the population had little or no interest in learning what the heck mixed-member proportional representation is.

The P.E.I. referendum was held as a stand-alone vote, but voter participation was far below the 80 percent turnout that was recorded in the last ten provincial elections. The example, indeed the precedent, set by the P.E.I. experience with a stand-alone referendum should make people in British Columbia take notice. Only one in five registered voters in P.E.I. supported proportional representation.

What kind of standard will British Columbia set? There is no mention of that here. The NDP and the Green Party only want to get their way, and they don’t care if the majority of British Columbians don’t support them. As I mentioned earlier, what proportional representation will look like is yet undetermined.

Instead of turning the process over to the citizens’ forum like the B.C. Liberals did, the NDP and the Green Party coalition will make that decision for us. That’s not fair. It’s not ethical, and this piece of legislation, or whatever you called it, is deeply flawed.

I will stand with my fellow MLAs from the north and rural parts of this province and say no to a deliberate attempt to manipulate voters in this province. We believe that people want to be properly represented by members they elect in their own region. That’s why I’m voting against a deeply flawed bill.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member and call the member for Delta South.

[5:20 p.m.]

I. Paton: I rise today to speak against…. I will not be supporting Bill 6 on election reform, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. This bill is a product of the Green-NDP pact, and just like their incredibly disappointing campaign finance reform bill, it includes backroom dealing and very little consultation, transparency and openness with British Columbians.

This is not our first referendum on this topic. We have previously held two referendums, one in 2005 and the other in 2009. In 2005, the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was set up to assess models for electing MLAs and to issue a report recommending whether or not the current model for elections should be retained or another model should be adopted.

The Electoral Reform Referendum Act required a referendum to be held in conjunction with the 2005 general election. Because this is a fundamental change to our democratic institutions, the level of voter approval needed for the referendum result to be binding on government was a minimum of 60 percent, with the simple majority of 48 of the 79 electoral districts.

Votes could be cast in the referendum at any voting opportunity at which they were entitled to vote in the general election, and counting of the referendum ballots occurred on the same days as the counting of the ballots for the election. Now, election did not establish a role for yes-no groups, and no spending limits were in place for referendum advertising sponsors.

Of course, this time, government will spend taxpayers’ dollars advocating for the “yes” campaign, possibly drowning out any other voices used in the government’s apparatus to propagandize. So this time, government will only do that with one system. The government will advocate for one option in a referendum. In that case, why have a referendum? The leader of the Green Party just wanted to impose proportional representation. Is that what they will try next time?

Instead, this time what we will have is a government that is campaigning for a particular side, with no neutrality. In order to keep their unstable backroom deal alive, the NDP and the junior partners will campaign to change the electoral system, using the full muscle of government resources to push for one result over the other.

This will be the third referendum for British Columbians. They’ve said twice now that they do not want proportional representation. Of course, for the 2005 and 2009 referendums, the independent and non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform defined the process and question. Each time, the assembly assured British Columbians from every corner of the province that they would be consulted.

A bare majority of 50 percent plus one is lowering the bar as far as possible. It ignores the need for regional support. If this referendum fails, will we instead have another with a threshold of a third? A quarter? Or will the NDP just do as their junior Green partners wanted from the beginning and force it on British Columbians?

This is reminiscent of the referendum process in our federal system when dealing with the separatists in Quebec. Those parties will have our country holding referendum after referendum until they get the result they want. “We’re not going to recognize the last referendum. It’s only the next one, if it turns out that way. That will be the actual referendum. That will be the definitive one. Those other ones in the past don’t really matter.” It’s like saying: “I know what you said in the results, but you’re not saying what I want to hear, so I don’t believe it.”

Of course, that’s again a broken promise, a flip-flop from what the Premier said about his proposed referendum during the election. He seemed to recognize then that having cabinet dictate the referendum was a bad idea. Of course, the Premier changed his tune when it was his cabinet that became the dictatorship. But way back in May of this year, he seemed to be fine getting British Columbians’ input into the question when he said during an interview: “I was a fan of the Citizens’ Assembly that Mr. Campbell put in place.” The Citizens’ Assembly, as I mentioned already, consulted across the province, not just the members of his chamber or around the cabinet table.

So, too, did the Premier break his promise on a simple yes-or-no question. In the same interview, when asked whether he will give British Columbians one clear system to vote on, the Premier said: “Yes, exactly.” Now he seems to have thrown that out too.

[5:25 p.m.]

Instead of a simple yes-or-no ballot for PR, voters will have to choose between multiple PR options against the status quo. I’ll throw in a footnote from the hon. member from West Vancouver, who got up and said: “I have two degrees from Harvard, and I don’t even understand this PR system that’s coming forward.” The PR voters will have to choose between multiple PR options against the status quo. Voters who choose first-past-the-post as their choice will have to choose between the multiple PR systems for their second or third choices. I am also confused.

This, of course, is all part of the backroom deal that has put this chamber in its current configuration. The proportional representation referendum is the carrot that the NDP held in front of the Green Party in order to get their cooperation. And until that referendum occurs, I think it’s fairly obvious — as my friend and colleague from Chilliwack put it — that if the NDP brought forward an announcement that they were going to log Stanley Park, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head would support that right now, or at least until the referendum. It’s a bit ridiculous.

A lack of local accountability is perhaps a hallmark of proportional representation. PR systems make it difficult for voters to hold their governments and local representatives accountable. Often, in a PR system, representatives are selected from party lists rather than having local members. That means that an MLA representing communities such as Dawson Creek, Osoyoos, Kitimat or Tofino could live thousands of kilometres away with no idea about what it’s like to live in that particular community.

Instead, they’ll be selected by party executives — appointed candidates who have no idea which, if any, communities they will represent. A list of party insiders and appointed executives from headquarters — that’s truly tragic. My colleagues from Cariboo North, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Fraser-Nicola and Nechako Lakes have been heavily advocating for their communities after this year’s wildfire season. Imagine if they weren’t there on the ground. Imagine instead if they didn’t have such strong ties to the community in the wake of recovery from such a terrible and destructive summer.

It would have been another tragedy following an already devastating situation. I know. I saw it with my own eyes when I toured Ashcroft. I toured Cache Creek with the member for Fraser-Nicola. There are farmers, ranchers, business owners and residents who have lost everything. It’s heartbreaking, and recovery will take a long time.

Imagine if my colleagues from the Interior hadn’t been on hand after the flooding this spring. People who lost homes or structures on their property would’ve had to face further frustration. Or imagine if in the midst of the housing crisis, the MLAs from Vancouver didn’t live there. What would people who have struggled to find a place to rent or buy face if their MLA wasn’t local to them? These are key questions, and I think we need to take care that local representation is preserved.

Proportional representation systems don’t even always depend on elected officials. After the most recent election in New Zealand, the government’s coalition agreement had to be ratified by the executive of New Zealand First, a political party with not only an appointed board but an anonymous board as well.

The Guardian newspaper had a headline on the topic, which reads: “New Zealand election result ‘held hostage’ by anonymous board of minor party.” An excerpt from that article also reads: “The next government won’t be decided by voters but by a faceless and secretive board.”

This, of course, speaks to the fragile nature of this government, which would be the norm and exacerbated under a proportional representation system. Minority and coalition governments often produce incredible instability for voters and for investors.

The record example of such instability comes from over in places such as Europe, places such as Belgium. After the 2010 election, they went 589 days — yes, 589 days — without a government after the parties were unable to agree on a coalition. Major decisions such as migration, legislation, a response to the eurozone crisis and really any new legislation whatsoever at a federal level were delayed for almost two years.

Imagine that. Imagine almost 600 days without any government — no legislation in that time, no changes to the laws, no elected officials responding to crises. Forget the lack of local representation. Imagine if a similar situation was in place this summer during the most recent wildfire system or in the floods this spring, right here in our own province.

[5:30 p.m.]

Imagine if we had to go through two wildfire seasons without a provincial government in place. Imagine if there had been no elected government in place to deal with the opioid crisis or the housing crisis or any of the other issues that the provincial government has faced over the last 600 days.

In Spain, they went almost a full year, 314 days, without a government, and they had to have two elections before they were able to finally form a government — almost a full year and two separate election campaigns. At the end of it, the governing coalition still didn’t have enough support for a majority to elect a prime minister, but the other side abstained rather than force a third election. They just gave up so that their nation could have a functioning government for the first time in a year.

Then, of course, there’s Italy. Italy has had as many prime ministers since the Second World War as Canada has had in its entire history as a nation. So 65 governments have been formed in 70 years, and the average length of those governments in Italy is barely a year.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In the Netherlands, they went a solid 208 days without forming a government. Finally, a four-party coalition government emerged — a four-party coalition. However, it’s anchored by an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT and anti-immigration Christian Union party. Now, there’s a trend. There’s a scary trend: two democracies, much like our own, both with extremist, right-wing parties being elected less than a year apart. Israel also has struggled with extremist, right-wing parties, and Slovakia and Austria are both facing similar surges in far-right sentiment.

I mentioned the case in the Netherlands of an extreme right-wing party being part of the government coalition, but there’s another case next door to them that’s even more terrifying. They likely won’t be in government, but they’ll be a major force in the German parliament. Germany is likely to go more than 100 days before forming a government, and when it does, a party called Alternative for Germany, a far-right-wing party with strong fascist roots, will have 94 seats in Germany.

Their leader wants to bring back forced conscription into the military, and the party wants to stop all immigration of other nationalities to Germany. Imagine that, in 2017-2018. Alternative for Germany adopted an explicitly anti-Islam policy in May 2016, and they have 94 seats in their parliament. Its election manifesto had a section on why Islam does not belong to Germany. That’s the type of party being given a voice, with 94 seats, under proportional representation in Germany.

That party, which now has almost 100 seats in the German parliament…. That’s what proportional representation encourages: fringe, extremist parties, extreme minority parties holding larger parties to ransom for their support. Across Europe, we’re seeing huge upswings in far-right parties. When such sentiment surges, we all know what the result can be: repressive policies, nationalistic attitudes and attacks on racial minorities.

With that, I think I’ll end my part of this debate. We need to very carefully consider any potential changes to our electoral system. The way this referendum is happening won’t see such consideration. Rather than extensive consultation with British Columbians, political conniving will dictate how the referendum is carried out. After two previous referendums on electoral reform, we’re ignoring the lessons taught to us and, instead, rushing with limited requirements where we should be treading cautiously.

I would warn the party to this side and the party to this side that I believe proportional representation can seriously hurt and damage both parties. We could say bye-bye to a lot of our fellow colleagues if proportional representation comes into effect.

M. Polak: I’m going to take a bit of a different tack in discussing this legislation. I want to spend my time talking about the important benefits of our current system. I hope what I will illustrate is something that might surprise some of the members who are supporting this legislation.

[5:35 p.m.]

In many ways, this might be the worst possible year in British Columbia to be arguing that the current system doesn’t meet the needs of British Columbians in the ways that are being outlined with respect to people’s support for PR.

Let’s talk a little bit about the benefits of our current system. To begin with, I want to start with a story about my own nomination as a candidate in Langley because it illustrates something that we know is very important to British Columbians all around this province, and that’s the attachment of their representative to their local community. As I entered the race for nomination in Langley — there were five other candidates running, all of whom I managed to become friends with afterwards, which is a good thing — by far the single biggest issue became that I wasn’t from Langley. Heaven forbid, I was from a distant planet called Surrey.

Well, that became a huge issue until we had a chance, in debate, for me to add a bit more detail to that. One was that while I was from Surrey, I was from Cloverdale. If people know their geography, Cloverdale is a hop, a skip and a jump from Langley. When I was growing up, if you lived in Cloverdale, you did pretty much everything in Langley. I went to music school in Langley. My brother played ball in Langley. There were all sorts of connections that we had. My parents were part of a Catholic organization out of St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in Langley. And on down the list I went, describing my attachments to the community.

Now, I’m sure that wasn’t the only thing that helped me to achieve that nomination, but it certainly turned the tide. Why? Because it mattered to people that the person who was going to run for them knew something about their community and planned to be committed and attached to their community. In that case, all of us here have a story about the riding that we represent. It doesn’t mean that every single one of us always lives in our riding.

Winston Churchill famously ran in ridings in which he didn’t live. One of our most beloved Canadian MPs, who sat as an independent and, I think, won the hearts of everybody, despite their political party, a man named Chuck Cadman, never lived in the riding in which he ran. But he had a commitment and attachment to that riding such that when he wasn’t able to run for his chosen political party and ran as an independent, he pulled off something highly unusual in the federal system. He was elected as an independent because of that commitment to his local riding.

In that instance, our current system works very, very well. What happened this past election, though? Why would this be one of the worst years to be arguing that we need to change to PR? Well, in listening to various members here provide their views as to why they think we need PR, I can pretty much go down the list and point out that, in fact, our system actually performed the kinds of functions they say are important.

So what happened? You had a minority of members, albeit with the majority of the votes, who could not form a government on their own. Now, here’s where I’m going to begin to take some issues with some of the representations from the other side, because I think they’re inconsistent.

I’ve heard many, many members from the other side take shots at those of us on our side for the clone speech, as they call it, that was presented. In fact, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head seems to really enjoy going after us on the so-called clone speech.

Well, that’s pretty inconsistent when you consider that what he’s arguing for in PR would achieve precisely that every time you had an election and tried to form a government, because the party that would be trying to form a coalition would be putting forward a throne speech that had — what? — compromise, items that would potentially attract a coalition partner. So every single time there was an election under PR, you know what you would have? You would have a throne speech exactly like that.

I think the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the others who want to take shots at the so-called clone speech should think very carefully about it, because it’s very inconsistent with their position. In fact, under PR, that is exactly what you’re trying to get — a party that wants to govern to present something that goes outside of just their own party policies and embraces those that may get support from a potential coalition partner.

[5:40 p.m.]

It didn’t work. We all know that. So then what occurred? You had two other parties form a coalition that they could then use as a majority in this House to govern. They did just that. They presented a throne speech. There is no doubt that their throne speech, their budget…. We know, from the secretariat, the very systems they have set up and protocols to manage their relationship. There are discussions and compromises that take place between the two parties all the time. Guess what. That’s what you’re arguing for in PR. It’s happening right now.

There’s another aspect to this that hasn’t really been canvassed very much here, but I think it is potentially the most important thing, which you would not necessarily see — in fact, you might not see it at all — under PR. You certainly see it in this House, not that frequently. But we had a fantastic illustration of it this time. It’s what one of my colleagues once referred to as “the power of one.”

Now, when I was first elected to this chamber…. I’m pretty nerdy when it comes to political things.

Interjection.

M. Polak: I know; it’s true. It’s sad, but it’s true.

I thought I knew pretty much all there was to know about how this whole thing worked. But what I had not fully understood was the fact that the only people who are members of government are executive council. Nobody else in this chamber is a member of government, only executive council. We other MLAs, be we on the government side of the House or the opposition side, are private members who choose to support either government or the opposition. That’s an important role, and it’s an important feature of our current system of democracy.

Why does that matter? Why is our system the best to support that? Well, we saw, on this very floor of the Legislature, the power of one person to make a decision — in this case, to take a role as Speaker in our chamber. That again affected the entire functioning of this place. That’s how the system works. Guess what. Members are allowed to make those decisions.

Over time, many people in the public have lost, or perhaps didn’t know it to begin with, the way that MLAs function in this place. But I’ve never met a Premier who couldn’t count, nor have I ever met an opposition leader who couldn’t count. In the government caucus, in the Green caucus, in the opposition caucus, each and every day policies, positions, decisions are impacted by the fact that the leader has to look in that room and know that they have their caucus on side with them — all of them or at least enough to keep their caucus together. They can count, and they know that if there’s only a ten-member spread between government and opposition or, in this case, an even smaller one, believe you me that Premier is looking at their caucus.

It’s not a dictatorship. A Premier doesn’t walk in and say: “We’re doing this, and that’s all there is to it.” What happens then — and here we get to the power of MLAs — is that the government falls. If enough members say, “Nah, you know what? I’m not buying it; I’m not in on this anymore. I don’t support that,” and the Premier decides not to change their minds, guess what. Government falls.

The same is true on the opposition side. We’ve seen oppositions where leadership has changed as a result of lack of support from caucus members. We’ve seen, in this chamber, how individual members have left a party to go and sit as an independent. The power of one, and in our system of government right now, that exists.

Here’s why it exists. It exists because you have two competing loyalties. It’s actually important. It’s a healthy tension. As an MLA, you are constantly having to manage the relationship between being a representative for your community and, at the same time, the province — your role as a person who wants to do what’s best for the province, right?

[5:45 p.m.]

Now, I’d like to think that all of us have such a soul about this place that without any help from incentive, we would all seek to do that all the time. Thankfully, the way our system is structured, it creates that healthy tension for us, because in our system, it is advantageous, as an MLA, to see your party form government. You want to get a majority.

When you are out there representing your community, you also think to yourself: “I’d kind of like to be in government, so I’m not just going to advocate for Langley. I’m going to think about how Langley fits into the whole province, and I’m going to talk in caucus with my colleagues about how we do this together.” I have to think about “I want to do something good for the province, and I want to do something good for Langley,” and it keeps people from thinking about only one or only the other.

I’m noting the hour. I will reserve my place in the debate and move we adjourn the debate.

M. Polak moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the House do now adjourn. I look forward to continued remarks from the member for Langley next Monday.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, October 30.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.