Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 39, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act.

[2:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — POVERTY REDUCTION
STRATEGY ACT

(continued)

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to resume debate on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act legislation — a pleasure in the way that I’m so happy to see this legislation being debated in this House, though I would have been much happier if this legislation had been introduced a long time ago. After years and years of ignoring and, I would say, seriously underfunding social programs, what we’re seeing in British Columbia right now is that we have a poverty rate that is totally unacceptable.

B.C. has the second-worst poverty rate. Usually, we want to celebrate when we’re second in something, but this is not something that we, as British Columbians, want to celebrate. I’m sure that everyone on both sides of the House finds this level of poverty in our beautiful British Columbia unacceptable.

Right here in Canada, in B.C., we have 557,000 people living in poverty. That’s over half a million people, and out of those, a figure that is absolutely staggering is that 99 percent of them are children. As you know, we are one of the wealthiest provinces. We are resource rich, and we have, on the average, a fairly high income level. It’s because of all of those things that it is so staggering to have a poverty rate that is so high.

It pleases me that we have, after many, many years, a Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and a government that is committed to setting real targets so that we can start addressing this very serious issue in our province.

I’m a mother. I’m a grandmother. As most of you know, I have been a teacher most of my life. It’s very hard for children to understand why they do not have food on the table, why they have to go to school hungry.

I want to reflect on that for a little bit. Sometimes when we go a long time when we don’t get our regular meals, we complain about being hungry. I’ve heard that even in these hallowed halls — talk about hunger because people have been busy. They haven’t had time to eat. Imagine those who live in poverty, who are trying to pay rent, trying to buy clothing or medication, if they need it, and then knowing they have so little, so little that they can spend on food.

[2:40 p.m.]

All of us know that the cost of shelter and food and transportation has gone up incredibly. Our social assistance has not kept pace with the cost of living or with the cost of housing. Because of that, there is a growing number of children living in poverty.

When I talk to people who are not from Canada…. When they look into who we are, they find it hard to believe that even in a country as rich as Canada, we have such dire poverty levels — that the gap between the rich and poor is growing and that here in Canada, we have a growing number of people who are the working poor. It’s where the mom and dad are both working, but despite that, because the cost of living and the cost of housing are so high, they are still considered to be living well below the poverty line.

If you want to address an issue, we could all make speeches and then just go home. But you and I know, Mr. Speaker, that if you want to bring about change, not only do you need good policy but you need to set targets. I’m proud of the targets that our government is setting, targets that will ensure that over the next five years, we will reduce the overall poverty rate by 25 percent and the child poverty rate by 50 percent.

There are those who will be questioning why it is going to take so long. That’s because the previous government so grossly underfunded, for such a long time, social programs and did not keep pace with the cost of living for social assistance. Wages were artificially suppressed. It is hard to make up that deficit of 16 long years in a very short time.

What we have taken is a very reasonable approach where there are definite targets, and we are focusing on reducing poverty for children. When you reduce poverty for children, you reduce poverty for their families. We know that to break the poverty cycle takes thoughtful, systematic action. It doesn’t happen by accident.

An investment in reducing child poverty — and also poverty, in general — is an economic investment. We hear a lot from the other side about economic investment. Let me tell you one of the best economic investments you can make for the future is to invest in our children.

We know that children living in poverty are not as well prepared for school as those who come from homes that are more comfortable. We know that children who are fed and are not hungry while they’re trying to learn will perform better at school, therefore improving their chances of having a higher income once they leave school. We also know that there is a very strong correlation between education and health. There will also be savings in the health sector when we invest in reducing child poverty.

The biggest investment and the biggest benefit is to have children who are not hungry living in British Columbia, to have children who are excited about going to school to learn and to play with their friends, not children who are worried that they are hungry, they haven’t had breakfast and even supper was light. We’re talking about nutrition as well. We all know what a critical factor nutrition plays in our health and well-being. All of that is necessary.

[2:45 p.m.]

I’m so proud to be part of a government that, over the last 14 months, has taken considerable steps to rebuild our social programs. When I go out into my community or travel around the province as minister, I hear from people. “You’re making a difference. Government is making a difference.” Whether it comes to child care…. People are saying that now because of the new child care policies in place: “I can actually go out to work, and because of the savings I’m making, I can actually afford to spend more on my children, more at the dinner table.” And that is a good thing.

Over the last year, thousands of people have moved into new affordable homes. I was in my riding, in my city of Surrey, the other day when an event was held to celebrate the work that has been done on homelessness. To have the tent city, which was a real embarrassment and sadness in Surrey…. But in Whalley, that tent city — it was just unbearable to walk down there.

I visited that many times while I was a Member of Parliament and even after that. To have that area now cleaned up and to know that every one of those people are now in housing where they have a room, where they can close the door, where they have their own bathroom — that’s what our government has been doing.

We know that MSP premiums being cut in half is also helping families. And the minimum wage is going to go up.

There isn’t one magic pill to address poverty. It’s a multifaceted approach. Our government is coming at it from that angle. Part of that is having a strategy with firm, firm numbers to make sure that we do reduce the poverty.

It’s always great to have dreams and aspirations because that’s what motivates us. It motivates me that we’re working on a plan to get rid of child poverty and poverty per se. It motivates me more when I know that that plan just isn’t a dream over the next hundred years but that we have concrete targets for the next five years. And it holds all of us to account to make sure that we meet those levels that we have set.

I don’t want to have to try to explain to my children and my grandchildren why they are living in beautiful British Columbia and we are not doing anything to address child poverty. And I want to say to them: “Look, you have a government right now that is addressing child poverty, has firm targets. You know what? In five years, we will have reduced child poverty by 50 years.” My granddaughter still thinks that’s going to take too long, and I agree with her. I agree with her.

I won’t go into the situation we were left with by the previous government which, for 16 long years, failed to make the investments — and I would say economic investments — in the people of British Columbia.

I know that many people will join me, whether they’re sitting at home or across the House. There is no reason why we would have children living in poverty. Let me share with you a story that was told to me by one of my constituents, who was a teacher.

[2:50 p.m.]

What this teacher said to me was: “You know, Jinny, what I find one of the hardest things to do every single day” — she teaches in an inner-city school, by the way — “is when I go to school and I know that I haven’t met the needs of the kids. I feel a sense of failure, no matter how hard I try. And most of my stress comes in because I know that the children who walk into my class bring with them the impacts of the isms that have hit us, whether it’s poverty, whether it’s racism, whether it’s homophobia.”

She said: “All of those things are hard, but I have no answer when a child asks me, ‘Why is it that we don’t have enough food?’” She said that there are other children sitting in the class who then write her notes. In her class there are children who bring fruit from home. It’s not so that they can eat it. They bring fruit into the classroom so that their classmates can eat it.

We have teachers, we have social workers, and we have students who realize what impact hunger has. You just have to go and see the lineups in the food banks. That is why I think that for the sake of our children, we have to all unanimously support this plan.

Hon. J. Darcy: I’m very pleased to rise in my place to discuss the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act legislation. It is, indeed, a historic time in the Legislature of British Columbia. There are a lot of eyes on this place — people both in British Columbia and people across the country, but especially people in British Columbia and especially people who have been living in poverty. Their eyes are certainly on this Legislature as we debate this bill. After years of the B.C. Liberals ignoring and underfunding social programs, the result has been that British Columbia has the second-worst poverty rate in Canada.

Our government has introduced the poverty reduction strategy precisely because today, in British Columbia, there are 550,000 people who are living in poverty, and 99,000 of them are children. It goes without saying that having over half a million people living in poverty and having 100,000 kids, almost, living in poverty, is not good for children. It’s not good for people. It’s not good for the economy. It’s not good for our province.

This poverty reduction bill is long, long overdue. It is indeed a sad statistic for a province as wealthy as British Columbia is. Despite our strong economy, too many people have been left behind. That’s why we have developed British Columbia’s first poverty reduction strategy. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, who first introduced legislation in this House through a private member’s bill in 2011. Finally today we have a legislated poverty reduction strategy. It certainly marks a turning point in our province. It is a historic first step that sets out very bold poverty reduction targets.

I’ve had the opportunity, since we were a week not in this House, to be back in the community, and I can tell you that an awful lot of people I’ve spoken with in my community of New Westminster but also other people in the province — people involved with mental health and addictions and people involved with housing and homelessness — are very, very moved. They’re very emotional about this step that our government is taking, because it’s been a very, very long time coming.

We’ve had 16 years of neglect. We’ve seen bus pass clawbacks. We’ve seen no help for people living with disabilities and people on social assistance. Essentially, the most vulnerable in our society have been ignored by the B.C. Liberals. So it is so exciting that as part of this poverty reduction plan, we’ve set very, very bold targets. They are bold. Our targets are to reduce the overall poverty rate in British Columbia by 25 percent and to reduce the child poverty rate by 50 percent.

[2:55 p.m.]

These are not just numbers. These are people’s lives. They are the lives of people in every constituency across this province — whether you sit on the government side, whether you sit on the opposition side or whether you represent the Third Party.

How can we expect children to succeed in school if they come to class hungry? That’s happening. That’s happening for almost 100,000 children who are living in poverty. We know that children who live in poverty don’t do nearly as well in life as children who are not living in poverty, that poverty negatively affects their health outcomes, their education outcomes, and it traps them in a poverty cycle. We have to begin to break that cycle that keeps people trapped in poverty from one generation to the next. That’s exactly what the poverty reduction strategy aims to do.

We also know that poverty disproportionately affects Indigenous people in this province. This is critically important and has certainly been welcomed by First Nations and Indigenous organizations across the province, because they know very well that when you lift up children, you lift up the entire family.

I think it’s really important — the process that the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction undertook, which was an extensive consultation throughout the province of British Columbia. This strategy was directly informed by listening to people living in poverty across British Columbia as well as organizations involved in supporting the most vulnerable people in our society.

They held consultations in dozens of communities, and people in my community and others that I’ve spoken with really said — and they’ve said this over and over again, about the poverty reduction strategy consultations but also about other consultations that our government has been involved in — that they are feeling listened to for the first time. They’re feeling listened to for the first time in a very, very long time. I know that the minister himself and the member for Vancouver-Kensington attended all of those sessions.

This strategy, of course, the poverty reduction strategy, is just one component of what we’re doing. We got started really early on. Within weeks of when our government was sworn into office, we were already beginning to act on issues that affect the working poor and that affect people who are living in poverty.

On the medical services premium, which is an issue that I’ve heard about over and over and over again in my constituency office — reducing it first by 50 percent, and then it will be eliminated altogether. Raising the minimum wage — because work should lift you out of poverty, not keep you there. Increasing the minimum wage and getting it to $15 an hour is a really important step forward.

The work that my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been doing has been truly groundbreaking for British Columbians but also in our country. As you have heard the minister herself say and as I have had the opportunity to also tell people across this province, we are well on our way to meeting the commitment of 2,000 temporary modular homes for people who were previously homeless. The minister responsible has announced that we will be moving ahead with 2,500 more units of modular housing, and very importantly, those modular housing programs have mental health and addiction supports that are embedded in them.

We’ve taken action on MSP. We’ve taken action on reducing the minimum wage, taken action on homelessness as a first step — but tackling affordable housing in a number of ways. We increased support to youth aging out of care, a group in our society that is at great risk of moving into a life of poverty, moving into mental illness and substance use and moving into being homeless. So that was a critical piece.

I could go on about this for some time — all of the initiatives our government has taken already. Let me mention one last one, and that’s child care. When we have taken…. This is the first new social program in British Columbia in an entire generation.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s important for all children. It’s important for families. It’s important for the economy. But it is especially important for vulnerable kids, because it means that those children who are living in poverty, those children who are now severely disadvantaged, will have the same opportunities as other children to universal, affordable, quality child care. That will enable them to get a good start in life. All of these measures about helping to lift people out of poverty but also breaking the poverty cycle and creating pathways of hope to people who are affected.

When I was first elected five years ago, one of the first stories that I heard was from a single mom in my community who was living in poverty. She had three young children. She told me that she couldn’t afford to buy new clothes for them. They had secondhand clothes, hand-me-downs. But one day, as a result of an effort by a local charitable organization in our community, she was able to get a brand-new coat for her son. Her son was so excited. He put this coat on, and he didn’t want to take it off.

He went to bed that night. When he got up the next morning to go to school, he went to put on the coat, and he noticed that the cost of the coat, the price tags, had been taken off. He wept and he wept and he wept, and she couldn’t understand why. He explained to her, through his tears, that he wanted to go to school wearing the coat with the price tags on so that he could tell the kids in school that he finally had a new coat — because living in poverty was so stigmatizing and always having clothes that were visibly secondhand clothes, hand-me-downs, was stigmatizing.

In addition to the direct benefits to kids, to families, about lifting them out of poverty, this issue of stigmatizing people who live with poverty is also huge, because that leads to so many other issues affecting young people and affecting families.

Too often families living in poverty are forced to make unacceptable choices. We’ve all heard them, people who come to our constituency offices and say: “I had to choose this month between paying for medication or having some healthy food in the House.” Or single moms saying: “You know, I feed my kids first and I eat last, if there’s anything left over, because there’s nothing more important than them having food in their mouths.” People end up choosing and making what are unacceptable choices.

There are many people…. I don’t know who said it first, but the true mark of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable people. A poverty reduction strategy surely is a sign of our society and about how it’s going to treat the most vulnerable people in our society. It is about lifting people out of poverty and giving them a leg up so that they can have a pathway to hope.

I was looking back at some of the comments that were made by members of the opposition when the House met last. I read some comments from the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who said — I’m glad that the member opposite is in the House — that he wanted to talk about a fundamental difference….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Darcy: Okay. My apologies.

What the member for Chilliwack-Kent said, on the record, was that he thought there was “a basic difference in perspective” between our two parties. “Our party thinks less about poverty production and more about wealth creation and economic development.” The phrase “poverty reduction,” he said, “sort of suggests that we accept poverty as a fact of life,” and: “We’re just going to reduce its harm by putting a few more of taxpayers’ dollars into people’s pockets.”

Nothing could be farther from the truth. We all know about a poverty cycle that can continue from parents to children and to new generations. Surely, what’s important is that we give people the opportunity to move out of poverty and to be able to live different lives.

[3:05 p.m.]

I know that the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is working very, very hard on programs that do exactly that: give people who are now living in poverty and who are able to work the opportunity to work. I know that we’ll be hearing more about this in the months to come from the minister responsible.

In the Work B.C. program, for instance, there’s an investment of $2 billion over six years in employment supports. That is focused, in particular, on people who are living with disabilities but also on women who are trying to flee violence. For women to be able to say no, they need to have the opportunity to have economic independence — having roofs over their heads, which is something that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been working very hard on doing, including in my community.

I’m very proud to say that in my community, our city council has embraced this. They have taken courageous leadership in saying that it is critically important that we support women at risk. We need to have the services and supports there in our community, but they also, first and foremost, need to have roofs over their heads.

I know that the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction — I was just speaking with him about this a little bit earlier — has really expanded the work of the presidents group, which is a group of major CEOs in this province, specifically about how to create more employment opportunities for people who are now living in poverty, for people with disabilities.

Of course, it doesn’t just mean saying: “You have to go and take this job.” It means working with employers to ensure that workplaces are supportive, are accommodating of people who are living with disabilities — whether those are physical disabilities or whether those are mental health or substance use challenges. All of these are absolutely about lifting people out of poverty, creating pathways to hope. For some people, for as many people as possible, that pathway to hope involves supportive employment.

The other issue that I want to touch on is the very close connection between poverty and mental health and addiction. Every survey, every study that has been done on the subject tells us that the overwhelming majority of people who are living in poverty are also struggling with mental illness or addiction and that the overwhelming number of people who are homeless are also struggling with mental health and addictions.

There was a report that came out recently, a survey that was done of homeless youth that was related to the homeless count in the Metro Vancouver area. The figures there were really startling. Between 60 and 70 percent of youth who were homeless were dealing with a mental health issue, and around 50 percent were also struggling with substance use issues.

If someone is struggling…. This is a quote that comes directly from the consultation that the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction was involved in. One of the people who took part said: “If someone is struggling with addiction and wants help, they seem to have so many overwhelming hoops to jump through before they can get assistance.” Other people who took part said things to this effect: “Poverty negatively affects everyone, especially the mentally ill.”

At the same time that we offer various housing supports, at the same time as we offer income supports, at the same time as we offer greater opportunities for training and skills development for people to be able to gain employment, we are working hand in hand with the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and hand in hand with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in order to ensure that the mental health and addictions supports are also there for people. These issues are integrally linked, and we can’t do one without the other.

We know that if people are on long wait-lists — and they have been on long wait-lists because of years of neglect of our system of mental health and addictions — it can only lead to their lives spiralling downward and out of control. I can’t tell you how many people I have met with personally, how many people I’ve spoken with personally, who are today living with opioid addiction, who are today living poor and living homeless, who talk about the struggles that they’re facing with addiction.

[3:10 p.m.]

Many of these people began…. Some of them worked in trades and transport. Some of them worked in the forestry industry. They worked in a wide variety of industries. Sometimes the downward spiral began with a workplace injury, sometimes with a car accident and, at one point or another, turned to street drugs and opioid addiction. These people are now living poor, and many of them are also homeless.

It’s absolutely critical that we navigate mental illness and poverty at the same time, and that we navigate mental illness and poverty and substance use and homelessness and the lack of affordable housing at the same time. Certainly, the people that were consulted in the process of developing this strategy talked, over and over again, about how poverty and uncertainty worsened their mental health and made it harder for them to live full lives.

Communities, big and small — communities represented by people on this side of the House, represented by members of the Third Party and represented by members opposite — all contributed in this process, and the message was the same. The message was the same. I’m, frankly, surprised that we aren’t hearing members opposite talking about the stories in their own communities about people who are living in poverty and their calls for help, which our government is finally answering.

In the course of the consultations that the minister responsible was engaged in, he also heard an awful lot about the importance of early identification and intervention services for youth who experience trauma and mental health issues. That’s one of the pieces that we’re going to be acting on. We have said from the beginning we’re taking a whole-of-government approach to these issues. The Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction works closely with me and other ministers on our mental health and addictions strategy. We all work very closely with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the strategy for housing and homelessness.

We have to do it in an integrated way. These are not separate issues. These are issues that we need to tackle at one and the same time. I’m very, very proud. I’m very honoured to have the opportunity to rise and to speak to this historic piece of legislation in the province of British Columbia. It is something that is long overdue. It is something that is good for the people affected. In particular, it will mean that when we reach our goals — and they are ambitious goals — we will finally someday soon be able to have children go to school without being hungry. That means that children will have the opportunity to learn in the same way — have the same opportunities to learn and to thrive and to prosper — as other children do.

The more supports that we can give to people living in poverty today — whether that’s income support, whether that’s housing, whether that’s support for mental health and addictions, whether it’s child care or an increase in the minimum wage — is good for the economy of British Columbia. This is a win-win, and I would dearly love to see members opposite standing up and joining us and having this entire House unanimously support the need for a poverty reduction strategy and work with us rather than against us in meeting the very ambitious goals — bold goals but goals that we absolutely need to reach.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m very proud to rise in support of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act on this second reading debate. I know that all of my colleagues are very proud to stand and to participate in this debate, given that it’s been a long time coming. There have been years of chronic ignoring and underfunding of the social programs that really has led this province to have real significant problems around the poverty rate.

[3:15 p.m.]

When you think about the fact that we have 100,000 children in this province who go to bed hungry, I’m mortified. And I know that British Columbians are mortified. And it’s embarrassing, frankly. We have a lot of work to do because there’s been so much neglect over the years.

I’m very proud of my colleague, the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, for his work in going out and consulting very broadly, right across the province, with people who have lived in poverty and people who serve others who live in poverty, and for making sure that they understood that we understood what it was that people needed, what it is that will make a difference.

You know, in my work as a family therapist, I’ve always queried: “How much of a difference is enough of a difference?” Right? Because when people struggle with whatever it is they’re struggling with, sometimes it’s just a little bit of help that they need to get over that hump. I can think of some of the clients that I have worked with over the years where, in fact, that was true.

I can think of…. In my community, in Coquitlam, there was a story of a man who was living in poverty and who found himself homeless. He participated in a cold/wet weather map program in my community, where the local churches were opening up their doors to allow people who were homeless to have a dry, warm place to stay at night. It was controversial at the time when this program was underway, but it was a very successful program.

There was one particular story that stood out of a gentleman who was staying out of the elements, staying overnight in a local church. Somebody asked him how he found himself here in this place, where he didn’t have enough money to pay rent. He didn’t have enough money to get a bus ticket to visit with his family. He had reached the bottom.

He said: “You know, I have two hands. I am strong. I can work. But I can’t go to a worksite without work boots, and I can’t get enough money to buy work boots if I can’t get a job.” This was the barrier. I remember hearing this story about how this volunteer said, “Well, what size are you?” and went and got this gentleman work boots, and he was soon on a jobsite. For some people, that is what they need.

I can think of another family, a family that I worked with when I worked at SHARE Family and Community Services. I remember getting a referral from this family that said that the daughter, who was going to school, was sort of letting their teacher know that things weren’t well at home — that Dad had lost his job and that their heat, hydro, had been cut off. It was just around Thanksgiving, so it was getting cold. And because they had no lights, it would get dark. By seven o’clock, 7:30, it was getting dark. They were studying by candlelight, and it was really hard. This was a good student, and she wasn’t as prepared as she had been.

The teacher contacted the organization. We reached out to find out what it was that this family needed. What was the barrier? You know, it turns out that it was a single dad with three children, and he had lost…. He had gotten injured on the job, and he was in transition in terms of getting WorkSafe, but in the meantime, he had fallen behind on his bills. So hydro was cut off.

What it meant, for him…. The barrier for him and his family was $200. It was $200 that was going to make the difference to this family and keep them from losing everything, everything that they had worked hard for. Again, the organization stepped up. It’s not the mandate of the organization, but they said: “We don’t want you falling into significant poverty.” If $200 was going to keep the heat and the lights on and make a difference, then that’s what they were going to do.

Here are a couple of examples of what I would call short-term interim poverty, where we can actually take action and keep people from having things get worse.

I have another story that I’d like to share with the House. This one is one that has been near and dear to my heart. It’s a story about Naomi. Naomi came in to see me about counselling when I worked at the Jewish Family Service Agency back in the ’90s. She was coming to see me because she was having a hard time parenting her son. She has four children. She would come in, and she would be distant in our counselling conversations. She would not be able to focus.

[3:20 p.m.]

I would ask her how things were going. “You seem to be having a hard time participating. What’s going on?” She said she hadn’t eaten in 48 hours. “Well, why? Why haven’t you eaten in 48 hours?” She said: “Because there’s no food in the house.” She didn’t eat so that her kids could eat. This woman did not eat anything substantial because she wanted to make sure that her kids ate. I started to get really curious about her life and about the choices that she had to make so that her four kids could have what they needed.

The story of Naomi is long, a story of poverty for a long time. She was raped at a young age and has lived with trauma her entire life, taken advantage of her entire life. She was married for a short period of time, about eight years, and had four children in those eight years. Her husband was violent. She had the wherewithal not to protect herself but to protect her children. When he turned on her oldest son, she said: “That’s it. We’re out of here.” Naomi is an amazing mom.

She had been struggling every day since. She had taken advantage of the opportunity for subsidized housing. She managed to make that happen. She had somebody give her a car, but because it’s expensive to insure a car, she would only insure it for the four months of the worst weather so that she could get her kids around. They could not have to be in the wet elements as she was helping them get to whatever programs she could actually identify for them on a very limited income.

Here was this woman who was coming for counselling so she could be a better parent for her children, and she was struggling with poverty. The biggest issue for Naomi and for her four children was that they were poor. It wasn’t going to get any easier for her. All the counselling in the world wasn’t going to take care of the poverty that they were facing. What worries me — and here we are 20 years later, taking a look at this, finally having a poverty reduction strategy — is that it’s too late for Naomi’s children.

I suspect that Naomi’s children are old enough now to have families of their own. I have lost touch with Naomi. We know that there’s a cycle of poverty, and it’s very likely that Naomi’s children are poor. I want to make sure that her grandchildren have the opportunities that weren’t afforded to Naomi as a parent and weren’t afforded to Naomi’s children.

It’s important that we have a poverty reduction strategy to address these kinds of issues because it’s not just about numbers. It’s not just about 100,000 children. It’s about their opportunity. It’s their lives — to have a different trajectory, a different course of action.

Now, in the interim, given that we are very late to this poverty reduction table…. You know, the rest of Canada seems to recognize, the rest of the provinces seem to recognize, that it’s really important to have a coordinated strategy and to have targets because that’s important to move forward. You don’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’re headed, so it’s really important that we know where we’re headed.

It’s really been community groups that have filled in the void. I want to give a shout-out to the many community groups that have been filling in the gaps in the interim until they could get a government that actually cared about making sure that children had enough food in their bellies so they could learn properly.

I want to talk about two groups in my community that have done an outstanding job. I want to talk about the Share food bank. I worked for Share for a number of years before I became an MLA. I think it’s really important to recognize where food banks came from. When things were very difficult in the ’80s, during a recession, they were supposed to be a “temporary” relief for families that were really struggling. They’ve become permanent fixtures in our communities.

Frankly, when I worked for Share — I was a fundraiser for the organization — I would get so frustrated about having to beg people to contribute money to the food bank and contribute goods to the food bank because it’s not an answer to poverty. It’s an answer to help fill bellies. But that’s not the answer; the answer is to help people move out of poverty.

[3:25 p.m.]

Jobs are absolutely a key component, but jobs themselves are not enough. If children can’t learn, if children don’t have the capacity to focus in school, if they’re not getting the nutrition that they need, if they’re hearing their parents fight because the stress of poverty is destroying the fabric of their family, then how are they going to learn the skills to have the job that pays the bills?

This is much bigger and much more complex than jobs. We need to make sure that people are ready, that they have the supports they need, that they have the opportunities.

I go back to the single dad whose hydro was cut off, right? Here was a dad who had a job. He got injured in the workplace, but there were not enough supports for him to continue to pay his bills. He was at the very, very edge of falling down the poverty rabbit hole, which would grab a hold and suck this family down. So it’s really important that we have a broad sense of what it means to have a poverty strategy.

The food banks have been outstanding. I remember saying I want to put food banks out of business. I don’t want there to be families that have to turn to a food bank because they don’t have enough money in their pockets to go buy food at a grocery store like everybody else. That’s not the answer to poverty.

In my community, the firefighters do a gala every year. It’s coming up on October 27, and I look forward to joining them. But I always go with a heavy heart. I go with a heavy heart because they talk about…. What they are doing is raising money to feed children who are poor. They want to feed them with a nutritional breakfast and snack program at four of the schools in my community in Coquitlam.

I have tremendous respect for their efforts to make sure that children are eating, but I want to put them out of this business too. It’s not okay that we have children going to school hungry and that our firefighters…. I mean, I’m grateful that they are doing charitable work, and I think it’s wonderful that they want to give back to the community but not around this. They should raise money for lots of other things, but this one, I think, is one that all British Columbians need to rally behind and make sure that it works better.

I want to take a few minutes to talk a little bit about what it means to have a poverty reduction strategy. This act sets out the requirements and commitments. But we need to remember, because it’s such a complex problem…. Because of what the minister and the parliamentary secretary heard on the road, we know that it’s about a number of issues.

It’s why I’m so proud of the work that we’re doing in tandem with the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction in recognizing that housing is a key component of poverty reduction. It’s absolutely critical. We’ve certainly heard, from the report that the minister did…. The theme that came up, I think, in every single one of their community meetings was housing. Housing eats up, in some cases, 50, 60, 70 percent of people’s incomes. That is really….

You can’t sustain that. You can’t sustain that for a number of reasons. You can’t, then, take care of your family. You can’t make sure they’re getting nutritious food. You can’t pay your bills. It also means that you can’t participate in the local economy. You can’t go out to restaurants. You can’t get haircuts. You can’t buy products. You can’t use services. That means that the local economy starts to suffer too. So it’s really a bad plan to not have a poverty reduction strategy. We need to actually look at this in a much broader perspective.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing together, recognizing the housing component, that we’d already started on when we formed government. We started in September with significant increases, recognizing that we need to address those who are most vulnerable, those who are homeless.

I’m very proud of the fact that, in under a year, we were able to commit 2,000 units of modular supportive housing for those who are most vulnerable. We still have more to do. Those programs are…. Many of them have been opened. Hundreds and hundreds of them have been opened. We’re seeing the impact that’s making in Surrey and Vancouver. More are opening here on the Island, in Parksville and Cowichan.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’re going to continue to open up these homes in the north, in Smithers and in Queen Charlotte. We’ve got some coming up in Richmond. This is really, really important — making sure that we can provide for the people who are really, really challenged. They don’t even have enough resources to have a roof over their head, so we’re already starting to take steps to address that.

More than that, we’re investing in housing for others. I was talking about Naomi, who had fled a violent situation in order to protect her four children. I think it’s important to recognize that it’s been 20 years since there’s been any investment in housing for women fleeing violence.

Our government has committed significant resources to make sure that those women and those children have the opportunity to have a safe place to call home. That comes with transitional housing, so they have a couple of years to get their feet underneath them, to figure out what their next steps are so that they can make sure that their needs are met and so that they don’t fall into this travesty of poverty that really takes a hold of families for years and years and generations. We need to be able to intervene.

We’ve done this also with our Indigenous housing fund. We’ve had dozens and dozens of proposals on this fund, making sure that we can provide housing for the Indigenous people in British Columbia both on and off reserve. What the report has shown, and we’ve heard this before, is that Indigenous people are absolutely overrepresented in the number of people who are poor. Making sure that they have housing will help ease some of those challenges.

We also have had almost 150 proposals for affordable rental homes for families and seniors throughout the entire province. That’s almost $2 billion of housing that we’re committed to delivering for those families, 14,000 units. Families have been struggling.

I think of the single dad who was at risk of losing his job. He was in between. He’d been injured in the workplace. I think about the difference having that kind of housing would have made for him. His hydro wouldn’t have been cut off if he’d had more affordable rent.

This is about real people, real people who have been struggling every day. When I think about Naomi…. I remember hearing from some people in my life who said: “You know, people have to be willing to work hard. Working hard is what gets you out of poverty.”

Well, Naomi and the single dad are two of the hardest-working people I think I’ve ever met. Sometimes it’s not about hard work. I try to think about Naomi’s day. When I asked her what her day was like, she talked about getting up and getting the kids ready. Oatmeal was always the breakfast because it’s very inexpensive, but there was no brown sugar and there was no milk, so they had to eat it a little bit thick. She would make it more watery so that it was a little bit more palatable because she couldn’t afford those as extras. It was a limited supply.

Also, even shopping, she would trek from store to store. She would check coupons to find out…. If she went to one place, she can get toilet paper cheaper, but she’d have to go to another place because mac and cheese was on sale. For her, it was a day of squeezing every single penny out so that she could stretch her very meagre dollars.

This is what we’re talking about. These are the people that we’re talking about. The kind of investments we’re making in housing, the kind of investments we’re making in child care help ease that burden for these families so that they could make their dollars stretch further, so they could take care of their children in the ways that they want to take care of them.

There are other ways that our government has looked at how to reduce poverty, whether it’s eliminating the MSP, raising the minimum wage, eliminating the tolls on the two bridges. What was interesting was talking to families in Maple Ridge and in Surrey. Traditionally, that’s been where the most affordable housing has been in the Lower Mainland. But then you added in the tolls…. Remember that these places aren’t well served by transit — we’re working on that as well — so that meant needing a car, and it also meant having to pay tolls.

[3:35 p.m.]

It actually hit the people who were really doing their best to try to make ends meet. They had these added expenses. That was a cost burden that nobody else…. If you were living on the west side of Vancouver, you didn’t have to pay those. If you were living in West Van or North Van, you didn’t have to pay those. So here it was: where you had the most affordable housing was where these people, if they managed to get a job, had to commute and had to pay these tolls. It really was quite a burden.

I think it’s really important here that British Columbians will no longer have to hang their heads in shame at having such a high poverty rate when we have such a thriving economy. They get to actually be proud of the province they live in, because we are putting a plan together. It’s a multiministry plan that attacks a very significant problem from many different angles, because really, you can’t just attack it with one answer. There’s no one answer that’s going to fix poverty. It’s multi-pronged. It’s about making life better for British Columbians.

I’m very proud to support this legislation going forward, and I would expect everybody in this House to support this legislation. This is about children, and we need to all get behind whatever it takes to make sure that children have what they need to grow and to thrive.

N. Simons: I appreciate this opportunity to speak on Bill 39, Poverty Reduction Strategy Act. Having sat in this chamber since 2005, it’s been a recurring theme. It’s been a recurring request. It’s been a recurring urging of the then opposition party to engage in some sort of process where we can actually make a plan to reduce poverty, not just hope that some sort of vague job strategy’s going to do it. It’s knowing full well that a job strategy may, in fact, be focused on jobs, but it isn’t about reducing the amount of poverty for children and families who are living in poverty now.

Let’s point out that half the people living in poverty, as measured by the market basket measure, are working poor — people who are working, people who are in the workforce. The idea that we can accomplish a strategic reduction in the number of children and families living in poverty without a plan is, obviously, impossible.

It may be what the opposition would like us to do. I’m hearing mixed messages. But I believe that it would be difficult to object to simply having a strategy to try to address the fundamental structural problems that result in such a significant amount of poverty in our province.

We can argue over whether we’re the second or third or fourth or fifth. To me, that really doesn’t matter. As long as there are children and families and individuals experiencing poverty in this province of great wealth, it’s our responsibility and it’s our duty to try and address that. To hope, to cling to some sort of vague hope that other strategies are going to address this issue, I think, is foolish. I think it’s shortsighted, lacks imagination and is not exactly a very compassionate approach. It’s not a realistic approach.

The idea that the only way to reduce poverty is to provide incentives is, again, without imagination. It’s callous and does not reflect the values of the current government of British Columbia. I don’t believe it reflects the values of most members of the opposition either. So I find it pretty surprising that, even in their very limited discussion of this bill, they seem to be uninterested in commenting on this, other than to say that it isn’t going to work.

I think, really, it’s obvious that the opposition just wants to maybe duck and hide after considering their record for the last 16 years. It was 16 years of the problems getting worse, not getting any better.

Seriously, I don’t understand….

Interjections.

N. Simons: Well, it seems that I’ve hit a nerve. If they have any evidence to suggest that they made any specific efforts to reduce poverty in our communities, they should show it to us. They should actually have the internal fortitude instead of chirping from behind their benches like cowards. They should really just speak to the issue, maybe take an opportunity to explain their record for the last 16 years. Why don’t you?

Interjections.

[3:40 p.m.]

N. Simons: Yeah, it’d be nice. Some of you might understand it but obviously not the ones chirping now. They may not have seen poverty. Maybe they’re just not used to discussing these issues. It’s uncomfortable for them, because they don’t really know what it is. That’s what I suspect is the problem. They can chirp all they want. It’s not like I’m not used to it.

The issue at hand is whether or not this government has the ability, has the fortitude and has the desire to address some of the social inequalities that exist in our province. If they don’t want to be part of that, they can vote against this strategy, as they’re likely to do, because they don’t want to admit their failure. Maybe that’s just an ego thing. I trust it is, judging from the comments and who they’re coming from.

I’m, quite honestly, very proud of the fact that our government, early in its mandate, has decided that this is something that we’re going to maintain as a core strategy to try to address the inequality that exists in a higher rate than many other provinces with far fewer resources, far fewer mechanisms at their disposal to address this. We have the ability to do this. It’s our responsibility to try. I would have expected that it would’ve been widely accepted as an appropriate approach.

Being the only province in this country without a poverty reduction strategy should be an embarrassment to the opposition that exists now. It should be an embarrassment, because quite frankly, it wasn’t due to the lack of information. It was due to their ideological principles that they thought they couldn’t do anything about it. They obviously failed to even consider doing something about it, which is really too bad.

If you think about it, a child born in 2001 lived for 14 years until 2014…. For 17 years, they lived under a government that really didn’t care about them. When you talk to kids who’ve lived under this government for that length of time, you know that they’ve not been given the same opportunities as other children in other provinces. It’s probably just a little bit of a defensiveness from them that they realize this is on their watch, that poverty has maintained a foothold in this province that they were unwilling to even attempt to address.

I’m pleased that our government, with the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, has taken this important step.

Now, I’ve worked a lot of my career with people who live in poverty, people we often call vulnerable, people we call the have-nots. I think that one thing for sure is that British Columbians are resilient. British Columbians of all economic levels are resilient. We have the capability in this province to address this issue. I think now that we have a government that’s committed to doing so, we should celebrate that.

Now, obviously, this has been an issue that was discussed in the past under the previous government. When I was on the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, my first go-round on that committee, we held hearings into poverty reduction. Some of the members opposite might not remember because they might not have been here, but we did.

Members of the opposition were in the majority on the Children and Youth Committee, and this was a topic of discussion we all agreed needed to be aired. We held hearings, and we concluded that, in fact, this was a serious concern in British Columbia.

Maybe they’ve changed their minds since then. I doubt it. Why would they? It was 2010. Things haven’t gotten that much better. Obviously, our government is doing a lot to address the fact that services have been cut for so many in so many ways and that the cost of living has increased and wages haven’t, really.

I think that in looking back at their predecessors, they might learn something. Important hearings were held in Vancouver and discussions held here in Victoria to try and address some of issues that are raised in the discussion around child poverty reduction.

[3:45 p.m.]

The Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth heard from a number of witnesses: Dr. Evan Adams; Julia Norton; Steve Kerstetter and John Millar from First Call; Dr. Paul Kershaw; Seth Klein; Mary Collins; Barbara Kaminsky; Noelle Virtue of the B.C. Healthy Living Alliance; Dr. Michael Prince, Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy at the University of Victoria; and Dr. Carol Matusicky, director of Burnaby Family Life. Each presenter was given questions ahead of time and asked to provide their input on issues around poverty in British Columbia, an issue that was recognized as important in 2010 that, apparently, is less important now, for some reason, in the minds of the opposition. But it’s obviously high on the list of priorities for our current government.

Dr. Adams recommended that the committee include recommending to government to commit to greater Aboriginal self-determination. That was one of the recommendations he made. I’m glad that our government is actually taking steps in that direction.

Make economic development a priority. Economic development is obviously working well under this government. There seems to be significant confidence in the investment climate. We’ve seen recently the investment in three Catalyst mills. That’s a good sign.

LNG investment is something else that makes many people very pleased. That’ll create employment and educational opportunities, which was exactly what Dr. Evan Adams recommended.

Work on issues around housing and physical environment. Clearly, we understand that to be part of the issue. It’s necessary to have a strategy putting these issues together and trying to figure out a strategy.

Usually, the opposition talks about needing to have well-laid-out plans. Here’s a well-laid-out plan to begin this process of implementing a strategy that’ll have a positive impact on people in this province.

The representation from First Call, the B.C. Youth and Child Advocacy Coalition, pointed out the high incidence of poverty in British Columbia and that it’s the root cause of ill health, leading to higher health care costs and a decline in human capital.

I’m quoting from the report, which is the annual report, 2009-2010: “Representatives for the advocacy coalition stress the need for a direction plan with targets, outcomes and reporting features.” I’m looking forward to that. I think that’s going to be an essential part of a plan.

They also advocated for an increase to welfare rates and minimum wage, things that the previous government had no interest in doing. Institution of a living wage index to the cost of living — that’s something that’ll obviously be considered in this plan. An expansion of existing programs was also recommended.

We’ve done many of the things that have been called for. But I think, really, what government tries to do is to implement policies in a well-laid-out and well-planned way.

The First Call coalition requested that the accountability structures for this poverty reduction plan be with a minister. I believe when we have a minister whose title includes poverty reduction that we’ve identified that as a worthwhile recommendation.

Dr. Michael Prince, the Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy, someone who some people might consider an expert in the field, talked about the importance of a poverty reduction strategy. He described the causes of poverty as multiple, complicated and interrelated. If they’re multiple, complicated and interrelated, to me that suggests the need for a plan and not for a hope. Hope isn’t a plan.

He described child poverty as a product of different contexts of low income. There are housing and homelessness, education and literacy, economy and the labour force, public policies and services. Societal values.

When one has an opportunity to look at the expert testimony that has been calling for a poverty reduction strategy, I think even the most skeptical among us in this House would be convinced that it is time for a strategy, and previous positions on this or previous failures in the past should not predetermine their views on this current plan. I hope that they don’t.

I hope that, in fact, members from the opposition recognize this as a perfectly legitimate opportunity to try and make some inroads into addressing this issue.

[3:50 p.m.]

In August 2009, obviously as a result of seeing what she had seen in her role as representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond wrote about the importance of a clear plan. She started her editorial with: “If there is truth in the basic principle that society is judged on how we treat our most vulnerable, B.C.’s lack of progress in reducing child poverty should provoke a lot of soul-searching.”

That soul-searching may have happened. It may not have. I’m sure that there were members of the government at that time who thought this should have been a higher priority. I know and respect those people, and I think that they were right. The fact that it’s coming up now should give them hope as well. While we are experiencing economic good times, in terms of employment rate, investment in the province, I think it’s our responsibility to use whatever strategic advantage we have to address some of the foundational inequality that exists.

Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond also pointed to how children are often the ones who pay the high price of poverty in this province. When a member from the opposition equated our harm reduction strategy, in terms of dealing with the opioid crisis, with a poverty reduction strategy, dealing with poverty, it’s a little bit appalling, actually, to suggest that we don’t have to do a few things at the same time.

While we’re trying to address the opioid crisis with harm reduction, it does not mean that we don’t try to improve the services to help people abstain or move away from drug use. To suggest that while we attempt to reduce poverty…. It doesn’t mean we’ll not pay attention to the job situation or the economic viability of our communities. To simplify it to that level is a little bit, shall I say, simplistic and slightly insulting as well.

When we’re trying to address harm reduction in the opioid crisis, it’s to help people survive so that they can make another decision, so that they have another day, maybe find those handholds to health. Maybe they’ll find those stepping stones with family or community to become healthy. Those are harm reduction strategies. They’re efforts to reduce the harm. But while we reduce the harm, we don’t forget about the underlying and root causes, nor do we ignore the fact that we need to address the ongoing crisis.

With poverty, in general, it’s the same thing. While we hope our economy stays strong and while we work through policy and hard work to make sure our economy stays strong, we still have to try and address the issue of poverty, because there are little two- or three-year-olds, infants, toddlers, children growing up in homes where poverty exists right now.

Maybe some members will say: “Well, it’ll teach them to be resilient.” I still think that when you know families that have to go to the food bank twice a week, when they have to get vouchers to get bus tickets to go to the food bank twice a week, where they have to wait until school’s over so that they can take their children, because they can’t pay for sitters, to go to the food bank twice a week, that’s a problem in a province of great wealth.

Maybe it’s the ideological foundation of some to think that it’s just about hard work and just about people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. There’s always room for compassion, always room for policy that addresses the needs of those children. We have meals in our schools now for kids pretty universally around the province. Is that not a reflection of poverty? Is that a reflection of poverty? Are we ignoring what it’s reflecting? The fact that we have lunch programs, hot lunch programs, the fact that we have breakfast programs in almost every school, the ones that weren’t closed by this government…. Are we looking at poverty in rural communities?

[3:55 p.m.]

We’re talking about how rural communities are suffering. Our rural communities are suffering because infrastructure has been taken away. Schools have closed. Courthouses have closed. Hospitals have closed. Emergency rooms have closed. That’s in the rural part of our province. I represent a rural riding. The representatives of other rural ridings should know better.

Interjection.

N. Simons: The member wants to mention one example of how I might not be right. But when you look at 24 courthouses closing, when you look at the hospitals that closed in the Interior, when you look at almost 200….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

N. Simons: So 111 schools were closed in the first three years of that opposition’s government, and it came close to 200. What does that do to a community? How many people here would take their young family and want to move to a rural community when they see their schools closing, when they see their restaurants closing, when they see the bike stores closing? Those aren’t the kinds of communities that we necessarily would want to move to. We want to move to places that are dynamic.

Part of government’s responsibility is to support rural areas so that the poverty that exists in rural areas is not heightened, is not deepened the way this government did. You know, a little bit of soul-searching on their part might cause them a little bit of discomfort. That discomfort might lead them to learn a little bit about the effects of poverty, not just on our communities but on our province as a whole.

I’m really pleased that we are…. Some complain that it’s taken us so long. It’s laughable. I’m glad that it’s finally happening. I think this is going to be something that…. While we’re the last in line, while we were the last to get into the lineup, we’re there now. We’re happy to be there now. We’re glad that we’re actually…. After foot-dragging and sticking their feet in the mud, unable to move forward, we’ve finally done it. I’m glad we’ve finally done it. I would have preferred it if….

Interjections.

N. Simons: For those who may be watching, we’re talking about a bill — Bill 39, Poverty Reduction Strategy Act — the opposition seems to be against. I’m not sure why. It’s not going to hurt them at all. We’re glad we’re finally doing it.

I think it must be embarrassment over the fact that it took them…. Well, they just didn’t do it. They saw every other province doing it. Every single province in this beautiful commonwealth of ours has a poverty reduction strategy. We’re finally getting one. We’re finally getting one, and they’re complaining. I’m not sure if they’re complaining or if they’re just chirping, because I can’t, quite frankly, find anything wrong with it.

If they think that the platitudes we heard…. “Our poverty reduction strategy is about jobs.” Well, you know poverty still exists when people have jobs. Half of the people who are living in poverty…. I must say, using this poverty measurement — it’s not our measurement, the market basket measure; it’s a Statistics Canada measurement — half the people that are living below this level are working poor, are people who are collecting paycheques and coming home from work. There are people who are working poor, working people, who go to the food bank.

I was always surprised…. Now we’re reacting to a housing crisis with emergency responses. We’re reacting to an opioid epidemic with emergency responses. It’s like there was nothing in place. There was no structural integrity to our social support system that allowed us to escape from what we’re dealing with now. That is a government that was lacking imagination, lacking any real consideration for the needs of the less fortunate in this province.

I’m happy that we’re finally doing it. I’m not saying…. I’m proud of the fact that this government is the one doing it, but it’s not exactly like a happy occasion that we have to have a system now in place — that we have to have a plan to address the failures of the previous government. It’s not a moment for celebration and joy. It’s a moment for deep reflection, in fact.

I’m glad that the members opposite are listening, because it’s time that they heard the voices of the people they ignored, the communities that they ignored, the children that they didn’t think of.

[4:00 p.m.]

This is a plan to get something in place to address this….

Interjections.

N. Simons: The members opposite, now, are taking offence at the comments that I made that they were useless when they were in government when it came to addressing child poverty. Yet they don’t want to stand up and talk about it. I wonder what that says. I wonder what the people of the province think when the members of the opposition don’t even want to comment on our plan to address child poverty and poverty in general. It’s disappointing really, quite frankly.

I’m not saying that they should stand up and go “mea culpa.” I’m not saying that they should stand up and admit their failures, necessarily, but maybe suggest that this is a good idea, maybe suggest that after 16 years and every other province doing it, that we should have a plan — a plan that measures whether or not we’re doing it, a plan that says how much we should do by when. Even if just for the fact that people who are, through no reason of their own, stuck in a situation where they’re unable to make ends meet, they should know that their government is interested in addressing this issue.

It’s just time for that to happen. No lack of imagination or lack of compassion or lack of confidence in the abilities of British Columbia should stop the current government from addressing this issue, and I’m proud we’re doing it. As far as I’m concerned, this is something that’s taken too long.

There are the statistics around poverty. There are the statistics around hunger. There are statistics around how many children have to have food programs in school. But the reality is, for people living in these conditions of poverty, they’re struggling every month. They’re worried every month. They’re stressed every month.

I spent 15 years going into the homes of people who are stressed out. As a child protection social worker, I know the impact of poverty on children. When we’re talking about child protection, we’re not always talking about physical abuse or sexual abuse or emotional abuse. We’re talking about a parent unable to look after a child. What makes them unable to look after the child? Is it unwilling? No, usually not. Unable? Often. Unable because their ability to work within the resources that they have is hindered.

Maybe their education level didn’t allow them the same routes of escape from poverty as others. That’s why we’re investing in education, finally. It took court cases for government, for the province, to invest properly in education. We’re investing in rural post-secondary education. We didn’t add a tuition fee in order to get adult basic education. We weren’t the ones that did that. If the opposition was interested in reducing poverty at all, they wouldn’t have imposed a tuition fee for people upgrading their skills to get into the workforce. That’s the opposite of what they should have done, and that should be an embarrassment to them. That might explain largely why they’re sitting in opposition.

You think about the children that I think about. I think about the parents too — the parents who want to do better, the single moms who, if only they had access to transportation, would be able to get their children into after-school programs. It’s really nice that they exist, these after-school programs, but unless you get your child there and back, you’re not going to be able to do it.

Interjection.

N. Simons: You get this little chirping from the back bench on that side. I know that area well. I inhabited it for many a year, 12 years. I wondered, out of those 12 years, when this government would start paying attention to the important things for people in this province. They didn’t.

I waited. I asked about it. We asked about it. We brought up bills. We brought up motions. We brought up recommendations in committee. Even their members, many of them, knew that this needed to be addressed. Just a few of them can chirp from the other side and maybe feel a little bit guilty for not addressing this issue earlier.

[4:05 p.m.]

A child born under this government in 2003 did not benefit from a government that was concerned about them. Welfare rates stagnant. People who live on disability who can’t work or have trouble working consistently had to struggle just to get the smallest increases.

We’re on our way. We’re investing in child care. That’s going to help a lot of people. We’re investing in health care. We’re investing in education. We’re investing in adult education, children’s education. We’re not making every rural school raise enough money for their own playground.

This idea that a job’s going to do everything…. A job’s helpful, but while we’re creating the proper economic conditions for employment and for job growth, we’re also looking after the most vulnerable in this province. I’m proud to be part of a government that’s finally doing that.

D. Routley: It’s a great pleasure to stand and speak to support a bill that addresses poverty in this province at long last. The member before me referred to all the years that he and I spent together in opposition — 12 years, three terms — watching the well-being of the most vulnerable people in British Columbia be consistently and systematically undermined by their own government.

That was 12 years of frustration, 12 years of watching the most vulnerable children and families in British Columbia pay for the largesse that their former government, the B.C. Liberal government, showered upon its supporters and its insiders. It started the first day in office. Gordon Campbell, the previous Premier, gave a 25 percent tax cut across the board. Wonderful news, right? Wonderful news for the friends and the supporters of the B.C. Liberal government.

The wealthiest people in the province made off wealthy, didn’t they. They could afford an extra holiday in the Caribbean and export their money along with them, while those who paid for it couldn’t afford eye exams. Those who paid for it — their schools couldn’t afford to be maintained. In fact, they were closed.

This is what that previous B.C. Liberal government is responsible for. That’s why they won’t stand up and speak to this issue. It’s a despicable record.

Yes, as we look at the world around us, there is displacement. There is economic displacement driven by technological change, but progressive governments cushion the blow of those changes to their population — not the former B.C. Liberal government. It’s sink or swim. You’re on your own. Too bad you were on the wrong side of the door when it closed. That’s their ideology. It’s pathetic, because what it has led to is a province that has the second-highest poverty levels in this country — the second-highest poverty levels, the second-lowest education spending per capita and the second-lowest public health spending per capita.

Those things are connected, and the outcomes are connected: the outcomes of addressing poverty without addressing education. The outcomes of addressing poverty without addressing housing, as that former government did, are catastrophic to the lives of British Columbians who are vulnerable, who are suffering.

We are headed towards a post-work world where these hokey ideological slogans are truly of the past. A person will no longer be measured on whether they can produce a widget or not. We’re going to have to find another way to support our society. We’re going to have to be inventive, creative, and we’ll have to bring everyone along with us. If we do as the former B.C. Liberal government did and divide society and allow entire segments of our society to be left behind for no other reason than that they haven’t got a dollar in their pocket, we all suffer. When the children of British Columbia suffer, we all suffer and those yet to come to this province suffer.

That is a truth that every British Columbian understands. I don’t know why the B.C. Liberals didn’t understand it. I don’t know why being defeated and sent to the opposition benches for their record, even though there are balanced budgets, even though the economy is doing well…. Why? It’s because they were an affront to the values of British Columbians, because their policies were an affront to the values and principles that we hold collectively — that we care for each other.

[4:10 p.m.]

These communities, this province, were built collectively, one person to another. It was not a place of selfishness. We have to do away with this simplistic ideology that has driven us to blame the poor for being poor, because the other side of the coin of blaming the poor for being poor is patting ourselves on the back for not being so. That’s sad. It’s embarrassing. It’s unnecessary. It’s cruel. It’s ungenerous.

We do not represent those values. We represent values of empathy, generosity, caring. We represent the values that built this province.

Yes, we stand independently, but we stand together collectively. We care about each other, and we don’t allow people to live under bridges while the others pass over top in Bentleys. We don’t accept that people will struggle for food while they watch Ferraris pass them at the bus stop. That’s the British Columbia that was created by B.C. Liberal policies, the division….

S. Bond: That is nonsense.

D. Routley: The highest wage inequality in this country — after 16 years of your government.

S. Bond: Nonsense.

D. Routley: That is it. That is exactly it. Live with it. Adjust to it. Learn the lesson. Maybe one day you’ll be able to appeal to the voters again. But until you accept the fact that what you did to the province has been rejected, you will stay where you are.

Here we are in a province where we have a responsible government, a wealthy society — a province rich in natural resources and a government that affects just about every aspect of people’s lives. Knowing how deeply decisions in this House affect people’s lives — knowing how important public policy is to the outcome of children in care, of education, of transportation, of housing, of all of the things that determine poverty — what did they do? They ignored it.

No. Actually, that would have been better, had they ignored it. In fact, it wasn’t a question of inaction; it was a question of inaction coupled with negative action. A $6-an-hour minimum wage. They actually reduced the minimum wage while our province was experiencing the highest housing inflation in the country. How on earth could a government do that to its people?

Another step that terrifically and terribly undermined vulnerable people was their amendments to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. They made it easier for people who are already poor, living in a mobile home, to be evicted by a landlord seeking to capitalize and develop their property. They reduced the penalties to do that. They reduced the penalties and exposed, in large measure, vulnerable seniors to eviction and homelessness. This is what that government did. Ignoring the problem would have been wonderful in comparison to that.

Fees for services, eye exams. Poor children and families had to come up with $75 suddenly for an eye exam. How many kids who were poor didn’t read well in school because of that? We’ll never know, will we?

They added tuition to adult basic education. Now, that is not only negative to the people affected but to all of us. We have an economy with a skills shortage. We have a high immigrant population. We have difficulties in immigrant settlement. We have one of the highest return rates of immigrants who give up here. And they add fees to adult basic education? People who struggled to get through high school now have to pay? English as a second language? You have to pay — pay, pay, pay — under the B.C. Liberals.

School closures. I have a friend who runs a bicycle shop. He came to a meeting in our community about a school closure. He said this: “If I’m looking for a community to open another bicycle store, I’m not going to a community that’s closing its elementary schools and undermining supports for children and families.” How is that good for our economy, particularly in small communities and rural communities?

[4:15 p.m.]

They forced parents to fundraise for playgrounds. Well, that’s not so bad if you live in Point Grey. You can hold a dinner, and you have a $50,000 fundraiser, while across the city, in East Vancouver, they hold the same kind of fundraiser and earn 500 bucks.

They added to the structured inequality that already existed in our society. They made it worse for people who were struggling the most. They ignored the housing crisis. How do we think that affected families who were struggling? The number one challenge in their lives — they made it worse. Government has a responsibility, in every act it takes, to consider the outcomes, particularly for the most vulnerable people it affects. We take that seriously.

They tore up the HEU contracts and the teachers contracts, the largest mass firing of women in Canadian history. That’s what they did. Do you think that helped our poverty rates? I think not. I think somehow that hurt us, and it hurt those people. This was all to pay for bennies to be passed on to their buds. This was all to pay for bennies for B.C. Liberal friends.

Kids didn’t get textbooks in school. They had to tear the textbooks in half. Teach one half of the students the first half of the course; the second half of the class, the second half of the course. Flip it around at the end, halfway through the term. In British Columbia, the place with the Bentleys driving over the bridge with the people sleeping underneath it. The place with people sitting with their kids at a bus stop, with grocery bags, while your friends in Ferraris drive by.

Interjection.

D. Routley: You bet. That’s the B.C. Liberal reality they brought to British Columbia.

Interjections.

D. Routley: Yeah, stand up and speak. If you’ve got something to say, stand up and speak to poverty.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair. Members, it is….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

D. Routley: Through the Chair, the member opposite should take a look outside. Sit at a bus stop. Watch those cars drive by. Watch the family sitting there with the groceries. Watch them struggle. Watch them.

We had a member from the other side equate a poverty reduction plan and criticize it and oppose it based on the fact that he disagreed with harm reduction for those addicted to opioids. He thinks that harm reduction is accepting the fact that they’re going to continue to be addicted, and poverty reduction is going to accept the fact that there’s poverty. Imagine.

Does he take the same approach to crime prevention? Does he think that we shouldn’t have any police until all the crime is gone? Does he think that we should not have Neighbourhood Watch until all the houses stop being broken into? Because, of course, Neighbourhood Watch assumes that there are going to be criminals, right? That’s his reasoning.

No, we see it differently. We understand that government makes many thousands of decisions almost daily. We understand that every one of those decisions has the potential to impact people’s lives, be it around education, health care, transportation, housing, environment, anything. We understand that if we don’t coordinate the efforts of all those myriad agencies of government, if they are uncoordinated — discoordinated, as was achieved by that former B.C. Liberal government — if they are prevented from cooperating to support British Columbians, we fail, and we see poverty grow, as we did under that previous government.

We understand that the actions of government in the economy — the purchasing of goods, the construction of projects, the education of people, the housing of people, the care of children who need us…. All those things need to be coordinated. It’s called a plan. When you have a plan, you don’t waste resources. The idea of the plan is to get the maximum positive benefit from what government is going to do anyway.

[4:20 p.m.]

Wouldn’t it be stupid if government were to continue doing something on one hand and then something else on the other hand and those two things combined to hurt people? That seems a very basic consideration that we should always be making. A legislated poverty reduction plan forces governments, current and future, to maintain that focus, to ensure that all of the things that they do in all their myriad agencies and ministries add up to one thing, add up to benefit — the maximum benefit and the minimum harm to British Columbians.

Now, had that previous B.C. Liberal government operated for 16 years with that principle, we would not be here in this state. We would not have the second-highest poverty rates, despite our economy, despite our natural advantages of being on the Pacific coast, despite our natural advantages in resources. Despite all those advantages, that government — the B.C. Liberal government — for 16 years allowed the most vulnerable people to sink or swim: “No swimming lessons for you. Water wings for our kids; no swimming lessons for yours.”

That was the ethic of this province — that former B.C. Liberal government. I sat across for 12 years and listened to them and their hokey ideology, their statements and their slogans that wound up blaming the most vulnerable people in this province for being poor. They were penalized for their situation. They were not supported. They were penalized.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Oh, the member…. You were here. Hello. It was me. I was here; I saw it. You saw it — through the Chair. Certainly, you must remember the $6-an-hour training wage.

We believe that British Columbians should prosper. We believe that government, in every step it takes, no matter what that is, should have in its mind the prosperity of British Columbians — all British Columbians, all of us, all of our kids, all of our friends, all the people begging for money on the corner, especially them — because if there’s any citizen who deserves an extra share of government focus, it is those who live below the poverty line.

It is those who have been left behind by policies that this House made. It is those who, with their children and their children’s children, for that matter, without a poverty reduction plan, without a government that cares, would continue to pay the price for the bennies that get showered upon the wealthy and that for 16 years were funnelled out the back of the treasury by the B.C. Liberals.

They might wonder why they’re sitting over there in opposition. They might wonder. Maybe they don’t accept it. Maybe they don’t wonder. Maybe they’re not asking themselves: “What could we have done better?” We’re trying to help. We’re trying to show them what they could have done better.

They could have taken care of people. They could have kept those schools open and the courthouses open. They could have kept supplying eye exams. They could have resisted tearing up the contracts for the HEU and the teachers and not had the biggest mass firing of women in Canadian history. They could have not done that.

What else could they not have done? Well, they could have not closed schools in my community when I was a school trustee. They did things that were so calculating. It’s like: “Here’s the body. It has muscle; it has bone. But we’ll snip the tendons so that it no longer can act.” They did that. They very carefully did that.

I’ll give you an example, in public education. When they went to per-student funding and eliminated catchment areas at the same time, they guaranteed that small schools would close. They guaranteed that small communities would shrink. They guaranteed that we would lose small communities. They guaranteed that, because they knew very well that the student population was declining.

[4:25 p.m.]

What better way to reduce education funding than to connect the funds to a declining number of students? Then you can say: “I’m giving $10,000 per student.” When you get fewer students, you can say, “Next year, I’m giving $11,000. I’m giving a whole bunch more money per student,” but there are fewer students. British Columbians aren’t stupid. They got it. They saw their kids with reduced services. They saw their schools being closed.

They did that knowing that that would be the result. They did that knowing that if you took away catchment areas, then — in areas that are of depressed economic status and that perhaps have high immigrant populations — many parents would take their kids to other schools if they had the choice. Lo and behold, who give them that choice, eh? B.C. Liberals, right?

How do you think that panned out for those schools on the Downtown Eastside and for schools, maybe, with a higher Aboriginal population? They knew. They knew very well. In the Supreme Court case that the teachers won, it was all admitted that they knew that there would be the closures of schools and cutbacks in services, and they consciously endorsed plans to blame that on school trustees and boards of education, to pass the responsibility for cutting. They were even warned: “If you don’t do this, you’ll directly have to make the cuts yourselves.” Well, they couldn’t do that.

My idea of a responsible government is one that is responsible for its acts. They don’t even want to be responsible for those things now, some ten or 15 years later. They don’t want to be responsible for the effects of a $6-an-hour training wage. They don’t want to be responsible for the effects of having ignored a housing crisis for as long as they did. They don’t want to face up to the outcomes of what they did, but the people of British Columbia who live below the poverty line, and others who struggle, understand it well. They pay for it every day; they have to face it every day.

I wish at least a couple of the members on the other side would stand up and speak to this. I think it’s cowardly not to, after this having been one of the primary division points, politically, in this province for the last decade and a half.

Interjection.

D. Routley: I respect you as having spoken.

I challenge other members to stand up and speak to this bill. If we are not able to face up and address the most serious issues that face British Columbians…. This issue wraps them all together. This issue wraps housing, education, transportation, income assistance, disability assistance, women’s rights and fees to families. All of it’s wrapped up in this bill.

After having for 16 years resisted and being in the only province without a plan to reduce poverty, how can they sit there, smugly, not supporting the government that is bringing that kind of plan and optimism to the lives of British Columbians who struggle? In the end, when you’ve had 16 years of systems that have been undermined and diminished by underfunding and ignorance, it isn’t like flicking a switch.

S. Bond: This is standard conduct in this place.

Ignorance, all the things you’ve said in the last 30 minutes….

D. Routley: Ignorance. Yes, ignorance.

Deputy Speaker: Members, it is possible to disagree without resorting to personal attack.

D. Routley: Absolutely. That is not a personal attack. Thank you.

That was an appraisal of the lack of vision that the B.C. Liberal government paid to these issues. It is ignorance. It was an ignorance of the problems that people faced. It was an ignorance of the suffering that your policy decisions brought to people’s lives. That is unconscionable. It’s time for us to turn a page and….

Deputy Speaker: Member, parliamentary language would be required.

D. Routley: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It’s time for us to turn a page towards prosperity for those people. It’s time that they saw that the government that they depend on would act in their best interests. That’s what they’re seeing. They’re finally seeing a government that understands that the things that it does affect their lives and that we need to be responsible for that. We need to have a plan in order to avoid negative and unintended consequences, if we care. This bill strikes at the heart of the difference between these two parties, and it strikes at the heart of what went wrong over the last 16 years.

Now, all of us have a bit of all of it in us when it comes to ideology, I believe — a bit of conservatism, a bit of liberalism, a bit of socialism. It’s all there in different balances. But I think that none of us, no matter what point of view we maintain, should ever forget that the focus of that point of view should be the people that we serve, particularly those who are the most vulnerable. It’s simple. It seems only fair.

While the member equates harm reduction to accepting drug abuse and poverty reduction to accepting poverty, I would ask him again: does he maintain the same point of view for crime reduction? Should we do away with police until all the crime is gone? Should we do away with Neighbourhood Watch until no houses are being broken into? No.

We plan for the best. We work for the best. We cope with what we get, and we do not pretend that our actions did not have any effect when the effect is negative. We have to face up to it. They have to face up to it.

This bill will help British Columbians never have to face that kind of treatment from a government again, should they find themselves in the unfortunate position at some point in their lives of living below the poverty line. Because that’s not a crime. It is not deserving of penalty, but it was rewarded with penalty for 16 years, and that’s changing with this bill.

A. Kang: I am rising today to voice my support for a piece of legislation that is long overdue. British Columbia has the second-worst poverty rate in Canada, with 557,000 people living in poverty due to years of neglect and inaction by the previous government.

Social services and programs were underfunded, and there was no strategy to tackle the problem. Based on the most recent data from 2016, about 99,000 of those living in poverty are children. Things clearly have not been working well for us. A province as wealthy as ours should not have had sad statistics like these.

These are more than statistics. These are real people and real communities that are struggling. These are real people who are uncertain about their future, who are worried about not being able to put food on their tables and who are worried that they will wake up with no roof above their heads. Despite our strong economy, there are too many people who have been left behind, and we need to make sure that we extend our arms and hands to them.

I want to share with you a story about Pauline, a single mom with two young boys. I hope Pauline’s story will help people empathize and understand those living in poverty. Pauline begins every one of her days with anxiety and fear. She worries about how she’s able to afford the next month’s rent with the minimum wage she’s making. She’s worried about not being able to provide her two young boys with nutritious lunch and fresh fruits. What if the teacher realizes that they simply have two thin pieces of bread, thinly smeared with strawberry jam?

Let alone finding enough money for food, Pauline has been cutting down on buying new clothes for the boys, hoping that the pants can be retailored to shorts and that their long-sleeved shirts can be trimmed down to a T-shirt for the coming summer. Would they be ridiculed by other kids for wearing the same pants and T-shirts?

Pauline is also worried about her own health problems. She’s trying to stay strong as long as she can for herself and her children, but how long can her frail body last before it can no longer sustain the stress of life and malnutrition? With tear in her eyes, she tells her story: “I’ve never imagined that I would be living like this. My life is like a never-ending roller coaster.”

[4:35 p.m.]

Pauline has been going through a tough separation with her husband, and a very tough custody battle. With her health problems, she’s now unable to work and is receiving disability support. She also receives child tax benefits, but nevertheless, over half of her income goes to paying off the rent, while the rest barely covers the costs of food, car insurance, gas and other unexpected costs.

She receives support from the food bank, but that just isn’t enough. In the food bank lineup, she recognizes families from her child’s school whom she thought were doing okay. She has come to realize that life isn’t just hard for her but for many more families just like hers.

Sharing her story, Pauline says: “I felt so helpless and heartbroken to know that so many people are falling through the cracks. What is the government doing to help families like mine, like ours, who are trying our best to make ends meet but with little luck? Sometimes it feels that the harder we try, the harder we fall.”

Pauline also expresses how ashamed she feels when she is helpless to take care of her two boys. She knows that there is no shame in working hard yet be living in poverty. But every week, standing in the lineup for a hot meal or collecting food at a food bank, she feels the passersby staring at her and judging her. Sometimes she hears the uncontained conversations of people walking by, commenting that people living on government and community assistance are lazy. But that just isn’t true. Pauline is just one example of someone who has fallen through the cracks of our system.

We need to do more to prevent British Columbians from slipping through the cracks. Until the recent announcement by the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, British Columbia was the only province in Canada without a poverty reduction plan. This is the result of years and years of neglect under the previous government. It is time that we move on a piece of legislation that would bring us in line with the rest of our country.

Bill 39, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, marks a turning point for our province. It is an historic first step that codifies our commitment to British Columbians, sets ambitious targets and provides a clear timeline on when these targets will be met. Over the next five years, we will reduce the overall poverty rate by 25 percent and the child poverty rate by 50 percent. That means that by 2024, fewer people will be worrying about their future, fewer people will be worrying about putting food on their tables, and fewer people will be worrying about putting a roof over their heads.

These are more than just numbers. These are people’s lives, people who have built this province with us and people who deserve to benefit from the prosperity of this province.

Poverty has a negative impact on our health and education performance, and those who slip into poverty, especially children, often get trapped in the vicious cycle. Children who are malnourished often have trouble focusing in class, and the distracted learning experience often has long-lasting implications in their lives.

As a teacher previously, it was so heartbreaking for me to see a student in my class tell me that she had forgotten her lunch, time after time, day after day, only to find out the fact that her mom didn’t have enough money for lunch. I would bring twice the amount of lunch that I needed and share with her. Another student, for lunch, he would bring a piece of plain white bread to school and just chew it by himself.

If a student had friends or some social skills, they would be able to attach themselves to a friend who brought lots and lots of snacks or even convince them to bring an extra share of lunch, and that’s how some of my students got by. But that’s not a way for a student to learn survival skills.

By lifting these children out of poverty, we can begin to break the cycle that keeps people trapped in poverty from one generation to the next. When we invest in children, we lift up the entire family.

The reduction of poverty is not just a policy question; it is a moral question. We must make poverty reduction a priority now. By passing Bill 39, we are making sure that poverty reduction will continue to be a priority for this province under this and future governments.

The establishment of an advisory committee, through Bill 39, will bring poverty reduction to the centre of our attention and allow more public participation to devise a strategy that is suitable for different communities.

[4:40 p.m.]

We need a wide range of perspectives to solve a complex problem in our diverse province, so the advisory committee must include a representative from, at least, each of the following groups: Indigenous people, people living in poverty, people living with disabilities, local governments, organizations that advocate for people living in poverty, the business community, unions, academics and persons living in rural and remote communities. The advisory committee also requires that at least half of the members of the committee be women, who are also disproportionately impacted by poverty.

It will take some time to undo the damages caused by many years of neglect and inaction, but it is important that we set these targets now so that we can gather all the resources we need to break the cycle of poverty moving forward. I understand that this government is already taking action to rebuild our social programs, and people are seeing the difference.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I work with many seniors across the region and from all walks of life. British Columbia has a sad distinction when it comes to seniors in poverty. According to a report card on seniors’ poverty, the province has the worst rate in Canada — 8.8 percent of seniors in B.C. living in poverty, compared to a national average of 6.6 percent.

I’m constantly hearing stories from seniors themselves about how difficult life is as they try their best to balance their paycheque month after month, making tough decisions like choosing medications over groceries or fresh vegetables and fruits. The report from the Lower Mainland United Way and the Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia asserts that, over 15 years, the number of seniors living in poverty doubled, from nearly 34,000 people in 2000 to more than 70,000 people in 2015.

Many of our seniors, especially older seniors, are living alone or in isolation. Single seniors are also more than three times more likely to be poorer than coupled seniors. For seniors that live in B.C., the report found 16 percent of single seniors live in poverty, while 9 percent of the seniors in coupled families live in poverty.

The B.C. seniors advocate has commented that skyrocketing rents and dwindling affordable housing units in Vancouver and urban cities are driving seniors to the brink of homelessness, forcing some to couch-surf, seek roommates or even live in cars. That is why our government has invested more in support for RAP, which is the rental assistance program, and SAFER, Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, which that went into effect September 1, 2018.

In October, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced that government will be providing $116 million over three years to expand eligibility and increase the average benefits. More than 35,000 households will benefit from the enhancement, including 3,200 newly eligible seniors and families. The average payments for RAP recipients will go up by approximately $800 a year. The average payments for SAFER recipients will go up by approximately $930 per year.

While the province’s rental assistance programs have not kept up with the rising rents in the private market, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is taking quick action to make sure that new investments are expanded and to expand eligibility and increase benefits of the rental assistance program for low-income seniors and working families.

Furthermore, these enhancements will benefit 35,000 households, including 3,200 newly eligible families and seniors through British Columbia. Tackling poverty is not just the focus of the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction but across ministries as our government works to make sure that life gets better for the people of British Columbia.

Our government is working hard to make life more affordable, to improve the services that people count on, to create good jobs and a strong economy, a sustainable economy, throughout all of B.C. I’m deeply encouraged by the steps that our government is taking to help low-income families and seniors afford their rent. Having secure, affordable housing is something that everyone in British Columbia deserves.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I know that many seniors have been struggling for too long to find and maintain housing they can afford. By increasing the SAFER subsidy and building new affordable housing, seniors in B.C. will be able to stay in their communities, even if they want to downsize.

[4:45 p.m.]

These steps will build on other actions our government is taking, working together across various ministries and working in partnership with all levels of government to improve services for everyone, including seniors.

Through Budget 2018, the Ministry of Health is investing $548 million over three years to improve care for seniors, including investments in primary care, home and community care, residential care and assisted living.

As I’ve previously mentioned, working in partnership with different levels of government is important in providing services that people need. The funding comes on top of $250 million in federal funding for home and community care, which will assist many seniors, and is in addition to $189 million, from the Ministry of Health base budget, which we’ve allocated to senior care. This is the largest investment in senior care in a generation. It will go a long way to improve how seniors are cared for in B.C.

The challenge of affordability in housing is not only seen in seniors but also with younger adults, working adults and families. It is a challenge for many vulnerable members of our society. Younger adults may be more resilient and may be able to tolerate the unpredictability and instability of life much better than seniors, but they are able to get on with their lives, whereas older adults don’t have a chance to make more money. They don’t have a chance to get ahead, relying just on themselves alone. That is why the government is stepping up. That is why the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is devising and planning a poverty reduction strategy in B.C.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I talk a lot about seniors because I work with seniors, not only those who live in my constituency but also those across the province. I have read the B.C. Seniors’ Poverty Report Card, and it provides very real evidence that seniors’ poverty is a growing challenge and that a poverty reduction strategy for seniors is necessary and urgent.

We must remember that our seniors are incredibly vulnerable to poverty. Our seniors deserve better in their golden years of retirement. Our seniors gave us life. They raised us. They mentored us, contributed to society their entire life and helped us build our province and our nation. They deserve to retire with dignity and with a better quality of life.

Bill 39 asks for the strategy to include poverty reduction initiatives that will increase the affordability of goods, services and housing. This is extremely important to our seniors who have retired and rely on their savings or who are on fixed incomes. Bill 39 also seeks to include more people into community life and into systems of support.

I’m comforted by the fact that this government has done so much for seniors over the last year. I especially want to commend the great work that the Minister of Health has been doing all throughout the summer — right from the get-go, feet on the ground, ready to run. He’s still running, and I’m having a hard time chasing after him. I’m comforted by the fact that thousands of people have moved into new, affordable homes and that MSP premiums are cut in half, but there’s so much more to be done to solve the systemic problems of poverty.

Bill 39 requires the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction to devise and plan a strategy by March 31, 2019, and I look forward to reviewing the strategy once it’s finalized. I hope that we will continue to engage in this conversation, monitor the progress that we make and build our efforts. In five years, we will set new targets that bring us closer and closer to the elimination of poverty.

In conclusion, I am voicing my strong support for Bill 39, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, and I applaud the work that the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is doing.

J. Rice: I rise today to speak in support of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act. My hometown of Prince Rupert has the dubious distinction of being one of…. Well, it’s tied with two other communities as being the poorest in British Columbia. The North Coast regional district, as well as the Prince Rupert school district, is also often listed as amongst the poorest in our province.

[4:50 p.m.]

In January, the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction hosted a poverty reduction strategy meeting in Prince Rupert. It was one of the largest forums held, with over 150 people in attendance, from all walks of life — from people who were thrust into poverty when the pulp mill closed to people who’d lost their lifelong jobs working at the cannery. We even saw the working poor, who were there trying to offer solutions to this long-ignored problem. Imagine that. Working multiple jobs, living paycheque to paycheque and still taking time to offer solutions at a forum.

It was 16 years, under B.C. Liberal leadership, of ignoring and underfunding social programs which has led to B.C. having the second-worst poverty rate in Canada. It was chirping on about jobs and families for 16 years, while over half a million people lived in poverty. That’s 550,000 people living in poverty, 99,000 of them children.

One in five of British Columbia’s children live in poverty, but our colleagues across the aisle just want to ignore that number. The people from my community and others across our province will not let them forget that.

It’s not just children either. It’s seniors as well. B.C. seniors are the poorest in Canada. According to the B.C. Seniors’ Poverty Report Card released by SPARC B.C. and the United Way, in 2012, the number of seniors living in poverty was 43,000. In 2015, the number rose to over 70,000.

The Bella Coola Valley in my riding has the highest senior poverty rate in B.C., at nearly 15 percent of seniors living in poverty. What was the previous government’s response to those statistics? There wasn’t one. It was business as usual, and that’s unacceptable. Things haven’t been working, and too many people have been left behind, despite our strong economy.

That’s why we’re developing B.C.’s first poverty reduction strategy. We’re going to join the rest of the country in actually developing a plan that helps those in British Columbia who have been left behind. This legislation is a turning point for our province. Our government has already taken bold steps to address low wages, through the Fair Wages Commission. It can no longer be the Wild West where wages race to the bottom.

The Poverty Reduction Strategy Act is a historic step that sets out bold poverty reduction targets. Our government is already working to make people’s lives more affordable by cutting MSP premiums, upping the disability and social assistance rates and helping parents with lower-cost child care.

We know there’s more to be done, and that’s why we’ve introduced this legislation. We plan to lower the overall poverty rate by 25 percent over the next five years and lower the child poverty rate by 50 percent. These aren’t numbers; these are people. These are the kids that walk past my house going to school in Prince Rupert each morning. These are our neighbours.

We know that children who live in poverty often don’t do as well in life. A hungry child can’t learn. A child understands when their parents are stressed out about money. They know when they can’t afford to participate in sports and other activities. Poverty negatively affects their health and education outcomes, which traps them in the cycle of poverty.

How do we solve it? That’s the purpose of this legislation. As I said, our government has already taken steps to address poverty — as mentioned before, cutting MSP premiums by 50 percent, with the goal to eliminate them. Our friends across the aisle doubled MSP premiums during their tenure. Our government restored adult basic education and English-language-learning programs — two very cynical cuts from the last government. We removed an unnecessary barrier for people looking to upgrade their skills.

We announced over 2,000 modular homes across the province to get people off the streets and have provided wraparound services to help them better their lives. The record investment in housing, part of our 30-point housing plan, will increase supply, and our speculation tax will help further increase supply and curb property speculators from pricing everyday British Columbians out of their own communities. We ended the arbitrary 2 percent rental increase instigated by the previous government.

Our record investment in child care will save families across the province thousands and thousands of dollars a year in child care costs.

[4:55 p.m.]

Our government knows that what we’ve done isn’t enough. A goal without a plan is just a wish. That’s why we have set goals to lower the poverty rates for B.C. That’s why we’ve introduced this legislation. This legislation means that we can begin to break the cycle that keeps people trapped from one generation to the next. When you invest in children, you lift the entire family up.

I support this legislation. It’s long past due. And it’s prudent that we hold any government to account for actually making lives better for people.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Simpson: I want to start by thanking members on all sides of the House for their comments in relation to this piece of legislation that I’ve introduced. Thank you for the comments. Thank you for the input. It’s important. I do believe that reducing poverty and closing the inequality gap in this province is something that all members, regardless of the side of the House they’re on, should be embracing and should be looking to pursue.

We’ve had this debate over this question of poverty reduction legislation and the need for a plan go on for many, many years in this House. I know that the members on the other side have always made the case about jobs being the cornerstone of poverty reduction, and I appreciate that comment. But the reality is that we have the lowest unemployment rates in the country now. We’ve had low unemployment rates for many years, and it hasn’t affected the poverty rates in ways that would be meaningful.

The only significant reduction in poverty that we’ve seen over the last number of years happened from 2015 to 2016. That was almost exclusively the actions of the federal government around the Canada child tax benefit and an increase in the guaranteed income supplement. That did bring poverty in British Columbia down, from about 14.8 percent to 12 percent across the board. But those were two very significant federal initiatives that were put in place in 2015. Other than that, we haven’t seen poverty move.

It’s my sense…. I think the debate has to be around how you get at the cycle of poverty and how you break the cycle of poverty. We know there is no silver bullet for this. Whether it’s rate increases or it’s jobs or it’s any single thing, I simply don’t believe there is one answer that does this easily.

Poverty reduction is a bit of a challenge, as with many social policy issues. There are the policy questions, which are broad policy issues, and then there’s having a plan that’s nimble enough to look at the circumstances of individuals that are unique, always, in their own way. That’s particularly true for persons with disabilities, but it’s really true across the spectrum of people who are struggling with poverty.

It is our intention that the plan that will come out, attached and linked to the budget in the spring, will look to be nimble enough to address those issues. It will look at the questions of affordability and how we close the affordability gap. It will look very much at opportunity and how we create opportunity for people to find the lives they want, whether it’s getting training, whether it’s finding employment, how they break that cycle of poverty.

It will look at social inclusion. It will look at how we end the alienation that seems to be such an inherent part of poverty and that people struggle with. We will look at how we blend it and merge it into the question of reconciliation, since we see such an inordinate number of Indigenous and First Nations people in this province struggling with questions of poverty.

I believe that every one of us has a challenge here to step up and to move this work forward in a positive way. As my colleague said, we have 557,000 of our British Columbia citizens who are struggling, and that number is probably low. A hundred thousand of those are kids, and I don’t believe there’s anybody in this House that wants to see 100,000 children in British Columbia living in poverty.

That is the challenge in front of us. That’s the work that we need to do moving forward. And it won’t be successful just coming out of this ministry or out of a couple of ministries. It has to be a government-wide initiative. It has to be a broader societal initiative. That really is the question and the challenge of bringing all those pieces together to make that successful. If we do this together, I believe that we can make the success, we can have the success, that we’re all looking to have as we move forward.

[5:00 p.m.]

With that, I move second reading of Bill 39.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Simpson: 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 39, Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, 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 Committee of the Whole, third reading, on Bill 37, the Land Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, Ministry of FLNRO.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 37 — LAND STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 37; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 5:03 p.m.

Sections 18 to 37 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without any amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:05 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — LAND STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 37, Land Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading on Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, passed last fall. The act and its regulation provide the legal framework for the referendum on electoral reform that is underway now. In this referendum, voters will be asked to decide whether they prefer to keep the current first-past-the-post voting system or change to a proportional representation voting system. Voters will be offered the opportunity to rank their preferences from among three specific PR systems.

The amendments in this bill require that if this fall’s referendum results in a change to proportional representation, government must hold a confirming referendum on keeping that system or whether the public wishes to change back to the first-past-the-post system.

It’s important to note that the subject matter of the question would be quite specific. It is simply whether to keep the new system or revert back to the original first-past-the-post system. It is not the intention that the confirming referendum would involve debate and voting on other potential voting systems.

The amendments specify that the confirming referendum would be held after the proportional representation voting system had been used in two provincial general elections. This provides voters with more than a single opportunity to experience the new voting system, without putting the opportunity to re-evaluate the issue too far into the future.

[5:10 p.m.]

The amendments also require the second referendum to be held within 13 months of the second general election in which the proportional representation system is used. This precise time frame provides certainty for voters as to when the confirming referendum would be held, rather than leaving the timing open-ended.

It also ensures that the outcome would be known in a sufficient time for the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission that would be scheduled at that time to propose boundaries for either the continued use of the proportional representation voting system or a return to first-past-the-post.

It’s worth remembering that a clear majority of participants in the public engagement that helped shape this fall’s referendum were in favour of holding a confirming referendum if British Columbia moves to proportional representation. When a demographically balanced panel of British Columbians were asked the question, 60 percent were in favour of holding a confirming referendum, 14 percent were opposed, and 23 percent were neutral.

Likewise, respondents to the engagement website’s questionnaire were in favour by a margin of 57 percent to 24 percent, with 16 percent neutral. That level of support was an important factor in leading me to recommend a confirming referendum in the How We Vote report released last May.

This bill would implement that recommendation in law. Binding any future government to conduct a confirming referendum on keeping proportional representation or moving back to first-past-the-post provides certainty that voters would be able to have their say, once again, on how we vote in British Columbia. With that, I look forward to hearing what other members have to say about the bill and the vote on this.

M. Lee: Thank you for this opportunity to speak again on this most-important fundamental issue that this current government has brought on this province. I am not in support of this amendment to the Electoral Reform Referendum Act, as set out in Bill 40, because this referendum has been a flawed process. This government’s last-minute attempt to make a change does not address the significant flaws with this referendum.

As I said in my response to the throne speech in this chamber two weeks ago, when the Premier invites British Columbians to join him and take a leap of faith, I don’t see how British Columbians can take that leap of faith with the lack of clarity, the lack of details and the lack of information in this referendum. How can British Columbians take that leap when so many details are to be determined after the referendum on the three proposed proportional representation voting systems?

This government has been in this process for over 14 months. Now with just three days, three more days in this House, before voting begins in just seven days, it brings this bill forward for debate, an amendment to the Referendum Act, which was passed last November. You may ask: why now? Why, with just a few weeks left in this process, does this government bring this forward? What’s the real objective here?

Is it to say to voters: “Don’t worry; trust us. Take a leap of faith, and if it doesn’t work out, you will have the opportunity to change it back, all the way back, to our current first-past-the-post voting system.”? Well, I don’t believe it works that way. There are no do-overs.

This government must be held accountable by the members of this House for the flawed referendum process that they run. This government should have addressed these flaws with this referendum when they had the opportunity to do so over the past 14 months, instead of shifting the focus to how to unwind this 12 years from now if this all goes poorly for the province.

This flawed referendum is what we should be debating in this House, even at this late stage. Because even if this bill is passed in this session, it’s not necessarily binding on a future government, as the Attorney General just stated, particularly when a new composition of this House, this Legislative Assembly, and a future government would be put together under a new form of proportional representation, if it passes.

[5:15 p.m.]

What happens when a party gains 5 percent of the vote provincially, even though it may not elect a member directly in a district riding, and that party gains 5 percent of the seats in this House and potentially holds the balance of power, like the Green Party holds today? Will that party, and their members representing it, when its political life is dependent upon this new system of voting, agree to hold another referendum? With likely the disproportionate amount of power in this House, what influence would that party hold over the rules of that referendum?

It is truly like the situation we have today, where this government is only in power because of the support of three Green Party members, representing 3.4 percent of the seats of this House, and is pushing forward with their agenda to change our voting system for the benefit of that party, rather than focusing on confirming a proportional representation decision two election cycles after it may be implemented, as I said, which would be 12 years from now.

All members of this House should be all focused on dealing with the flaws in this referendum now. This government has not met the high bar that it set for itself in its throne speech, and this amendment to the Referendum Act is not going to address any of the flaws in the referendum process to date.

From being back out in the communities, I’m sure that each of the members in this House have found that British Columbians are still not aware that there’s a referendum that’s coming very shortly. Even if they are, I’m sure many of you have seen and had your discussions with British Columbians who don’t understand what they’re voting on, even though the voting starts in one week.

Before this government is in such a rush to achieve their desired results for this referendum, being a proportional representation voting system, and focus on reconfirming the results 12 years from now, isn’t the more pressing question for British Columbians this referendum? How is this government giving voice to the people of British Columbia when they haven’t truly engaged British Columbians in looking at their voting systems and when many of these British Columbians don’t even know what they’re voting on?

We need to be honest with ourselves in this House as to what we should be doing, each member in this House, to help better educate British Columbians about what they’re voting on.

This government, I believe, has a duty to explain to British Columbians why it’s proposing three forms of party-based proportional representation in this referendum. Two systems, dual member and rural-urban, were not included as possibilities on the government’s primary on-line engagement exercise that the Attorney General constantly refers to, nor are they used anywhere else in the world. The third system, mixed-member proportional, was rejected by the citizens’ assembly because it was detrimental to rural B.C. and because of the shift of voting power to political parties.

So why is it that this government, with the support of three Green Party MLAs, is only putting forward three party-based voting alternatives to British Columbians, when it clearly shifts the voting power from voters themselves, from British Columbians, to political parties? The government certainly didn’t engage British Columbians on this shift away from a voter-based system that was proposed in the 2005 and 2009 referenda. Why are there so many details in these three systems being left to be determined after the vote?

The Premier appeared to have agreed, over ten days ago, to address these and other points in a debate, at the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition. Two weeks ago we were talking about this in this chamber. We’re still talking about this.

It’s simple. The Premier has agreed, yet we don’t have a date. We don’t have the details. This is the Premier that said that we can have this process run in 30 days like an election campaign. Well, if we were doing that, there’s seven days left.

[5:20 p.m.]

Time is running out, and we need the Premier to take the leadership role and the responsibility he has for this province. We need him to stand up and debate the Leader of the Opposition so that British Columbians can more thoroughly understand what they’re voting on.

Clearly, this Premier and this government can’t hide behind this feeble attempt to convince British Columbians to try proportional representation with a promise of a second referendum 12 years from now. This is a flawed referendum, and this last-minute attempt to address the flaws by a promise of a second referendum is truly a sham.

The Attorney General and this government have a duty to ensure that the legislation in this province is constitutionally compliant and that the public is provided with sufficient information. This duty was to be carried out over the past 14 months, not 12 years from now. The Attorney General was so sure in this House in April and May — when repeatedly asked questions about the constitutionality of this referendum and proportional representation, including by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie — that he would not be proceeding with a referendum and forms of proportional representation that are not constitutional or that are illegal.

Then why is it, after having been at this for 14 months, when challenged by the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association and others with a legal claim in the courts, that the Attorney General has indicated that the government lawyers need more time? The Attorney General asks how that’s going. Well, this is the thing. They brought this court application at the end of June. It’s now almost the end of October. When they brought it forward, they applied for an injunction for this referendum not to proceed. As the Attorney General says, they lost.

The Attorney General and the government’s lawyers had asked for more time. Originally, it was going to be heard in September and October, which would have been a fairer thing to do.

The courts of this land are the appropriate checks and balances on this government. The court, in its discretion, has granted additional time to this government. But you need to ask yourself, Mr. Speaker…. British Columbians all need to ask themselves: why is it that after 14 months, this government has brought forward and not been able to address a referendum that’s truly flawed, that has been challenged in the courts, and isn’t prepared to stand up in the courts and address those concerns? That would have required more time to do so, beyond September and October. Now what we understand is that this court proceeding will be heard in January, after this referendum is concluded.

The concerns that are raised in this legal challenge include that the questions and the process adopted by the cabinet through regulation are inconsistent with constitutional principles in the Charter. So the question goes right to the validity of holding what is being proposed and what is moving forward as a binding referendum to fundamentally change our electoral system.

Certainly, another concern that’s been raised has been that the questions posed are confusing and unclear and undefined. That continues to be the case.

Thirdly, of course, we’ve seen that this government has lowered the approval thresholds to 50 percent and gotten rid of any geographic threshold of approval.

Fourthly, the regulations that were subject to the Referendum Act impose severe restrictions on the abilities of British Columbians to communicate about this important issue.

Lastly, the electoral systems being proposed themselves are unconstitutional. They undermine the equality of voting power of voters. We certainly see that as concerns around section 3 and section 15 of the Charter. Section 3 of the Charter states that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of the members of the House of Commons or a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. Well, how does a closed list under mixed-member proportional not breach this Charter right for British Columbians?

[5:25 p.m.]

With a body of case law and court decisions recognizing our right to vote under section 3 of the Charter, how does the 5 percent minimum threshold not violate the values and principles that the courts have laid down for the interpretation of this Charter right, including the right to have one’s vote count, the right to have one’s vote count the same as other valid votes cast in a district and the right to be represented by a candidate with at least a plurality of votes in a district?

This government has rushed this process in the face of serious constitutional and Charter concerns. Fundamentally, there will not be a clear majority expressing their opinion on a clear question.

This government has restricted British Columbians in the way that they can participate in this debate. Yet the Premier has indicated that he’s going to use the full weight of his office — this is a dated reference, I think, at this point — to campaign in favour of this referendum. He should probably tell his office to get back to the Leader of the Opposition’s office on the debate — with just seven days to go.

What the government has done, of course, is pressed on. They’ve pressed on through this court challenge, through the concerns expressed by other British Columbians and in this House, and proposed a second referendum.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

How is it that this government is proceeding with this flawed referendum in the face of these legal challenges and many unanswered questions from British Columbians? And they think that promising a second referendum at this late stage will address these concerns. Why doesn’t this government properly engage with British Columbians and address the serious concerns about the flaws in this referendum and proportional representation voting systems?

What’s the rush? It’s only to meet the timeline that this government agreed to with the three Green Party MLAs in June 2017. That’s the rush. Why do the three Green Party MLAs get to dictate the timing of a potential fundamental change to our democratic system to the other 84 MLAs in this province? It’s all about their single issue — the one issue that these three Green Party members of this House have hung onto for the past 14 months.

The concerns and the flaws of this referendum need to be resolved before we can go through this referendum and not after. British Columbians deserve an answer to this.

Let me say this. Right from the start of the agreement between this government and those three Green Party MLAs, they agreed to three things. They agreed to hold this referendum in the fall of 2018, at the same time as the municipal elections, and they agreed that they would both campaign in favour of the referendum. This is the reason why, right from the beginning of this referendum process, it’s been flawed.

The voting system that we use in this province is integral to our democratic process. It’s not something that political parties should be dictating — the rules, the process to change it. This is the fundamental flaw in the way this referendum process has been run, and holding out a promise of a second referendum two election cycles from now — effectively, 12 years from now — does not cure any of these flaws.

One of the other approaches by this government has been to limit the mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer. In the summer, the Premier asked the Chief Electoral Officer to look at the wording of the first question. But the mandate of his review was limited to just that. He chose to provide comment on the language of the second question, but clearly, the Chief Electoral Officer’s mandate, as he stated in his letter, did not extend to the structure or the format of this two-question ballot.

With that, you can ask the question: who is protecting the constitution of this province, the Charter rights of British Columbians?

[5:30 p.m.]

With the way the court has proceeded in a limited manner, the way that the mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer has been limited as well, whose responsibility is it? It’s the Premier’s and the Attorney General’s. They’re failing in that responsibility to this province. What we have today is a flawed referendum process whether you’re in favour of proportional representation or in favour of keeping our current first-past-the-post voting system. I don’t believe British Columbians will have confidence in the result because of the way this has been run — this whole referendum process has been biased — and the way it’s been positioned.

British Columbians are being asked to vote in this referendum without the information we need. There are over 20 important items to be determined after the vote for dual-member, mixed-member and rural-urban systems. As stated in the Attorney General’s report on page 4: “These design details can have a significant effect on how a voting system works in practice.” The details matter. These are not technical details. They’re fundamental to how these voting systems will work. A promised second referendum does not deal with this.

British Columbians don’t need a second referendum promise. What they need is what we’ve been asking for in this House: a clear, fair and transparent referendum with all of the details and the riding boundaries being determined. These items, of course, are being determined after the vote, but they’re critical. Whether voters will have one or two votes under mixed-member to determine regional representatives. Whether these representatives will be selected off closed lists, which means the party decides who represents them and not voters.

What will the riding boundaries look like for the electoral districts? We know that many of the riding boundaries, electoral districts, will get larger, which will make it more challenging for local representation. And how you vote under these systems will depend on whether you’re living in a rural, urban or semi-urban riding, whether you’re going to have a district or a regional representative.

This means that when British Columbians go to start voting seven days from today, they won’t have these details. They won’t have this information. How is that fair? This has been a truly flawed process. British Columbians should not be expected to change their voting system when they don’t have these details, when all of these important details are not worked out.

As we’ve said on this side of the House, unlike the last referendum in 2009, we don’t have the riding boundaries. We don’t know how large the ridings will be under the three proposed forms of proportional representation. We don’t know, truly, what constitutes a rural riding and what constitutes an urban or semi-urban riding. Consequently, under rural-urban, for example, British Columbians won’t know, when they go to vote, whether they’re going to be using mixed-member proportional in their riding or single transferable vote.

How is it that we can ask British Columbians to vote on a voting system when we can’t even tell them what voting system will apply to them? How does that make any sense? Without these details, and with a lower approval threshold from 60 percent to 50 percent and no geographic approval requirements, there will be no clear majority on a clear question in this referendum. Consequently, as I’ve said, British Columbians cannot possibly have confidence in the result.

British Columbians are being asked to give a blank cheque to the committee of this Legislative Assembly which will be dominated by members of this government and the Green Party. British Columbians want to know what understandings these two parties have about the details to come after the referendum. Yes, we acknowledge, of course, an Electoral Boundaries Commission will do its work. But the fact of the matter remains: how the details of any one of these three voting systems are filled in will frame the structure of those boundaries, not the other way around.

[5:35 p.m.]

Given the way this referendum process has been run, why should British Columbians trust this process? In the words of a colleague of mine on this side of the House, the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke, British Columbians should be offended by this.

As we stand up in this House and debate this bill for the next number of days, we represent the concerns of British Columbians. This is not something that is B.C. Liberal, the party of the governing group, the Green Party. This is not an issue that splits on partisan lines. We know that many individuals in this province may support the B.C. Liberal Party, but they also want proportional representation. There are other members who are members of the governing party’s party, and they support first-past-the-post.

What is fundamental in all of this, of course, is how we vote, how we form our government and how our charter rights are protected. This is not just about power.

Proponents of proportional representation talk about fairness. I don’t see how we can accomplish anything like that if this is not a fair referendum in the first place. I’ve had discussions with members who are in favour of proportional representation. They tell me that closed lists, which are an option at the bottom of page 59 of the Attorney General’s report and in the election guide to voters…. They say that closed lists under mixed-member proportional won’t happen. How do they know that?

The bottom of the report, on page 59 of the AG’s report, says: “The engagement also indicated support for simple ballots, which a ‘closed’ list would provide.” It goes on to say: “This is an issue that would benefit from further debate and discussion.” You think?

So much of this needs to be discussed. How is that discussion going to go, with the MLAs of the Green Party holding the deciding votes on that all-parliamentary committee and with this government needing their support to continue to govern if this referendum passes? What this says to British Columbians is: “Vote for a party. You don’t need to vote for a candidate anymore. Leave it up to the political parties. We’ll figure out what’s best, who is best to represent you in your community.”

That is the possibility that’s spelled out in the election voter’s guide on page 17. This is what British Columbians are being presented with. How is it responsible for this government or members of this House to present such an ill-defined set of alternatives to British Columbians?

A promise of a second referendum clearly does not address this blank-cheque approach. How do we expect voters to understand what they’re voting on when there are so many details to be determined? This referendum is so complex that many British Columbians may just throw up their hands and not vote at all. With no minimum participation or quorum requirement, this fundamental change could occur with the minority of British Columbians who vote. A second referendum does not address any of these concerns either.

This government has clearly let British Columbians down. It has failed in its responsibilities to this province. It’s not running this referendum for the people. It’s doing it for themselves. It’s time that British Columbians see this for what it is and for the members of this House to think long and hard about what we are all doing here, participating in this sham of a referendum. This is not electoral reform. This is the agenda for more power of the two parties that got together to form our current government.

[5:40 p.m.]

British Columbians should be asking: just who is this government working for, which people? It talks often about the people that it works for. But who are these people? I think with the way this referendum is being run, it’s the people and the party hierarchy, the ones who will dictate which persons will be candidates on their party list — closed, open or open with a party option, as stated on the Elections B.C. website.

This isn’t about putting people at the centre of our politics. This is about putting parties at the centre of our politics. That is what this government is doing. This isn’t about reinvigorating our democracy. This referendum is undermining our democracy. It’s been a failed process. You can’t reinvigorate our democracy if British Columbians aren’t engaged and participating with this referendum process.

This about making politics work for political parties themselves, with the shift in voting power from voters themselves, with that direct level of accountability for their representatives, to political parties who will determine who will represent British Columbians in this House.

The Premier and this government have not met the high bar they set for themselves, and this last-minute amendment to the Electoral Reform Referendum Act, with a promise of a second referendum, is not addressing the flaws in the referendum process to date. The Premier and this government are not providing the responsible leadership that our province needs for this referendum. British Columbians deserve better, much better.

S. Furstenau: I expect the member for Vancouver-Langara will be happy that the 24-page voter’s guide from Elections B.C. was sent out today, with information on both the ballot and the four systems that will be on that ballot — the three proportional representation and first-past-the-post.

I also encourage the member to look at the confidence and supply agreement, which included banning big money from politics, bringing in lobbying reform, reforming professional reliance, revitalizing the environmental assessment process and bringing in a climate plan for British Columbia, among many other policies and pieces of legislation that truly matter to the people of this province.

We have an extraordinary opportunity to make our electoral system better. The legislation in front of us today, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, gives us a second opportunity to decide, after two election cycles, if proportional representation is working for B.C.

If this fall’s referendum on electoral reform results in a transition to proportional representation in B.C., this legislation amendment will ensure that after two general elections have been held using a proportional representation voting system, there will be a subsequent referendum in which the voters of B.C. can decide whether to stay with proportional representation or revert to first-past-the-post.

This gives all voters of B.C. an opportunity to determine if they are happy with the changes brought in by proportional representation. It is interesting, and I think important, to note that no country has ever switched to proportional representation and then switched back to first-past-the-post. Nor has any country ever switched from proportional representation to a first-past-the-post or majoritarian system.

The debate around this referendum, the referendum taking place this fall, particularly from the “no to proportional representation” side, has been mostly about what you should fear. I am more of a hope person, myself, and an evidence person, so let’s look at what research and evidence have to say.

Arend Lijphart, a world-renowned political scientist, spent his entire career studying various features of democratic life in first-past-the-post, or majoritarian, and pro-rep democracies, which he called “consensus democracies.” In his landmark 2012 study, he compared 36 democracies over 55 years.

What did he conclude? Proportional representation democracies are kinder, gentler democracies. He also notes that the majoritarian model of democracy is exclusive, competitive and adversarial, whereas the consensus model is characterized by inclusiveness, bargaining and compromise. For this reason, consensus democracy could also be termed “negotiation democracy.”

[5:45 p.m.]

Let’s hold those images — kinder, gentler democracies, negotiation democracies. We can come back to Lijphart’s and others’ findings later. The opportunity we have in B.C. this fall, the opportunity to modernize our democracy, is one that we should not fear.

The three proportional representation system choices on the ballot deliver the values that were prevalent in the public engagement process initiated by the Attorney General last fall. Over 91,000 British Columbians submitted their input, a record for public engagement in B.C.

What emerged from the engagement were four key values that the citizens of B.C. want to see in a proportional representation system. They want local representation, simplicity, no significant increase to the number of MLAs in the Legislature and proportionality. All three systems of proportional representation on the referendum ballot deliver these outcomes. In addition, no region of B.C. will have fewer MLAs than it does today, and no party would be eligible to have seats in the Legislature unless they received at least a 5 percent threshold of the vote.

All three proportional representation systems will deliver to every voter an MLA, just like today. All three proportional representation systems deliver local representation and provide voters the opportunity to vote for the individual candidates they want to support. Indeed, it’s even better than that, because constituents will have more than one representative in the Legislature.

Under mixed-member proportional, each riding will have a local MLA elected, just like today. However, in addition to the local MLA, there will also be regional MLAs. The benefit of this is you will have representation, just as you do now from your local MLA, but you will also have representation from regional MLAs — meaning that people will be working collaboratively, and often across party lines, to represent you and their constituents effectively.

Under dual-member, ridings would be paired, and they would have two MLAs for each riding. One MLA would be elected under first-past-the-post, just like today, and the second would be elected based on the proportional outcomes of the election. We would have the same number of MLAs in the House, but there would be two to represent each riding. Again, you have MLAs working together, often across party lines, to best represent you.

Rural-urban would be a combination of mixed-member proportional, with local and regional MLAs for rural ridings, and single transferable vote, with ballots where you rank the candidates and ultimately have a group of MLAs representing larger urban ridings, MLAs that would need to work collaboratively and across party lines to best represent their constituents.

What if you don’t like the job that one of those MLAs has done? Same as today. Don’t vote for him or her in the next election. That’s pretty straightforward accountability. All three systems deliver MLAs that you choose and you can turn to, just like today.

By voting yes for proportional representation, we would choose to join over 90 democracies around the world that have proportional systems, including 85 percent of OECD countries. What none of the systems delivers is 100 percent of power to one party based on 40 percent of the vote. This outcome, so consistent, is becoming an increasingly serious threat to democracy. We are seeing daily examples of how power, as the driving force in a democracy, is a distorting and damaging force. We need only look to what unfolded in Ontario to see the truly distressing impacts this approach is creating.

The Progressive Conservatives got 40.49 percent of the vote in the election in June, and 58 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, which means that just under 23.5 percent of eligible voters in Ontario voted for a party that currently has a majority of seats in the Ontario Legislature. Fewer than one in four eligible voters delivered 100 percent of the power to Premier Ford.

After the election, an adviser to the Premier’s campaign told the National Post that to win the election, the campaign relied on “literally thousands” of on-line ads targeting specific geographic and demographic groups. Apparently, the targeting was so precise that “a husband and wife should not have seen the same ads.”

[5:50 p.m.]

This is an approach described in Susan Delacourt’s 2013 book Shopping for Votes. Parties have learned that rather than focusing on an overarching vision and platform, it’s more effective, under first-past-the-post, to identify what specific demographics of voters want and promise to deliver it to them.

Democracy has increasingly become a game of political parties figuring out how to woo small pockets of potential voters based on tapping into self-interest and less and less about parties and politicians putting forward a coherent vision for the future that works to forge consensus. Election campaigns are not bringing us together. They are sowing seeds of disunity and fragmentation.

While Doug Ford never produced a costed platform or a unifying vision to the voters of Ontario, he did promise buck-a-beer, cheaper gas and tax cuts. So there we were, three months into Ford as Premier, and he had done what no Premier of Ontario has ever done — choosing to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Ford’s choice to invoke the notwithstanding clause, to order Ontario MPPs back to the Legislature to force another piece of legislation through — which he can do, because one in four eligible voters delivered to him a majority of seats and 100 percent of the power — is a gobsmacking rejection of the foundations of our democracy in Canada.

This is not the only questionable step that Premier Ford has taken since his election in June. He cancelled the basic income pilot underway in Ontario, an approach that economists around the world are recognizing as a necessary step in our world of growing automation and inequality. He stripped the sex ed curriculum back to the 1990s. He scrapped the cap-and-trade program and the Green Ontario fund, which resulted in a $100 million loss of funding for school repairs across Ontario. He froze public sector hiring.

It’s not that there may well be issues with some of the programs and the funding, but it’s the unilateral, non-evidence approach to cancelling programs that is worrying. These are also clear examples of policy lurch, a common phenomenon in first-past-the-post systems. Policy lurch is when one government comes in and undoes the policies and legislation of the previous one. These policy lurches are often incredibly costly to taxpayers.

The withdrawal of Ontario from the carbon cap-and-trade markets and the cancellation of contracts is costing taxpayers of Ontario a great deal indeed. According to a July 4 Global News report: “Some of the number-crunchers have estimated that Ford’s decision could cost Ontario about $420 million in federal transfer payments that were targeted for environmental programs.”

Then there’s the concern about companies that purchase permits under cap-and-trade and the concern about companies that purchase permits under the cap-and-trade programs.

A mouse just ran by. There’s a mouse in the House, Madame Speaker.

It’s estimated that the province — and that means you and me, in Ontario — could be on the hook for about $3 billion to refund those purchases. Let’s step back. The decision of the Premier to undo the legislation and policies of the previous government could cost the voters of Ontario somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3.4 billion. One party with 40 percent of the vote has unilaterally made these decisions, heedless of the cost not just to the economy but to the atmosphere and to our environment.

A democracy, all democracies, must have built-in checks on power. Democracies are meant to disperse power across different bodies so that no single body or individual can act unilaterally. The judiciary is a check on the power of the government executive. To reject that check on power is to erode democracy. Ford is choosing instead to insist that he does have all the power and that nobody should be allowed to question that power.

This is not the Canada that I grew up in, not the democracy my father taught me to be fiercely proud of and fiercely protective of. What are we at risk of losing as our democratic institutions are treated with such contempt by those who should, in fact, be protecting them? Far too much. More than I think we want to imagine.

[5:55 p.m.]

What I fear is that our politics — driven by our electoral system, driven by vote-shopping, driven by an increasing tendency towards populism, driven by the efforts to win swing votes in swing ridings — are becoming increasingly devoid of the kind of leadership we desperately need right now, leadership that lifts us up, that encourages us to look at our world and ask: “How do we make this better?” We are losing the type of leadership that holds itself to a higher standard, that recognizes the true burden of elected office, which is that we must put service to our constituents, our province and our people first.

We are losing the type of leadership that inspires all of us to want to be in service to something greater than ourselves. We are, perhaps more importantly, losing the type of leadership that brings us together, that encourages us to celebrate our differences while recognizing our shared humanity — the kind of leadership that roots us in compassion, kindness and empathy.

I’ve been reflecting on these questions for a very long time. There’s a letter I wrote in the midst of the 2000 federal election campaign. It was published in the Globe and Mail. It read:

“Coverage of the federal election has compelled me to stop writing my thesis on medieval theology and tear myself away from the 12th century long enough to state the reasons why I will not vote for Stockwell Day and the Alliance party.

“As a historian, I think about how Mr. Day and his policies will appear when people look back at our time. I believe he will be seen as a divisive force, since he neatly divides this society into ‘us’ and ‘them,’ and like any good ideologue, he defines these two categories in opposition to each other. ‘We’ are the citizens; ‘they’ are the criminals. We are the hard-working; they are the lazy poor. We are the righteous; they are the deviant. We are the threatened; they are the feared….

“Historically, Mr. Day will be recognized as a politician who was willing to capitalize on the fears and insecurities that are inherent in a world view that sets people in opposition to each other. What Mr. Day and the Alliance fail to acknowledge is that there are no neat divisions, no simple ways to categorize human beings and that in the future, societies will be judged as enlightened according to the degree to which they recognize what unifies us as humans, rather than what divides us.”

As Doug Ford rages against the judges’ decision, as Donald Trump rages against pretty much everything, as politicians increasingly focus on divisive politics, I think my fears about where Stockwell Day’s tendencies could take us were not misplaced. When our so-called leaders are so deeply self-focused, so petty, so willing to be their worst selves, where do we find the inspiration to be our best and to see ourselves as part of a greater whole, to work towards a shared vision that will benefit the many, rather than just the few? I am increasingly anxious about the path we seem to be on, which makes me increasingly determined to do all I can to help us choose a better one.

Back to the research on democracies. What else can we learn from Lijphart and others? You can read his book, Patterns of Democracy, on line.

Countries using proportional systems enact policies that reflect the views of the majority. Citizens are more satisfied with their democracies, even when their preferred party is not in power. More women and more Indigenous people are elected to office. Elected officials are more responsive to the electorate. Youth voter turnout is higher. Citizens have higher levels of political knowledge.

Under proportional representation, there are far fewer policy lurches where successive governments spend time and money undoing the policies of the previous government. Instead of the focus that we see too often under first-past-the-post on short-term and wedge issues, pro-rep governments are better long-term managers. Proportional governments tend to have higher surpluses and lower levels of debt than first-past-the-post governments. They have lower levels of income inequality.

The list goes on. Pro-rep countries score better on transparency, they have lower levels of corruption, and it’s pro-rep countries that are doing the best on environmental protection and action on climate change, while in first-past-the-post America and Ontario, steps that had been taken on these fronts are being undone by current administrations.

Yes, there are challenges, but the compiled data and evidence paint a very compelling picture and support the argument that societies and democracies generally fair much better under proportional representation.

[6:00 p.m.]

What the no side is not talking about so much are countries that also operate under first-past-the-post — the U.S.A., the U.K. and Canada — but also, for example, Venezuela, Gambia and Myanmar.

We need true leadership now, and we need an electoral system that creates a kinder, gentler democracy. We are not going to solve the extraordinary challenges we are facing with a winner-take-all system that does not encourage the best in all of us.

In B.C., the fires that produced weeks of smoke that blotted out our skies and scratched our throats, made our lungs hurt and our hearts ache, are not natural or inevitable. But without serious and significant efforts to change forest management practices, they are likely to get worse. As Hurricane Florence pummeled the Carolinas, there were more giant storms on our planet than ever recorded.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Michael, the President of the United States has suggested that “climate change might not be caused by humans,” that he did not want to take any actions that would harm the American economy and that the warming of the planet by industrial emissions would reverse of its own accord.

The cost of Hurricane Harvey, which pummeled Texas last year, was $125 billion. Hurricane Maria was $90 billion. Climate change is very much harming economies of nations around the world, and in the face of the IPCC report released last week, any leader unwilling to recognize that our greatest challenge in today’s world is climate change is exhibiting the most reckless behaviour imaginable.

Gwynne Dyer wrote the book Climate Wars, in which he recognized the increasing pressures nations would feel as immigration mounted due to the swaths of the planet becoming uninhabitable because of impacts from climate change. Rather than stoking fear, we need leaders to be working collaboratively and globally to find solutions to these mounting challenges, not using them as political fodder to win swing ridings.

I’m currently reading Gwynne Dyer’s latest book on the future of democracy called Growing Pains. His premise? Inequality and automation are serious threats to social and political stability, and we’re going to need to embrace solutions to these growing challenges if we hope to see democracy survive. Inequality is held in check far better under proportional governments than it is under first-past-the-post governments.

On the way home from the Union of B.C. Municipalities a few weeks ago, we were in line for the buffet on the ferry. Ahead of us was a couple with their one-year-old baby, Benedict, held in the arms of his tall father. He was bright-eyed, alert and playful. We played some peekaboo, which at one point elicited a deep laugh that enveloped Benedict’s entire body. He reached out his hand, one finger extended. I slowly reached out mine, and after our fingertips touched, he seized my entire finger, and he wouldn’t let go.

As his dad moved forward in the line, so did I, connected to little baby Benedict. His gesture was one of trust, one that comes from our fundamental instinct and need, as humans, to connect. As I stood there, my finger in Benedict’s tiny fist, I thought about this referendum. I thought about our future and what I wanted to convey to people.

Benedict, the baby, has no idea of the challenges we face in the world today, but we do. It’s up to us to make it the best world we can for him and for each child who depends on us to make the best choices for them and their futures. One big step we can take for Benedict in B.C. is to move to a kinder, gentler democracy so that he and all children can have the hope of growing up in a kinder, gentler world. Let’s seize this extraordinary opportunity we have in front of us to build that kinder, gentler democracy.

B. D’Eith: I wanted to thank the member for Cowichan Valley for her very thoughtful words and also for working so closely with us on this file. I’ve really enjoyed working with you on this. It is very important, and I appreciate the passion you put into this. Thank you.

Today we’re talking to Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act.

[6:05 p.m.]

If proportional representation is implemented, this bill will basically say that there needs to be a subsequent referendum on whether to continue with proportional representation or to go back to the old first-past-the-post system. This must happen within 13 months after the month of the second election. That’s the time frame.

This is nothing new or no surprise. The legislation fulfils a commitment made by the province based on recommendations from the Attorney General’s report on electoral reform, a report that consulted with 90,000 British Columbians — and was actually the largest public consultation ever — and came up with questions that were adopted, which Elections B.C. found to be clear and straightforward, which is completely different than what the B.C. Liberals are saying. This confirming referendum would allow British Columbians, not politicians but British Columbians, to have the final say on voting.

I did want to address a few issues that the member for Vancouver-Langara brought up. One of them is that it’s going to take 12 years until we get to this. In fact, the most it would take is about eight years. I appreciate the fact that he is confident that PR — and I’m confident that PR — will actually create stable governments that will last full terms. I appreciate the member for that.

The reality is that this is another example of how the B.C. Liberals are willing to say whatever it takes for voters to get confused, even if it isn’t accurate. This was actually a completely inaccurate statement, based on a clear reading of the legislation, and it’s just another example.

A second thing that the member brought up was the court challenge and said this is unconstitutional. Well, I’d like to read from the court case, Independent Contractors and Businesses Association vs. British Columbia, where the judge actually said: “I find that the petitioners are now engaged”— I need my glasses for this; it’s really good, but I have to be able to read it — “in rhetoric, conjecture and exaggeration. There is no evidence to support their assertions that the referendum process is intended to produce a particular result, which the government favours, or that it rushed the process, or that the provincial respondents have delayed the hearing of the petition.”

I mean, this is completely contrary to what the member was saying. The member, in fact, also said that first-past-the-post is integral to the democratic process. Well, I put to you, members, that in fact what he really means is that it’s integral to the B.C. Liberals getting power back.

Now, this ability for the B.C. people to have a say in their electoral system is part of the overall question that we’re asking British Columbians to ask this fall. In fact, we have an historic opportunity to make a change that would profoundly and positively impact on B.C. politics for generations, and we will lead the way for the rest of the country and, perhaps, even North America. We have an opportunity to change our voting system so that everyone’s vote will count.

Some people may be concerned by change in B.C. That’s why the provisions of Bill 40 are a great option for the province, because it gives the people of British Columbia a chance to try proportional representation and see whether it works for them.

I am confident that they will. After spending a lot of time examining proportional representation, I know that B.C. will be happy with the results. I’m confident that we will have a chance to experience PR, proportional representation, and that voters will choose to keep it.

I also wanted to address Arend Lijphart, who’s studied this proportional representation so much. He’s world renowned as a political scientist. He’s spent his entire career studying various features of democratic life in majoritarian and proportional democracies.

Looking at a number of specific indicators, he found that countries using proportional representation had a higher voter turnout — 7.5 percent higher. Secondly, government policies were closer to a view of the median voter, so it represented the people, the voters.

Citizens were more satisfied with the performance of their country’s democratic institutions, even when the party they voted for was not in power. That’s because governments have to work together with parties. That means they have a voice. That means even the people that aren’t in government have a chance to influence policy.

There is only a small increase in the number of parties in parliament. You will hear this from the B.C. Liberals during this entire debate. You’ve heard it through the entire debate — that suddenly all these fringe parties will come up. Well, the reality is that there’s only a small increase, around the world, in the number of parties in parliament.

[6:10 p.m.]

A very important consideration is that the share of women elected as legislators was up by 8 percent. In addition to that, scores were higher on the measures of political participation and civil liberties, so more people are voting. As the member said, it created a kinder, gentler democracy. I think that’s what people want. I believe that B.C.’ers would love to see that. They would love to see a less adversarial and more cooperative government. After two cycles, if they believe that’s the case, then they’ll keep that system going.

What can B.C.’ers expect from proportional representation? Well, it will give voters more choice. It gives a stronger voice to voters in every region of the province. It makes government more accountable and focuses on priorities of those people. Parties will have to work together to get things done for British Columbians. This actually will decrease cynicism and increase voter turnout for our youth. It will make government more reflective of the diversity of our province, and probably the most important thing is it actually puts people at the centre of politics.

I first became truly engaged in the fight for proportional representation during the 2015 federal election. At that time, I was a candidate for Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge, and I was actually trying to get my young adult children and their friends interested in the election. One night, a number of friends and the family were sitting in my living room, and we were discussing why young voters weren’t voting. One of my oldest son Sheldon’s friends said that he just didn’t think it mattered. He didn’t think it counted — that whatever he did wouldn’t actually count for anything.

In my riding, I can understand that, given the history that the Conservatives have been voted in over and over and over again. I can understand that. This man wasn’t apathetic, as many portray our youth. They are actually very engaged. He cared passionately about education, about jobs, about housing and the less fortunate. He just didn’t feel that he was empowered by our voting system.

Imagine this same young man being able to vote under proportional representation. No matter what, his vote would count towards part of the outcome. Under pro rep, 25 percent of the vote means 25 percent of the power. That means he would be more likely to vote and participate in our democracy.

Throughout the world, proportional representation systems generally enjoy a higher voter turnout, especially among the young. In fact, this same sentiment is shared by all age groups. Too many people feel that their vote simply doesn’t count and that their vote is wasted. This applies to people stepping up to run.

It’s actually really interesting. I talked to one councillor at UBCM, which is where the government meets with all the municipalities. He or she — I’m not going to say; I know there’s an election coming up, so I won’t say who it is — is a councillor in a rural area in British Columbia. This councillor is very progressive and cares a great deal about things like homelessness, mental health, addictions, seniors, opportunities for youth, poverty and other important issues that our government is tackling right now.

This councillor has been asked to run as a progressive candidate and would like to, but because the seat is safe, this councillor will not run. In fact, this councillor went so far as to say it would be political suicide to run as a progressive candidate in this councillor’s riding, even though, in fact, the majority of people voting in that councillor’s riding don’t actually vote for the B.C. Liberals. Even though it’s considered a safe riding, the majority of people don’t vote for the B.C. Liberals, who have a safe seat. That is fundamentally wrong, and that is fundamentally what is wrong with the first-past-the-post system. Too many people feel that the current system isn’t working.

With Bill 40, it will allow people to see the benefits of proportional representation and then affirm the system after two election cycles. Giving B.C. the chance to try proportional representation will allow B.C.’ers to see how well the system can work and how the system can avoid pitfalls in the current first-past-the-post system.

B.C.’ers see situations like Ontario, like Doug Ford, who ran a divisive, Trump-style campaign, won 40 percent of the votes and took 100 percent of the power. He doesn’t have to work with anyone. His decisions are hurting the most vulnerable in the province, and he can do this with impunity.

[6:15 p.m.]

He is threatening to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the constitution. That’s unbelievable. These are things that should happen only in the most egregious or large situations, in terms of issues, and he’s willing to do it willy-nilly. That is very troubling. The fact is that 60 percent of Ontarians did not vote for this majority government.

Now, again, this just happened with the populist, anti-immigration Coalition Avenir Québec. They won a majority of seats in their House with only 37.5 percent of the vote. That means over 60 percent of Quebecers didn’t vote for this party, but they have 100 percent of the power, with less than 40 percent of the vote.

In British Columbia, since 1928, there’s only been one majority government with over 50 percent of the vote. That means that for nearly 100 years, our system has allowed a minority of voters to control 100 percent of the power.

The B.C. Liberals, we all know, are a big-tent coalition. We know that the only way that they can get and retain power is through a system that allows a minority of the voters to deliver governments with 100 percent of the power with only 40 percent of the votes.

Hey, I understand. I understand why the B.C. Liberals are the only party that is opposing the move to proportional representation, because for B.C. Liberals, it’s about power. It’s not about people. We saw that with the desperate clone speech that the B.C. Liberals, when they were trying to cling to power…. Oh how quickly they were willing to throw away their principles in order to retain government.

“Believe us now,” they said. “We’ll start listening now,” they said. “Now that we haven’t, for over a decade and a half…. Suddenly, we believe in child care. We’ll get big money out of politics. We’ll get the tolls off the bridges. We’ll fix the housing crisis,” and so on, and so on. Well, no one believed that. In fact, when the B.C. Liberals were in power, they made everyone pay more for everything while cutting services like health and education.

The truth is the old, outdated first-past-the-post system only really works for those people at the top. The B.C. Liberals and their wealthy friends are desperate to keep the old way of voting because it makes it easier to control the government with a minority of votes.

With first-past-the-post, the B.C. Liberals can cut services and make life more expensive while doing favours for their rich friends. We see that the B.C. Liberals pretend to care about people when they are campaigning but largely ignore that when they form government. They pick and choose voters they care about based on where they’re most likely to win seats, and everyone else can take a backseat.

Proportional representation can fix this. With Bill 40, B.C.’ers will have the comfort to see these benefits, determine for themselves whether they like it and assess a new system after two election cycles. In being able to determine whether to continue with the proportional representation in a second referendum, B.C.’ers will get a chance to see whether what the proponents are saying is true or not, and that in pro rep, everyone’s vote counts. They’ll figure out: is this true or not? We’ll find out. I believe that’s true.

Regardless of where you live, you can vote for a candidate of your choice without worrying about a wasted vote or a strategic vote. Proportional representation will strengthen the voice of people from every region of the province because every vote will count, and MLAs won’t be able to ignore voters anymore.

Another consideration is the present system promotes adversarial politics, whereas there’ll be a more cooperative system under proportional representation. Parties have to work together to get things done.

Right now, as was brought up by the other side, we have a supply and confidence agreement with the B.C. Green Party. This means that, in fact, nearly 60 percent of the voters are being listened to in this House. Cooperation means that parties need to work together, and that’s exactly what’s been happening in our government.

One example is the Wild Salmon Advisory Council in which the B.C. Green MLA for Saanich North and the Islands was asked to participate. He participated enthusiastically. His participation was well received, and it had a great impact. It’s an indication of how governments would have to operate under proportional representation. Now, voices like that are silenced under first-past-the-post.

It’s important to actually enhance people’s passions, like the member for Saanich North and the Island, for things like wild salmon. He’s passionate about that, and we should listen to that voice. Under PR, those voices would be encouraged and welcomed. Again, B.C.’ers will see the benefit of proportional representation when they’re asked to consider the second referendum under Bill 40.

Parties under PR have to be more accountable. They won’t be able to just ram through agendas and get away with it.

[6:20 p.m.]

The majority of countries around the world now use a form of PR, proportional representation. We’re seeing from their governments that governments are more stable. People have a greater sense of satisfaction in a democracy. There’s a greater diversity among elected officials, and there’s a better voter turnout, especially with the youth.

A real great example of this is New Zealand. This country has had proportional representation for over two decades, and it’s a particularly good example because this country moved from first-past-the-post to a system of mixed-member proportional. Their experience is similar to what we’re experiencing now.

I actually had the pleasure of meeting and chatting with former Prime Minister Helen Clark on a recent visit to Canada, and she told me her experience with proportional representation. In fact, she was initially opposed to proportional representation and voted against it. It was only after becoming Prime Minister under the new system that Helen Clark realized how powerful proportional representation could be. She saw the number of women in parliament double, the number of Indigenous members grow, the number of members of colour increase. Youth voter engagement increased, as did overall voting numbers.

She witnessed a change in the culture of parliament, from adversarial to cooperative. In fact, even the style of Prime Ministers had to change. Instead of the autocratic leadership style under first-past-the-post, Prime Ministers in New Zealand must work with other parties and with other people. This has actually led to a much more positive political landscape in New Zealand.

Once a skeptic, Helen Clark is now one of the biggest champions for proportional representation in the world. It is this same kind of initial skepticism or fear of change that makes Bill 40 so important, because people have a safety valve. They can see how great the new system is, and they’ll have the opportunity to reaffirm their decision or return to the old system.

Over the next several weeks, there’s going to be a lot of rhetoric and misleading claims from the other side. They’re going to use every trick in the book — fearmongering, just like we heard; misinformation, just like we heard in the previous part of this debate; complaints about the process, which we’ve heard about in this debate — to stop people from voting for proportional representation.

The no side, the B.C. Liberals and their friends have a lot at stake personally in this. They fear this because they’re terrified. One of their tools to cling to power is being taken away. Well, we’ve already banned big money from elections, and now we have a historic chance to finish the job and have a system where everyone’s vote will count. We have a chance to put power back in the hands of regular people, not just the wealthy and well-connected, and elect a government that will work for everyone. We have a chance to finally put people in the centre of politics.

Bill 40 gives these same people, the people of British Columbia, the chance to kick the tires and make sure that they’re happy with being in the centre of the decision-making in B.C. I am sure that they will be happy.

I’ll be voting for Bill 40 and hope that all members in the House will do the same.

B. D’Eith moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. L. Beare: I would like to table the 2017-2018 annual report for the B.C. Arts Council.

Hon. D. Eby: I move a recess of the House until seven o’clock this evening.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 6:23 p.m. to 7:01 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I call continued debate on the adjourned debate on Bill 40.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

T. Stone: It does give me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 40. I rise today on a point of profound importance, the subject of which leans neither left nor right in the spectrum of B.C.’s politics. For what I hope to instill in this House today goes far, far beyond political stripes.

This is not about being a B.C. Liberal, a New Democrat, a Green, but rather, it’s about the basis of who we are at our core and what we stand for in this province. Our democracy — a democracy that our ancestors fought two great wars to protect for all of us in this House and the generations that will succeed us — is a democracy that can easily be threatened when it’s taken for granted.

I think of these wise words adapted from those of Franklin D. Roosevelt: “Let us never forget that government is our­selves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy” are not the elected representatives but rather the people, the voters. He went on to say: “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely.” And he said that “the real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.” I’ll repeat that. The real safeguard of democracy is education.

Sadly, in British Columbia’s upcoming referendum on elec­toral reform — the most sacred aspect of our democracy being how we elect our MLAs — this government has conveniently and, apparently, purposefully chosen to direct the people to research proportional representation on Google — an astonishing directive from the Premier, a shocking display of leaderless leadership. Suggesting that British Columbians are on their own to navigate this highly divisive issue, to figure out his government’s intentions surrounding our treasured democracy on an Internet search engine, is a blatant, irresponsible abandonment of education and fairness. Again, the real safeguard of democracy is education.

[7:05 p.m.]

Now, this brings me to Bill 40, which amends the referendum act to provide for a requirement to hold a second referendum after two elections. This would happen should British Columbians decide in this current referendum to replace our current first-past-the-post system with some form of prop rep.

The government wants us all to believe that this bill is about providing British Columbians with assurance: “If proportional representation doesn’t work well for the people of British Columbia, if you don’t like it, if we don’t like it as a province, don’t worry. We can get rid of it at some point in the future.” It’s as if to suggest that we should think of this as a comfy blanket for citizens to wrap themselves in as they take what the Premier recently described as a great leap of faith. We’re supposed to believe that a second referendum provides citizens with some sort of guarantee, a safety valve, an off-ramp.

Think about that. The message the government is conveying is this: “If we mess up with this proportional representation experiment, don’t worry. We can have a do-over. Don’t worry; be happy. It’s not like anything of significance is really, truly on the line here.” Of course, all of this is in the context of our democracy and how we elect our MLAs. Well, the stark reality is that this manoeuvre by the Attorney General, by the NDP-Greens, is actually quite sad for our province and for our democracy. It’s sad that the NDP and the Greens would play so fast and loose with our democracy.

That’s not to mention one important detail: you can’t bind a future government. We all know this. The NDP knows this. The Attorney General knows this as well.

Imagine, two elections after proportional representation is in place: what would the landscape look like at that time? Well, if every other prop rep jurisdiction is any indication, there would likely be a whole bunch of different parties, most of them small parties, most of them with only a handful of seats in this chamber. Presumably, no party would have a majority, and there would be a coalition government in place, propped up by a collection of small parties, and the propping up only takes place when the small parties can extract the pound or two of flesh that they want in exchange for their support of a coalition government.

The NDP want us to believe that the MLAs of that Legislature, a legislature that would be characterized by a fractured minority parliament, would play ball and would agree to hold another referendum when the sole purpose of doing so would be to potentially put their small parties out of business if British Columbians were to decide to revert back to first-past-the-post.

You know and I know that this will not happen. Rather, via a simple amendment to the Referendum Act, the coalition government of the day would more likely amend the act to remove the requirement for a second referendum. In fact, it would likely be a condition of support from the small parties in exchange for propping up that coalition government.

This would be just like what we saw in the beginning of this parliament. One of the very first acts of the NDP-Green cooperation that we have here in British Columbia today was to amend the legislation to reduce the threshold for official party status to only two MLAs. Why? Because the Greens demanded this from the NDP in their negotiations. It was a Green Party condition. It was included in their supply and confidence agreement with the New Democrats.

Now, on top of this, it is unbelievable that the government is bringing forward this commitment to a second referendum in the middle of the referendum itself. We’re only days away from ballots actually being mailed out to British Columbians, and the NDP government has the temerity to inject this measure into the middle of the referendum campaign. Why, you ask.

[7:10 p.m.]

I do get asked this by lots of British Columbians back in my constituency. The answer is that it’s because the NDP and the Greens want to influence the outcome. Well, I say shame on them. Bill 40 is nothing more than yet another feature of this entire referendum sham.

To refresh your memory on what a sham this entire referendum process has been, let’s start with the 50-percent-plus-one approval. That’s down from the 60-percent approval it required in 2005 and 2009. It’s easier to change a strata bylaw in this province. Secondly, there’s no regional approval requirement any longer. The previous two referendums required that 60 percent of all ridings in British Columbia had to approve of the change.

This was the voice of rural British Columbia — the Interior, the north — when it came to matters of this significance. I implore members opposite to travel to the Interior, to the north, to talk to British Columbians there. If they did, they would understand that the level of concern and worry in rural British Columbia is palpable. Frustration and anger are building. People are nearing the end of their patience.

So much of British Columbia’s wealth is being generated in rural parts of this province to support the high quality of life that we all enjoy as British Columbians, yet they have such significant misgivings and misunderstandings. Folks in urban centres have significant misgivings and misunderstandings about rural sensibilities. This is what folks in rural B.C. feel. There’s a significant concern that the will of the mass-populated areas of B.C. will increasingly dominate and overwhelm rural B.C.

Since British Columbia joined confederation in 1871, fully 147 years ago, there has always been a grand bargain, of sorts, between urban and rural B.C. There has always been recognition and respect for the sensibilities of both the urban and rural areas of this province. We can witness this through the massive investments that have been made by successive governments, be they Conservative, Social Credit, B.C. Liberal and NDP over the years, to open up this great province with highways and ferries and hydroelectric dams, railways, mines, and on and on the list goes.

We see this balancing of interests in our province through the accommodation that exists with respect to the practical application of representation by population, whereby we have urban ridings in B.C. that are often very small in geographic size, packed with incredible density, often in excess of 100,000 residents; and we have rural ridings in B.C. that are often much, much larger in geographic size but much less densely populated. We have some ridings with as few as 50,000.

There’s no minimum turnout required for this referendum. It’s appalling to suggest, as the Premier has, that a 10 percent voter turnout with 50-percent-plus-one support would constitute a mandate for change. There would be no mandate inherent in that level of a voter turnout, and other provinces have recognized this. When Prince Edward Islanders voted in favour of moving to a proportional representation system, their government, quite wisely, decided to take a pass. Why? Because the voter turnout was so low, it didn’t constitute a minimum expectation that the public would have for making such an important change as how we elect our MLAs.

We’ve talked about the confusing two-part question. The NDP campaigned on a one-part question, a simple yes-no, similar to the ballot that was in front of British Columbians in 2005 and 2009. How about the decision to proceed with a $14½ million mail-in ballot, when this referendum could have very easily been held in conjunction with a provincial election at much, much lower cost and, I would suggest, likely a much higher voter turnout?

How about the fact that this referendum, the campaign period, has been laying very nicely over top of the previous summer, the summer we just had, and it’s right on top of the municipal election campaign that’s going on in British Columbia? Why? What’s the rush?

[7:15 p.m.]

How about the fact that there was no citizens’ assembly, as there was in 2005 and 2009, where citizens actually developed the details of what British Columbians would vote on? Citizens came up with the ballot. Citizens signed off on the maps. Citizens ensured that the recommendations that British Columbians were asked to consider were developed in a non-partisan, independent manner — again, to instil maximum confidence in the vote that would take place in both of those referendums. Yet in this referendum, all of the details have been developed by cabinet behind closed doors.

There are no riding maps. We’ve been told time and time again that there’s no time. The trains are running here. We’ve got to get on with this referendum. There’s no time to develop maps. There’s no time to show British Columbians where they would find themselves in a reconstituted parliament with — pick one of the three proportional representation options — approximately half as many ridings in this chamber. No time for maps.

There’s no advance voting opportunity. We’ve heard from organizations like the Snowbird Association, which represents tens of thousands of British Columbians who will be leaving the country. Yes, they can make arrangements ahead of time to have a ballot sent to them wherever they happen to be, whether that’s Arizona or somewhere in Europe and whatnot. A lot of the people that I’ve been talking to — and I have a lot of snowbirds in my riding — are telling me that they go to Arizona so that they don’t have to get mail. They don’t want to have to pay for a mailbox in Arizona to receive a ballot. They want to be able to vote before they leave.

Why can’t that be made possible? Advance voting opportunities would be part of the process if the referendum was being held in conjunction with a provincial election campaign. But no, we’re going to do this mail-in ballot, and we’re going to suppress the ability of people to vote in advance of leaving the province or leaving the country. That’s wrong.

There are somewhere between 24 and 30 details that have yet to be determined. We hear over and over from folks on the other side and from Fair Vote Canada and proponents of proportional representation that this will all be decided at a later date should British Columbians decide to embrace this change. The only problem with that is some of these details are pretty big details, like how many MLAs would actually sit in this chamber. What would the size of the ridings look like? What would the boundaries of those ridings be? We have no idea what would constitute a rural riding versus an urban riding, as per the third option that’s on the ballot — this rural-urban proportional representation option.

I can’t tell my constituents today if Kamloops and the massive riding that we would suddenly find ourselves within would be constituted as urban or rural, because that detail hasn’t been determined yet.

This whole concept of MLAs being appointed off of lists…. Well, fine. Is it a closed list, or is it an open list? We’ll determine that after the fact. These are just a few of the critical details which are going to be left, presumably, to academics and experts that the government is going to appoint to sift through and to come back to this Legislature. Oh, but they’ll come back to an all-party committee, which will have four NDPs, four Liberals and one Green on it. I can do the math. I know who’s going to have the say on that committee at the end of the day. It’s going to be the five NDP-Greens. That’s not right. That’s not a fair and transparent process.

There are so many other details that are going to be left to sort out after the fact. It kind of reminds me…. It’s a perverse rendition of: “Life is like a box of chocolates.” You pick one, and you just have no idea what you’re going to get. That is no way to be managing our democracy. That is no way to demonstrate respect for this democracy that we have here in British Columbia.

Voters are just supposed to look at the ballot and know what the differences are between mixed-member prop rep, dual-member prop rep, rural-urban prop rep, two of which are not in use anywhere in the world. They’re supposed to know what these are and rank them accordingly.

[7:20 p.m.]

The NDP even decided not to include first-past-the-post in the list with the two prop rep options, just in case a majority of British Columbians picked first-past-the-post as their second choice, which most likely would have. In that scenario, first-past-the-post would have won. The referendum wouldn’t have been successful, and that’s not the objective of the NDP-Green government.

Even if you support moving to proportional representation, I have a hard time understanding where there can be any credibility in the result when the process has been so seriously flawed. For the record, again, even if the process wasn’t so flawed — as I have said in this House previously, as I am saying until I am blue in the face at every opportunity I can in my constituency and around the province — I personally don’t support making a change to prop rep.

Now, I’m pleased to be able to speak to my concerns about prop rep, unlike the NDP colleagues across the way, who, as we’ve recently learned, are not allowed to express their displeasure or their opposition with government ideas. We know that there are many NDP supporters across this province that don’t support this government when it comes to their desire to impose electoral reform on this province. We know that there are members in the NDP caucus that don’t really have their heart in this either. But they’re not allowed to speak. They’re not allowed to speak in opposition to the government’s plans, and that’s too bad.

I’ve said many times that when it comes to first-past-the-post, I also agree it has flaws. It’s not perfect. There is no electoral system in this world that is absolutely perfect. But with first-past-the-post, we have 87 mini-elections on election night — 87 ridings, each one that has its own election. It’s simple. Voters put an X beside the candidate that they want to represent them in that riding. At the end of the night, whoever gets the most votes wins. Simple. Easy to understand.

I can’t support moving to proportional representation. My number one concern, beyond all the process deficiencies and the flawed process that we just talked about, is the reduction in local representation. I’m tired of hearing from the other side and from Fair Vote Canada that local representation is maintained through each of these three systems. That is absolutely not true.

Yes, it is true that in each of these systems, there will still be members elected directly by local communities to come into this chamber and they will represent those people directly. That’s good. But depending on the system you pick, between 40 and 60 percent of this House would be made up of MLAs who don’t represent communities, who are not from the communities that make up this province around British Columbia.

Rural regions will face the very likely prospect of MLAs not living in their communities. This means that Vanderhoof will never have an MLA again. Quesnel will likely never have an MLA again. Sicamous will not have an MLA again. It means that Kamloops, Prince George and Kelowna could end up with an MLA whose home address is 144th Street in Surrey. The yes side of the debate will deny this, but they can’t offer a shred of evidence to the contrary.

We know that this also means a dramatic increase in the size of the ridings, as I have mentioned in my comments to this point. As I said, some of the MLAs would be elected, but at least half would be appointed to regions off of party lists — details to be sorted out after the referendum. But what we do know is that these list MLAs would be picked by political parties and parachuted into these regions without having to actually get a single vote from a voter.

They will be spared the requirement of actually running for an actual seat, like the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. We hear all about New Zealand, so let’s talk about New Zealand. The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has tried twice to win a seat in their parliament. He has failed both times. Why? Because voters didn’t want him to represent them.

[7:25 p.m.]

Yet today, as the result of being appointed off of a party list with proportional representation in play, he finds himself now as the Deputy Prime Minister of that country. And minor detail — he represents an anti-immigration party that’s now given legitimacy and credibility in the New Zealand Parliament. I don’t want that for British Columbia.

It also means a shift of power from local voters to political parties. It would be a shift to empower the party bosses in my party as well, but I can’t support a watering down of the power that voters have to elect an individual, to hold that person accountable, to know who their MLA is. I don’t support a system that results in the horse trading and the backroom deals, which we have a real life example of in this chamber right here, right now.

Where is the death of LNG that the Greens promised their supporters or the Site C project that wasn’t going to happen that they promised their supporters? How about the NDP’s $10-a-day child care or the renters rebate? Well, we know what happened with all of these commitments. That’s just to name a few.

The NDP and the Greens have said…. The Green leader is on the record, saying — there’s video of him saying it: “It’s not what you commit to in an election that matters. It’s what you commit to each other to form a coalition that matters.” So bye-bye local commitments, bye-bye commitments to voters, and hello to commitments to political parties.

I don’t like the trends that we see in many — not a handful but many — prop rep jurisdictions around the world, and that is this trend to jurisdictions embracing extremism parties. I’m not going to dwell on all of the examples around the world, but I will say this: I’m also just about at my breaking point in listening to members opposite and to Fair Vote Canada people talk about the gentler, kinder, compassionate society that we will have with proportional representation, should it be embraced.

We’re going to have better social outcomes, better education outcomes. We’re going to have stronger economies. We’re going to have more concern for the environment, less incarceration rates and a unicorn for every child under the age of six. This is as if to say that only in proportional representation jurisdictions will one find wealth, will one find a high standard of living, will one find freedom.

It’s absolute nonsense. Most of the countries in the world that perform the worst, by almost any financial indicator or economic indicator you want to pick, are proportional representation jurisdictions. They’re 24 percent more costly governments. Yet we hear from the other side that they also happen to manage finances better. No, they don’t. These are countries that for the most part have massive debt-to-GDP ratios, haven’t balanced a budget that anyone can remember in modern times. Many are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Now, there are exceptions to that. There are some prop rep jurisdictions in the world that don’t have those kinds of fiscal problems. What this means to me is that just as prop rep is not inherently bad or inherently good, neither is first-past-the-post. There is so much more that comes into play from a policy discussion and a policy debate and a policy prioritization in a jurisdiction than the electoral system at play.

Stop telling me that we’re going to have a kinder, gentler province, that there’s going to be all this collaboration. There are 42 members of the opposition here. The Green Party has voted with us not once — not once — in this chamber. I’ve moved amendments to legislation, where I’ve had agreements, verbal understandings with members opposite in the Green Party to come into this chamber and to amend legislation: “Let’s show British Columbians that we can make this Parliament work.”

[7:30 p.m.]

What was the result? We come into this chamber, and the members in the Green Party get taken into the corner by the House Leader for the government. Moments later they change their position, and they decide to vote with the government. How are we to take from this current example of a minority coalition government that…? “Let’s just make this a permanent fixture. Life will be so much better.” It’s absolute nonsense.

Our democracy is much better than this. British Columbians are being asked to vote in a flawed referendum, to make a decision on our most treasured right while leaving more than 24 critical details to be confirmed after the vote. We’re being asked to take a great leap of faith. We’re being asked to do so in part because there will be another referendum in two elections’ time. Don’t worry.

Democracy is not an experiment. This is an unfair, imbalanced referendum that clearly favours one region of B.C. over all others, with no regional approval or minimum turnout requirement. The fact that just a few can change the course of history for so many should be enough to frighten each and every one of us. Democracy is not easy. It’s often messy. But this goes far beyond messy. This is a referendum promoted by a government which, by all indications, believes and wants us to believe that what we don’t know can’t hurt us.

Today I respectfully urge this House and all of my fellow members within it to look deep within, to be honest with yourself like you’ve never been before and consider those words: “The real safeguard of democracy is education.”

I will continue to stand against doing anything that weakens local representation in this parliament. I stand against this sham of a referendum, and I will vote no to Bill 40.

A. Olsen: I certainly appreciate the passion that comes to this place after the 6 p.m. hour. I’m wondering why it has taken us so long to get to an extended session.

I’m pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act.

First off, I’d like to reiterate my support for democratic elections in our province that actually reflect how British Columbians voted on election day. Seems weird that I’d have to say that, no? Does it not make us all a little uncomfortable that our current first-past-the-post system is the furthest-from-fair system that we could have? A system that rewards poor, politically driven, divisive decision-making rather than thoughtful, evidence-based policy? In fact, there are numbers of systems that we could adopt that would ensure that voters’ intentions are actually represented at the end of election day.

To hear the official opposition defend the status quo, a status quo that handed them false majority after false majority in a desperate bid for yet another false majority is really quite sad. To hear them confused and muddled, to try to convince British Columbians that it’s better that British Columbians hand them 100 percent of the power with no tools to hold them accountable is really quite something.

If I was to give a recommendation to British Columbians after just a few short months in this place, it would be to protect your power, protect it with everything that you have, because it is really very powerful. Do not give it to any party or any individual without the proper checks and balances. Be very critical of anyone who suggests that you give them your power with no actual accountability measures.

I’m excited that British Columbians have the chance to vote for an electoral system that better represents their wishes as expressed on election day, something which hasn’t happened in this province in a very long time. What we’ve heard from British Columbians of all political stripes and experts from across our country is that we have an opportunity to make our government more democratic, more accountable and more collaborative. The only experience that I have had in this place is one of collaboration, and it’s one that I invite all members to be a part of.

[7:35 p.m.]

Today I stand in this House and urge British Columbians to embrace this opportunity. I stand in support of the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act and to give British Columbians the power to change back to the first-past-the-post system after two general elections if they find the change to proportional representation doesn’t serve them. After all, that is the job that we have in this place.

R. Coleman: I’m glad the member for Saanich North and the Islands is thrilled about sitting for the first time late into an evening. I was having a conversation with him earlier and explained to him that in the five years I spent in opposition, we hardly ever sat until seven o’clock. Most nights it was nine, often 11 and always to the end of July. So there is good and bad in this particular conversation.

I’m going to speak to Bill 40 initially, and then I’ll have some other comments as I go through and tie them back. Most of the speakers got up and talked about proportional representation. I want to talk for a minute about the fraud of the Election Act in British Columbia.

We cut off spending for organizations as of a certain date last summer to be able to go out and talk about proportional representation. We put spending limits on individual organizations up to $200,000. The government decided that $500,000 for the yes and the no side was sufficient to try and educate over 2.5 million voters in British Columbia about a very complicated issue.

If I, as an MLA, wanted to put something in the paper tomorrow with regards to my opinion or change any of the rules or talk about the rules relative to this particular referendum, I would be under investigation by Elections B.C. Tonight we’re discussing a bill that has been deliberately put in place because people are nervous they might not like the outcome of a referendum.

The government has decided: “Let’s do something else.” Let’s be ultra vires in the middle of an education process and a voting process in British Columbia, as the government, and say: “Okay, we don’t think you’re quite with us yet, so let’s give you a little carrot. Let’s put a cherry on top of this thing. We’ll give you another referendum in eight years after two elections.”

The first question we have to ask ourselves is…. This conversation and the passing of the bill during a period of time when people are restricted from spending money, breaking B.C.’s Election Act. Is Elections B.C. okay with this? I can tell you, some people at Elections B.C. are not. They won’t come out and publicly tell you that, but they are befuddled. I’d be befuddled too, if I was them.

They’re being asked to enforce the rules, be prepared to charge people who are raising money wrong, spending money wrong, telling us what we can or cannot say as an MLA, whether it be partisan or non-partisan, where we can do it from and what platform we can use so we do not break the Election Act of B.C. When this bill passes, if it does — and I would hope the members in here think about this — I can guarantee you, if it doesn’t happen tomorrow, even before it goes to a third reading, that there will be an email on the government email broadcast about this bill telling people they’ve got a safety valve.

It will go out to tens of thousands of people, paid for by public servants, in the middle of a period of time when nobody is allowed to do anything to promote their side of a referendum unless they’re following the rules laid down in the Election Act. This is a breach of that act. It’s actually a fraud that I’ve never seen take place in this House before. It’s amazing to me.

Can you imagine how many people are on that list? By the way, I get them too, because I’ve never unsubscribed. I like to see what they’re up to. Every day five, six, seven emails go out making some government announcement. And you can bet this’ll be one of them, right in the middle of a writ period. Even governments in writ periods don’t do this, except this one.

Why? Are you afraid of the opinion of British Columbians so much that you decide you’re going to go play this little shell game to break the rules?

[7:40 p.m.]

Are you dying to see what the challenge will be to the courts of Canada with regards to the fact that you tried to manipulate the vote of people in British Columbia after the fact, after you closed the rules with regards to who could represent, after you chose the yes and no sides, gave them their budgets and said nobody can spend more than $200,000 in individual organizations with regards to that. So my first question will be: can you show me the $1,200 individual donations, up to $200,000, if you’re going to stay within your limit?

As the government of B.C., to go and put this into the middle of a referendum is nonsensical. Why didn’t you just wait until you saw the results of the referendum? Why do you need to do this now? Because it gives you an additional promotion that no citizen of British Columbia has the opportunity to have. And they’re confused. Even Elections B.C. is confused by it.

I see it as a subversion of a legal process. Not only have you misled British Columbians as you tried to put together the question, which was supposed to be a clear yes-or-no question; you’ve come up with this thing that you have where two of the questions aren’t anywhere in the world, where there’s no education opportunity because you made the budgets so small that you can’t even talk to the voters of B.C. — not to the point where you can actually understand what it is you’re trying to have people decide on. And you go ahead and then decide to do a backhanded, through-the-back-door promotion by the government of British Columbia in the middle of an electoral process to change people’s thinking. Wow. It is something else.

Shortly we’re into November. November 11 is Remembrance Day. I know, as a child growing up, one of the proudest things my father did was vote. If we tracked the ships that my dad was on during the Second World War in the North Atlantic, in the navy, and what went on at D-Day and the ships that were in the English Channel, it was quite likely he was in the English Channel on D-Day.

My father-in-law was not on a ship. He was on the beach. He landed with the first people from Canada to fight for our democracy and our freedoms.

I can tell you that neither one of them today, having explained how this thing is set up and how people will be able to be on a list of a party, not actually put their name on a ballot, and could get appointed as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia…. They would be stunned. They would think, knowing the history of what brought on that war, that somebody has really missed the boat in Canada about the fact that they’ve forgotten about history.

It goes deeper than that for me. I’ve always believed in the vote too. I was in the reserves, and I was in the RCMP. I tried to pass the importance of the vote on to my children and also the importance of service. I guess I did all right there because my son chose to serve in Afghanistan.

I know what it’s like when somebody believes in their country and their freedoms, to be the parent of somebody that’s serving overseas and wondering every single day what it’s like to do that — not a conversation I could have talked him in or talked him out of. He believes in this country, and so did the other young men who I know grew up with him, who went with him.

They believe in the freedom to vote, and they believe in the freedom of expression. I can’t imagine that they believe that in the middle of a legal voting process, a government should try and do a self-promotion to try and save a vote they want to go a certain way. It’s unbelievable.

It’s unbelievable to me because there are so many factors we don’t know. There are 29, actually, different factors — 29 different factors that people do not know if they vote for the referendum.

[7:45 p.m.]

“It’s okay. We’re not telling you, and we don’t want you to know. We’re going to keep the amount of money people can spend down so they can’t educate you. But that’s okay, because — wink, wink, nod, nod — for some reason, after two more elections, you get to do it all over again. But you’re only going to find out what those factors are if the referendum should, as a mistake to the history of B.C., be passed.”

Listen. Think about this. How many MLAs? What are the sizes of the ridings? Does somebody actually have to put their name on a ballot to be elected? Yes. But can they get into the Legislature through the back door because a party executive appoints them? Yeah, they can. Imagine that.

All the people, including the Green Party members in their history that I’ve listened to over the years, hated the unelected, unaccountable, appointed senate. But they want a half-unelected, appointed legislature.

What happens with the vote that my family fought for and the belief in the freedom…? Well, half of it gets flushed by these guys. What constitutes a rural riding or an urban riding — 200,000 people, 30,000 people? What’s the number? How big are the geographies? How do people actually get to see their MLA? How do they get an issue dealt with?

I’ve been doing this for 22 years, and not once have I ever asked somebody who came through my door, in my constituency, who needed my help how they voted, what party they believed in or who they were from that standpoint. Not once. I don’t believe that an MLA, once elected to represent a constituency, does anything else but serve the entire constituency in a non-partisan way. And I’ve seen that.

Now, I understand. I know the leader of the Green Party is just dying to heckle me.

That would take us down the road about that dinner you owe me about the words you were going to eat when LNG got approved and some other conversations and debates about different kinds of attitudes and behaviour around this place. But I don’t want to get there.

I want to know whether the list for parties, to decide who gets to be an MLA, is open or closed. Do the parties decide before an election?

“Well, we know we’re probably only going to win one actual seat on the rules, but we might be able to appoint two more. So, Joe, you and I will have an agreement that we will appoint ourselves MLAs. We won’t raise a dime. We won’t articulate a position. We won’t have to talk to a constituent. We won’t have to return a phone call. We certainly won’t have to knock on a single door. But we’ll get in there, and we can be so self-righteous when we’re there because we’re now MLAs” — even though not a single person actually, in the freedom of a vote, got the opportunity to select you. Imagine that. It’s incredible.

Can we actually choose a system? What’s it going to be? Twenty-nine different choices. As the member for Vancouver–False Creek…. What the question here is…. The government has many different options to choose from, in proportional representation systems, but actually, they decided not to inform the voter about what they are. They’ve got this trust-me attitude.

They think, in the middle of this, “Ah, just in case people in British Columbia actually get a chance, on minimal budgets, to figure out what this is about or have some questions about it, let’s put a little ultra vires thing in here, in the middle of this process, where everybody else has to follow the information rules, everybody else has to follow the funding rules, and we’ll use government and government’s communication and tell people they have another option,” frankly, to try and change their vote.

You don’t have the confidence in people to do the mail-in referendum to the point that you now decide you’re going to change it? And you’ll spend your money to promote the change when everybody else is restricted as to what communication they can do, what moneys they can raise and what they can do. Pretty stunning when you think about it.

[7:50 p.m.]

People are going to talk about the referendum in their comments relative to the second reading of this, because it does talk about a future referendum. Even the Attorney General of this province — who, surprisingly, is the one who brought this legislation, given the fact that he comes from a civil liberties background, that he understands the legal parameters around this sort of thing and has always, in my mind, whether we agree or disagree on issues, thought about the fairness and the legal fairness within the systems of government and society — said that two of the options that are available under the referendum are not currently in use anywhere. Yet they’re being asked to vote about it and not based on anything where they can point to success or understanding or anything across the world.

Now the same Attorney General, who I always thought believed in some level of fairness, although I didn’t think his consultation process was deep enough…. I don’t think he went far enough, relative to actually engaging with British Columbians.

There are a whole bunch of people, who actually aren’t on line all the time to do on-line surveys, who have an opinion about stuff that goes on, particularly people who have made the ultimate sacrifice and served their country. Those that aren’t even here in Canada, people that are actually in theatres of war and peacekeeping missions around the world, cannot get a ballot in this referendum. Imagine that. Some guy in the Gulf on a ship, who’s serving this country, who’s a British Columbian, cannot get a ballot. They’re the ones that are defending our democracy, defending our country.

As we go through this choosing that we’re doing, it’s really about a number of things for me. I’d be happy to have a more fulsome debate in the public, to be able to educate my constituents if I was allowed to. The restrictions that were put on were deliberately put on to handcuff the people on both sides of this debate from educating the public. You’re talking about a restriction on everybody around you except for you.

I’m not going to put this on the Third Party. This is a government bill, a government bill that says, in the middle of a process where we said you could do certain things…. You could only communicate a certain way. You could only spend a certain dollar. You had to register if you wished to do anything. In the middle of that process, a government has stepped up with a bill to play a game to sway the vote. It will publish this thing and celebrate and email and Twitter and Facebook this bill to the people who are trying to make a decision about proportional representation.

Why? I don’t know why. It’s not even in the style of the Attorney General of this province, whose history as a civil libertarian was fairness. He and I may disagree on some things, but I think we believe in fairness. I can’t believe how he could think this is fair — in the middle of a process, which is about to go to a vote, to add something to try and change people’s opinion.

I don’t know where this came from. It’s remarkably disappointing. People in every corner of this province today, who have the chance to debate the merits of a system with limited education because of limited restrictions on what people can and cannot do, are trying to come to a decision.

I can tell you what the yes side will be doing. They will be changing every single one of their town halls, should this bill pass to get in front of them. Where people are out there saying: “No, I don’t really support this….” “Oh no. It’s okay. We just changed the rules. You get a do-over if you don’t like it. So take the chance.” It’s incredible that you’d do this within an elections act. It’s restricting your citizens on what they can and cannot do and what they can and cannot spend and what they can and cannot say.

[7:55 p.m.]

In an environment where MLAs are restricted as to what they can and cannot do…. They need a separate organization if they actually want to have a counter-opinion, because somebody will charge them or say it’s a cost to a campaign. It’s remarkable. This comes from a government who claims to be fair.

Now, I think some of the things get misguided in this place sometimes. People say: “Nobody is allowed to have an opinion in this House.” I ran in 1996. Before I did, I asked, of the leader of the political party I chose to join and run for, one question: “Am I allowed free votes?” We were, and we have been.

To this date, in 22 years, I can tell you that the only side of this Legislature, whether it be opposition or government, that ever allowed free votes in this place is my B.C. Liberal Party. They’ve allowed that. Whether it be in opposition or in government, you had a free vote, and I’ve used it. There are no free votes anywhere else. So don’t tell me that proportional representation is going to change this, because you’re all not going to be able to change your style and understand how important that freedom is, to have a vote.

The conversation about what parties look like and what the Legislature looks like is important to this. We didn’t bring in a piece of legislation after people said: “You know, I actually would like to see the maps. I’d kind of like to know what the options look like. I’d really like to kind of know how this vote breaks down by region, to kind of know that.”

“No, we don’t have time to do that. It’s too much work; it can’t be done.” But we have time to go write a piece of legislation, right in the middle of the writ, that for all intents and purposes breaks B.C.’s Election Act. We will go out and promote this, with money, to everybody in B.C., on line, using government money to convince people to vote some way in the middle of an electoral process that restricts every other single person in the province of British Columbia.

If that’s the case, why didn’t you do the work on the maps? Why didn’t you come out with a better explanation of the systems? Why didn’t you put that information out there, instead of having this fraud, this charade of a piece of legislation that says, “Oh, go vote for prop rep because in two elections, you get another do-over,” right in the middle of ballots being mailed out to British Columbians? It’s despicable, actually.

I know that people are going to get up and rail about this and say, “What a great piece of legislation,” and they’re actually going to spend most of the time talking about how great prop rep is. They’re not going to get up and admit that this little thing is a fraud.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

They’re not going to get up and understand the fact that they’re actually breaking the fundamentals of B.C.’s election process. They’re not going to get up and admit that even people in Elections B.C. are stunned by this legislation and cannot for a minute figure out why — in what was already pretty much a designed, unfair process — they can decide to go even further and propagate a fraud on the people of British Columbia.

It’s incredible. It’s incredible to me, because somewhere in a back room, I guess, will be a formation of people that sit, under this legislation — political parties and MLAs chosen from political lists.

There’s also a group that decided: “Hey, let’s go put this into the conversation, because it might be enough to change people’s thinking about this. We don’t care if we’re in a writ process, for all intents and purposes, because we shut down the ability for British Columbians to spend money and communicate on this thing back in July. Back in July, we said you could only raise money, $1,200 at a time, from individual British Columbians.”

We’re all playing by those rules, except the government. The email blasts that’ll go out on this thing will be so funny to watch because they’re going to say: “Wow, we passed legislation to make you comfortable so that you’ll vote for something.” That’s ultra vires. I can’t actually believe the Attorney General brought it forward, with his notion of fairness. I can’t believe that they think it stands up to a challenge in court, that in the middle of a writ period they can go do something like this.

[8:00 p.m.]

That’s what they’re doing, and they’re doing it for only one reason. It’s because they don’t want to show us maps. They didn’t have time to do that, but they had time to write a piece of legislation to say: “We’ll do it again in eight years.” They can’t tell us the sizes of the ridings. For some of the members in the north, it’d be the size of some European countries or larger.

They can’t tell us who the Premier would be or whether the Premier could be appointed from a list — a Premier that could be appointed from a list and never have ever once stood in front of the people and asked for a vote. Imagine that. Then you wonder why people who have seen and know the history of their families and the sacrifices they made to protect democracy and the peace and the freedom of our country, like myself, are frustrated by this legislation.

It breaks every fundamental that I grew up understanding. A government, in a writ period on a referendum, bringing a piece of legislation to change the outcome of a vote by the citizens of British Columbia — after they’ve already restricted their ability to communicate, after they’ve already restricted their ability to do their jobs — comes with an ultra vires piece of legislation to deliberately change the conversation. It doesn’t say on the ballot that these three choices can be rethought about eight years from now. It didn’t say that in the legislation that put the referendum together. It didn’t say that in the consultation process. None of that was included.

I thought the world of my dad. I loved my father-in-law as a friend. I’m proud of my son for serving this country. I’m proud of his friends who served with him. My heart goes out to those that suffer from post-traumatic stress because they believed in this country. This legislation at this time in the middle of an electoral process lets them all down. PR shouldn’t be manipulated by a government midway through. It’s a shame, it’s a travesty, and it is wrong.

A. Weaver: Well, that certainly was half an hour of righteous indignation on display for us today. I had not planned to start my speech with this quote, but I think I will, because it’s fitting after the member from the Langley area just went on that diatribe.

This is a quote from a video by Justin Greenwood, named the interim deputy leader of the B.C. Conservative Party. This is with reference to Bill 40, which is before us, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, and which is, in essence, adding a new, second referendum to elections after now, within 13 months, to validate, if proportional representation passes, that British Columbians want to stay with the system.

This is what Justin Greenwood said, and I think it’s apt and fitting for me to read this into the record. On a video available on YouTube, he said this, on behalf of the B.C. Conservative Party:

“As a party, we have chosen not to take a stance on the referendum at this time, other than to ensure our membership and fellow British Columbians have the information needed to make their choice. I felt it necessary to make this video because of the vote ‘no’ side, which is mostly supported by” — he used the name; it’s the Leader of the Official Opposition — “the B.C. Liberals by using fearmongering tactics laced with misleading statements in order to tell you how to vote. This is solely because if prop rep passes, their party will implode. It’s purely for self-preservation purposes only.

“Those attributes and tactics are not the ones I would support in a party leader, let alone someone who is assuming to be the next Premier of British Columbia. Indeed, the Leader of the Official Opposition should be helping spread the information needed for British Columbians to make an educated vote on an electoral system that suits them best, a choice you can make by using your freedom and agency.

[8:05 p.m.]

“The Liberals have stated that the ballot is very confusing and lacks direction. Luckily,” he says, “I’ve gathered an elite team of problem-solvers which consists of a crossword puzzle superstar, a word search champion and a sudoku master to help crack the code of the confusing ballot.”

Therein, he went on to show quite clearly how easy it is for British Columbians to read the ballot.

I, frankly, am shocked at the language I’m hearing from members opposite. I’m shocked that they have so little respect for the intelligence of British Columbians that they feel they need to try to mislead, to fearmonger and to stand up and ensure that they vote the way the B.C. Liberals want them to vote, without actually trusting that British Columbians might actually be interested in learning.

What’s also remarkable about what I’m hearing is…. If I take you back to the throne speech of June 22, 2017, this is what the B.C. Liberal throne speech said. It said the following:

“The results that British Columbians delivered in the May election require cooperation. Your government is committed to working with all parties in the Legislature.

“Following referenda in 2005 and 2009, there remains a desire by many members in this place to revisit electoral reform.

“With the confidence of this House, your government will enable a third referendum on electoral reform. It will require extensive public consultation to develop a clear question and will ensure rural representation in the Legislature is protected.

“It is vital that the referendum reflect the views of British Columbians, not just its political parties.”

This is precisely the process that government has gone through over the last many months in an unprecedented consultative process leading to, I believe, 91,000-some-odd submissions — incredible consultation. What’s remarkable, too, is that we hear the rhetoric emanating from members opposite. Let me take you back a few months to what these same members, two of whom have already spoken, said in response to the throne speech.

Here, for example, the member for Richmond-Steveston, who hasn’t spoken yet, said in response: “Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized in recent years. We held referendums” — it’s grammatically incorrect; it should be “referenda” — “on electoral reform in 2005 and 2009 — both times of particular importance to me because I was either a candidate or seeking re-election as a member of this assembly. 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.” That’s the member for Richmond-Steveston arguing passionately for another referendum on electoral reform.

Here’s what the member for Chilliwack-Kent said: “We said that the people of British Columbia will decide that question, and we will provide a path to that decision point. I have no problem with that.”

The member for Abbotsford-Mission said the following:

“Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized by our time in government. The discussion about electoral reform will allow us to open up that dialogue, and it’s been a source of discussion around the province. Our government is addressing that. It’s something we make a top priority.

“We are also looking,” he went on to say, “at electoral reform. Electoral reform, I know, is something that is of particular interest to our friends….

“We’re going to develop another referendum and develop a clear question, which reflects the needs of British Columbia, but protecting key populations and ensuring that rural areas are treated fairly here in the assembly….”

Precisely what government has done.

How about the member for Penticton? He says the following: “We know that if there is a reform that takes place in the future on how people are able to govern out of this wonderful building…. There is a promise that has been put forward for electoral reform no later than November 30, 2018. I hope we work together” — I love those words — “through that extensive consultation that should take place, to develop a clear question that British Columbians can understand….”

Sidebar. Do you want…? And this is part of the parody in the interim B.C. Conservative deputy leader’s video. He shows the ballot. “The question is, basically: do you want proportional representation, or do you want to stay with first-past-the-post? Yes or no?” Pretty clear, if you ask me.

[8:10 p.m.]

This question, in this other referendum, Bill 40 — we haven’t seen the exact wording — will essentially be: do you want to stay with the system we just went through, assuming that prop rep passes? These are pretty clear questions.

Coming back to what the member for Penticton said, he said: “A clear question that British Columbians could understand and can see that it is 100 percent in its meaning and depth and also that not only protects urban areas but also protects the rural areas of British Columbia. I think that’s really important, because sometimes rural B.C. is forgotten.” I agree with the member for Penticton. In fact, that is being reflected in the options that have been put forward.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who was over the top with his enthusiasm — opposite — for this referendum today, rhetoric that’s screaming out of the windows and off the ramparts, said the following in the throne speech: “We are committed to enabling a third referendum with a clear question and absolute protection for rural representation.” Seemed okay at the time.

The critic, the member for Vancouver-Langara, who spoke first in this debate, said: “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 listened, and we’ve acted.”

On and on and on it went in the response to the B.C. Liberal throne speech — quite frankly remarkable. You would never have known it, given the vitriol that was thrown government’s way today.

Again, coming back to the interim deputy leader of the B.C. Conservative Party, Justin Greenwood, he says it all. He says…. Here again it summarizes the reason why he felt he needed to speak. He needed to speak out because he felt that: “The B.C. Liberals are using fearmongering tactics laced with misleading statements in order to tell you how to vote, and this is solely because if prop rep passes, their party will implode. It’s purely for self-preservation purposes only. Those are not the attributes and the tactics that one would want in a leader.”

I’ve listened to the arguments. I’ve attended a debate with the member for Richmond-Queensborough, a debate on prop representation. I’ve listened to the no side. What saddens me is that these debates, not the case of the member for Richmond-Queensborough — he did a very fine presentation — are not constrained by facts.

Even today we heard statements of truth that are nothing more than conjecture, fearmongering about boundaries. I don’t know what the boundary is going to be for my riding if there’s a first-past-the-post election in 2021, because Elections B.C. periodically reviews the boundaries. I found out that I had parts of Victoria in this election not too long before this past election. It happens all the time that we look at electoral boundaries.

They talk about rural B.C. and “can’t draw maps.” Well, in fact, if they actually read the document, you would see that it’s quite clearly outlined about how ridings would likely double in size. You basically bring two neighbouring ridings together in most of the cases, with the exception of the rural-urban one, where you would have slightly different changes. It’s very clearly described what would happen there.

It’s also very clearly outlined as to how a process would go forward to determine open versus closed lists. My own preference is open list. Open list is my preference. They, the members opposite, seem to suggest that somehow it’s pre-decided that it must be closed list, that somehow there’s party elite that are going to be put in to become Premier without ever being elected.

In the world, there are — I’m not counting Myanmar and Venezuela — only a couple of examples of western democracies that still retain first-past-the-post: the United States and Canada. Even in Great Britain, Scotland is on a form of proportional representation, whereas England is not. New Zealand. Australia, in the Senate, and it has a preferential balloting system in the House. Virtually every single democracy in the world has a got a form of proportional representation.

[8:15 p.m.]

Heck, the latest result in Bavaria showed a doubling of support of the Green Party there, a surge of support in the Green Party in Bavaria, a state within Germany that has proportional representation. Prince Edward Island went through the referendum. It passed. They decided not to do it.

B.C. has the potential here of being a leader in Canada if the people of British Columbia want it to change. It’s very simple. Do you want to change or not? If it changes, two elections from now, there’ll be another referendum to say: “Do you like what you saw? Shall we keep it?”

We go back to the New Zealand example. The ballot here in British Columbia is very similar to the ballot that was done in New Zealand when they went for proportional representation.

I can tell you, from somebody working in the Legislature in a minority government, that it is hard working with another party. It is not easy at all when you come together with very different backgrounds and ideas. But you get better policy, better public policy, when you’re forced to collaborate, forced to listen. Sometimes you have to give more than you want, and sometimes you get to take more than you thought you would get. But it’s about collaboration and cooperation. It can get testy at times. People can be firm in their positions.

Good public policy arises when politicians are forced to work together, and we’ve been demonstrating that here in this Legislature for the last 18 months or so, much to the chagrin of members opposite, who can’t fathom the fact that different political parties can actually work together.

Instead, they have to create some fearmongering approach that somehow the world as we know it is going to end and evoking the raiding of Normandy, for heaven’s sake. I mean, this is just so offensive — evoking the troops in Normandy as somehow being affronted. One member opposite talked about how the people who made the greatest sacrifice wouldn’t be able to vote. Of course they can’t vote. They’re not here today. They made the sacrifice. The rhetoric that was coming was just outrageous.

This is really about a referendum, and do we trust the people of British Columbia, as we have twice before in two votes on the single transferable vote? Do we trust them to have enough information? Do we trust them to be able to determine what’s in their best interests? The B.C. Liberals don’t. They don’t trust British Columbians to actually think for themselves. It’s not the B.C. Liberal way. The B.C. Liberal way is: “We’ll tell you because we know best. Not only that. It’s a small section of us — the elite in the party.” Even the backbenchers: “We’ll tell you the way it is, and it shall be that way.” This is what we’re seeing modelled here in the objections of the members opposite to this referendum.

Remarkable. Even if they didn’t like proportional representation, why would they not support this? This is giving British Columbians a way out if they don’t like it. Even if you don’t…. Again, I understand that there are 17 years of nefarious kinds of activities and backroom deals and conniving. For them, everything that’s done has to have a Machiavellian outcome. I recognize they think that this is some kind of Machiavellian approach to actually influence things. How about: it’s actually listening to what people have said? People have actually said they wanted a chance to have an election.

Have they ever thought that maybe government is listening to people? I know that the B.C. Liberals had a difficult time listening to people, but here we have a government listening to people, bringing in legislation that says: “You know what? If you do vote for this system and you don’t like it, we will give you a way out two years from now.”

I’ve heard so many examples of misinformation being put forward on this referendum. For example, I’ve heard people say that somehow party elites will choose who’s coming in. Well, let me tell you right now, if you were in a number of ridings in British Columbia where you could essentially run anybody from a particular party and you know they will get elected, the person who actually gets appointed is from the party. It is the party right now that already determines which members represent that party in certain ridings. In some ridings, getting the actual nomination from the party is pretty much a shoo-in to being elected. So right now….

Frankly, we just have to go back to the referendum when the Premier at the time lost her seat in Vancouver–Point Grey and was parachuted into Kelowna West, where she was able to get a seat. This is already happening in terms of the claims that the members opposite are making.

[8:20 p.m.]

The other things that they have said are things like: “Well, you’ll lose local representation.” The irony — to hear that coming from the members opposite about losing local representation. How do the people in the Okanagan feel right now, knowing that there is not a single MLA sitting on the government side? Not very good about that, I can tell you. How do you think the people of the Okanagan, who didn’t agree with government policy, felt — not ever having somebody sitting on the opposition side for the previous 17 years? Not very happy.

While some of these Liberal MLAs might think that they represent all people, I can tell you, as an MLA serving the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, that I was inundated from emails, from constituents in Liberal ridings, because their MLAs would not take on the issues because they contravened the political party of the day’s policy.

This isn’t about access to health care systems. You know, maybe you have a person who needs help accessing. All constituency offices work in that regard. This is about…. Perhaps there’s an overpass in a region where there’s a concern for a natural ecosystem, and the MLA for the area is not willing to actually entertain meetings with concerned citizens. They come to us.

If, in these regions, you had representation from both opposition and government, you’d actually get better local representation. The Okanagan. Pick nine MLAs who are serving in the Okanagan right now. You probably would have had…. Of those nine, five of them would have been B.C. Liberal. Three of them would have been B.C. NDP, and one of them would have been B.C. Green. The Okanagan would be served by members in opposition, members in the Green and also members in the government. Healthy for democracy.

Vancouver Island right now has but one representative in Parksville-Qualicum. There is nobody in opposition from the Victoria region, and prior to that, there was nobody in government in the capital regional district. That’s wrong. Liberals in the capital regional district need representation. They need representation in this Legislature, but they don’t have it.

Again, it comes back to what was so succinctly pointed out by Mr. Greenwood, the B.C. Conservative Party interim deputy leader, who essentially says: “The fear is really an internal fear that the B.C. Liberals know that their loosey-goosey coalition of conservatives and liberals is going to fall apart.”

To be honest, there are hardly any Liberals left, actually, over on that side, but that’s okay because they’ve been…. I know there’s one over there. I know there’s one.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I do have a lot of time for that one federal Liberal over there. But there’s not many left in that party.

This would be healthy for democracy. It would be healthy for there to be a party that actually represented the views, the prevailing views, of people in the Fraser Valley, front and centre when issues come up that they feel are not being dealt with. It would be healthy for people to feel like their views in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and elsewhere were actually represented in a manner that puts…. Not having to be diffused by competing interests, by certain ridings here and certain ridings there, but are actually able to speak out passionately for these issues in both opposition and in government.

If you’re an opposition MLA, you can speak out directly. If you’re in government, you can’t speak out directly. It’s much more difficult.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I like the chippery over there.

I understand that the Liberals….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s 8:30, true. Whose idea was this to go till nine o’clock?

Coming back to the point, much of the information that has been put forward, I fear, is actually doing the no side an actual great disservice. I have talked to many people, and people feel very suspicious as to information that they can quickly check today themselves on the Internet to be factually incorrect.

When factually incorrect information is put forward, it does a disservice — talks about these splinter parties somehow rising out of nowhere when you need to have 5 percent of the vote in order to actually get representation. Again, a misrepresentation that is being put there.

People have talked about the fact that there would be party lists — that all these people will just be appointed from backroom deals. Misrepresentation there.

People talk about loss of local representation. Again, misrepresentation there, because you have the constituents. People somehow think that this is unique in the world when, again, what’s different is actually the fact that in British Columbia we are very much unlike the rest of the world where forms of proportional representation exist.

[8:25 p.m.]

With that, I really, truly cannot understand why members opposite…. I feel they have lost their moral compass. Why they would not vote in support of a bill that actually gives British Columbians a choice to go back to the system if they don’t like proportional representation and it passed is really mind-boggling to me. I wish I could understand it. I look forward to some more of the commentary coming our way in the debates of this bill.

R. Glumac: Let’s have a conversation about voting. In the last election, we formed a minority government where two parties, the NDP and the Greens, had the opportunity to work together on issues where we have common ground. Together the NDP and the Greens received 57 percent of the popular vote. The majority of the people in British Columbia voted for their government. That seems to make sense. That’s a reasonable thing, I think, in a democracy, where the majority of people actually voted for their government, but it’s actually rare in our first-past-the-post system.

When you look back to when the election happened, Premier Christy Clark and the B.C. Liberals tried desperately to hold on to power even though they only had 40 percent of the popular vote. I don’t know if you remember that, but it dragged on for months and months as we tried to get in to become the government that represents the majority of the people in the province. They had 40 percent of the vote, and they did everything they could. They even changed their throne speech to reflect everything that we had in our platform in a desperate attempt to hold on to power.

This is not an unnatural occurrence, because this is what the B.C. Liberals have gotten used to. They’ve gotten used to having all the power without the majority support of the people of this province. In 2013, they received 44 percent of the popular vote, and they got 100 percent of the power. In 2009, they received 46 percent of the popular vote and 100 percent of the power. In 2005, they received 46 percent, again, of the popular vote and 100 percent of the power.

In fact, there was only one election in the last 100 years where one party received more than 50 percent of the popular vote and became government. Think about this for a second. In nearly every election in British Columbia, the majority of people in this province did not vote for the government. It seems to me there could be a better way of doing things.

The B.C. Liberals are fighting to keep the current system because they want to have all the power. They don’t care if the majority of people vote for other parties. They just want the power. They don’t want to cooperate. They don’t want to collaborate with any other party. They just want all the power.

Negotiation is not something that they like. Compromise is not a word that they understand. Listening is not something that they like to do either, unless, of course, it’s a big corporate donor or the top 1 percent of the province. Then the ears are wide open, and they’re listening.

But you know what? We fixed that issue by banning corporate and union donations. Now we have the opportunity to fix the issue of the voting system that does not work for the majority of British Columbians.

[8:30 p.m.]

We have that opportunity in a referendum coming up and a very simple concept where if 25 percent of the people vote for a party, they get 25 percent of the representation.

Interjection.

R. Glumac: Exactly. That’s very fair because that is proportionally representative of what the province and what the people of the province want.

You only need to look at where this has happened across the world. Look at the data, the statistics on this. Have a look at it. We know that people have a greater sense of satisfaction in democracies where proportional representation is the voting system.

You look at indicators, such as the world governance indicator, the Transparency International corruption index, and proportional representation democracies outperformed first-past-the-post democracies in 16 of the 17 measures of sound government, including areas like quality and independence of public service, quality of policy-making, rule of law, control of corruption.

There’s another benefit to proportional representation systems. They actually result in a greater diversity among elected representatives. In PR systems, there are 8 percent more women elected.

You can look at one example of a single country that uses two different systems, Australia. They use a proportional representation system in the Senate and more of a first-past-the-post system for the House, and two and a half times more women were elected to the Senate than to the House.

Canada, U.S., U.K., France — these are all first-past-the-post countries. None of these countries have more than 30 percent of their representatives being women. In New Zealand, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, that all use proportional representation, all have more than 30 percent being women. In Sweden, it’s 45 percent women.

Another benefit of the proportional representation system is it actually increases voter turnout. You look at the data. You look at the statistics. In PR democracies, the average voter turnout is 7½ percent higher, and the voter turnout among youth is 12 percent higher. Certainly, we want to see more engagement in our democracies.

I hear lots of mocking coming from the opposition when we hear about more people voting. Apparently, that’s not something that they’re in favour of, but I think it’s a good thing.

Another advantage is that in proportional representation — and here’s a really important thing — there’s consistency between elections. When you have a first-past-the-post system, there tends to be a wide swing from one philosophy to another philosophy. One government can undo everything that the previous government did. That’s not effective government. That’s exactly what Stephen Harper did in dismantling so much of the environmental protections that were in place under the previous government.

Consistency between elections, interestingly, also leads to stronger economies. Countries that have proportional representation, on average, have a 0.05 percent of GDP surplus, and first-past-the-post countries have a 2.9 percent deficit. In fact, nine of the ten top economic performers in the OECD with the highest GDP per capita use — do you know what it is? — proportional representation. That’s right. Interestingly, actually, even corporate taxes are lower in countries that have proportional representation, which I’m sure the opposition would be very excited about.

Human health indicators are higher. Life expectancy is 12 years more in proportional representation countries. Infant mortality is 75 percent less.

[8:35 p.m.]

So what exactly is the downside that we’re looking at here? We know that the opposition wants to keep this current system, because it gives them power when they don’t deserve it, when they don’t have representation, don’t have the mandate of the majority of people in the province. Our government has the mandate, in cooperation with the Greens, of the majority of people in the province.

Now, there are criticisms that some may have of proportional representation — that it might result in more elections, more unstable governments. That’s actually not the case when you look, again, at the data, which the B.C. Liberals are not fond of.

Between 1945 and 1998, in proportional representation democracies, there was an average of 16 elections in that time period, compared to 16.7 in first-past-the-post. So it’s exactly about statistically equal.

There’s also concern around fringe parties that may crop up under a system like this. Fringe parties…. When we talk about fringe parties, we’re talking about parties that have less than 1 percent of the vote, and we have a threshold of 5 percent in place in this legislation that we’re amending. You won’t get any seats in the Legislature until you have 5 percent of the vote.

Let’s take a look at a specific case to demonstrate this and how this works. In Denmark, in a recent election, there’s a party called the Danish People’s Party. It’s considered an anti-immigration party. Interestingly, this party is the second most popular party in Denmark. Under a first-past-the-post system, it’s quite possible that this party could’ve formed government and had 100 percent of the power — 100 percent of the power. That could have happened.

Just like how that happened in Quebec recently with the Coalition Avenir Québec, which received only 37 percent of the vote and got 100 percent of the power, also an anti-immigration party.

That’s not what happened in Denmark. That didn’t happen because they have proportional representation. In Denmark, a coalition government was formed, and the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party, despite getting the second most votes, did not become a formal part of the ruling government. That’s what proportional representation does.

Now, when we look at and when we think about the most extreme cases of leadership in the world — I mean, maybe someone who, you know, has fans, perhaps, in the opposition — the person that comes to my mind as an extreme leader is actually Donald Trump. Interestingly, Donald Trump was elected with less votes than his opponent — 46.1 percent of the popular vote versus 48.2 percent for his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Nearly three million more people voted for Hillary than Donald Trump. This is a fundamental example of the failure of a first-past-the-post type of system.

There are other examples that have been cited many times closer to home, with our esteemed colleague in Ontario, Doug Ford. Again, the opposition a big fan. Doug Ford is leading the government of Ontario with 100 percent of the power after only receiving 40.5 percent of the vote. And now Doug Ford is dismantling the work of the previous government.

He’s cancelling the carbon cap-and-trade system unilaterally, even though the majority of the people in the province voted for different parties. He’s cancelling the Green Ontario fund, which paid Ontarians to make energy-efficiency updates in their homes and businesses. He’s cancelling Ontario’s basic income pilot unilaterally.

He’s cancelling labour reforms that would guarantee that part-time workers would receive the same pay as full-time workers unilaterally. He’s cancelling minimum wage in­creases unilaterally. He’s repealing updates to the province’s sex-education curriculum, reverting back to an outdated 1998 curriculum, unilaterally.

He’s announcing hiring freezes across the public service unilaterally. And he’s using the notwithstanding clause to circumvent the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to reduce the Toronto city councillors from 47 down to 25 unilaterally.

[8:40 p.m.]

He’s doing all of this despite the fact that the province, the people of the province of Ontario, voted in majority for parties other than his party, and that can happen here.

All the good work that we’re doing right now could be undone if we stick with the first-past-the-post system. Maybe the opposition is just waiting for the opportunity to cut back funding on education again, because that’s what they did when they were in government. Maybe they’re waiting for the opportunity to shut down schools again and to force school districts to sell valuable land.

Maybe they’d like to defund the affordable child care plan that we’re putting in place. Maybe they want to put tolls back on the bridge. I think that one’s probably going to happen. Maybe they want to put regressive taxes like MSP premiums back in place. Maybe they want to erase the poverty reduction strategy that we’re putting in place right now, because they certainly didn’t like that when they were in power. Maybe they want to remove the Human Rights Commission.

Maybe they want to scrap our climate change policy. Maybe they want to scrap improvements to the environmental assessment process. Maybe they want to bring back the grizzly bear hunt. Maybe they want to reduce disability rate increases. I don’t know what they want to do, but they could do it with 100 percent power without the majority support of the voters of this province under a first-past-the-post system.

I can tell you one thing I’m pretty sure they would like to do, and that’s bring back corporate donations, because their donations have been drying up. For the first half of 2018, B.C. Liberals have raised only 59 percent of what the B.C. NDP have raised with personal donations. This isn’t a surprise, because the B.C. Liberals were a party that represented the top 1 percent of income earners, the party with the most money, with the most representation of people with the most money and a lot of money that they wanted to throw around. That situation they no longer have, because we’ve taken away their corporate donations.

We could go back to that with less than 50 percent of the popular vote. That is exactly what the opposition would like. The idea of a coalition government that requires cooperation, that requires respect and that requires listening to the people of this province is not something they can support.

What do we have to lose? Let’s give it a try. The legislation that we have here is an opportunity to change our voting system for the better. If proportional representation passes, we will have another referendum in two elections to confirm that it actually is as great as I’m saying that it is here, based on all of the data that I’ve been using and quoting from. We have that opportunity to validate that it is going to be better for the people of this province.

We have nothing to fear. We have an opportunity to prove that this is actually going to be a better voting system. And we’ve shown that we can do this. We can have a minority government with support from 57 percent of the voters, two parties working together collaboratively. Let’s trust that we will all be better represented under a system in which the majority of the population is represented in government.

D. Barnett: I’ve sat and listened for the last I don’t know how many hours to the rhetoric in this House from this side of the House talking about democracy. What is democracy?

[8:45 p.m.]

Democracy is when people make decisions and send people to this House by vote. In my riding, people elected me. They didn’t elect somebody for you to appoint. They elected me. In the riding over here, this person was elected. That is democracy. How in the world do you really believe that anybody can understand what you’ve put on the table? How do you really believe that? There is no way to get out and explain it to people. You have restricted everybody’s hands by getting out and telling people what is proposed. People don’t know what’s proposed. They are trying to figure this out themselves.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There have been two referendums already on this particular topic, and yes, we talked about maybe another one. But in those two referendums, there were 60 percent of the population that had to get out and vote. That is democracy. This is absolutely, in my opinion….

Interjections.

D. Barnett: Pardon me?

Hon. D. Donaldson: You didn’t use that on the HST.

D. Barnett: We’re not talking about HST. We’re talking about democracy and the right to vote and the right to get into this House.

You talk about two parties. My colleague over here just mentioned how two parties working together is democracy. Only if the agenda is those two parties’. It’s got nothing to do with the wishes of a constituency.

Interjection.

D. Barnett: Come to my constituency and argue with me if you wish. I have….

Interjection.

D. Barnett: Excuse me. I have the floor.

This is what we call democracy. This is what we call respect. This is what we call working together. This is not what it is meant to be in this House.

Noting the time, I will reserve my place and ask for ad­journment of the debate.

D. Barnett moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 8:47 p.m.