Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 158
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Auditor General, Understanding Tax Expenditures, October 2018 | |
Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., annual report, 2017-18 | |
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, annual report, 2017-18 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is Minister Akio Isomata, who is the deputy head of mission at the Embassy of Japan in Ottawa. It’s a pleasure to welcome Minister Isomata to British Columbia. He will be meeting with myself and a number of ministers throughout the day. Would the House please make him feel welcome.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds to introduce a very famous police officer.
R. Chouhan: It’s a very special introduction indeed.
It gives me great pleasure to introduce Staff Sgt. Major John Buis, who has been a member of the RCMP for 42 years, with the majority of his service in British Columbia. He has served at Burnaby detachment for 26-plus years, having been posted there on three occasions. He first came to Burnaby detachment on April 20, 1977, on his posting from Depot, and his latest service at Burnaby detachment began on September 4, 2004, and I met him at that time.
Staff Sergeant Major Buis has also served at White Rock detachment, E division headquarters, Richmond detachment and Vancouver International Airport. He also served on two United Nations peacekeeping missions — the first in the former Yugoslavia in 1994, and in East Timor in 2003 and ’04.
Staff Sergeant Major Buis’s duties over the past 42 years have included uniformed general duty, plainclothes general investigation, administrative reviewer, analyst, police policy writer, emergency response team member, technical troop member, federal police investigator, plainclothes and general duty supervisor — phew, it’s a long list; oh my goodness — media relations specialist, firearms and police and public safety instructor, VIP security specialist, UN police monitor, watch commander, district commander and is now the executive NCO to the police office in charge of Burnaby detachment.
Apart from his excellent service over the years, what I like most about John is his commitment to Burnaby, to keep it a very safe community, and his legendary moustache.
John enjoys physical fitness activities, particularly running, walking, swimming and cycling. He has been married to his wife, Kellie, a school teacher, for 41 years. They have three grown children, one of whom is a member of the RCMP, now serving in northern British Columbia. In the next few weeks he will be retiring from his active duties in the RCMP.
On behalf of everyone in the House and particularly the citizens of Burnaby, wishing you happy retirement, and thank you for all the work you have done.
L. Reid: I rise today to wish my husband the happiest of birthdays. We also celebrated our anniversary this month, and I tell you we’ve been married more than 20 years. He continues to tell everyone it’s only ten years, since I’m away half the time.
Happy birthday, my love.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 44 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION (EMPLOYER
HEALTH TAX) ACT, 2018
Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018.
Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce the Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018. This bill enacts the employer health tax, as was announced in Budget 2018.
B.C. is the only province in Canada with medical service premiums that have been rising, costing families hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. As we announced in the February budget, we believe it’s time for a different approach. So we are delivering on our commitment to the people of B.C. and giving them the break they need.
We’re moving forward with eliminating costly medical service premiums and introducing the employer health tax. Together, these measures will reduce taxes by approximately $800 million per year, one of the largest tax cuts for people in this province’s history. By 2020, individuals will save $900 a year and families up to $1,800 a year. The employer health tax will generate revenue to partially replace medical services premium revenues to support the crucial health services that people rely on.
This bill enacts an annual tax, just as other provinces have done, effective for 2019 and subsequent calendar years, based on an employer’s B.C. remuneration. We’re also protecting small businesses that are the cornerstone of our communities and sustainable economy.
Employers with B.C. payrolls under $500,000 will not be required to pay this tax. Employers with B.C. payrolls between $500,000 and $1.5 million will have their rate phased in. Employers with B.C. payrolls greater than $1.5 million will pay the 1.95 percent of their total B.C. remuneration. With this tax, B.C. will be tied with Ontario for the lowest payroll tax in the country.
This bill also recognizes the unique role of charities and not-for-profits. Similar to other provinces, charities and not-for-profits with multiple locations will be eligible for an exemption at each location. Charities and not-for-profit organizations also will benefit from a higher exemption amount. This bill also establishes how the tax will be administered and enforced.
The administration of MSP was inefficient and costly, and the transition to the employer health tax will save more than $50 million. Today I’m proud to say that this legislation sets the stage for January 1, 2020, when medical service premiums will be eliminated in this province.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 44, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION
AND
VACANCY TAX) ACT, 2018
Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018.
Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
This bill enacts the speculation and vacancy tax, as was first announced in Budget 2018. This tax is a critical component of the government’s 30-point housing plan to improve housing affordability in this province.
Our province is facing a housing crisis that’s hurting people, communities and our economy. Prices have skyrocketed out of reach of local incomes as outside money has flooded into our major cities. We have a crisis, where hard-working British Columbians are being shut out of the housing market.
We’ve seen examples of families being forced to live in tents, workers and seniors living in their cars and young professionals leaving this province. As a result, businesses can’t find the workers they need to keep our economy growing.
As a government, we have a responsibility to act, to make sure that people can afford a home in the communities where they live and work. The speculation and vacancy tax is a critical piece if we want to moderate our overheated housing market. The tax creates a strong incentive for out-of-province real estate speculators and people who are sitting on empty second and third homes to make them available for rent or put them on the market.
The tax will, in turn, turn underutilized homes into homes for renters who are struggling with near-zero vacancy rates. The tax also will provide revenues to fund affordable housing initiatives in the areas most affected by the housing crisis.
This bill implements an annual tax, effective 2018 and subsequent calendar years, in the province’s core urban centres, where housing affordability is most acute. The tax is calculated at the rate of 0.5 percent, 1 percent or 2 percent of the assessed value of the property, with the highest rate applied to foreign owners and satellite families to ensure that they are paying their fair share of taxes.
This bill provides principal residence and rental exemptions and also special circumstance exemptions, including exemptions for people seeking medical treatment, people with disabilities and property that is being developed.
Mr. Speaker, we’re tackling the housing crisis head-on, and the speculation and vacancy tax is an essential piece in this plan.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 45, Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
McMILLAN ARTS CENTRE IN PARKSVILLE
M. Stilwell: Arts and culture help make communities vibrant. In my constituency of Parksville-Qualicum, we’re lucky to have a wide range of talented artists, venues and events to showcase them. This summer I had a chance to explore Parksville’s McMillan Arts Centre, a wonderful space that offers the chance to see, celebrate and experience the arts. My visit took me on a tour of Monet Revisited, an exhibit by renowned local glass artist Robert Held. It certainly did not disappoint.
In 2013, Robert Held closed the doors of his Vancouver studio and moved to Parksville, intending to retire, but it wasn’t long before he reopened Robert Held Art Glass. The work of this longtime glass blower is featured in galleries and gift shops all over North America, Europe and Japan, and a commissioned piece now sits in Her Majesty’s Royal Collection.
With his exhibit, Robert wanted to create an experience. The result was an homage to Impressionist painter Claude Monet. It was revealed this summer with Lieutenant-Governor of B.C. Janet Austin in attendance. Beautiful glass art rested on pedestals. A pond and a bridge, reminiscent of Monet’s garden, sat in the middle of the room, and the windows were covered with paintings that kept people submerged in the artist’s world. It was an engaging and unique experience.
Thank you to Robert Held and all the other artists who have helped arts and culture flourish in the community. Thank you to Jennifer Bate, the executive director of the McMillan Arts Centre, for the tour of a terrific venue that puts arts in the community in the spotlight.
I invite residents and tourists all around to explore all the wonderful opportunities to see the arts in my constituency, whether it’s at the Village Theatre or the Old School House Arts Centre in Qualicum, the McMillan Arts Centre or maybe a studio tour in Nanoose Bay. Let’s show our support and enjoyment for these talented artists that are making our communities beautiful, engaging and fun places to live, work and play.
LIBRARY MONTH
A. Kang: As a proud school teacher and a former library trustee, I’m proud to recognize October as Library Month in the province of B.C.
Public libraries are an integral part of our government’s vision for a province that works for everyone. They contribute to the government’s goals for making life more affordable, improving services and building a strong, sustainable and innovative economy.
Across the 247 public library service points serving B.C., libraries are making a difference to social and economic development and individual well-being through poverty reduction, rural development, and truth and reconciliation, which all play a vital role in helping our citizens.
Our public libraries are free, accessible and unique community spaces where people can explore ideas, create, make friends and gain new skills. Libraries work with communities outside the library walls, too. This summer I got to see something really cool: the Burnaby pedal library, which is a book bike that takes library services out into the community. Library Month also includes the opportunity to promote reading, school libraries and librarians.
I would like to use this very special opportunity to recognize three of my many favourite librarians. Thank you to Edel Toner-Rogala for inspiring me to love libraries beyond its books and walls. Edel’s parents instilled in her the notion that she could do anything if she could read, and Edel eventually became chief librarian in two different communities. Thanks to Diana Zimmerschied, for showing me that every book has its own unique flavour and personality, and to Beth Davies, Burnaby’s chief librarian, for her dedication and passion to leadership and to deliver people-centred library services.
Libraries are more than just books; public libraries are about people. Libraries remain relevant because hard-working staff and trustees are keenly aware of the community’s needs and strive to serve them.
Happy Library Month, everyone.
PAT WALLACE
P. Milobar: Today in the ridings of Kamloops–North Thompson and Kamloops–South Thompson, a special person will be attending her last city council meeting as an elected official. For 31 years, Pat Wallace has served as a city councillor in Kamloops. Pat’s contributions to Kamloops and the surrounding area are immeasurable. She has not only been a city councillor. She was the first female chair of the Thompson-Nicola regional district.
In addition to her elected roles, Pat was also a president of UBCM and for six years was the vice-chair of the green municipal fund of the FCM. She was a provincial returning officer for four elections, and chair of the library board. She was on the Royal Inland Hospital board for 12 years and the Kamloops AIDS Society board for three years. She’s a recipient of the Queen’s Silver Jubilee Medal and was the Kamloops United Way fundraising chair. There’s too much more to keep listing.
Pat has always been known to speak her mind. Unwavering in her convictions, you always knew where you stood. As witnessed by the long list of associations she worked with, Pat is always looking for ways to improve people’s lives. I was fortunate to know Pat as a family friend, and when I sought elected office, Pat was generous with her time, giving me advice and background on issues important to Kamloops. Her ability to recall the history of issues and projects would provide much-needed depth and context in many council debates.
If you were not sure what the proper protocol was for a visiting dignitary or city event, Pat was always the go-to person to make sure that things were done properly. From visiting royalty to a neighbourhood association meeting, you checked with Pat. In true proper protocol fashion, on election night in 2002, when we realized that we’d both been elected, Pat looked me straight in the eyes and said: “We’re colleagues now. Stop calling me Mrs. Wallace. It’s Pat from now on.”
There is no doubt that Kamloops is the community that it is today in large part due to the contributions of Pat Wallace. I am honoured and proud to not only have worked with Pat but to stand here today and call her a friend.
I’ll end today with a piece of advice Pat shared with me years ago. I always remember it, and I think it would serve all members of this House well some days. Early in my career, Pat once again looked at me and said: “Just remember, Peter, all fish die by the mouth.”
Thank you for this time today.
SHERMAN JEN BUILDING
AT ROYAL ROADS
UNIVERSITY
M. Dean: Early last month I was honoured to join the Minister of Advanced Education at the official opening of the new Sherman Jen Building on the Royal Roads campus in Colwood.
It’s a remarkable facility. This near-$25-million project included major renovations and upgrades to the heritage Mews Building. The province contributed $9.3 million, the federal government contributed $5.7 million, and philanthropist Sherman Jen donated more than $7 million.
More than half of the new Sherman Jen Building is renovated space, and there’s a 2,000-square-metre addition. There are environmental science teaching labs, wet labs, and academic support and integrated student service space. This modern facility will help students and researchers discover new ways to protect our environment and cement long-lasting international partnerships.
Royal Roads University is truly a unique place to study. Students come here from all around the world. Many are mid-career and want to tackle problems they’ve seen firsthand in their lives. They want to take what they learn here at Royal Roads and apply it to real-world sustainability problems.
In the next ten years, there’ll be more than 900,000 job openings around B.C., including more than 150,000 jobs in the Vancouver Island and coast region. Most of these jobs will need post-secondary education. Our workforce will need people that are passionate and informed about the environment and can find new innovative ways to be sustainable.
These new modern facilities will equip students with the education they need to thrive in B.C.’s growing economy. I’m here today to say congratulations to Royal Roads University president Allan Cahoon and his amazing team that have brought this vision to reality.
GENE GRECZMIEL
J. Yap: About two months ago, Richmond lost a true pillar of the community, Gene Greczmiel. Gene was well known for his business smarts, moving from a stint as a dairy farmer to a career in home-building and land development.
He formed E.H. Greczmiel Construction and Conway Richmond Estates, which became Conway Richmond in 1983. Some of his notable developments in the city of Richmond include Maple Lane, Westwind, and Terra Nova. He also developed and owned commercial real estate properties, including Blundell Centre, the highly popular neighbourhood shopping mall in west Richmond. Gene Greczmiel, born and raised in Richmond, was truly a local success story.
In addition to achieving big dreams, he also had a big and generous heart. He supported numerous organizations, big and small, in our community and beyond. Gene assisted the Richmond Hospital Foundation, the Richmond Food Bank and the Richmond working poor fund as well as organizations like B.C. Children’s Hospital and Covenant House in Vancouver.
On behalf of all members of this House, I offer our condolences to his family — Barbara, mother of his two daughters, Michele and Lisa; his seven grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren.
In business, Gene Greczmiel will be remembered for his keen eye for cutting-edge home design and style, his ability to ask the right questions and his desire to learn from everyone and everything around him. In life, Gene will be remembered as a generous, caring contributor to our community — and, as his family adds, an incredible teacher and storyteller.
Rest well, Gene Greczmiel, and thank you for your service, your achievements in and your kindness to Richmond. You will be missed.
ALOUETTE RIVER MANAGEMENT SOCIETY
B. D’Eith: The Alouette River Management Society, or ARMS, was formed in 1993. At the time, its focus was to negotiate with B.C. Hydro to increase the river flow on the Alouette from the Alouette dam and to revive the river’s ecosystem. In only three years they achieved their goal with the river flow, increasing it by fivefold.
Just three short years later, in 1999, ARMS completed the beautiful Rivers Heritage Centre, which is located in my riding of Maple Ridge–Mission. It plays host to many events, including the annual Ridge Meadows Rivers Day education seminars. It sits right above the Allco Hatchery operated by B.C. Corrections. This hatchery is a wonderful opportunity for female prison inmates from the Fraser Regional Correction Centre to be involved in a very positive experience.
Since its inception, ARMS has become involved in nearly all aspects of watershed stewardship, including education, inventory and monitoring, habitat restoration and lobbying for protection of aquatic habitat. Currently ARMS is working on the restoration and return of native fish to Alouette Lake.
This year ARMS celebrated its 25th anniversary. Last month they held a celebration on Rivers Day, which no amount of rain could keep people away from. I was happy to meet many of the longtime advocates and supporters of ARMS. There was a small ceremony where founders Jeff Clayton, Gord Robson and Tom Cadieux, along with local community partners, were recognized for their work along the Alouette rivershed. There was also recognition for B.C. Corrections and the Allco Hatchery for their amazing work on the river.
I want to congratulate and thank ARMS — the staff, the board and the numerous dedicated volunteers. I’ve witnessed, both as a citizen of Maple Ridge and as an MLA, ARMS’ dedication to their goals and vision to protect and enhance the Alouette watershed not just for our community today but for generations to come.
Oral Questions
REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX
A. Wilkinson: Today we saw the introduction of the new NDP phony speculation tax, which has nothing to do with speculation. It’s a misconceived policy that’s already causing damage to local economies.
Four days ago the mayor of Langford wrote a letter to the Premier: “The tax is already impacting our economy with cancelled real estate investments, deferred construction and delayed purchases. One Langford developer has recently laid off 30 employees as a direct result of the speculation tax.” The upshot is reduced housing construction, layoffs, unemployment — all because of the NDP’s speculation tax.
Will the Finance Minister read the letter from Mayor Young in Langford, listen to the mayors of British Columbia and repeal this tax before it comes into effect?
Hon. C. James: I suppose I should not be surprised, once again, to hear from the other side a complete lack of interest in dealing with the crisis we have in housing in British Columbia. I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition take a look at the UBC report that came out last week that, in fact, interviewed and talked to people who are, including the family, living in a tent because of the lack of affordable housing. No vacancies available for tenants, no houses available for people to address.
We are addressing it. Is it going to be easy? No. Are we going to fix the mess that you left overnight? No. But we’re going to get started, because people deserve that in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: This is the height of NDP arrogance and hypocrisy. “Let’s put people out of work. Let’s reduce the housing supply.”
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.
A. Wilkinson: “Let’s reduce the supply of housing. Let’s put people out of work. Let’s go against the will of all of the mayors in British Columbia” — all because of an ideological commitment to penalize people who want retirement homes. It has nothing to do with speculation. These empty statements from the Finance Minister about people living in tents have nothing to do with this tax.
Will the Finance Minister please reply to the mayor of Langford? He said: “Importantly, the proposed speculation tax does nothing to increase the supply of housing or grow the economy. In fact, it actually undermines Langford’s approach.” Will the Finance Minister come to her senses and at least have the courtesy to reply to these mayors?
Hon. C. James: Who did nothing? The other side did nothing for housing here in British Columbia.
I spent time at the Union of B.C. Municipalities, listened to the debate on the floor, and have met with the mayors in the communities. It is our responsibility as government to address the biggest crisis facing the public in this province.
If you talk to people across this province, they will tell you that housing affordability is at a crisis, and a government should react to the issues that are facing people in our province. Unlike the other side, we are going to do that. We are going to make sure that we address this crisis for the people of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: The Finance Minister seems to forget that during the Liberal tenure, close to one million people moved to British Columbia and found housing because we provided an environment where people could build houses and be successful. Now we have a Finance Minister who says she’s going to solve the housing problem by destroying value, unemploying builders, antagonizing mayors and creating no housing whatsoever for the sake of a revenue grab.
Will the Finance Minister please have the courtesy to reply to the mayor of Kelowna when he says that this proposed tax will not have the desired outcome and will have negative effects in our communities? When is the Finance Minister going to come to her senses and give up the premise that this has anything to do with speculation?
Hon. C. James: Central 1 Credit Union: “B.C. Housing starts rose for a second straight month in August,” up 8 percent from July’s number and 28 percent up over the year before. The B.C. government is making record investments in affordable housing — $7 billion over ten years to build 114,000 affordable units of housing. And Kelowna. The member mentioned Kelowna. Luke Turri, VP of development at Mission Group in Kelowna says the speculation tax hasn’t had a negative impact on their 25-storey Brooklyn tower project in Kelowna.
We are supporting a strong economy. We are supporting businesses who can’t find employees because they can’t afford housing. We are addressing the crisis for the families in British Columbia. That is our job as government, and we are going to get it done.
S. Bond: Mayor Stew Young writes: “Parksville, Qualicum, the Gulf Islands and Juan de Fuca were in, but now they’re out. Whistler and Squamish, despite their high housing prices, have never been in. Communities like Langford, Nanaimo and West Kelowna have their concerns go on deaf ears. And during all this time, the province has not actually facilitated meaningful dialogue with any of the communities affected.” Not our words but the words of elected leaders across British Columbia.
Can the minister explain to Mayor Young, other elected officials and this House how she forgot to meaningfully consult with them and why she simply refuses to listen to communities who don’t want her tax?
Hon. C. James: In fact, I have not only talked; I have met with almost all of the mayors in the impacted areas. Almost all who were available and wanted to meet have had the opportunity to meet. I have had the chance to be able to listen at UBCM to the debate on the floor. But when the province is facing a crisis, when the people of British Columbia are facing a crisis, when our economy is facing a crisis because of the lack of affordable housing, it is the responsibility of the provincial government to act.
When we take a look at the urban settings that are part of the speculation tax, we see the crisis that’s there. Kelowna has a 0.2 vacancy rate. Nanaimo’s vacancy rate is 1.6 percent. Langford has a vacancy rate of zero percent for homes with three bedrooms or more, for families. Rents climb by 5 percent when it comes to cost.
We are going to address this issue. I will continue to work with the mayors. I will continue to listen to them. But it is the responsibility of government to address the biggest crisis facing the people in British Columbia, and that is the issue of unaffordable housing.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Not our words. The words of elected officials. “The province has not actually facilitated meaningful dialogue.” Words matter.
On February 23, the Premier said — perhaps those words matter to the Finance Minister: “If you pay tax in B.C., you are not speculating from outside of B.C.” A pretty straightforward principle that the majority of British Columbians would agree with. But this minister brought in a half-baked speculation tax that has no relationship whatever to speculation in our real estate market. In fact, despite the words of the Premier, the vast majority of those forced to pay the speculation tax — surprise! — are British Columbians.
When will this minister heed the words that the Premier said to British Columbians and end the unfair tax on British Columbians who are simply not speculators?
Hon. C. James: I just tabled the bill, so I know the member and other members will have the opportunity to go through the bill, see the specifics, be able to see the opportunity for people to be able to get the tax credit. I think that it’s important to note, again, that British Columbians have been clear. They want action. Over 70 percent of British Columbians support the speculation tax and the direction we’re taking to address affordable housing, because they know how tough it is for British Columbians.
The B.C. Real Estate Association reports that the average MLS price has eased by 1.1 percent from last year, and Sotheby’s says the speculation tax is already lowering the price of housing, including condos.
We’re focused on affordable housing. The other side may want to stand up for foreign speculation, for two or three or four extra houses left sitting vacant. We are going to make sure that we’re addressing affordable housing for the people of this province.
LNG CANADA PROJECT INVESTMENT
A. Weaver: Two weeks ago the province issued a press release heralding a $40 billion investment by LNG Canada. However, the government’s release provided no clarity about whether this investment was for the full plant, the full buildout, or just phase 1, consisting of two trains. In contrast, LNG Canada’s release on the same day clarified that the final investment decision was only for two trains but made no claim whatsoever about the size of the investment that’s represented.
To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, can the minister please clarify, for the record, whether the investment that government was celebrating in its press release constituted two or four trains, and if it is only for two, whether a separate FID process would play out for additional trains at a later date?
Hon. M. Mungall: I was very proud to be in attendance at the announcement two weeks ago. I think this historic event of a $40 billion investment in British Columbia and Canada is actually a very non-partisan event.
I was happy to see members from the other side who were also there, because British Columbians — whether in my riding or in that of the member from Aldergrove–Fort Langley, the member for Parksville-Qualicum or the member for Peace River North — are all going to be able to benefit from this, because $23 billion of revenue is going to be coming back to British Columbia to fund child care, to fund education, to fund post-secondary education and to be able to fund our climate goals.
Now, I know members of the B.C. Liberal Party have mischaracterized our position for many, many years. That was to their benefit to do so. It was to their benefit to do so, but let’s put partisan politics aside, if they can.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Mungall: I know that’s hard for them, but if they could, we could acknowledge that that $40 billion investment, that historic investment for this country, for this province, is an FID — to answer the member’s question — for the entire project. That project, like I said, is going to be beneficial to British Columbians — 10,000 jobs during the construction phase, 950 jobs in northern British Columbia. First Nations are benefiting; local communities are benefiting. That is good for B.C.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
A. Weaver: Well, thank you, Minister. That was a very simple question, and I can take it, from that answer, that the minister actually doesn’t know, which is quite shocking.
I’d like to dig a little deeper into the $40 billion investment rhetoric. The federal environmental assessment application shows low and high estimates of $25 billion and $40 billion for the project. However, according to this application, these estimates are for both phases of the LNG project for Kitimat. That’s four trains, not two trains.
When we turn to the provincial government’s own environmental assessment report, we find that the investment for phase 1 — that’s the two trains — is projected to be $13 billion to $21 billion, or half the number that the government highlighted in its press release.
Furthermore, it gets worse. In the assessment report of the B.C. government, it points out that for phase 1 costs, only about 20 percent of that will actually be spent in B.C. That would bring the number down to $2½ billion to $4.1 billion, a far cry from the $40 billion touted in the media.
To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, how do we reconcile the headlines in the government’s own press release with the environmental assessment reports that underpin the project, given that the minister has, I think, sort of clarified that the $40 billion is for four trains as opposed to two? It has to be, based on her own documents. Finally, after years of listening to the B.C. NDP criticize the B.C. Liberals for using over-the-top exaggerations and hyperbolic language when referring to LNG, does the minister not see the hypocrisy unfolding before us?
Hon. M. Mungall: As I said, this was a historic day two weeks ago. People all over British Columbia were celebrating it, particularly people in the north. The mayor of Kitimat, who is ecstatic to see the potential of 950 permanent jobs in his community, was there. The chief councillor for the Haisla Nation, Crystal Smith, was there. She saw how important this is for her community, as does the member from Kitimat.
He knows very well how important this is. He has spent many, many years working on this project and knows exactly the benefits that are going to be going to his community as well as throughout British Columbia, particularly in the north. This government was proud to be there two weeks ago and to be working with LNG Canada to get that FID.
GOVERNMENT HOUSING POLICY
AND RENTAL HOUSING
SUPPLY
M. Stilwell: In response to the Minister of Finance’s failing housing policies, the CEO of Redbrick Properties announced last month: “We have now halted plans for hundreds of new purpose-built rental units.”
To the Minister of Housing, why are her policies killing rental units?
Hon. C. James: Again, I would suggest that the members take a look at the speculation tax and take a look at the bill. They will see that rental housing is exempt from the speculation tax. In fact, we are putting a major investment towards rental housing, towards building housing in British Columbia. Unlike the other side, we feel it’s important to focus on all British Columbians, not just the ones at the top that the other side has worked for.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.
M. Stilwell: Back in March, the minister was all smiles for a photo with Aly and Abdul Jiwan from Redbrick Properties when there was a groundbreaking for rental developments in Coquitlam, but what a difference six months makes. To quote Abdul Jiwan: “What a disaster. Developers who have been trying to make new rental housing work just can’t do it now.”
How many units of rental housing does this minister intend to kill?
Hon. S. Robinson: We are in a crisis. It seems that the people on the other side haven’t realized that yet. We’ve had 1½ million renters who have been squeezed and squeezed because the old government refused to actually address what was going on for renters in this province.
We took action. We made sure that we had an annual allowance cap that was reasonable, that met the opportunities for landlords to invest in their properties if they need to. We’ve capped it at 2 percent for this upcoming, just at CPI. We’ve eliminated the 2 percent plus CPI. We felt that that was inappropriate. It was squeezing and squeezing renters.
So 34 percent has been the increase in rents over nine years because the old government refused to listen to renters. We listened to renters, and we’ve listened to landlords. We made sure of that. We have more recommendations coming from the Rental Housing Task Force. Together we can address this housing affordability crisis.
P. Milobar: Six months ago the minister posed with Jiwan and said that this company was a great example of market-based solutions to make housing more affordable. But in direct response to the minister’s policies, Jiwan now says: “We have now halted plans for hundreds of new purpose-built rental units. Government opposition to purpose-built rental business is stifling much-needed rental housing supply.”
Why is the minister stifling the very rental developments that she is claiming to be advocating for?
Hon. S. Robinson: You know, I’ve spent the last year in this file, talking with many developers and many landlords and trying to identify what were some of the barriers. The two biggest barriers for them were land costs — that was a significant challenge — and the development approval process.
We took some significant steps, some bold steps. We brought in rental-only zoning that would help manage some of those costs, and we’ve committed, at the UBCM, to take a look at the development approval process, to overhaul a process that is decades old so that we can make it more streamlined and make it work better for everybody — ideally, for the people of British Columbia so that they can find the housing that they desperately need.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.
P. Milobar: Let’s try this again. The Jiwans aren’t alone. Albert Huang is a non-market housing developer from Terra Housing, who is active with Abundant Housing in Vancouver. He says that the minister’s policies place redevelopment pressure on the older rental stock that is generally affordable. In other words, the minister’s policies will turn existing affordable rentals into high-end condos.
Will the minister explain why her policies are removing affordable rental units instead of creating affordable rental units?
Hon. S. Robinson: Perhaps the members on the other side don’t understand what it means to take bold steps in order to address the housing crisis.
This rental-only zoning — we have two local governments who have already expressed significant interest in that — is making sure that rental-only zoning means that you can build only rental. Remember, we have a million and a half renters in this province, and we need to make sure that there’s opportunity for purpose-built rental.
The other thing that I think is really, really critical…. Again and again, we heard from the other side complaints, when they were on this side of the House — all the complaints that they had for local government, the complaints about how long it was taking to get projects moved through the system.
Well, I listened. I was listening to the members opposite, when they were on this side, what they were saying, so we’re taking the steps. They could do all the complaining that they wanted when they were here, but they did nothing.
We are taking significant steps to address the development approval process so that it is a shorter amount of time, so that it’s more affordable for the developers to deliver on affordable housing for British Columbians.
IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT HOUSING POLICY
ON HOUSING STARTS
AND SUPPLY
J. Johal: A report by UBC and the Union Gospel Mission confirms this government’s housing taxes aren’t addressing affordability. Housing affordability is getting worse while NDP taxes drive investment away from new construction.
A question to the Minister of Housing: why are housing starts down?
Hon. C. James: Well, it’s pretty clear the other side just can’t make up their mind about anything.
We are standing up for affordable housing. We are making sure that those who are speculating in the market are being addressed and are going to have to contribute to be able to provide housing for individuals in our province who are struggling.
That’s the challenge we face when it comes to the economy. It’s the biggest challenge that came forward from business. The other side can ignore that all they want, but in fact, if you talk to the Vancouver Board of Trade, the chambers of commerce — over and over again, the issue of affordable housing is in a crisis. We are going to address it, and this is one more measure to do that.
Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: Housing starts have dropped 43 percent, September to September, according to CMHC. Housing market activity is falling while the NDP pile on dubious taxes and affordability continues to get worse. UBC and the Union Gospel Mission report that affordability continues to worsen under this minister.
Will she reverse course before more housing units are lost?
Hon. C. James: Well, unfortunately, after 16 years of neglect by the other side, it’s going to take some time to try and address it.
We continue to see housing starts at record levels. There is no question in British Columbia that we have to address the housing crisis. We have a 30-point plan, a comprehensive plan to try and address it, and with the mess that they’ve left us, yes, it will take some time. Yes, it will be difficult. But does that mean we shouldn’t get started? No. We are acting now.
T. Stone: The fact of the matter is this: every single initiative of this government has contributed to a significant decrease in housing supply in this province. This government is killing housing construction. They’re driving investment out of British Columbia. Every single measure is reducing supply. Not only have housing starts plunged 43 percent year over year, but housing construction is also predicted to drop a further 20 percent next year.
My question is this. Can the minister explain how a further 20 percent drop in housing starts will address housing affordability?
Hon. C. James: I would say to the member that if he talked to construction firms, they would say, as they have to us on this side of the House, that one of the biggest challenges they face are workers — getting workers to be able to live in the community that they’re going to work in, because they can’t afford housing. That’s part of the challenge.
The member talks about the economy. Well, let’s look at some statistics for the economy. Retail sales up 3.6 percent. Exports up 6.9 percent. Manufacturing shipments up 9.5 percent. Growing a strong economy needs to make sure that housing is there. That’s what we’re doing through our 30-point plan, and we are going to continue to address this issue.
Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: This government is not addressing housing affordability. They’re actually making it worse. Lots of good-paying jobs for British Columbians are now in jeopardy because of this government’s actions, which have only served to dramatically reduce housing starts. According to the Canadian Home Builders Association: “Contracts continue to be cancelled across the province, and each contract makes a difference for local businesses and their workers.”
Again to the minister, how does driving away housing construction, resulting in less housing supply, do anything to address housing affordability in British Columbia?
Hon. C. James: The B.C. Real Estate Association: the average MLS price has eased by 1.1 percent from last year. Sotheby’s says the speculation tax is lowering the price of housing, including condos. We are making, as a government, record investments in affordable housing — $7 billion over ten years to build 114,000 affordable homes in this province. That’s an investment that British Columbians can be proud of.
L. Throness: Well, the government is still enjoying the benefits of a strong B.C. Liberal economy, but there are ominous signs ahead. Residential sales are down 40 percent in Vancouver. In Chilliwack, they’re down 53 percent. There’s a domino effect in the housing market, and that means eventual layoffs for workers. This last week I heard about a drywaller in Chilliwack who has no work. Other tradespeople can’t be far behind.
Can the Minister of Housing explain how a projected 20 percent decline in housing starts in 2019 will help maintain the jobs tied to new construction projects?
Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to remind the members opposite that when the housing crisis was starting to be felt by British Columbians — and let’s be really clear, many British Columbians have been feeling it for a very, very long time — their response was that people should just stop whining. That was their response.
Our government has taken significant steps to address the housing affordability crisis. I’m proud of every single one in our 30-point plan. We should be very proud of the work that we’ve done, and I’m not going to take any instructions from the people on the other side of the House on how to address this problem.
[End of question period.]
Standing Order 35
REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
—
RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT
A. Weaver: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35 to make the following motion. By leave, I move that this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, that in light of the recent IPCC special report on global warming and in light of the federal emergency debate on this subject which occurred yesterday, whether we as legislators are acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change on our province.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the member’s issue and the concern about wanting an emergency debate under Standing Order 35. Standing Order 35 is traditionally — and the practice is in this House — to be used for issues of great importance that don’t have an opportunity for canvassing or debate. I know the general issue of climate change has been one that has been raised many, many times in this House during question period.
However, I am also aware that the report yesterday did receive an emergency debate, that the federal government did agree to do that. I am open to us having an emergency debate, but I would ask the Chair that it would be appropriate for the Government House Leader to meet with the Third Party House Leader and to discuss with the Official Opposition House Leader as to what the appropriate time for such a debate to take place would be.
As you know, that would be an hour-long debate that would take place in this chamber, and of course, there would be no vote.
M. Polak: Certainly, the opposition side stands interested in seeing the arguments being made and considering what relevance they may have to our current sitting.
I will say, though, that I really was astonished to find that something like this hadn’t been dealt with at the appropriate level — you would think at the secretariat. I am sure members will agree that we are currently debating some rather important matters. But I will say that if the coalition partners can’t find their way to agreement, we’re certainly willing to step in and assist.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members. I will reserve my decision subsequent to hearing the deliberations from your meetings regarding specific timing for this debate.
Hon. C. Trevena: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, a group of students from North Island College, which has campuses both in Campbell River as well as Courtenay, was in the gallery until just a moment ago. They listened to the whole of question period, which is rare for students, so I hope they’re engaged. I understand they’re going to be visiting your office in a short while. I hope that you will make sure that these students from the two campuses will be really well engaged and have a good tour. I hope the House will make them very welcome.
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following reports intituled Understanding Tax Expenditures from the Office of the Auditor General, Annual Report 2017-18 from the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia and Annual Report 2017-2018 from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM
2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018
(continued)
D. Barnett: Bill 40. This is a referendum that is very concerning to me, to many of my colleagues and to many of my constituents. Let’s go back to the referendum that is going to be voted on by the people of British Columbia in the not-too-distant future. Citizens of British Columbia are totally confused — a great job by the opposition on confusing the voters of this province.
I have many people in my constituency who continuously — doesn’t matter whether I’m at the gas station, in the Superstore, wherever I am — say to me: “What is this about?” It is as clear as mud. What is the question, really, and what is the answer?
The government of the day is saying: “Trust me. Just vote the way I want, and I’ll tell you what’s going to happen later.” And then they turn around and say: “Well, if you don’t really like it, in four or eight or 12 years from now, we’ll give you another referendum. You can think about what kind of a mess we made before, and maybe we’ll convert it back again.” The NDP and the Green partners are essentially asking British Columbians to buy now and see a return on your investment later. Except in this case, there is no buyer’s remorse. This referendum is legally binding.
With 29 different factors that won’t be considered until after the referendum, how are voters expected to make an educated choice when they aren’t being offered any of the relevant information? First of all, how many MLAs? Is that a difficult question?
The size of ridings. Is that a difficult question? What constitutes a rural riding or an urban riding? Is that difficult?
Whether we use a closed or open list or even whether we use a list at all. Will your MLA be appointed? Will your MLA be elected? Why do we not have clean, concise, clear answers?
Let’s go back in history. We had a lot of history last night by a lot of good speakers proud of the democratic system in Canada and in British Columbia. Why do you want to change that system? And it is quite clear why: because those in power want to make sure they stay in power. They’ve come to the conclusion that power is more important than people.
I’ve been in my riding for over 50 years, and I’ve had the privilege of serving in public office for almost 30 years, 17 as a mayor of a local community. I’ve sat on regional districts, hospital districts, social development programs…. I worked with constituents for all these times, and to me, people are the most important of my constituency.
The opposition over there says that this mean group on this side of the table does not listen and does not care. Well, believe you me, I have never heard anything said in a worse way than what the opposition is saying today about this side of the House.
I’ve been through some devastating times the last couple of years. I had the privilege last week — it was just amazing — to go to the Chilcotin where we celebrated a brand-new house that was burnt during the fire. The people had no insurance — no fault of theirs. If you live in rural British Columbia, your insurance may be $12,000 or $14,000 a year, if you can get it. They didn’t have any.
But with the help of their neighbours, myself and my colleagues here looking for funds — which we found, not from government — and the great people of the Mennonite relief association, we celebrated a beautiful, beautiful day in a brand-new house. That is what caring and sharing…. That is about what a constituency is about: working together, knowing who needs help, knowing when they need help and being there for them.
Now, they want — because I don’t really know the answers, as none of us do — maybe, if this referendum goes through, the original referendum, to appoint an MLA from who knows where to care about these people in the Chilcotin. And wouldn’t they just know what the issues are? No.
This is one of the most important times in British Columbia, and our system is great. Our system of democracy has worked forever.
You talk about history and the people before us who went to the First World War, the Second World War and built this country, what it is today, and built it because we have a system that works.
But our colleagues across the floor want to change it. Change it to what? We’ve had two referendums. Yesterday I heard from some of my opposition colleagues that this side of the floor said: “Well, maybe we’ll have a third referendum.” There’s nothing wrong with having a third referendum, but let’s make it clear. Let’s make it so that there are thresholds, not where 5 percent of the population of this province can determine the future of the people of the province of British Columbia. That is not democracy.
Let’s have a threshold, like we had in the last two referendums. Let’s take a look. Let’s be honest with ourselves. Is this fair? Is it? No, it is not fair.
You know, the government had many different options to choose from. What did they do? Did they have a citizens’ assembly go out and talk to people? No. “We’ll go on line. We’ve had 90,000 hits on line; 90,000 people telling us how they’d like this done and how they’d like that done.”
That is not democracy. Talking to people, going around the province, talking to people one-on-one — that is what needs to be done.
Many people who go on line — great. What are the results? What were the questions they put in? Have we seen any of that? If we have, I’ve missed it.
They can laugh over there all they want. It is not a laughing matter. This is about the future of British Columbia. This is about the next generation and the next generation. This is about leaving a legacy to our future generations. This is about respecting the people of British Columbia. This is about caring how this province was built.
Let’s not forget the past, and let’s look forward to a future that is bright, that is with hope — not with fear, as this is. Come on out and talk to the people in rural British Columbia and answer their questions.
You can sit over there and laugh and smile and think this is just another one of those things. “Oh, we’re going to have what we want. We don’t really care what you people think across the aisle. We don’t care what your constituents think. We’re just going to do this because we have a coalition. We have the power.”
That is not what British Columbians are asking for. That is not what people in rural British Columbia are asking for. What does the word “proportional” really mean to the people across there? That hasn’t been explained yet either. Does it mean people or geography? I don’t think they know either.
Maybe they should come and take a drive around some of our rural ridings. Maybe there isn’t that many people, but every one of those people deserves to be heard. Every one of those people needs a fair vote and a fair choice. With what has been put on the table here, that is not fairness. It is not equal, and it is not democracy.
This is a significant change if it is approved for the people of this province. And to put a second referendum on the table before the first referendum has been passed sure shows how much confidence they’ve got that what they’re putting out in the first place is going to be a real good and democratic process.
I cannot support Bill 40. I hope that most of the people in this House that have an opportunity to rethink the future of the next generation and the next generation will think hard and strong before they make any more decisions.
This is not something about power and control, folks. This is about the future — the future of this size. This is about caring about what democracy is about. This is about the whole province of British Columbia, each and every single constituent. I say think, and think hard. Think about equality and fairness. Think about what the future of this province will look like if we are unfortunate enough to have this new PR system in place.
I have a letter here from a constituent that is going in my local newspaper. I will not mention his name. You can look in my local newspaper and read it. He’s a dual citizen of Canada and New Zealand. In New Zealand, they have a PR system.
He says: “In the last New Zealand election by a caucus vote, the Labour Party ejected its leader and appointed Jacinda Ardern. As a result, Jacinda negotiated with NZ First Winston Peters to form a majority coalition. Deputy Prime Minister was the deciding favour to Winston.”
So for six weeks, while Jacinda was on maternity leave, the country was run by an appointed leader of a five-seat party, all in the name of power. An unelected, appointed person became the Deputy Premier, and while the Premier was away, took over and made decisions for the people of New Zealand. That is democracy in their minds. That is not democracy.
When I go to the poll to vote…. Fortunately, in this country, we do have that privilege. Many countries don’t have the same freedom and rights that we have. I never miss a vote, and I never intend to as long as I can. But I know who I am voting for, and I know why I am voting.
Under some of these proposed systems, you can go and vote for a party, but you don’t have a clue who you’re voting for. Many people vote for a person nowadays, not a party.
Why would good people put their names forward? Because at the end of the day, under some of these PR systems, you wouldn’t be elected anyway. You’d just be out there trying to work hard for your communities, put your name forward. But at the end of the day, some party that’s got all these votes because of a great population in another part of the province may become the government, and they will appoint your MLA.
I encourage each and every one of us in this House to look at our conscience, to look at what is being proposed. Let us remember the word “democracy” in every sense. Let us remember our path. Let us remember our future generations, and let us give them the same opportunities of freedom of speech and freedom of choice that we had during our time here.
Hon. S. Robinson: To be clear, I move the second reading of Bill 40. That’s what’s being discussed here on the floor this morning.
I had the opportunity to hear the members opposite speak about some values, values that I believe members in this House do share. But I find it very fascinating when I think about the values of fairness and equality, about what that means and what that means to British Columbians.
When I think about how we vote currently under our first-past-the-post system…. It’s one of those exercises where you go and you vote, but you can have a situation that we’re seeing over and over playing out — whether it’s in the United States in a president or whether you have the current party in, for example, Ontario, or even the previous government — where they get lower than 50 percent of the support of the residents of the defined area, and they get 100 percent of the power.
So when I think about fair, about what fair looks like, the question becomes: is that fair? Is it fair that 36 or 37 percent of the population can put their voice forward and have 100 percent of the power from the people that they voted for? What happens to everybody else, the other 60-some-odd percent? Their voice is not represented in a meaningful way.
You could argue that: “Well, that’s what you sit on the other side for, and that’s what their job is.” But those ideas don’t get filtered in, because of this oppositional system that we have in a first-past-the-post model.
When you take a look around the world, there are dozens and dozens of countries that have found a better system, a system where every vote counts. So you can be in a riding and support a different party. Especially in a riding…. I think about where there’s a safe-seat riding, and there are people who say: “Well, I don’t agree with the person who keeps getting elected and elected and elected and elected. I have a different voice. I want a different representation.” But they don’t get it. It doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t happen.
When I think about fairness and equality, it’s that that I think of. Because I believe, fundamentally, that everyone, every British Columbian, deserves to have their voice heard. They absolutely deserve that. Under the current system, that cannot happen. So really, this is about going back to this idea of fairness and equality. It’s also about, I think, respecting all the voices.
Now, when I think about how that plays out and what that looks like once you have a PR system, I think about the work that I did on Coquitlam council. It’s a slightly different model, but I think about the collaboration that happened among nine different voices. Because, you see, in order to get anything to pass, you only needed to have five. If you take a look at the voting records, there was sort of a mix-and-match that would often happen. Because in order to get to five, we had to work together. We had to find the common themes, the common threads.
I think that there are people in this House who’ve done that. They’ve worked in local government, and we’ve had to work together to find the best ideas and move them forward for our constituents.
That’s what a PR system allows us to do. Rather than being beholden to a certain sort of framework, it allows us to find ways to get the people that we represent, if you’re not in the majority, like we have in the current system…. You can find ways to get good ideas forward, move forward, so that really, at the end of the day, it’s about the people of British Columbia benefiting from better democracy.
It’s not about no democracy. The previous speaker was talking about people who fought for democracy. Of course, they fought for democracy, because democracy is fabulous. But there are different ways to deliver democracy, and proportional representation is yet another way to deliver democracy. It’s better democracy, because that’s what British Columbians deserve. They deserve the best democracy.
They deserve us to be working together, on our best behaviour, with our best ideas, so that British Columbians can have the best of 87 voices. But the current first-past-the-post system doesn’t foster that.
But a proportional representation system will force all of us to pay closer attention to our relationships as people, to the ideas that matter, to the people that we represent and to make sure that we’re delivering good governance. I think it’s absolutely important.
The other thing, I think, that’s really important to point out — and I know that everybody in this House is concerned about it — is that voter turnout is a challenge. Voter turnout is frightening, because we’re having 40 or 50 percent of the population determining who’s representing them, who’s making significant decisions on their behalf. Then, when you take a look, if you break the numbers down more and if only 37 or 38 percent of those with support form a majority government in first-past-the-post, it’s actually not a lot of people who are behind the democracy that we hold so precious.
I think one of the reasons that people are not voting, choosing to stay at home or not engaged, is because they don’t feel like their voice matters. They just don’t feel like their vote will count, especially in ridings that are considered safe seats — and I air quote safe — because one could argue that there is no such thing. But we have seen in this House where year after year, it’s the same party that gets elected because it’s a safe seat.
But what about those other people in those communities that have a different perspective? Where are their voices in this chamber? I’ve heard some of the arguments that, well, it’s our job as MLAs to represent everybody. I’d like to believe that we all do that. We make sure that they get the same service. Do they get the same policies?
Because that’s what our job is. I campaign on a particular set of policies that sits with my values in terms of who I am as a person and how I believe we need to move forward as a British Columbian. The people opposite have a different perspective. But there are people who support other parties in this House — the Third Party as well. Where are their voices in this?
Right now, I’m very proud of the fact that we’re working very closely with the Third Party members. We have lots of opportunities. They have opportunities to provide some good ideas, and we get to work together. I think that really demonstrates what we all want at the end of the day. We want a functioning government that brings forward the best.
I think that when people see us, the 87 of us working together, they will have more confidence in voting. They will feel that their voices matter and their voices can make a difference.
Let’s take a look at Ontario, for just an example, where Doug Ford ran a divisive Trump-style campaign. He won 40 percent of the votes and now has 100 percent of the power. I talk to friends and family in Ontario who are devastated about what’s happening there. They’re horrified. But hey, that’s first-past-the-post. That is how that system works. He doesn’t have to work with anyone, and his decisions are hurting so many people in that province.
In election after election, we are seeing this across the province. We’ve seen this in Ontario, and we’ve certainly seen this in the United States.
What’s really interesting, as well, about this particular bill that we’re debating…. I was listening to the member opposite from Chilcotin a little while ago, and I don’t know if she understands what’s in this bill.
I think it’s really important to recognize that this bill that we’re debating right now is actually not about the vote for PR or not or staying with first-past-the-post. It’s actually a completely different bill that says that after two elections, there’s the opportunity to have another referendum: do we keep a new system, or do we go back to first-past-the-post?
Now, I heard the words “buyer’s remorse,” and I thought: “Well, that’s an interesting choice of words.” But it does provide a sense of: this is new for us. New things are hard, absolutely. Change is hard. Sometimes it can be scary, because you don’t always know exactly how it’s going to play out. But you know what? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
To say that what we have is working when we all know it’s not working is a bit of what I would call crazy-making. It’s time for a change. It is absolutely time for a change. It’s time to have a different system of voting so that people can have their voices heard, regardless of where they live.
I heard the member opposite talking about rural British Columbia, and she kept insisting that somehow it all has to be different — that people in rural British Columbia are very, very different from the people in the southern part of the province. People are people, and people want to have their voices heard, whether they live in cities or towns or villages or whether they live in the bush or in highrise towers. People want to have their voices heard, and they want their vote to count.
Here we have a bill before us that says that we’re going to try proportional representation for two election cycles so that we can have a sense of what it means to have a government that works better, that works collaboratively, that takes the best ideas from everybody in this House. I bet there are fabulous ideas around this chamber, and when we have a proportional representation system, we’ll be able to make sure that those voices are at the table to help make the decisions that British Columbians count on us to make. They count on us to do that.
With the passage of Bill 40, what it says to British Columbians is that we’ll have the opportunity to try a new system — a system that works better for British Columbians. It works better, I think, for government. It works better for having the policies that make life and provide opportunities for British Columbians that they need. And after two cycles, if the system is not working, if it’s not what British Columbians had wanted, then we can go back to first-past-the-post.
Now, again, I’m thinking of what the previous speaker had said about democracy and about the fact that 90,000 people made a point of reaching out, of going to their computers, of logging in and of sharing their desires to change the system of voting in our province. I think that takes some considerable effort. Hearing from 90,000 people — it’s a significant number. I think that the fact that they’ve made sure that their voices were heard on this tells us that they are looking for change, that they are looking to have a voice — a voice that matters.
I think, in going forward, proportional representation will strengthen the voices of people from every region of the province, because every vote will count, and MLAs won’t be able to ignore voters anymore. If you’re in a safe seat, you don’t have to go out on the doorstep. You don’t have to pay attention to all the diversity of voices in your community. It will force parties to work together. Imagine that. Working together — it’s what British Columbians want. It’s what they expect. It also forces all of us to be more accountable.
We’ve heard from members on the other side that they’re not interested in supporting this bill so far. I hope that we’re able to change their minds, although I suspect that’s rather unlikely. But they have a lot at stake, because this system has worked very well for them for a very long time, where they can make a point of having less than 50 percent of the support, the popular vote, but have 100 percent of the power. That’s been a model that’s worked well for them.
When the previous member was talking about how this is about power, I’d actually argue with her that the no side…. No to proportional representation is about hanging on to power, doing their best to hang on to power, because that’s what’s important to those folks on the other side.
It’s really important that we make sure that British Columbians have a government that they have confidence in and a government that will work together to deliver for British Columbians, a diverse British Columbia, and a diverse British Columbia needs to have a diversity of voices. Proportional representation is the model that will deliver just that.
Supporting Bill 40 makes a point of saying we’re going to try this system because it’s an opportunity to deliver the kind of democracy that people really want and that people really deserve. If it is unworkable after two elections, if we can’t figure out how to make that work for people — at the end of the day, it really is about them — then we have the opportunity to have another referendum to go back to first-past-the-post.
I suspect that with a proportional representation kind of democracy…. I think people will be happier. They’ll vote more, and they’ll feel like they have a government that speaks for them with a better voice.
R. Sultan: I would like to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for a thoughtful, temperate, well-argued case. But my remarks are going to plumb the opposite end of the scale from members on the opposite side of this aisle.
I’m not sure if I’m up to the task of wading knee-deep through the tide of unctuous sludge left behind on the floor of these chambers last night by that academic who, yesterday evening, delivered a torrent of insults, abuse, directed at me and my colleagues in a manner which was angry, calculated to offend and invariably disconnected from history, facts or an understanding of the democratic process.
Some of the words which come to mind would include: belching, blathering, buffoonery, and bullying, bilious, belligerent, bombastic and another popular expression which begins with B, which I’m not allowed to say in these chambers.
If you can think of any other unflattering words beginning with “b,” I would welcome your contribution. However, enough of the flattery. I wish to speak in more detail about Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act.
It is sort of a built-in recall act for those desperate British Columbians — who, in future times, may have, as the minister just pointed out, to use the expression “buyers’ remorse” — after they accepted the results of the first referendum. British Columbians in every corner of this province are scratching their heads in confusion as they try to decide what this second referendum is all about when they really don’t have any real understanding of the first referendum.
I quote the member for Surrey–White Rock, who said: “Try using the algorithm from dual-member proportion, calculating the seats based on the largest remainder method and a Hare quota…. If you figure it out, let me know.” The member for Surrey–White Rock was the CEO of a rather large credit union. If she can’t figure out the arithmetic which underlines the voting schemes, I’m not sure we can expect many others to figure it out either.
I must confess that as someone with a PhD in mathematical economics from Harvard, I have rarely seen equations of such opacity and complexity. I defy anyone on the benches opposite to stand up and explain to this House the Droop formula. I’ll be glad to sit down and give them the floor right now. I see no one over there rising to the occasion to take advantage of my offer. Small wonder.
NDP wise man Bill Tieleman was on the radio the other day — CKNW, I believe — with Irene Lanzinger, who heads the B.C. Federation of Labour, debating proportional representation. Bill told Irene: “Well, Irene, we still have half an hour left on this radio show. So could you please explain the three referendum options to the audience?” Irene declined the offer.
It’s not simply the bewildering complexity of the voting method. There is the blatant unfairness of how we are asked to approve it. I find it hard to imagine hurdles set so low in the referendum process, which is culminating a few days from now. Short deadlines. Not much information. No money. Trolls working overtime.
Then we should consider the idiocy of this bill itself that we are debating, passing legislation promising a second referendum to be carried out if the first referendum passes, if there isn’t an election between now and 2021.
The whole concept around No. 2 bill is, in my mind, out of order. It will not bind anyone. All of us gathered here should know by now the fundamentals of this place. We cannot limit the powers of those who come after us. We cannot outlaw our successors from passing or repealing any legislation they see fit. But that is exactly the promise of this bill.
I call it silly, shameful, amateurish, wishful thinking, a meaningless election gimmick. Why don’t we, as an alternative, pass a bill right now with a great big tax cut for 2050? Now, that would be, I think, politically popular and would have about the same meaning as Bill 40 that we are debating today.
The philosophy behind this legislation imagines that somehow, in two or possibly three elections from now or maybe even four, the government of the day, elected under proportional representation, would be bound to hold a referendum on a possible return to first-past-the-post. I say two or three elections hence, because as we are well aware, any snap election held before the fall of 2021 would be held under the current election system.
If British Columbians take what has already been called a leap of faith by the Premier — what I would characterize as a plunge into the darkness — and vote to change our voting system to PR, selecting one of the three options — two of which seem to have been dreamed up some afternoon in some cabinet member’s office, I suppose, since they’ve never been used anywhere else in the world before — this bill presents them with an even larger leap of faith because what they are voting on is undefined. It’s simply another slogan, like the first slogan we are asked to approve in referendum. The details will all be worked out later by the NDP-Green alliance after the slogan is approved. Just like the first.
We are asked to deal with a bill today that has no substance, bereft of any connection to future reality. Imagine for a second that British Columbians have just concluded a second election based on one of the PR systems, going to mail-in vote in a few days. There’ll be a new government after that second PR election. It’ll be made up of some amalgam of parties. Some of the parties will be new, I’m sure. Some may be represented in this House.
Others may be fringe parties, representing what one journalist called the fractured Bavarian election just concluding two days ago, shards of opinions. Shards. Shattered glass. Shards on the ground. Some of these shards will be populated by MLAs chosen not by the voters but by the power brokers and the party insiders who draw up party lists. They could even, theoretically, I suppose, all come from Victoria, even though they might be asked to nominally represent people from the rural areas.
The government they form will be based on a backroom deal hammered out in coalition bargaining after the people of the province have voted, perhaps more than 600 days, close to two years, after the election itself, if what happened recently in Northern Ireland is any case example.
We can rest assured that the deal that is delivered in this hypothetical future will not be based upon delivery of promises made in election platforms. Rather, the new coalition will be stitched together for the sole purposes of building a coalition which can secure power, pulling pieces of platforms from here and there or dreaming up new arrangements on the fly after the election.
Principles proclaimed during the election will be set aside. Cabinet seats will be offered, I’m sure. It will be necessary to swallow hard and accept some of the ideas of the fringe within the coalition, however unpalatable some of those ideas may be.
For example, the leader of the anti-immigrant New Zealand First party…. New Zealand has, in recent times, been held up as this paragon of virtue, an ideal democracy. Somebody paid the lady to come up here and extol the virtues of proportional representation as she has personally experienced it. The leader of this anti-immigrant New Zealand First party failed to win his own seat in parliament, couldn’t even personally get elected. Well, we have to be a bit careful with that example because we’ve seen that experience ourselves. I see the Solicitor General smiling grimly at me.
In this case, the New Zealand First party won only 7 percent of the vote, but he was able to leverage. This has got to go down in history as one of the great political manoeuvring accomplishments of all time. From that unelected 7 percent base, they leveraged it into something like 20 percent of the cabinet members. He became Deputy Prime Minister, and when the Prime Minister went on maternity leave, for a period of time he in fact became de facto the Prime Minister of the country. Not bad. Unelected 7 percent vaulting into total management of the whole country. But this is proportional representation. Everything’s fair and square. We’ve been told so endlessly by the folks on the other side.
Back to my hypothetical future. It’s a safe bet many of the people making up that new government are unlikely to have gotten there through first-past-the-post, and they might owe their seat to the Droop formula. “We must rally around and defend the Droop,” would be the orders of the day.
I’m almost finished with my remarks, House Leader.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
This bill asks us to believe in some future time in a galaxy far and far away, a patchwork coalition government, born of the backroom deals and the Droop formula, will somehow gather and say: “You know what? Almost a decade ago the government of that day made a promise, and we are now going to keep it. We will not change one word of that original law. By golly, a promise made” — by some other government years ago, by strangers belonging to parties we can’t totally recall — “is a promise kept.”
How real is that picture? Well, I wouldn’t bet on it, folks. We will be reminding that this bill promising British Columbians of some future hypothetical era a revote on the issues of today is, frankly, ridiculous, deceitful and antidemocratic. I certainly shall not support it.
R. Sultan moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada