Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 168
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
On the amendment | |
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
J. Thornthwaite: I have two special guests today in the gallery, Brenda McClellan and Dave Walker. They are long-term friends of mine, but they have a connection to the member for Shuswap, because they’re actually from Shuswap right now. And they have a connection to the member for Delta South, because apparently — I just found out — he dated Brenda in grade 3.
I didn’t know that, Brenda; you didn’t tell me.
Anyway, could the House please make them welcome.
Hon. C. James: I have a constituent and a friend who is visiting today in the gallery. He is an active and engaged member of our community. He is a former constituency assistant in this area, on the Island. He is a mental health advocate, and now I’m very proud to introduce him as a newly elected greater Victoria school board trustee. Would the House please make Ryan Painter very welcome.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three guests here today who are here to witness the statements and question period. They are Christine Sorensen, the president of the B.C. Nurses Union; Robert Macquarrie, who is with communications with the B.C. Nurses Union; and Bonnie Christie, a registered nurse. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
I also have another visitor in the gallery today. Her name is Kim Charlesworth. She was the 2017 Nelson Citizen of the Year, a former councillor, a graduate of Dalhousie law school and an awesome candidate for us in the riding of Nelson-Creston in the 2017 election campaign. Would the House please make Kim feel very welcome.
R. Leonard: I hope that the House will join me in welcoming the class of Joy Tansky from the Phil and Jennie Gaglardi Academy, with her grade 10 students. Joy was a student at the B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy here, and she’s a frequent flyer, bringing students and future voters into this House. Please join me in welcoming her and her students.
Hon. K. Chen: I would like to welcome ten students from Canada Star Secondary School, who will visit the Legislature today with their vice-principal, Michael Atkinson, and also Ms. Angela Ellis from the school.
They are students who are taking comparative civilization 12 class and are here to learn about our work in the Legislature. I look forward to seeing them today, and I ask the House to please make them feel very welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD
RECIPIENTS IN PRINCE
GEORGE
S. Bond: It takes a pretty special person to be named the Prince George Citizen of the Year, but this year it wasn’t just about one special person. There were, in fact, four incredible recipients recognized as Citizens of the Year. Two minutes will hardly do justice to the lifetime of contributions they have made individually, but suffice it to say that their collective efforts have changed the face of our community, our region and beyond.
Les Waldie was recognized for more than four decades of community service. He co-chaired the successful bid for the 2015 Canada Winter Games; had a key role in delivering the Kordyban Lodge that serves cancer patients; and volunteered with the arts, sports and numerous community organizations.
Dr. Charles Jago was honoured for being a change agent. He was a strong proponent for the creation of a northern medical program, improved health care services and was chair of the Northern Health Authority board for 12 years — not to mention a former president of the University of Northern British Columbia and a recipient of the Order of Canada.
Pat and Nancy Harris have been lifelong champions for increased accessibility. They have worked tirelessly on projects that enable people with mobility challenges to have the equal access they deserve. Whether through school programs, advocacy or relentless effort, changes continue to be made: an elevator at our airport, an accessible boardwalk at the Ancient Forest and audits of local and regional parks, just to name a few.
I am proud to know each one of these recipients and can unequivocally say that they are indeed outstanding citizens.
Thank you, Les, Charles, Pat and Nancy for being difference-makers. Congratulations. You are most deserving of this special recognition, and we know that our community is a better place because of you.
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR
HOMELESS IN MAPLE
RIDGE
B. D’Eith: Everyone deserves a home. Unfortunately, not everyone in B.C. has one. Nowhere is this more evident than in my home community of Maple Ridge, where the present tent city has been since early 2017.
I’m very pleased that 53 units of modular supportive housing have been opened in Maple Ridge on Royal Crescent to help some more of our more vulnerable homeless citizens. Over this week, people have been moving into this facility — residents ranging in age from 23 to 73, men and women, residents with mobility challenges and a wide variety of health care needs.
This facility will provide them with the dignity of a roof, a bed, a separate bathroom and, importantly, their own door — something that we all take for granted. They’ll be provided with healthy food and a sense of community. They will get any health care and mental health and addiction services they need. That’s why today I would like to thank the organizations and people working in our community who have stepped up to help to transition these people from the street to the housing that they need to give them the care and the support they need.
I’d like to thank B.C. Housing; the local B.C. manufacturer, Horizon North; Coast Mental Health, the new operator; Fraser Health; RainCity Housing and the ICM team; the Maple Ridge community action team; the Salvation Army; Alouette Addictions; the CEED Centre; the city of Maple Ridge; Maple Ridge firefighters; RCMP; B.C. Ambulance Service; and the many caring individuals from our city and from these organizations who have helped.
It takes a village. I believe this applies to people in our community who are vulnerable, suffering from mental health and other health-related issues. I believe that a civil society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. This week a village of associations and compassionate people wrapped their arms around some of our more vulnerable citizens. I would like to thank them and our Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing from the bottom of my heart.
RESPONSE TO LANDSLIDE IN OLD FORT
D. Davies: Nothing changes the role of an elected representative faster than a catastrophic event like I recently experienced in my riding with the Old Fort slide just a few short weeks ago. All of a sudden, your first priority is the safety of people that you represent and what can be done in those first few hours following an event like this. Like many of my colleagues in this chamber that have experienced other devastating events such as wildfires and floods, we recognize that lives have been changed forever. As a local representative, we do have a duty to respond to those now and into the foreseeable future.
For the approximately 200 people whose daily lives have been turned upside down without warning, it is hard to appreciate what it is truly like to be forced from your home. Fortunately, no lives were lost in this landslide at Old Fort, but the damage is enormous and their future is unknown.
I had never really seen the power of nature so vividly until I was given the opportunity to tour the damage with officials and look at the pavement that was folded over like paper. However, power has been restored by B.C. Hydro and a temporary road is being built into the area. Local representatives, whose future is still uncertain at this time, have been given the opportunity to return to their homes by riverboat, only to retrieve some belongings and to start to prepare their homes for winter.
I am very grateful to members of my community, many of whom have stepped up to support their neighbours and friends to cope with this incredible and difficult situation. I want to thank the Peace River regional district, Chair Sperling and the people at the emergency operations centre who have worked many long days.
I want to thank my Member of Parliament, Bob Zimmer for his assistance. I want to thank emergency management B.C. and all the staff and the volunteers at the emergency social services centre. I’m also thankful to the Public Safety Minister for making himself immediately available and personally travelling to the scene.
To the residents of Old Fort: we are thinking of you, and we are standing with you during this very trying time.
ZONTA INTERNATIONAL
M. Dean: Imagine a world in which women’s rights are recognized as human rights and every woman can live to her full potential. This is the vision of Zonta International. Zonta International improves women’s lives by increasing their access to education, health care, legal services and economic opportunities while supporting efforts to prevent and end violence against women and girls.
The Zonta Club of Victoria is one of hundreds of clubs. In November, they’re celebrating 50 years of community service. They’re about to hold a fundraising event to support the HerWay Home program. HerWay Home is a non-judgmental health and social resource for pregnant women and mothers with young children or babies who have a history with substance use and who may be affected by mental health issues, violence and trauma.
As the Zonta Club of Victoria turns 50, Zonta International is getting ready to celebrate its 100th year of service in 2019. That’s a century of empowering women.
Congratulations, Zonta, and thank you to local members for your amazing work in our community.
BONNIE CHRISTIE AND
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL TRAUMA
NURSING
A. Weaver: A phone rang in the intensive care unit at the B.C. Children’s Hospital. The call was from a rural B.C. hospital. They needed to transfer an eight-year-old boy to Children’s ICU right away. Bonnie Christie was a senior registered nurse in the ICU that evening. When the boy arrived, she started removing the bandages, and blood began flowing like a waterfall. He had been ripped apart at the legs in a car accident while he delivered newspapers to his neighbours. He died shortly afterwards, as he bled to death in the ICU.
In 21 years of Children’s ICU nursing, Bonnie has seen a lot of death and injury. Bonnie remembers when two young girls were brought to the Children’s ICU covered in third-degree burns. The girls’ mother died in the fire as her estranged husband tried to burn their house and kill the family.
Bonnie remembers another young girl with burns so severe that they had to transfer her to a specialty hospital in the U.S. The girl’s mother set her on fire while she was doing drugs. She also remembers a young boy who was admitted with head wounds. When she took off his bandages, part of his brain fell to the floor. His father tried to kill him with an axe.
Bonnie remembers other children who were sick and injured, and she remembers some who died horrible deaths. She can’t even count the number of horrible things she saw as a Children’s ICU nurse.
After 21 years of critical care nursing, Bonnie started having nightmares. She dreamt of pools of blood and people hanging on chain-link fences with hooks through their scalps. At first, she thought she only needed to get away from critical care nursing, so she transferred to less acute roles. But after several transfers, she kept having panic attacks and anxiety and more nightmares.
“I love nursing, but I’m still burdened by the events I went through,” said Bonnie. “I can never work in health care again, and I don’t want any of my colleagues to go through what I did with WorkSafeBC. What we do is too important and too stressful for us to be reinjured in the process of trying to get help for ourselves.”
That was Bonnie Christie’s story.
ROB PATTERSON AND
MALAHAT HIGHWAY
SAFETY
S. Furstenau: There’s a movement in the Cowichan Valley riding to rename part of the Malahat section of the Trans-Canada Highway to Patterson pass, and for good reason.
I only met Rob Patterson once. It was December 2016, and Rob, as chief of the Malahat volunteer fire department, was speaking at a meeting about the safety of the Malahat highway. Rob spoke passionately about the many horrific accidents he had attended as first responder and the impact they had on victims’ families and his and his colleagues’ lives. He was committed to improving the roadway and driver safety to reduce the likelihood of an accident happening.
What was significant to me about Rob’s advocacy was how he stood up for his community. He was a humble man, but on the issue of road safety, he was outspoken and did not hold back from sharing his truth about what it felt like when he received a call that an accident had occurred on the highway. What made him most effective in delivering his message wasn’t just his personal experience but that he brought the community with him. He wasn’t out in front; he was shoulder to shoulder.
Rob was more than a fire chief. He was a leader who embodied humility and humour, who inspired all who met him, including me. Rob died within a month after that December 2016 meeting, unexpectedly. People said he died doing what he lived for: helping a community member out of harm’s way.
I commend the Malahat community for wanting to recognize the efforts of this great community leader.
Oral Questions
LNG CANADA PROJECT AGREEMENTS
M. Polak: Nearly a month ago the government, along with LNG Canada, made a very significant announcement. However, since that time, there has been no disclosure from government of the terms of any negotiated agreement with LNG Canada.
To the Finance Minister, has the government made an agreement with LNG Canada?
Hon. C. James: We’ve been clear about our LNG framework. In fact, the framework was released in March to talk about benefits for British Columbians and putting the sector on a level playing field with other industry.
Just to run through those pieces for the member, LNG will pay the same electricity costs as any other industrial customer, such as a mine, a mill or Vancouver Airport. There will be a deferral for PST costs which will be repaid and will be available to other major investors in British Columbia. The clean growth incentive program was also announced in the budget in 2018 and is available to any other company, as well, that outperforms global benchmarks for the cleanest facilities. And we’re removing the LNG income tax in favour of existing taxes and royalties.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a supplemental.
M. Polak: Well, transparency and meaningful disclosure are important not just for members of this chamber but also for British Columbia’s citizens.
To the Finance Minister, what guarantees, if any, have been provided to LNG Canada that would bind future governments or, maybe even more importantly, future taxpayers?
Hon. C. James: The details are out there for the other pieces. The piece that we’re continuing to work on is the performance payments — making sure we have an agreement around the performance payments — and continuing on with being as transparent as we can, as we were in March, in releasing it. We’ll release that information when we finish those discussions as well.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a second supplemental.
M. Polak: Of course, members of this assembly as well as British Columbians deserve to have the opportunity to review in detail the terms of any negotiated agreement.
I wonder if the minister would tell us: does the agreement include specific requirements around hiring, around procurement, around training, and if so, what are those requirements?
Hon. C. James: As I said, there isn’t a formal agreement in place. What we have is, basically, a framework, which we released in March to the public. We believe in that transparency, and we’ll continue to be transparent.
M. de Jong: To the minister, earlier today the Minister of Finance referred, for the first time, to something called an operating performance payment agreement, and I think, to be fair, she just referred to it again a moment ago. She specifically said this: “We’re working through that piece, as we’ve done with the four agreements. Those have been out since March.” I’m not aware of any agreements that have been out since March. She then said: “We’ll release the implications.”
I’m not sure what that means, but my question to the minister is: why hasn’t she or the Premier referred to the agreement thus far? What’s in it? What long-term obligations has the company agreed to? What long-term obligations has the government agreed to?
Hon. C. James: I will remind the member again that we put the framework out that we have worked on with LNG, the framework that is in place with LNG, which would be the same framework for other companies if there are major investments. That will include paying the same electricity costs, the deferral on PST for construction costs that will be repaid after the plant is built. That will be paid back to us in performance payments.
We’re working out the specifics, and yes, we will release that when they’re there. The clean growth incentive program is already out there, and removing the LNG tax has already been announced as well.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: A couple years ago the minister and her colleagues had an opportunity to review and critique in detail an agreement the then government concluded with Petronas. She and her colleagues had plenty to say about what was in the agreement and what wasn’t in the agreement.
The announcement made October 2 also involves Petronas as a pretty significant shareholder. I don’t think the minister wants to release the agreement. I don’t think she wants the public to see what’s in it or what’s not in it. I don’t think she wants some of her colleagues to see what’s in it.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Abbotsford West has the floor.
M. de Jong: Will the minister confirm that it is her and her government’s intention to repeal the very legislation and the very section of the legislation that would require her to make the agreement public?
Hon. C. James: In fact, we don’t need legislation to be public and transparent. We do that as government because that’s the right thing to do. I understand we have a very different approach than the other side took to making sure that we stand up for people and that we stand up for good projects that protect the environment and provide jobs in British Columbia.
We have been clear about the LNG framework. It has been released in March. It was out there in March and talked about the electricity costs, talked about the PST, talked about the clean growth incentive program and talked about the LNG income tax.
We will continue to be transparent, because we believe in that on this side of the House.
SUPPORT FOR WORKERS WITH
JOB-RELATED MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUES
A. Weaver: Mental disorders incurred from job-related trauma are serious injuries that can be debilitating. Last spring this government introduced protections by adding a presumptive clause for this kind of workplace injury. Now certain first responders are supported for injuries that can arise from the important work they do.
While I’m pleased that B.C. is extending protection for some workers, I’m concerned that others who suffer mental disorders on the job are being left out. In particular, I’m profoundly troubled that professions such as nursing, teaching, social work and 911 responders, which employ disproportionate numbers of women when compared to men, are being left out. When I raised this issue this past spring, the minister stated that he shared my concern and was committed to every worker getting the help and safety they need.
What has the minister done — to the Minister of Labour — to deliver on this commitment?
Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the member for the question, and I really want to thank him for his passion about workers’ health and safety, because I do share that passion.
I must say that I’m proud to say in this House that as one of the first actions as a minister, I changed the WCB act to make it easier for the first responders to access benefits for those who are suffering from mental health injuries.
First responders have been asking for these changes for a long time. They were ignored by the previous government. We couldn’t ask them to wait any longer.
Bill 9 also, as the member mentioned, enabled me to add other groups of workers and provide them with better protection. That’s why I am meeting with all those groups of people that the member had mentioned, including CUPE, the nurses and dispatchers, about how to add them onto the list.
I also understand that workers suffering from mental health injuries need help now. That’s why changes are being made at the WCB right now. With additional staff, more mental health claims are accepted now, in a timely fashion. Support is provided to them as and when they need it. This is in the view that health and safety is my number one priority. I will continue to work to make all workplaces in B.C. the safest in the country and so that those who are injured at workplaces are treated with respect and dignity.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
A. Weaver: I might suggest to the minister, when he asks how to make such changes, that it’s quite easy. It’s through order-in-council. I would encourage the minister to direct that passion that he talked about to actually ensuring that the workers are given the protection they need.
For example, a few moments ago I read the story of registered nurse Bonnie Christie. Her doctor filed a WorkSafeBC claim and referred her to a psychiatrist, who confirmed the diagnosis. But the WorkSafeBC process to evaluate her claim took four months and made her relive the traumas time and time again.
This is what Bonnie says: “The core problem I had with WorkSafeBC is that nursing isn’t one of the occupations that presume mental disability because of work trauma. To get my claim accepted, I had to retell my story over and over to WorkSafeBC, a story that I told you a few minutes ago. Every time I retold it, I relived what I went through. During that time, I was crying all day long and had so much anxiety that I couldn’t leave the house.”
My question is to the Minister of Labour. When will he ensure that the presumptive clause for work-related mental health disorders is applied to nursing? The trauma Bonnie has experienced is no different — no different — from the trauma that is experienced by firefighters and police officers, professions that are dominated by men, not women. The Nurses Union has provided the evidence to the minister. It’s time for the minister to act. When will he act?
Hon. H. Bains: I must say that unlike the previous government, health and safety of workers is my number one priority. That’s why we made the changes. I’m so proud of those changes, and we realize more needs to be done.
The legislation was our first step. It allows me to add other groups of workers onto the list. That’s why we are actively working with those, and I will be meeting with nurses later on today who will be providing me with more evidence of why they should be added onto that list.
We are actively working with those groups. But WorkSafeBC is working with those groups right now by adding more staff and helping those people suffering from mental health injuries.
I just want to say to the House here, as well, that every worker in this province is entitled to mental health coverage through WorkSafeBC, and we are adding more resources to help them as we go forward.
I am working with nurses. I am working with other groups so that we can add them onto that list to provide them better protection. I want to ensure that all workers go home after the end of their shift safe and healthy.
DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION SURGERIES
N. Letnick: Deep brain stimulation surgery, or DBS, has given people with Parkinson’s disease and others a new tool to combat the tremors associated with the disease. Dr. Christopher Honey is the only surgeon who is funded to perform DBS surgery in all of the province. A second doctor is desperately needed to match the national average.
To the Minister of Health, what are his plans to add a second doctor and increase patient access to DBS?
Hon. A. Dix: I want to thank the member for his question. There are, in fact — and have been over the last four or five years — significant and growing wait times for DBS interventions, and it’s very important. A lot of us in our families and a lot of us as constituents know people who are dealing with Parkinson’s disease. It’s a very serious situation, and DBS, for many of them, is helpful. In fact, the range of people that it can help has increased over that time.
In this year, we’ve increased the number of interventions scheduled by 50 percent. That number will not be adequate, I think, to reduce the wait times, but it makes the situation better than it was before. It’s gone from 23 interventions to 36 interventions this year.
The member is quite right. It puts the health care system in jeopardy when only one person can perform those interventions. That individual — we don’t want anything like that — can themselves become sick and unable to perform those surgeries. The health authorities, both Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal Health, are working on that issue right now.
Those surgeries currently take place within Vancouver Coastal Health, and it’s my general view, given they have some of the infrastructure in place to support them, that that would be a good thing to do. We’re working on the issue of expanding access to those surgeries now, and we’ll have more to report in the near future.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna–Lake Country on a supplemental.
N. Letnick: The challenge is that Dr. Honey is maxed out at approximately 40 procedures per year, and there are double that number of people actually waiting to get the procedure. Dr. Ivanishvili at Royal Columbian Hospital has taken the training from Dr. Honey, and he’s ready to go today. I also understand that there are people at Royal Columbian who have fundraised, or are in the process of fundraising, the $200,000 necessary to get the operating room up and running.
Again to the Minister of Health, what are his plans to accelerate increased access to DBS and give hope to patients and families suffering with Parkinson’s disease?
Hon. A. Dix: I certainly appreciate the contribution made by Dr. Honey, who started doing these surgeries in 2001 and is continuing to this day. As I say, we’ve given him more operating room time this year as a reflection of the long wait times that were occurring, starting over the last number of years.
The situation, as he suggested…. There is a second doctor who is eligible. It also requires a whole infrastructure around that doctor to set it up at a new institution. That’s why the two health authorities, Vancouver Coastal Health and Fraser Health, are working on this issue. Clearly, even though we’ve increased that number by 50 percent, with one doctor performing the surgeries, that’s not a continuing and inevitable process.
He’s quite right to raise the issue. It’s something that we’re working on very hard, given the importance of this surgery and this intervention to many citizens in British Columbia. I appreciate his question.
G. Kyllo: Today there are 80 British Columbians currently approved for DBS surgery in our province, many of whom have talked to my colleagues from Kelowna, Cranbrook and from Langley. The minister and I have spoken about the specifics of the case of one of my constituents, Maureen Hafstein, of Salmon Arm.
This is what Maureen had to say this past spring: “I want to be clear that I’m not wanting to jump ahead of anyone in line. I’m asking for increased funding so that everyone will benefit.”
To the minister, will he provide the resources necessary for a second surgeon so that patients like Maureen can receive the surgery they so desperately need?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, we’ve increased the number of surgeries by 50 percent of what was there before I became Minister of Health. If the suggestion is that we’re not taking the interventions seriously, we are taking them seriously. An increase of 50 percent over what was there before is not adequate for many of the patients, including the member’s constituent, and we’ve spoken about this before.
We’re working on this issue pretty hard, including in the health authorities, to ensure that that happens. We’ve taken, I think, some interim steps that are helpful. We’re going to continue to work to see that access for that surgery is maintained.
Some people have talked about it taking place at Royal Columbian Hospital. It’s my general view that we should build on the infrastructure we have now, and that involves work by the two health authorities. We’re proceeding with that work.
As I told the member — I believe it was in August — and what I say today is that that commitment, an increase by 50 percent and actively pursuing an expansion of capacity, is a pretty significant response to what had been a problem that had been growing over a period of years.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Shuswap on a supplemental.
G. Kyllo: I thank the minister for his response. Unfortunately, as has been indicated, there are over 80 patients currently on the wait-list now. My constituent Maureen has been waiting for two years already. It could be potentially another two years before she even has that opportunity.
Now, the friends and family of patients such as Maureen Hafstein, Rob Mallet in Kelowna and Tom Armour of Fort Langley are calling on the minister for a second doctor. There’s a very specific window of time in which the DBS surgery is most effective.
Again, on behalf of Maureen, Tom and Rob and so many others, will the minister take concrete steps to add the second surgery and provide the necessary surgery these patients so drastically need?
Hon. A. Dix: I’ve spoken to many people on the wait-list for this surgery. It’s an issue that affects my family and many other families, the issue of people suffering from Parkinson’s disease.
That’s why we’re taking the steps we’re taking, which I might say — I say this because I know the member is raising the question, and I respect he’s raising it on behalf of his constituent — had not occurred before. We are taking the steps required to increase the number of surgeries this year by 50 percent, which is no small number. This is part of an overall response and an improvement in the efficiency of the health care system and a surgical plan that will see the reduction of wait-lists this year in the health care system.
We think the public health care system can do better. We’ve provided resources for it to do better. We’re improving the efficiency of that system. I’m very proud of the work of doctors such as Dr. Honey and many others — doctors across this system, nurses, care aides, health science professionals — who are doing this work every day.
I hear the member. I hear people across B.C. I know the struggle they face. I’m aware of it and working hard on it. I think we have to, in the most respectful way possible, increase access to those services while acknowledging that these are real challenges for people and putting patients first.
FOSTER PARENTS
L. Throness: This month is Foster Family Month, and the government has mounted a recruitment campaign to find more foster parents. They need to do that. In March of 2017, there were 2,500 foster parents. This year, this spring, the minister told me there were only 2,200. That’s a drop of 12 percent in just one year. In Chilliwack, we had information sessions for 60 interested families, and only one applied to be a foster parent.
Why are foster parents refusing to join and quitting under this minister?
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. I think we’d all agree that all children deserve to grow up in safe and nurturing homes. I know, as a mother and a granny, that there’s no more demanding and rewarding experience than being a caregiver or a parent to children. We deeply respect and value the contributions of foster parents in this province.
I met with foster parents last year at their AGM and again this year in Nelson at their AGM. We talked about the issues that they go through when they’re providing care.
I understand the numbers that the member is talking about, but we also understand that we are looking at the foster care system differently. We are looking at the way we provide care for children differently. We’re looking at issues. Like within the Indigenous communities, they don’t want to have kids put into foster care. They want to have kids stay with families, stay with communities. So we’re respecting that and doing things differently in working with the Indigenous communities to ensure we can do that.
I greatly respect the work being done by foster parents. We are working to look at a new system of funding, looking at contracted care, foster parents, kith-and-kin to say: “What can we do differently to ensure that the bottom line is that we are providing safe and loving care to the children in this province?”
Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.
L. Throness: The minister has no excuse. She’s been in her job for 14 months, and she’s done absolutely nothing to arrest the decline in foster families under her watch. Because of her inaction, agencies are resorting to giving away chocolate bars with a toll-free number on it, hoping that they can find somebody with a sweet tooth who also wants to be a foster parent.
Recruitment by chocolate bar is not enough. When will the minister get serious about finding and keeping foster families in B.C.?
Hon. K. Conroy: Well, actually, we are doing incredible things to recruit foster parents in this province. One of the great things that we’re doing is we consulted with former kids in foster care. We talked to them, former kids in care. We said: “What worked for you, and what didn’t work for you in foster care?” They helped us to develop a new fostering website that I’d ask all members to go onto, fosternow.ca. It actually talks from the viewpoint of foster parents but also from the viewpoint of former kids in care, who talk about how their life was changed by foster parents.
One young fellow, a guy, says: “My foster mom saved my life.” They’re really rewarding stories to look at. We’re talking to people. Actually, we are having more calls to offices, people who are saying: “Yes, we are interested in being foster parents.” But we have to do due diligence, to make sure that they are the people that want to provide the best service we can and the best, loving homes we can to kids. That’s the bottom line, and we’re working hard at it.
INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS
J. Isaacs: On May 14, the province abruptly suspended intercountry adoption from Japan. As a result, more than 30 families from B.C., including two from my community, have been left in limbo for more than five months. The families are desperate for answers, yet this government has kept them in the dark.
Will the government show a little bit of compassion for these parents-to-be and tell them what is going on?
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. We feel deeply for the parents that have gone through this situation. We are working very closely with the government of Canada, as well as the government of Japan, to ensure that the adoptive parents who are looking to adopt children in Japan are coming to Canada and that it is being done properly. The worst thing that could happen is that children could be brought to Canada and that then it would not be an adoption that could be continued and finished.
The bottom line is ensuring, when children come from Japan, that they are coming in an appropriate manner and that it is being done legally. We are working with our partners in the Canadian government to make sure that this can happen. We’ve provided legal support for the families that were left in Japan, and they are all here back now in Canada. We will continue to do that to work with those families.
Mr. Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.
J. Isaacs: We know that Japanese children who need homes are out there, but sadly, the province has suspended the program. Last week a B.C. adoption agency closed its doors due to the suspension of the program and a lack of international adoptions.
Can the minister please advise when the provincial director of adoption will issue no-objection letters for these families so that they can bring their children home?
Hon. K. Conroy: Well, the ministry will do that when all the legal parameters are covered and it’s done properly.
I also want to clarify that actually, adoptions are going down in the province. We’re seeing more families being kept together because we’re working harder to keep families together. That is something that is happening in this province.
We met with the agency when they expressed their concerns. The other two agencies that are still running took over the few families they were working with.
We know that, especially in the Indigenous communities, they don’t want their kids to be adopted. I met with the Métis Association, with Lii Michif Otipemisiwak, the association in Kamloops. The woman that’s the executive director said to me: “You will notice, of the 50 kids in care we have, none of them have been adopted because we’ve all been able to keep them within their community, keep them with their family and keep them with their grannies, their elders so that those children are not being adopted.” I think it’s a great number that we’re looking at.
SAFE CARE ACT AND YOUTH MENTAL
HEALTH AND ADDICTION
PLAN
J. Thornthwaite: I have repeatedly asked the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to call the Safe Care Act for debate. On May 31 of this year, the minister said: “We will be bringing forward this fall a plan for child and youth mental health. As part of bringing forward that plan, we will be looking very closely at all the existing proposed legislation.”
My question is…. Time is running out, Minister. When will the Safe Care Act be brought to this Legislature?
Hon. J. Darcy: We are working very hard on our plan for child and youth mental health. I continue, as part of that process, to meet with parents, to meet with families, to meet with loved ones who are living with mental health and addictions today and who have lost their loved ones to the overdose crisis.
We have said in this House before…. What people who are living with addictions or who have loved ones living with addictions have stressed to us over and over again is that “the system failed us” and that we need to concentrate, first and foremost, on improving a voluntary system of care for people living with addictions in the province of British Columbia. I’ve said many times that we are looking at the evidence. We’re looking at the experience in other jurisdictions.
Recently, a week ago Monday in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association, there was a really important contribution to this discussion. I would encourage the member opposite to look at it, if she hasn’t yet. It said, specifically, that existing evidence that mandatory addiction treatment does not lead to significant improvements in substance use outcomes is something that needs to be taken very, very seriously into account and that coercive approaches can undermine trust and can actually set people back.
We’re looking at all of the evidence. We will act on what is in the best interests of children and families in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: Families continue to talk to me — and I know that they are still continuing to talk to the minister — and tell me that they are begging for action from this government. Minister, it was you, six months ago, who made the commitment…. Today it’s October 25. Six months ago you made the commitment to come up with a plan and to review whether or not this legislation would be coming to this House.
My question remains. When will the Safe Care Act be introduced in this House?
Hon. J. Darcy: What I’ve committed in this House and what I’ve committed publicly is that we will be reviewing the experience in every jurisdiction and the experience in other countries, for that matter, in order to ensure whether we need to introduce secure care, whether we need to amend the Mental Health Act, whether we need to look at other policies and other pieces of legislation.
As part of that review, we’ve looked at a report that came out of Alberta recently, and it is also a very, very compelling report. It looked at the experience, it looked at the stories, and it looked at the life journeys of 12 young people who have died of overdose. One of the things that was reported there by the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate in Alberta was that of those 12 youth who had died of overdose, six of them had died in secure care.
It’s important that we look at the evidence, and that’s exactly what we will be doing. Our focus is on building a voluntary system of care for child and youth with early intervention, early prevention so that young people do not go down this journey towards addiction. And we’re looking at all possible legislation and policy. Evidence is what is going to guide our actions.
[End of question period.]
Hon. R. Fleming: With the agreement of the House, Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. R. Fleming: During question period, we had a group of students who arrived from École Reynolds Secondary in my constituency. Their teacher, Mme. Alecia Jones, was here — a grade 10 French immersion class. I know that they enjoyed themselves. I see a new group of students here as well, so I would ask the House to make both groups of students most welcome to the House.
There’s another gentleman I’d like to introduce to the House as well. I see Ryan Painter here, our newest school district 61 trustee who was elected last Saturday night. Congratulations to him. He’s been a tireless champion for student success and student mental well-being in our school system, and I know he’s going to do a great job over the next four years in district 61. Welcome.
Petitions
Hon. M. Mungall: I rise to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents. In the first one they are asking for a moratorium on logging on the Argenta–Johnsons Landing face, pending a thorough assessment and provision for the following concerns: water security, road safety and slope stability. That one has 106 signatures.
They also have another petition calling for the full protection of the public land on the Argenta–Johnsons Landing face by including this magnificent landscape within the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, thereby completing the park from mountaintop to lakeshore.
J. Isaacs: I have three petitions to present to the Minister of Education and the Premier. The petitions are from a constituent regarding the education curriculum.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 40, the referendum act.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM
2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018
(continued)
M. Hunt: I am rising to speak to Bill 40, which is before us, the referendum amendment act. I’ve been listening to the debate that has gone on in this House, and I’ve been trying to listen to the members opposite and hear their arguments in the midst of this referendum and this referendum bill that’s before us. But I find it absolutely amazing that, as they’re speaking to the bill that’s before us, in fact, they’re all: “Rah-rah. Yes. PR is great and wonderful.” Yet I find it amazing that they don’t get into any of the details of it.
There are three options that are being proposed on the PR side of things, and I haven’t heard the members opposite discussing those three options and their feelings about the options themselves, the details about them and all the ramifications of them. It’s absolutely silent. I find it amazing. It seems to me that what we have here is a hypothetical situation that is put before us called proportional representation, but as this side of the House has been saying, there are absolutely no details. There’s absolutely no information about it. It’s just amazing that we’re going forward with this in such absolute ignorance.
Now, again, I recognize that the Premier has called this a leap of faith, and maybe that’s why — because they don’t want the details out. I know that in question period the other day, we were asking the Premier about a debate. The ballots are already out there in the community — well, at least some communities; certainly not in my community yet, since we’re sort of at the tail end of the mail process. That’s fair enough.
Many people already have their ballots, and as I’ve seen on Twitter and Facebook and the social media generally, there are a lot of people that have already responded and sent it back. Yet we haven’t had the debate that has been promised, that was promised over a month ago. We haven’t seen that yet. I just can’t understand why. Maybe it’s just because the government doesn’t want the details out there. They don’t want the information out there.
I find it amazing. As I was listening to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, in the midst of his discussions, he talked about: “Well, the reason why the previous referendums had failed was because the thresholds were too high.” Well, that’s interesting. In the NDP’s own constitution…. At their last convention, there was a motion, in fact, to amend their constitution so that people could make amendments with 50 percent plus one vote, just like the referendum is changing how we elect our MLAs. But I thought it was interesting that “no, no, no, it has to stay at two-thirds.”
That’s 66.66666 percent, which is certainly higher than the 60 percent that the last referendums were held at. Ye, the minister stood up and said: “Well, the threshold was too high.” How is it that their own internal workings of their party have higher, and that’s okay there?
I find it amazing that we’re sitting there saying: “It should be just like it is in Europe.” I’m sorry, but Canada’s very different than Europe, and certainly the province of British Columbia is very different than Europe.
I remember my first trip to Holland. As we were driving along the freeway…. I’ll call them freeways instead of the words that they use, but the concept is their freeway. All of a sudden, you look up at the mileage thing, and it says: “Paris 400 kilometres.” I mean, whoa. Europe is small. There are a lot of people living in small areas.
When you start looking at the list of those countries that have proportional representation and are working on the basis of proportional representation, you see lots of population in a very, very small area. That’s not what we have in British Columbia.
In British Columbia, we have over half the population living down in about 1 percent of the province, in the little Lower Mainland. We have vast, vast areas with very spread-out populations. If that little area of the Lower Mainland, greater Vancouver, is dictating to the entire province…? No.
The system that we have is one that, yes, is lopsided. It’s different. But it addresses the issues of B.C. It’s dealing with the challenges of British Columbia. It’s dealing with the vast, vast areas that some of the members here…. Actually, on both sides of the House for that matter. When you get up into northern B.C., they are massive, massive ridings.
I know that in my previous riding of Surrey-Panorama, I could drive from one corner of it to another within 15 minutes. I’ve never tried it with my current riding, because my current riding has a lot more agricultural land in it, so it’s a little more distant. But still, compare it to what’s going on up in northern B.C., where literally, a member can’t get from one corner of his or her riding to the other corner in a day. They have to fly back and forth.
Certainly, the system that we have today is dealing with those challenges — and the courts. It has been taken to court, and the courts have agreed with that. The courts have declared: “Yes, there is uniqueness here, and that uniqueness needs to be addressed and needs to be worked on.”
When I listen to what’s been happening here, with the whole concept of this referendum…. I’m listening to an awful lot of wonderful slogans, wonderful lines coming from the members of government. But, in fact, where are the details? Where’s the substance? Where’s the essence? It just reminds me of the magic show that you go to as kids.
Well, actually, it’s not magic at all. It’s the art of the illusion. In the art of the illusion, what you’re really trying to do is to get people’s focus over here while something is happening over there. I think that’s exactly what’s going on in this whole referendum.
The illusion is: “Every vote counts. Let’s have the number of seats in the House exactly equal to the number of votes that are cast. Won’t that be wonderful?” Sounds good. Sounds interesting.
We had a similar thing going on in a previous bill that was saying: “We’re going to get big money out of the elections. We’re going to get big business and big unions out.” Well, how did that work in the municipal election that we’ve just gone through last week? We definitely know that in some of the ridings, we had the big unions hiring people — or, I should rather say, paying people — to actually go out and canvass and work for those who were running.
Now, is that going to be on the disclosure of the candidate who was running? No, it’s under third party. There are loopholes in the midst of the legislation that was created, or the former legal structure hasn’t been changed so that we, in fact, took care of those things and actually got what was said. Big unions, big business, out of elections didn’t happen.
I think what’s happening here, as we look at this, is if we look deeper, the reality is that what we’re seeing is a shift in power. There are many types of proportional representation, and certainly, as we look at the debate that’s going on in the midst of the province, many people are dealing with this country, that country and the other country and all pulling them together and saying this, this and this and “therefore, it’s okay.” But we don’t know, again, the details of whether we’re dealing with open lists or closed lists. What are we dealing with? What are we working with?
Actually, what we’re seeing is that the three propositions that are on this ballot are all propositions that are centred on political parties. Now, again, two of them have never been used in the world before, so they’re totally unique. Actually, they weren’t even a part of the consultation process that went on that was supposedly great, the biggest consultation this province has ever seen, but suddenly they appear out of nowhere on the ballot. Two of them have never been used. But in the midst of all three of them, all three proposals are focused on political parties, political parties making the decisions. They’re the ones that are going to choose who, in fact, sits in this Legislature.
I have a real concern with that. If we look back to 2005, 2009, those two referendums, they were built on the basis of a citizens committee that in 2004 assembled with, I believe it was, 160 members selected from around the province, theoretically. I don’t know exactly how they were chosen, but at least in theory, they were chosen to represent the citizens and all the different areas of the province. The system they came up with was the single transferrable ballot, which in fact kept the power in the hands of the voters.
Now, yes, the individual had to get 50 percent plus one vote, so they at least got the majority of the votes from their constituency, but it was the voters who were making the choice. Their votes were going directly to who sits in this House and represents them — not the party. It wasn’t a vote for the party.
As a matter of fact, I heard, in the midst of the debate, one of the members standing up…. The member from Sunshine Coast stood up and said: “You get to vote for the party.” Well, I’m sorry, but the system that we have had and worked with is a system where the voter votes for the individual that they want here in the midst of this House.
Now, I do recognize that some people don’t. I recognize that. There are some people that just vote for the party. As a result — the classic line — the dog catcher could be in this House, you know, if they run with the right party and get the right nomination. But at least….
Interjection.
M. Hunt: I’m not suggesting which side of the House. I’m talking in a generality here, so as not to offend the Minister of Health. The thing is that it wasn’t the party that was actually deciding who got here. Yes, maybe leading up into the nomination, they had it, but there were individuals who were standing and running. I can assure you that there are a lot of people in every riding who are voting for the person, not for the party.
So all those who were elected into this House under the proposals of 2005 and 2009 for proportional representation would all be elected by 50 percent plus one, at least, of those who cast their votes, not by political parties making decisions in the back rooms.
Now, that’s not what we have before us. We, in fact, have the systems that were up for options. Well, it’s interesting how the ones that were voter-centric have been removed, and instead, we have all three being party-centric — created so that the parties are the ones that are powerful. It’s the parties that are the ones that have the power.
As I have lived my short life here in Canada…. Well, that’s a definition of terms, isn’t it? Anyhow, as I have lived my whole life here in Canada, I have constantly heard this debate over the Senate — whether the Senate should be elected or appointed, whether the Senate should be thrown out altogether. We’ve had this national discussion. I don’t think it’s ever gotten into a real debate, but at least there’s been a national discussion about it.
The concern has always been the same: the powers of the party; the power of the Prime Minister or the Premier, who gets to select who’s in the cabinet, who gets to select the issues. Therefore, the theory…. Now, I wouldn’t disparage anyone on the government side for this, but the theory is that those would clamour to be obedient to the Premier so that they could get the plum job of being a cabinet minister.
But now, instead, it’s the voters choosing the party. And it’s only…. If we look at many of these that were multiple members, it’s actually only the first member who is directly elected by, interestingly enough, first-past-the-post. Then everyone else after that goes on the basis of the percentage of the vote — which therefore, goes back to party lists. And either you’re on that list, or you’re off the list. Who controls how the list and the order of the list…? Well, it’s all the folks in the back rooms, the folks that we don’t get to see, that we’re not involved with.
So really, this referendum is government of the political parties by the political parties for the political parties. That’s why this whole referendum process stinks. Because it’s all done by political parties. It wasn’t done, even though the Premier promised it. He promised that there would be a citizens’ assembly. He promised there would be neutrality and all of sort of that stuff. Well, that’s not what happened.
You know, I’ve been listening to the accusations made, and it’s all about these falsehoods, these fabrications and fearmongering.
You see? My dear friend from Surrey-Whalley — I was just taking a breath there, because I know it’s Whalley — pounds the table, because he quite agrees. And actually, that’s what we heard from most of them.
I find it interesting that the definition of fearmongering is the other guys. We’ve heard them raise the issue of “oh my, Premier Ford in Ontario” or comments about the President of the United States of America — duly elected by the way, within their system. But that’s not fearmongering; that’s dealing with fact.
Well, I think we’re dealing with fact. Actually, we would like to deal with facts, but we don’t have the facts to deal with, because all we have is three hypotheticals. A hypothetical first question, which is first-past-the-post, which we know clearly; the concept of proportional representation; and then three theories that have no information about them and no understanding about them.
But you know, Halloween is just around the corner, and this is the time of the scary movies. This is the time where, you know, the classic Alfred Hitchcock, for those that are old enough to know and remember Alfred Hitchcock — the scary movie. And what made the scary movie scary? Well, usually it was either fog or mist, so that you can’t see.
Or it was darkness of night. People are afraid of the dark. Well, isn’t that amazing, because that’s exactly what Vaughn Palmer suggests is going on in this referendum. Although the Premier calls it a “leap of faith,” Vaughn Palmer called it a leap into the darkness. And that’s exactly what it is. It’s the scary movie. I don’t have to promote fearmongering on this side. The citizens of this province are in fear because of the lack of detail, the lack of information.
We heard it this morning in question period. We heard the cabinet ministers, each of them standing up and saying they were for openness and transparency and that that’s how they were running this government. Well, if that’s the case, let’s get open and transparent right here — Bill 40.
Let’s get this whole referendum…. Let’s get it out there in clarity. Let us get it out there in people being able to clearly understand what the options are. Really, in this shift, we’re actually having the citizens give up their rights to determine who is in this House and give it to political parties. And that is a huge change.
Again, my ancestors came to North America 400 years ago seeking freedom. They left Europe because they didn’t have the freedom and the liberty there that they wanted to. They came for freedom, and that is what has been offered in North America, particularly here in Canada. We have offered that to the world since before we were a nation. We’ve had freedom and liberty. That’s why we see massive immigration and massive lineups of people trying to get into Canada, because Canada is unique. Canada is different.
Canada is a wonderful country where we accept people, and it doesn’t matter what colour of skin you happen to have. It doesn’t matter what country you’ve come from. It doesn’t matter what your religious background is. We offer freedom, hope, opportunity, to all peoples. That’s the uniqueness of Canada. And that’s why I’m not afraid to have a system that isn’t the same as what’s going on over in Europe. My ancestors left Europe a long time ago because they wanted the freedom and the liberty that is offered to us here in Canada.
Now, one of the other things that I heard from the other side of the House was: “Well, we’ve been open and transparent because we’ve sent out a 24-page…. There’s a 24-page Voter’s Guide out there that is going to make things very clear, and everybody is going to understand what’s going on.” Well, it’s interesting. I took it off the Internet because I haven’t got my package yet. I printed off the 24 pages that is this wonderful Voter’s Guide that’s being sent out to everybody.
It’s really interesting because it, first of all, talks about the referendum. It says who can vote. That’s page 2. And what the referendum is about. The referendum ballot itself — what it’s going to look like is page 3. Page 4 is “How to vote.” Page 5 is “How to ask for a voting package.” Page 6 deals with important dates. How I can get help in voting if I need it, and translation services.
What happens after the referendum? Well, that’s a really good question. Actually, what happens after the referendum is the fact that then the NDP-Greens will decide what’s going on, and cabinet will make the final decisions on all the details that they don’t want you to have.
Then “What is a voting system?” We’re already at page 10 here of these 24 pages. Actually, it’s 22 according to the list. There are extra pages for the covers and that. But here we are. We’re actually here at page 10, and we haven’t even talked about any of the four systems that are in front of the taxpayers. Boy, this information is great. I’m sure this is going to help everybody to clearly understand.
Then finally, we have two pages, 10 and 11, dealing with what the first-past-the-post system is. I don’t think anybody, other than academics and those of us that are really into it, have ever called this system first-past-the-post. Then it deals with the concept of proportional representation. This is page 12.
Then we deal with a graph “at a glance” on page 13 of what first-past-the-post looks like and what a proportional representation system might look like. Then at page 14 to page 21, we finally get a little bit about what these voting systems are — these three that are before us.
It’s really interesting, because all they do here is talk about characteristics of these three systems. Again, we have no details on this. We don’t know for sure what’s going on. We simply have characteristics. It might be this. It might be that. It might be the other thing. It’s absolutely amazing. The information here is not information about what’s actually going on. It’s not dealing in details. It’s, rather, dealing with what might happen, what might not happen.
Actually, what’s before us, Bill 40, is dealing with having a second referendum. That’s the issue that Bill 40 is all about. But, you know, it’s amazing. This brochure was produced before Bill 40 ever arrived in this House, before this concept: “Going to make it law.”
Well, it’s interesting, because page 8 of the information here says…. Oh, I guess I should read the beginning of the paragraph. It’s a list of different things. It says: “If a proportional representation voting system is adopted, the government has said that after the referendum, they would….” Then it lists off these things that the government has said it would do.
It’s not saying this will happen. It’s simply “the government said so,” just like the government said they would have a citizens’ committee. That didn’t happen. The government said they would have one question: yes or no? That didn’t happen. The government said…. There’s such a long list of what the government said. But anyhow, the government hasn’t done any of the above.
At least here, we’re going on. What does it say? The last bullet says: “Another referendum will be held after the second general elections to see if B.C. wants to keep the new voting system or go back to using first-past-the-post.” Isn’t that amazing? These guys at Elections B.C. are absolutely awesome. They saw into the future. They saw that this government was going to introduce Bill 40, and they already put it in the literature before it ever happened. Amazing. I tell you, the wonderful folks at Elections B.C. can see the future. Maybe they can tell us what’s going to happen in the next election so it’ll just make it all easier for all of us, and we won’t have to spend so much time and money and effort.
This was already something the government said it was going to do, so why is Bill 40 even before us? Why is Bill 40 even here? It isn’t giving us any…. This bill that’s before us isn’t getting any clarity. It’s not making things easier for us. I would suggest that it’s here….
Oh my, Madame Speaker, I need to be careful how I say this. We’re accused of fearmongering, so I want to be very, very careful how I say this. But maybe it’s because the government wants to reduce the fear that the electorate is feeling over this referendum. Maybe the fearmongers are actually the government side, because they haven’t given any details of what’s actually going on here. What a thought.
Maybe the real fearmongers are those who are trying to keep the electorate ignorant so that they don’t know. Or maybe what it is, is that they’re trying…. After all, you know, in the midst of this referendum, there was only $500,000 that was given to the yes side and $500,000 that was given to the no side, and then third parties could spend up to $200,000 each.
Maybe what it is, is the government has decided: “Hey, we’re not doing as well in the polls as we thought we were. Maybe we need to spend some more money on this. Maybe what we’ll do is we’ll introduce a bill in the House in order to be able to allow the government to spend more money on this referendum. Now there’ll be House talking about House affairs and dealing with House information.” I don’t know.
It’s interesting how we have one of the members of our side of the House who has been trying to get information out to his constituents, and Elections B.C. says that he can’t spend money unless he registers.
I’m sorry, but there is so little information on this. There is so little for us to work with here that I’d like to move an amendment to the bill that’s before us. Here’s a copy of it for Madame Speaker, and I have copies of it for the House Leaders of the two parties so that they can have it. I’ll read it to you, Madame Speaker, while that’s being circulated.
I would move:
[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 40) intituled Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting therefore the following:
“Bill (No. 40) not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.”]
That is my motion, Madame Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order. Please proceed.
On the amendment.
M. Hunt: I have a real concern that even on this bill that is before us, we simply don’t have enough information. We don’t have details.
I find it amazing what is before us, considering what’s gone on in this House over the last week — and we’ll just deal with the last week. Here we’re talking about holding a second referendum sometime in the future. But in this House during this parliament, we have had the government decide the legislation that was before this House years ago called the carbon tax…. We will now forget the part that says it will be revenue-neutral. Now we’re going to make it…. Well, we’ll make it just a good government revenue source.
Bill 41. We’re talking about Bill 40 and moving this amendment to Bill 40. But what is Bill 41 that is before the House? It’s entitled Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act. It only consists of two clauses. The first clause is: “The Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act…2002, is repealed.” The second: “This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent.”
This parliament cannot bind future parliaments. It’s very evident by the actions that have been taken by this government — both on the carbon tax and here, Bill 41, dealing with the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. It’s just that simple. You do it by policy, by order-in-council, or you just bring in a piece of paper and repeal it. So what’s before us really isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on. It’s an absolute waste of paper that’s before us because we can’t bind future parliaments, and that’s exactly the intent of what Bill 40 is.
I think that this needs to go to committee so that the committee can determine what’s really going on here. Let’s have that discussion because, really, what we’ve had in this House up until this point in time is we’ve had the government members all stand up and say: “Isn’t it wonderful?” And the members on the opposition have said: “Isn’t it terrible?” Members of government have stood up and said: “You’re just fearmongering.” And we’re saying: “We just want details.”
Maybe let best thing is let’s just send it off to committee, and let’s let the committee come up with the details. Let’s let the committee come up with the thoughts of how in the world this is actually going to work. How is this going to be enforced?
Now, we have heard it earlier today. We don’t have to go back into ancient history. We can simply go to this morning’s question period. At this morning’s question period, we had at least two ministers…. Now, I noticed it on two, and I have to admit, I might have missed it on the responses from other ministers from this morning. But they did get up with: “This government is marked by openness and transparency, not like that previous government.”
Well, let’s get open and transparent here, folks. Let’s get the details out. Let’s find out what’s actually going on instead of the bill that’s before us — or the redundant bill that’s before us, because Elections B.C. has already said it’s going to happen.
You see, once again, the Premier called this a leap of faith. I don’t think the taxpayers, the voters of this province, should be leaping by faith about anything. I think they should know what’s going on. There should be a clear understanding of what’s happening.
I think a committee working on this can bring that clarity to this House. Vaughn Palmer called it a leap into the darkness. We need clarity. We need understanding. We need to know what is happening here.
Now that we’re talking about the amendment, I again bring up the scary movies, because without clarity…. If you see the bad guy coming — if you can see the big monster, King Kong, coming — there’s no fear here. You know what’s happening. You know what’s going on.
Actually, of course, the joke is told about the Prairies — since I was originally from the Prairies — that your dog can run away from home, and you can watch it for the next three days running away because it’s all just flat and open and transparent. There is no scary movie there. There’s no scary thing. You can see it coming.
You can see the thunderstorm. You’ve got lots of time when that thunderstorm comes rolling in the Prairies on a good summer’s evening. When you see those dark clouds coming, you’ve got time to prepare and get your stuff in. I think that’s what’s necessary here. That’s why the amendment before us is, in fact, to go into committee and get this committee to bring light upon this.
The members opposite love to talk about Europe and all these wonderful countries that have proportional representation and the wonderful things they’re doing. A quote from The Economist magazine. Again, The Economist magazine, for those who aren’t familiar with it, is a European magazine usually dealing with financial and political things.
They’re talking about the wonderful homeland of proportional representation, Italy, and amendments that are being made in Italy to their form of proportional representation. It’s talking about a new electoral law that was approved — now again, this is a year ago, so this was in October of last year — that might limit the members’ freedoms, if only slightly.
I am now quoting from The Economist: “One reason so many parliamentarians override their constituency wishes is that they are largely unanswerable to them. Since 2005, they have been chosen, in multi-seat constituencies, from slates crafted by party leaders who decide which candidates can stand the best chance of election. Only in the anti-establishment Five Star Movement do the rank and file determine the order of the candidates on each slate.” That’s not even the voters. That’s this one party where the rank and file of the party decides the list. Forget this open list of voters deciding the list. It’s all done in the back rooms.
This new law means that some lawmakers, though still barely a third of those in the Italian Parliament, will be chosen at the next election how? On a first-past-the-post basis in single-seat constituency. Isn’t that amazing that we have the wonderful heart bed of proportional representation, Italy, in fact saying: “We are going back to first-past-the-post”?
Now, they’re only doing it by a third of them, but at least that’s a third. They’re starting on that road back to first-past-the-post, because they have found proportional representation to be such an absolute and complete disaster.
We’ve heard from the Premier. The Premier has stood up, speaking on the debate to Bill 40. Now, there’s an interesting one. The Premier has stood up to speak about the referendum, and you know what? He’s afraid to speak in front of a TV camera in an open debate on proportional representation.
He agreed to it over a month ago, and where’s the date? Where is the time? What’s going on? It’s all been stalled by — oh no, it couldn’t be the Premier; no, no, no — his staff. We’ve got to throw the staff under the bus once again. Somehow they can’t come up with a date.
They could come up with a date — what was it? — two days ago. Was it two days ago, the crystal palace thing? There was the ability of…. Both the Premier and the Leader of the Third Party were able to have a wonderful pro-PR political rally, and that was great. But — oh my — this side of the House isn’t allowed to spend money on that sort of stuff. This side of the House gets rules by Elections B.C. that we can’t even boost a Facebook post.
Somehow the rules around this place seem very strange to me. But again, somehow we’re throwing all of our staff under the bus because the Premier doesn’t want to set a date and a time because the Premier doesn’t want the information to get out.
Now, I realize there were some harsh words that were said here in the House in question period on Tuesday, and I don’t know that I would necessarily use some of words that were spoken. But I think what, in fact, we did see was a Premier who doesn’t want the facts and the information to get out to the voters so that they can clearly make a decision. That is what I think was the difference between the 2005 and the 2009 votes on the referendum. More details got out. More information got out.
So now what’s the intent? The intent is simply rag the puck. Let’s stall and delay. Maybe around the end of November, we’ll finally have a debate on this, once everybody’s already sent their ballots in. That’s why I think it’s important that this go to committee so we get clarity.
Again, just to keep things clear here, the Premier stood up in this House, and here’s what the Premier said:
“For four years, I sat on that side of the House,” referring to us over here in opposition, “offering, I’d like to think, on occasion, useful suggestions to the government, whether it be in this place or in the budget estimates that happen annually, bringing forward ideas from not just myself but from the people that I represented at the time in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, and I got zero response from the government.”
Now, that was his reasoning for saying that we should have proportional representation. But the facts don’t back that up, because we have $53.9 million spent on Belmont Secondary School to accommodate 12,000 students — a brand-new school; decision, June 27, 2013 — and $7.4 million in provincial funding to extend the West Shore Parkway project. Now, again, there are even matching funds from the federal government as well as from the city of Langford for a total of $22 million, but that was in July of 2015. Then $7 million in capital funding for the Pacifica Housing Advisory Association of B.C. That was October of 2016. And $6 million in construction funding….
It’s amazing. The list goes on and on and on. Actually, there are three pages in this list, totalling $105 million, but the Premier got up and said he got zero. I find this amazing, because so much of what is happening is smoke and mirrors here. We’re talking about an illusion of proportional representation, but where are the details? Where are the facts? Where’s the information that’s before us? It’s absolutely amazing.
Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the amendment.
M. Hunt: Absolutely, Madame Speaker. That’s why I’m speaking to the amendment. The amendment is to send this to committee so the committee can clear up the details.
I’m just trying to show, in the midst of the debates that have gone on here, how what is being said doesn’t line up with the facts. The reality is that what’s before us, in Bill 40, is a proposal to, in fact, have a second referendum. I’m saying: how can this be? How is that even enforceable in the real world?
I think a committee looking at it and discussing it can actually give a clarity as to whether there’s any use to this — which I don’t think there is — or whether it is in fact doable or workable. What I’m trying to do is to bring evidence of lack of detail. By lack of detail, I’m saying this should get to committee so that we can actually get some more decisions, because this whole proposal, this whole thing that is before us, is rigged. It’s all rigged, because it’s going in one direction.
Again, the three proposals that are before us are all focused on the party. The voters here are not being given an opportunity to have a system that is voter-centric. There are those systems. Now again, maybe they’re not used very often through other proportional representation countries that are using that, but the opportunity is there for the voters to keep a hold of their most precious item, and that is their vote, their power to choose who sits in this House.
That’s the clarity I’m looking for. Those are the details that we’re asking for. In the midst of this entire proposal that is before us and the whole referendum itself, again, we say there’s this accountability. We say that there is this, that and the other thing, but even the issue of local representation is getting more and more diluted.
Again, I could sit there and go through the three different proposals before us, but as we get larger and larger ridings…. That isn’t necessarily bad, because I have served as a councillor in the city of Surrey. In the city of Surrey, we don’t have constituencies, as my friend from Surrey-Whalley has also. We sat together in the good Surrey council. We had some interesting sparring opportunities in the midst of Surrey council. Again, it was amazing. Even there, we sat on opposite sides of the council desk as we were there. It was just amazing.
Even in the midst of all of Surrey…. It, by the way, is currently nine ridings or nine constituencies. Good for Surrey. We’re getting our representation and our voice here, and that’s a good thing. But you see, I’m not afraid of representing all of Surrey. I’ve done it for 23 years. I have no problem with that.
Where I do have a problem is, as we look at the vastness of this province…. We’re talking about Surrey, we’re talking about the Lower Mainland. Again, the Lower Mainland, although it’s half the population of this wonderful province, it’s only — I haven’t done the math on it, but I’m guessing — about 1 percent of the land. It’s very, very little of the whole of this province.
That’s why we have a system where we protect the members up north. They don’t have as many constituents because they have vast, vast areas to represent. But we’ll be losing even more of that, because, as was shown…. In the 2009 referendum, I think we had almost a third of the province in one riding. It was going to be one riding in the midst of this.
So we lose that local representation. The voter loses that local perspective. This is a referendum that has been created by…. The proposals that we have on the ballot are created by political parties for political parties to keep political parties in power and keep them working.
I don’t necessarily say that our party is better than their party. I wouldn’t say such a thing. I would say they’re the same in the fact that they’re both parties….
Interjection.
M. Hunt: Oh no. We have very different perspectives on things, and that’s why I sit with this group, because I am more aligned with this group and what they’re doing. By the same token, that is part of the beauty of the parties we have.
Now, yes, it might be nice to have more of a third party or a fourth party. Actually, we have, I think, about — what is it? — 27 or 28 parties in B.C., something like that, right now under the current system that we have. But all of these parties are coalitions. They’re people working together so that the very platforms that we put out are, in fact, compromises of the…. I don’t want to use the word “extremes,” because that’s an inappropriate term, at least for our side of the House.
We have different perspectives, we come together, and we have a commonality. We put forward a platform to the citizens that’s a commonality of working together to say: “We think this is the direction that we should go.”
Now, I don’t question for one minute that the members opposite also want a better British Columbia than we have today. We want to see improvements for our kids and our grandkids. Yes, some of us have a lot of grandkids. Some of us have a lot of stake in the future of this province. But again, we’re here, people vote for us.
The wonderful thing is actually…. It was just in social media yesterday. We had a debate going on over proportional representation. I was putting forward my thoughts, and a friend of mine for years and years was disagreeing with me. Another one came up and said…. I guess I’m not allowed to use my name here because I’m a representative. But anyhow, they basically said: “Well, we trust you because we’ve known you for so many years. We’ve known to trust you.”
That kind of relationship between a member in this House and his constituency is absolutely invaluable. To me, that’s what makes this House work. Even though, yes, we can have our disagreements across this House — we can say that they’re doing it the wrong way, and they can say we did it the wrong way, and we can have all this — we know our constituents. Our constituents know us.
They have chosen to put their confidence in us directly by their vote, not from some list that’s sitting, created by only the Lord knows how. Somebody’s making the choice of who’s out here. My constituents get stuck with this person who may not even live anywhere near Surrey. It could be somebody that they’ve picked off a list that lives over in Cowichan Bay or something.
Interjections.
M. Hunt: Yeah, they could be East Vancouver. You’re absolutely right. It could be…. Is it Kensington? They could actually be from that Kensington area of Vancouver instead of someone representing our good Surrey. We don’t know those things. Those are details, again, that I think we need to be dealing with in the midst of committee. That’s why I have moved the motion.
I’m noticing my time. I’m wondering, Madame Speaker, shall I continue on?
Interjection.
M. Hunt: Okay. Hey, I’ve got lots of stuff to do. I’m happy to keep going.
There’s that relationship, and I think that’s so critical, and it’s so important that we work on that, that we continue. Because if this referendum, in fact, is two elections from now, which could be up to ten years from now…. Actually, it could be more than that, because it’s going to be ten years because they’re, theoretically, five-year mandates. So that could be 12 years from now. There’s an awful lot of history that gets lost in the midst of 12 years.
I dare say: how many of the members sitting in this House will be here 12 years from now? The normal…. Yeah, okay. We’ve got a couple putting up their hands, and that’s good for them. But the reality is that when we look at the history of this House, the average time that a member serves in this Legislature is, in fact, eight years.
I realize, of course, Madame Speaker, that you are an absolute exception to that. If my memory serves me correctly, you are, in fact, the longest-serving member of this House. Certainly, congratulations to you, Madame Speaker, for that.
Of course, that is why I never argue with Madame Speaker when she says I’m out of order or I need to adjust things, because she’s certainly….
Interjection.
M. Hunt: Exactly, just like now. When she says to keep going, I’m going: “Absolutely, we’re going to do this.”
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
When we look at stability…. I mean, she has to be an example of stability that has been here — a long-serving relationship with her constituents in Richmond. They know who she is. They know what she’s thinking. They’re working together, and there’s that solid relationship.
It’s not like what we see when we go, for example, to Italy — 65 governments since World War II, Greece at 50, Belgium at 43.
I now see the leader of the government saying: “Marvin, you’ve had enough.” It’s time for lunch, and he’s getting hungry.
Mr. Speaker, I would move….
Interjections.
M. Hunt: No. I’m just looking at the…. I know who the boss in this House is, and the Government House Leader is the boss of this House. He’s looking at me, telling me: “Get it over.” The Speaker is nodding his head up and down.
With great, great reluctance, I move that we adjourn and have lunch. I move adjournment of the debate, and of course, I’ll reserve my right to continue on, because I have so much more to say.
M. Hunt 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