Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

LABOUR TRAFFICKING

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to be rising and speaking on the issue of labour trafficking today.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Labour trafficking happens in the context of human trafficking. It has the distinction…. If you ask pretty much anybody anywhere what their opinion of human trafficking is, everyone is opposed. When it comes to labour trafficking, I think that’s also the response — that everybody is opposed.

[10:05 a.m.]

But the question is: what is the definition of labour trafficking? What does it look like, and does it happen here in British Columbia? I think that’s the question, and I look forward to the opportunity to have a discussion on the prevalence of labour trafficking here in British Columbia and the steps that we can take.

We know that in the global context, human trafficking impacts over 40 million people worldwide, and more than half of those are in a situation of forced labour. When we talk of human trafficking, typically, what comes to mind…. Folks think of sex trafficking. Certainly, that is a great injustice, and there have been steps against that.

I’m talking today of labour trafficking, which is a specific form of trafficking. Labour trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery where individuals perform labour or services through the use of force, fraud or coercion. What does that mean? What does that look like here in British Columbia?

The cases, certainly, that I’ve seen come to my office in terms of casework and talking to folks in the field…. Mainly folks who are victims of labour trafficking in Canada and British Columbia fall within the categories of domestic workers, restaurant and food services, the hospitality in­dus­try — typically, low-wage workers under the temporary foreign worker program.

This sets the national context in terms of leading to the problems where folks typically are trafficked into Canada. It’s particularly the structural dynamics of the temporary foreign worker program. Folks coming in from other countries to work in British Columbia have to have their employer…. Their immigration status in Canada is tied to their employer, and their work in Canada is also tied to their employer.

If somebody comes into British Columbia under the temporary foreign worker program and they have an em­ployer who is violating their rights — not paying them adequate overtime, not meeting the terms of the contract, forcing them to work long hours, restricting their movements…. This is not the majority of employers, certainly, here in British Columbia and in Canada or even those that use the temporary foreign worker program. It is a number of folks who want to take advantage of this, and they do, for the purpose of profit.

It benefits those individual businesses, often in the private sector. It’s more profit for the employer if they have to pay their employee less. This is the situation that we see here in British Columbia. What does that look like? Do we think of human trafficking and labour trafficking as something that goes on in other countries around the world? It’s a reality here in Canada and right here in British Columbia.

Besides the cases that come to my office and that I see in terms of casework, there is the recent certification of the class action lawsuit that members will be familiar with. I think there were several hundred workers who were recruited from overseas to come in and work at Mac’s Convenience Stores, a very egregious situation. Several hundred workers were recruited from overseas to come in to work at Mac’s Convenience Stores in British Columbia and Alberta.

They were charged illegal recruitment fees. All of them paid at least $8,000 to come here for a job, to work in these convenience stores. They arrived in British Columbia, and they found they were what’s called released upon arrival. There was no job waiting for them. They came. They were released upon arrival. That puts their immigration status immediately up in the air and, also, in terms of their ability to work here in British Columbia.

Some of those folks made their way to the Migrant Workers Centre in Vancouver. It was through helping them with their cases, talking to and identifying scores of workers, hundreds of workers brought in by a labour recruiter in Surrey and charged these onerous fees, that now a class action lawsuit has been launched.

We really see — certainly, the cases that I’ve seen that’ve been reported, either through the Migrant Workers Centre or through Deborah’s Gate, which handles a lot of the victims — that pretty much all come in through the temporary foreign worker program, which creates a structural inequality through (1) their permanent residency tied to their em­ployer and (2) their work permit tied to the employer.

[10:10 a.m.]

In terms of looking at the reality that’s happening here in British Columbia, to bring a resolve to that, there are steps that we need to take — and that we have taken — in British Columbia, recognizing the reality. Also, there’s a role for all of us in terms of understanding the issue, that it happens in our communities right across British Columbia. All of us have a role to raise awareness, to understand the issue.

An additional dynamic: these victims are, one, often work­ing in low-wage sectors; two, they’re racialized; three, they’re often women. Those are disproportionately the victims of labour trafficking here in British Columbia.

We see this issue is not going away. Certainly, the numbers are increasing. When we look at the reports of over 250 victims of trafficking in British Columbia last year, over a third are victims of labour trafficking, and those are just the ones that report. Part of the difficulty is that often folks who are in these situations are isolated. There are often threats or coercion against them. They’re scared. It’s very difficult for them to leave these situations, to reach out, to know where to go.

Those are just the ones that are reported. It’s a concern not only for them, for their well-being, but also for all British Columbians.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to contribute to this issue around labour trafficking and the statements by the member for Vancouver-Kensington on this very, very important issue. I recognize the member has used some very specific local examples. I think it’s important, as she did, to point out the context of those in the broader international issue that many, many jurisdictions are dealing with.

The United Nations defines trafficking in persons as the act of “recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.” As the member correctly pointed out, that includes forced labour, deception, unfulfilled promises, fraudulent commitments, servitude.

These are certainly things that go against the values we hold dear in Canada. That’s why we must work to ensure that our values are respected and adhered to when it comes to programs that present possible avenues to exploit others.

Temporary foreign workers — foreign workers contribute greatly to society and are an important part of the Canadian economy. Unfortunately, temporary foreign workers programs can be an avenue — not always an avenue, but they can be an avenue — for labour deception and abuse. There are examples that, as I pointed out, do not reflect the values and the human rights we all believe in.

Workers from around the world can be vulnerable to human labour exploitation. In some cases, employers can be unwillingly caught in it as well. There are valid concerns about the vulnerability of temporary foreign workers — live-in caregivers, nannies, seasonal agricultural workers, do­mes­tic workers and others with less-than-permanent status in Canada.

However, it is important to recognize, as the member pointed out, that the greatest majority of employers treat workers with respect and provide safe and meaningful working conditions and experience. Temporary foreign workers can be at increased risk due to isolation, inability to speak the language, lack of knowledge of their rights in Canada. These factors, among others, lead to situations that can be taken advantage of. That’s why we must be vigilant in protecting those who come to Canada to work.

In B.C., as was pointed out, there are many temporary workers who come for seasonal agricultural work. That’s an area that I have most experience in, given all of my work previously in the agriculture sector. Over 7,000 workers provide critical and much-needed support to our agriculture sector and have been instrumental in ensuring crops are planted, tended to and harvested, particularly given the seasonal nature of so many of our horticultural crops. They come to Canada and B.C. by international agreements between Canada and Mexico and Canada and certain Caribbean nations.

[10:15 a.m.]

The program set standards for housing, transportation, benefits, wages, hours, conditions of work and is subject to oversight audit and inspection. I know the program is greatly valued by the agriculture sector. I’ve talked and met with many workers in the sector, as well, who value the work — the opportunity to provide for their families and to develop skills and experience. It’s been a priority to ensure the safety of those who come to our province and who do that honest day’s work and provide for their families while contributing to British Columbia’s vibrant agriculture sector.

I recognize that there’s more to do. Improvements can be made, and I recognize the need to address exploitation through the recruitment process, in particular. I do, as I said in recent comments in the House, have some concern that the recent legislative initiatives that require registration on the part of employers may be a duplicate regulatory burden.

While not disputing at all the concerns raised by the member with respect to the recruitment component — I don’t want to minimize those concerns at all — I believe that enforcement mechanisms exist to manage some of those at the employer level, whether it be by employment standards, WorkSafe or compliance with existing agreements.

Education is also an important component of this issue. We need to do the education to help foreign workers understand their rights and to help fellow Canadians understand how to recognize if an individual is being exploited or trafficked. The office to combat trafficking in persons has a list of the things we need to watch out for and look for when employees, people in the temporary foreign worker program, exhibit those indications.

Again, I really feel this is an important issue. It has values that we need to protect as British Columbia citizens.

M. Elmore: I appreciate the remarks by the member for Kelowna-Mission and his experience on this matter. I’m very pleased that we can be in agreement and consensus that the reality of labour trafficking in British Columbia is something that all members of the House are opposed to and stand against.

With concluding remarks, I am pleased…. The member mentioned, and I echo the important role of the office to combat the trafficking in persons to really take a leading role to address this issue across all ministries, raising awareness of front-line workers. I know my sister works in emergency as a nurse, and she went through the training. She said that she thinks, looking back, that she may have seen some victims of trafficking, on reflection. Certainly, raising awareness is key.

I also know that I’m very pleased that our government has introduced the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. This has really ensured that the culture of impunity that has gone on over the last number of years in our province…. Certainly, the lack of accountability and determent against those who would violate the program and violate the rights of temporary foreign workers has been closed.

I can say, and I can tell the members in the House, that across the board we see — and it’s reported to me — systemic violations of illegal recruitment fees being charged. There’s really a need to ensure that stops. In addition to that, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act will also ensure there’s investigation to address occupational health and safety violations. In addition, victims of labour trafficking often experience sexual harassment and sexual violence because it’s gendered. They’re also racialized, so that’s a component. In addition, we need the proactive enforcement of our employment standards. This is an issue that impacts not only those workers but all workers here in British Columbia.

We know that we have great services — Deborah’s Gate. I’m very pleased our government announced more beds for their transition house and their wraparound services. They really do a terrific job not only of supporting victims but ensuring they recover from the trauma and are able to reintegrate — very key and important.

As well, we have a number of organizations — Migrant Workers Centre — who provide the legal support, very complex cases. Often they’re scared to come forward. It’s very onerous — the need to address their immigration status and also their work permits federally and provincially. Support needs to be in place for that.

Fundamentally, we need to end the root causes and also the structural contribution to labour trafficking in Canada, and that is the problems with the federal temporary foreign worker program. That is an issue to be continued.

[10:20 a.m.]

Certainly, I’m very pleased to join with the member for Kelowna-Mission and, I think, all members of the House to ask them to understand labour trafficking in their community and for us in British Columbia to stand against this scourge.

CITIZENS’ RESPONSIBILITY

M. Lee: I rise today to deliver a private member’s statement on citizens responsibility. My parents came from Hong Kong, in the ’50s and ’60s, to this country to build a strong future. At the time, in 1947, Canadians of Chinese descent, for the first time in the history of this country of ours, had the right to vote.

That right to vote emanated from the sacrifice of many Canadians, including Canadians of Chinese descent, Indigenous peoples and others, to join with others, to fight for freedom and justice in our world, in our military service. I know that each of the members of the chamber and our guests in the audience here today, in the gallery, all wear a red poppy in remembrance of that.

It’s important to remember, of course, the legacy that has been built up in our province and our country for our democratic system. Others have made sacrifices to protect that, to stand for the rights of individual Canadians to vote.

I grew up in Vancouver and volunteered in the community with youth at risk and on student campuses. From very early on, I knew and learned about the importance of civic engagement and citizens’ responsibility to our country. Those lessons, early on, have stuck with me throughout my life. It’s what we impart to our children and others.

This is why I continue to be so concerned about the flawed referendum that this government has brought forward to British Columbians — not because it aims to alter our democracy, in the sense that electoral systems all over the world can continue to be improved upon.

In fact, as we know, in this province, we have gone through two previous referenda where citizens themselves were given the responsibility to review, in a comprehensive fashion and with the advice and input of experts and academics, and to go through a year-long process to determine what the best form is to consider in the alternative for their voting system. As we all know, that form that was proposed was a single transferable vote, a system that continued to give British Columbians that voter-based right.

I’m concerned because this time around, citizens haven’t been able to be provided with the same level of responsibility. We’ve had very limited engagement, through an on-line survey. We haven’t had the kind of fulsome, comprehensive engagement of citizens.

Why is that? Well, we know that what this referendum is about, this third time around, is not really and not truly about electoral reform. The NDP and the Green Party will talk about the fact that it was in their election platforms. Well, there were a lot of things in their election platforms. There were promises by our Premier for a simple yes-or-no vote. There were promises that there would be an all-parliamentary committee to review, in a comprehensive form, the alternatives. There was a promise that there would be geographic thresholds to be met.

All those promises were swept aside in the interests of power, in the interests of our three Green Party colleagues in this House to prop up this NDP government. This is not electoral reform. This is the opposite of what we want as citizens of this province — to continue to look at how we have better government.

[10:25 a.m.]

I’m concerned that in speaking with many British Columbians across our province, with all of our colleagues on this side of the House, we commonly see, including over this last weekend, British Columbians that are still not informed about this referendum, British Columbians that are still not engaged in this process.

This entire process has been crafted by this government to suppress citizen engagement. Those who have advocated for change aren’t even being be allowed the opportunity to get the kind of information and the details that they need to consider these three alternatives that are being proposed. It is a citizens responsibility to ensure that we vote in this referendum as a result to keep our current first-past-the-post system.

This government has not met its responsibility to British Columbians to enable them to exercise their responsibility to consider electoral reform. It’s because of that that citizens have the responsibility to demand better from their government and, in the meantime, to continue to get engaged with this referendum, despite the level of confusion and the lack of information to exercise the responsibility of citizens to ensure that we continue to have stable and accountable government in our province and not the flawed referendum process that this government has brought on us.

I urge British Columbians to stand up in the face of this flawed referendum, to shine the light on the dishonesty and the cynicism this government has brought upon us and to ensure that this referendum does not fly under the radar as this government wishes. Fundamentally, we cannot have a situation where this province’s citizens are being asked to forego their proper civic engagement in this flawed referendum process that has subverted democratic principles in our province.

Citizens need to exercise a responsibility, stand up to this government to say no, and continue to support our current first-past-the-post system.

R. Leonard: I would like to explore voting — voting which is both a citizen’s right and responsibility. I recently spoke to some grade eight and nine students at Lake Trail School in Courtenay. I took the opportunity to encourage them to exercise their right to vote as soon as they are able, because it’s been shown that if young adults do not vote when they are first eligible, they’re likely to never vote in their entire lives.

Why does it matter? Our democracy is weakened when citizens are not participating, when they are not exercising their freedom to choose. That gap exposes a danger of losing the many freedoms that democracy can bring. This is where the tilt begins, where right turns into responsibility. If we want our rights and freedoms, we need to exercise them. Take them out into the light and walk into those polling booths to make our mark.

So who votes, and who doesn’t? New Canadians, especially those who have come from countries where democracy is only a dream, exercise their franchise often with profound appreciation. Voting is an event to be celebrated.

I remember one woman who was delighted to become a new Canadian very shortly before her first vote. That first vote was cast for me, in the hope that our party brought. As she proudly said: “I was one of the nine.” Every vote counts.

Sadly for others, voting lacks that joy and excitement. Who doesn’t vote? We know that young voters are staying away from the polls in droves, but it’s not just those young voters. The numbers of voters across the board has been dwindling over the past few decades. A lot comes into play. But really, it boils down to four basic reasons. Those reasons include education, role models, registration and a sense of empowerment.

We often hear: “I didn’t learn about civics when I was in school.” Simply put, education is an investment in democracy. Greater attention is needed so that as those young students grow up to be of voting age, they don’t feel they aren’t informed enough to participate.

[10:30 a.m.]

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the Speaker’s sponsorship of the wonderful program here at the Legislature, the B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. Teachers who are keen to better know our parliamentary democracy become better prepared to inspire their students, our future voters, to have a stronger understanding and confidence to participate in our democracy.

There are other resources, too, that civil societies have been creating, as the crisis of lack of participation in elections grows. Student Vote is one such program, and there are others. But on its own, education is not enough. Role models nurture voting as a learned behaviour. As one generation after another falls away from voting, there are less and less role models — role models who make the exercise of choosing their governments a commonplace task.

Teachers can be inspirational, but added to that is another layer: when people that students know and love involve them in the practice of voting, the way is paved. When moms and dads vote and involve their children in discussion about choices and about the value of voting, and by bringing them along to the polling station, then there’s a greater likelihood that they will take up voting when they are able.

But while education and role models open the door of possibility, there are stumbling blocks. We talk about voter registration and the need to improve that and make it easier for people to make it part of their everyday routine — not like going to the dentist but more like going to a ball game.

Finally, we come to today’s important debates and today’s choices. When people don’t feel that there is value in voting, then there is little motivation to make the effort to exercise their freedom to choose. Refining our voting system so that every citizen feels the power of their vote will reinforce a citizen’s right and responsibility to choose — and strengthen our democracy.

Of course, that’s why I support proportional representation — to get closer to 100 percent of the vote for 100 percent of the power.

M. Lee: I, too, share the concern about the importance of voting, which is what this private member’s statement speaks to. It is our responsibility to vote in this referendum. When we see the amount of voting packages that have been left in recycling bins, voting packages that have gone awry, we know that we need to do better. This is the purpose of this statement. It’s the purpose to encourage British Columbians to fight through the confusion and the lack of information to engage with this referendum process.

We’re now two weeks into this process. We have the balance of this month. But we need to ensure that this is an opportunity for British Columbians to come to understand our voting system. It’s the opportunity for new Canadians, young and old, to continue to support what has been a stable and accountable and fair system of voting for our province — one that continues to create the kind of consensus that we need to build all over this province.

We need to also encourage citizens to not allow this type of manipulation by their government. You would think that government would want to have a clear, fair and transparent referendum. It hasn’t been that. We haven’t, regrettably, put British Columbians in a position to exercise their responsibility to vote in this referendum.

The information that has been provided to British Col­um­bians in their voting guides continues to have questions. The Premier may attempt to address one of them, but there are still 28 other items to be determined after the vote. How many of these items have already been determined by this government yet have not been shared with British Columbians?

British Columbians need to be asked why, in their voting guide, it says that there will be a promise of a second referendum, yet as we know, we continue to debate that legislation to bring that into effect — at least, the promise part — in this House. There continues to be confusion and concern about the definitions of the various voting systems that are being provided to voters.

[10:35 a.m.]

I encourage British Columbians to continue to ask the questions, but more importantly, to fight through the confusion and exercise the responsibility to vote in this referendum. In order to protect our democratic system in this province, we need to continue to keep our current first-past-the-post voting system.

URGENT CARE CLINICS

A. Kang: I rise in this House today to make a private mem­ber’s statement on the impact and importance of ex­pand­ing the provision of urgent care clinics and care outside of the hospital.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I have the privilege of meeting with seniors, their families and caregivers. I have listened. I know that everyone, including our seniors, wants the support and quality of care that helps them to age actively and live life to the fullest.

One of the first actions that our government took to strengthen health supports for British Columbians was to invest in the Fair PharmaCare program. Our government has taken the initiative to reduce and eliminate deductibles for people with the lowest incomes in the province. This will be the first change to deductibles in 15 years.

We know that many of those who will benefit from the investments are seniors who are faced with these hard choices every day: should I spend my money on prescriptions and medications today, or should I use it to buy groceries or pay rent? The increasing unaffordability that we saw under the previous government meant that many seniors struggled to afford the cost of prescription medications, and the high deductibles under the Fair PharmaCare program offered little to no respite from this challenge.

A decision to forgo prescription medications to afford other basic necessities risks serious consequences. It could mean more visits to doctors and to hospitals. It is thus important that we recognize actions, like our investments in Fair PharmaCare, as key steps to help seniors stay healthy and at home.

It is estimated that there are approximately one million family and friend caregivers in B.C. Many of us in this House today are among them. I am, and I know that our place by the sides of our elderly loved ones is one that they cherish and one that helps them do more of the things they want to do, like spend time with family, stay at home where they feel most at ease and live as independently as they can.

However, when our caregivers are feeling frustrated and depressed, or feeling like they cannot continue with their duties, we need to do better to support them.

In 2017, the seniors advocate reported that 29 percent of unpaid caregivers are burning out. That’s why I’m so proud that we have taken action to expand respite care and adult day programs. Our investments in senior care recognize that this work involves caring for the caregivers, and the added resources will help provide them with more options to enrich their health and wellness. This includes the addition of approximately 7,400 more adult day program spaces on Vancouver Island.

Under the previous government, program spaces had not kept up with demand. We’re making the changes, and we are doing it now. By supporting the people our seniors count on, this will help many seniors and adults with cognitive and physical disabilities to continue living at home. This is a very important example of the action that our government is taking to strengthen health and senior care at home and in the community.

Across the province, I have heard from local communities who are anxious to meet the demands of a growing senior population. Currently 20 percent of the population in our province is 65 and older, and by 2030, 25 percent of our population will be 65 and older. Addressing the challenges ahead requires us to think boldly about the way we deliver health care.

The first step is to put patients back into the centre of care and support a renewed focus on teams so that the doctors, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, care aides and many other health care workers involved in delivering the care can work together to give British Columbians the services they need. Urgent primary care centres are a key part of this ambitious strategy and present a new option for British Columbians to access day-to-day health care.

For too long, people in B.C. have been unable to get a same-day or next-day appointment with their primary care providers. We want to change that. Urgent primary care centres will provide primary care to patients who currently do not have a family doctor or nurse practitioner. They will support weekend and after-hour care to help take pressure off hospital emergency departments.

Urgent primary care centres will be staffed by a team of health professionals who will be connected with a variety of services and programs. This will enable them to better help patients coordinate follow-up care and services.

[10:40 a.m.]

Last week the Quesnel Urgent Primary Care Centre opened its doors to the community. It is supported by a health care team that provides people with the immediate care they need, but they also help facilitate continuity of care by connecting patients to a range of available community services and supports. In Quesnel, there will be a focus on helping seniors access community supports to help them safely stay at home longer.

We know that before opening the urgent primary care centre, the emergency department was often the only place available after hours to members of this community for what were primary care needs such as sprains, minor cuts and burns. By improving how we connect people to care, urgent primary care centres are helping people get the care they need faster and closer to home.

Initiatives like this one are part of our government’s work to enhance the provision of services across a spectrum of care. Our government will be putting in place urgent pri­mary care centres as well as primary care networks and community health centres. Our priority is to find new ways of working, coordinating services and delivering care so that British Columbians don’t have to wait so long, travel so far and search so long for the care they need.

Our government wants to strengthen our health care system so that it can be resilient and adaptive to the changing needs of British Columbians in the future.

I, here, support primary care and its services.

J. Isaacs: Thank you to the member for her comments.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss urgent care centres here today. As co–Health critic, with a focus on seniors, this topic is near and dear to my heart.

Urgent care centres are vital parts of our community, and they’ve been developed to ease the burden on community and regional hospitals and to ease the need for physicians in smaller, less accessible areas. Urgent health care centres provide a pathway forward to modernize the delivery of health care options, particularly in smaller rural communities. They are designed to provide patients with complete urgent, primary and community-based health care services.

The work to establish health care centres has been ongoing for some time, since 2008, when the Oceanside task force was formed with representatives from local, regional and provincial governments; residents associations; medical professions; the health authority; and other groups. This collaboration led to the development of these centres, where people can be provided with assurance that they will have access to consistent health care in their communities if and when they require it.

Urgent care centres fill that much-needed gap in our health care system. This is important to seniors and others who have mobility challenges, are managing pain or are dealing with chronic and complex health issues and have to travel longer distances to access health care.

The very first urgent care centre was established right here on Vancouver Island in the riding of Parksville-Qualicum. As of September 2013, the Oceanside Health Centre opened to residents. It offers a range of services such as case management, end-of-life support, emotional health and life changes support.

It also provides access to respite services, which is one of the most challenging issues that caregivers struggle with. It provides assistance for after-hospital discharge, chronic disease management and referral to adult day programs. Oceanside Health Centre’s expanded services also include self-management support, tele–home monitoring, education, mental health and addictions supports, falls prevention and health promotion.

It’s a fantastic complement to the Parksville-Qualicum community. It allows families, and especially seniors, a one-stop shop to access health care needs. It offers comprehensive service and convenient access to physiotherapists, dietitians and X-ray lab services all in one place.

[10:45 a.m.]

Oceanside Health Centre offers services to adults with moderate and severe mental health diagnosis, seniors over the age of 65 who require specialized assessment or treatment for complex health conditions and illnesses, individuals with diabetes on insulin pumps or women with gestational diabetes. It also provides patients who are consulting with specialists outside of Oceanside Health the use of telehealth services so that patients do not need to travel outside of their communities in order to get access to health services.

Urgent care centres reduce the need for area-specific physicians, and they enhance access to specialized health services for patients. It is my hope that we continue to develop better ways to improve patient-centred care and look to modernize the delivery of health care services by adopting successful models such as urgent care centres in those communities where this model of care makes sense and benefits the patient.

Oceanside Health Centre was the first urgent care centre, and its success over the past five years should inspire other similar communities to build on this successful model, providing convenience and much-needed access to a range of care for patients.

A. Kang: I thank the member for Coquitlam–Burke Moun­tain for her response. I know that she is also very passionate about providing British Columbians with the health services that are so needed in many of our communities. I think members on both sides of the House will agree that we want to see care and support in place for families and communities and for seniors to maintain their quality of life and be as active and healthy as possible.

We know that this is what seniors want. We know that this is what the people of British Columbia want. We want to continue to better the health care services that people can count on.

Today residents of the West Shore communities will benefit from the opening of the new urgent primary care centre. It will connect residents with primary health care teams and be there for same-day care as an alternative to waiting in an emergency room. To respond to the needs of the people of West Shore, the care team will include a mental health and substance abuse clinician.

Urgent primary care centres are an important part of our plan to deliver better, faster health care for people across the region and around the province. Our government has announced four urgent primary care centres already in Surrey, Kamloops, Quesnel and West Shore and will be bringing in more communities across B.C. These key services in primary care mean that people will be able to get the support they need when they need it.

FAIRNESS IN THE WORKPLACE

J. Martin: It’s always nice to take one’s place on Monday morning private members’ time.

I’m speaking for the next little bit about fairness in the workplace. That, in and of itself, is a fairly vague term, and I guess we can interpret that any number of ways. Who among us has never said, in this current position as an MLA or in their previous job: “That’s not right; that’s not fair”? I mean, it’s fairly subjective. What may be considered unfair to some might just be some of the realities of the workplace and meeting a deadline, etc., to others.

There are some absolutes we can discuss when we’re talking about fairness in the workplace. These absolutes would include discrimination, unequal compensation, discriminatory hiring practices. While there is a certain degree of latitude in determining what counts for fairness in the workplace, there are some specifics that we need to deal with.

[10:50 a.m.]

We’re kind of in a period right now where it’s very topical to talk about fairness in the workplace, as new legislation is already underway and, I suspect, more coming down the pike that will impact the workplace. Will this legislation make the workplace more fair, or will it make it less fair? This legislation and the policies that ensue from it…. Is that going to make the workplace more compatible, or is it going to be more restrictive?

One of the concerns — and we don’t have anything definitive on it yet, but it is something that we want to talk about ahead of time — is that it’s on the table, and it has been noted by the Premier and by the Minister of Labour that there is an appetite for getting rid of the secret ballot for union certification and that that could be replaced by a simple strategy of literally just signing a card. Is that an ideological move? Is that a move toward fairness? Is that something that is problematic in the workplace right now that needs to be replaced? Well, depending on what the government decides to do with that particular piece of potential change in labour law, we’ll have a very vigorous discussion about it.

I believe that every worker should be completely free, of his or her choosing — be completely uninconvenienced, unencumbered, unchallenged — to make the decision to join a union or to refrain from joining a union.

We know that there is going to be ideological and partisan pressure on both sides to join a union or to refrain from doing so. The worker — he or she should have the right to make that choice without fear of threat, peer pressure, intimidation or anything else. No one should feel challenged if they want to join a union. No one should feel challenged if they don’t want to join a union.

The problem is that the removal of the secret ballot makes the process public. I’m sure everyone here in this room, a couple Saturdays ago, went and did their due diligence and voted in the municipal elections. I’m pretty sure that regardless of what community you represent, you had the option of filling out that ballot in secrecy. Especially for us, it’s kind of awkward. Most of us in public life are very careful about putting out to public who we’re supporting and who we’re going to give a pass on supporting. We kind of like to keep that personal, and so do a lot of other people. They want to keep that information private. Your ballot is yours and yours alone. If you wish to share that information, you’re free to do so.

Well, if we were to move to a situation where the secret ballot was tossed aside, then no longer do workers have the option of privately making that decision. They have to make it in a public setting where they are going to win and gain the approval of some, and they’re going to disappoint others. If we want to maintain fairness in the workplace, we need to be very attuned to some of the most core, significant, democratic values of the institution of democracy. One of those is the secret ballot.

There are other issues, as well, that are underfoot with respect to fairness in the workplace. Momentarily we’re going to hear from the other side, and they’ll have a chance to go into some of those other issues maybe in a little more detail in a bit of a rebuttal.

I want to say that I have full confidence that every single member of this House from all of the parties, all sides of the gallery have a serious, significant, sincere interest in enhancing fairness in the workplace. None of us want to see that rolled back.

How are we going to achieve that? What is our definition of “fairness”? How are we going to protect democracy and workers’ rights through reform of labour legislation?

[10:55 a.m.]

Given the vast changes in the workplace — the gig economy, people working from home, people often doing short-term contracts, maybe two or three of them at a time — there’s a different landscape there. If we’re going to maintain fairness and treat all workers fairly, we have to be very alive to the changing workplace and the reforms that are going to be needed to ensure that we don’t take a step backwards. I believe that the erosion of the secret ballot would be a step backwards.

I look forward to my colleague’s remarks.

J. Routledge: I welcome this opportunity to talk about fairness in the workplace and what it really looks like.

I stumbled across a tweet that was posted last week by the B.C. Liberal caucus, and it goes like this: “The @BCLiberalCaucus stands with unions and workers in defending their rights and freedoms.” Really? Let me read that again: “The @BCLiberalCaucus stands with unions and workers in defending their rights and freedoms.”

It takes a lot of gall to post a statement like that. In the face of the reality of their track record, those are hollow words at best. It looks like the B.C. Liberals did more than rebrand themselves at their recent convention. They are trying to rewrite their history. They are trying to obfuscate the appalling treatment of workers and unions at their hands, and as a lifelong union activist, I’m not going to let them get away with it.

Now, we have been cautioned so far about what this government might do with regard to fairness at the workplace. What I want to do is caution us about what’s already been done, the way the B.C. Liberals have already demonstrated their commitment to workers.

Let me start with the thousands of workers, mostly women, who are hard at work every day keeping our health care facilities clean and germ-free in challenging circumstances. What did the previous government call them? Toilet cleaners.

That same previous government made a solemn promise before the 2001 election to respect signed collective agreements, yet once they took power, one of the first things they did was renege on that promise. They tore up collective agreements by passing some of the most authoritarian legislation this country has ever seen — legislation the top court in the land would later rule to be unconstitutional and illegal, legislation that has been condemned by the United Nations.

Now, in opposition, they’re trying to pretend that none of that happened. But it’s official. What they did was an abuse of power — an abuse of power they used to sack 10,000 mostly women health care workers, the largest mass firing of women workers in B.C. history.

Let’s not forget the chaos they created in our education system. They tore up contracts with teachers, stripped them of their ability to negotiate class size and composition and create better classroom conditions for their students. Here again they abused their power. Here again the Supreme Court ruled that their actions were unconstitutional, and still they weren’t done disrespecting the rights of teachers. Let’s not forget that in 2012, then Premier Christy Clark deliberately provoked a full-scale teachers strike. If you think I’m overstating it, just read the ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court.

There’s more. The B.C. Liberal government made fundamental changes to employment standards, changes that eroded protection for workers and tipped the scales in favour of employers. They reintroduced child labour after — what? — 100 years. They reduced minimum shifts protection to two hours. They eliminated the requirement to investigate complaints to the employment standards branch. They cut staff at the employment standards branch by 51 percent.

[11:00 a.m.]

They forced workers — regardless of their literacy, regardless of their proficiency to communicate in English, regardless of their vulnerability — to download on-line self-help kits to report abuses at their workplace. And that’s assuming they even knew their rights had been violated, because that was something else the government did. They eliminated the requirement of employers to inform their employees of their rights under the Employment Standards Act. I’m not even going to have enough time to go into detail about the ways the labour code and Workers Compensation Act were gutted under their watch.

Let me simply conclude by saying this. When it comes time for this House to vote on the measures this side of the House — the current government, the government that does have a track record of standing with workers and their unions…. When it comes time to vote on the measures we introduce to correct the imbalances in the employment standards, in the labour code, in worker’s compensation, workers themselves will be watching, and they’ll see who stands with them and their unions. It’s an opportunity for the other side to put their money where their tweets are.

J. Martin: Well, this is pretty rich. We have a representative of the government talking about their support of unions and workers when they’ve just told 85 percent of workers in the building and trades: “Get out of B.C. You’re not going to work in this province. We are going to bring in legislation that prohibits you working in this province.”

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

They say they’re a supporter of unions. If you happen to be one of the 19 unions that wrote hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars in cheques to the NDP over the years, yes, they support those unions. There’s a heck of a lot of other unions that are left out in the dark. That is not fairness in the workplace. That is political payback of the lowest order and nothing short of an absolute disgrace.

Every British Columbian, whether they are a union member or a non-union member or whether they are a member of this union or that union, have a right to publicly funded contracts in this province because they are funded by every single British Columbian, not just those that support the NDP. That is something that the government is having a tough time working their way around.

British Columbians of every stripe have the right to work on publicly funded projects. Those are not the purview of the NDP to assign solely to their supporters and those that have generously cut cheques over the years and over the decades — a complete and absolute disgrace.

We had a group here from the unions that are excluded from being on the priority list. What did we find out? What did the Premier call the members of CLAC? Turkeys. “Oh, you don’t belong to one of our approved unions. You’re a turkey.” That’s respect for the workplace? That’s respect for workers? That’s respect for unionized men and women, who do the heavy lifting in this province? I don’t think so. That doesn’t work for me.

In British Columbia, every single person, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of political donations, has a right to work on publicly funded contracts.

Hon. C. Trevena: We call, for consideration, Motion 30 by the member for Surrey-Fleetwood.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 30 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 30 — POPULAR VOTE
AND LEGISLATIVE POWER

J. Brar: It’s a real honour for me today to stand in this House to move the following motion.

[Be it resolved that this House recognizes that 40 percent of the popular vote should not equal 100 percent of the legislative power.]

For too long, the outdated voting system has put too much power in the hands of too few when the majority is left out. It should be noted that since 1928, there has been only one election, only one election where a single party has received over 50 percent of the popular vote. So over 50 years, a party with less than 50 percent of the vote has held 100 percent of the power, and that is a big problem.

[11:05 a.m.]

In the recent Ontario elections, Doug Ford’s Conservative Party took 61 percent of the seats with only 41 percent of the vote. Similarly, the Quebec election that took place on October 1 saw the conservative coalition receive 37 percent of the popular vote but 59 percent of the total seats. In these two recent elections, each party won 100 percent of the power with less than 50 percent of the vote, and that is a problem.

We saw similar election results in this province under the B.C. Liberals for 16 years. In election after election, they would get less than half the votes, grab 100 percent of the power, and it was the hard-working people of British Col­um­bia paying the price.

The B.C. Liberals made everyone pay more for every­thing while cutting important services like health care and education. On the other hand, they gave huge tax breaks to the top 2 percent of people. It went on for 16 years — good times for B.C. Liberals and their wealthy friends and hard times for the people of British Columbia. That’s why B.C. Liberals are fighting for their own self-interest to keep the current system, where the wealthy and well-connected can call the shots.

Clearly, the old and outdated system is not working for the people. Too many people feel that their vote doesn’t count. Pro rep can fix that, and that’s why the people of British Columbia would like to change the current voting system to the new pro rep system.

Proportional representation is a system used by countries around the world to ensure that everyone’s vote counts. A party that gets 25 percent of the votes gets 25 percent of the seats in the Legislature. British Columbians have an opportunity to change their voting system so that everyone’s vote can count.

The referendum to change that voting system by mail-in ballot will run from October 22 to November 30, 2018. Pro rep will strengthen the voice of people from every region of the province. Parties will have to work together to get things done for the people of British Columbia. Parties will be more accountable.

The majority of the countries around the world now use some form of pro rep. We have seen from their experiences that governments are more stable. People have a greater sense of satisfaction in their democracies.

We have already banned big money from elections, and now we have a historic chance to finish the job and have a system where everyone’s vote counts. We have a chance to put the power back in the hands of the regular people, not just the wealthy and well-connected, and elect a government that works for everyone. We have a chance, finally, to put people at the centre of politics.

In the end, I would like to say to the people…. I think it’s very important for the people who are watching to know that the B.C. Liberals use the pro rep system to elect their own leader, because it is better than the current system. It should be noted that Dianne Watts, the B.C. Liberal leadership candidate, would have won if the B.C. Liberals used the current first-past-the-post system.

If the pro rep system is good for their own party, then it should be good for the people to use pro rep to elect their representatives. Therefore, I ask every member to support this motion.

M. Morris: The member who just finished speaking obviously isn’t fully informed on what proportional representation means and the different methods of voting that we have in this province. I go back to…. The system we have today recognizes the equality of voting. The courts have said many times over the years that that is one of the basic, fundamental parts of our democratic rights here in Canada.

[11:10 a.m.]

The balance in our electoral districts has been built in right from the beginning. It goes back to 1867, where the equality of voting power was paramount, and still is today, in our democratic system. We have 87 ridings in the province. The population was divided into those 87…. The 87 ridings were divided into the population of British Columbia to come up with equality based on population.

In addition to that, they also built in equality pertaining to the geographical and regional differences that we have in this province and right across the country. Those are the fundamental parts of voting equality. The equality of voting power in British Columbia is representation by population, with a plus or minus 25 percent deviation based on geographical and regional differences.

Every citizen in Canada, under the Charter, has a right to participate in the electoral process. They have the chance to sit down and listen to every candidate who espouses whatever the platform is that they’re representing. They talk about the policies they represent, and through that process, the citizens within that electoral area, within one of the 87 ridings we have, get an opportunity to see the candidates, whether they’re Green, NDP, B.C. Liberal or whatever other party might be running at the time. They get a chance to see the strength of character of that individual. They get a chance to see whether or not that individual will have the strength of voice to represent that area, that electoral district in this House.

They also get a chance to evaluate the policies and the platform that individual may be representing on behalf of their party. Through that, the day of the vote comes. The people within that electoral district will vote based on the individual and how well he or she represented the policies, the platform, the strength of character required. Based upon that, we will have 87 results coming from these separate ridings within the province here. Those are the true results of the people being represented in this province, in this House.

To go about changing the results of the election, which is what proportional representation does, by nullifying all of the will of the people, the votes that the people said and applying a mathematical formula, at the end of the day, to determine what the popular vote may have been…. What that does is virtually eliminate and nullify the great work that has been done in trying to develop equal representation within the ridings right across the province. By applying that mathematical formula, it will provide for urban centres — large, urban centres with a large number of voters — to influence what’s happening within the rural areas of the province.

Under our current constitution and our current first-past-the-post system, we have MLAs, we have opposition members and we have independents, as we’ve had sitting in the House before. That equals 100 percent of the power of the electoral system in this province. There is no imbalance there.

To simply say that 40 percent of the vote equals 100 percent of the power is misdescribing the situation. We have people duly elected within the 87 electoral districts in the province. They represent the people within those provinces. The popular vote has nothing to do with the overall democracy we have in the province, where the individual people are elected in their districts. By applying that mathematical formula at the end of the day, it nullifies it.

R. Glumac: Forty percent of the vote should not equal 100 percent of the power, but that is exactly what happens under a first-past-the-post system. It’s what happened in 2013. When the B.C. Liberals received 44 percent of the vote, they received 100 percent of the power. It’s what happened in 2009, when the B.C. Liberals received 46 percent of the vote and 100 percent of the power. It’s what happened in 2005, when the B.C. Liberals received, again, 46 percent of the vote and 100 percent of the power.

[11:15 a.m.]

It’s what happened in Quebec recently, where an anti-immigration party received 37 percent of the vote and 100 percent of the power. It’s what happened in Ontario, where Doug Ford’s party received 40 percent of the vote and 100 percent of the power. It’s what happened in the United States, when Donald Trump received three million less votes than his opponent and won the presidency.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Glumac: That is why every modern democracy in the world has switched to proportional representation, because pro rep democracies elect governments that better represent people.

Interjection.

R. Glumac: Well, not every one, but nine out of the ten top economic performers in the OECD, with the highest GDP per capita, use proportional representation.

Voter turnout under proportional representation is 7½ percent higher, and 8 percent more women get elected in PR democracies. In proportional representation, there is greater consistency between elections, while in first-past-the-post, with artificial majorities, there are wild policy swings, which isn’t good for the majority of people in those populations.

Why are the B.C. Liberals fighting so desperately to keep this current system? They’re not interested in representing the people of British Columbia. They’re not interested in listening to the concerns of the majority of British Columbians. They had 16 years, and they turned their backs on the majority of British Columbians.

It’s not surprising they would prefer…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s have one speech at a time, please.

R. Glumac: …a voting system that rewards the minority of voters with absolute power. They represent the minority. They represent the top 1 percent. They represent the elite, the most wealthy British Columbians.

Right now we have 57 percent of voters represented in our government, a majority of voters represented in government. Imagine that. That’s not something the B.C. Liberals want to see. They don’t want to see the majority of British Columbians represented in this House, so they’re becoming desperate and saying anything they can think of to try to scare people into voting against proportional representation.

Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that they are actually talking about Nazis? Nazis…

Interjection.

R. Glumac: Oh yes, it is.

…and fringe parties and extremists. Is this the kind of debate we’re engaging in here? We’re not going to be electing extremists or Nazis in this House under any voting system, because the people in B.C. are not Nazis, and they’re not extremists.

I’ll tell you what we are. We’re men. We’re women. We’re young. We’re old. We’re wealthy. We’re poor. We’re new to the province. We’ve been here for generations. We come from all walks of life, from all professions. We are a diversity of people, and this House should better represent that diversity. It’s extremely insulting to say that the people of B.C. do not deserve to have a voting system that would better represent the diversity of the province. They also say that there isn’t enough information out there.

We will be getting a voting system that better represents the diversity in this province. There’s a comprehensive package of details sent to every single person in this province. Elections B.C. has a website with videos that you can watch and a comprehensive explanation of all three voting systems, all three proportional representation systems.

Then they keep talking about the boundaries: “We don’t know what the boundaries are. How can we vote for this?” There’s an independent commission that sets up these boun­daries — an independent commission that apparently they would like to override, just like they like to override the B.C. Utilities Commission.

That’s not the way we do things. We follow the correct process. The reality is that this whole referendum was driven by the most successful public engagement process this province has ever seen. Based on that engagement, three systems were chosen. There’s nothing to fear, Mr. Speaker, but there’s a lot to gain for the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: One speech at a time, please. The member will speak when the Chair recognizes.

Kamloops–North Thompson.

[11:20 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It feels like the Bill Murray movie Groundhog Day in this chamber every day, because it seems every Monday, the government seems to want to bring forward yet another motion to try to use government resources to talk about proportional representation while, at the same time, ensuring that we can’t even do something as simple as a $5 Facebook post to boost it to make sure that the public actually has some information on this.

That’s okay. I will gladly talk on this subject yet again and maybe try to allay some of the members’ opposite’s fears about the need to change our electoral system.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

P. Milobar: I’d like to point out to the members opposite that, in fact, we don’t need to change wholesale the voting system on what delivers people to this place to represent the public in British Columbia. In fact, I would argue that we already have a very diverse legislature here from both sides. We have various ages, we have a lot of ethnicities represented in this place, and I think it’s a very good thing.

I’m sure it’s a great comfort for many ethnic communities out there to hear a middle-aged white politician assure them that there is not racism in British Columbia, as I heard in that last speech, but I would suggest that there are still, unfortunately, pockets of communities that very much so still sow the seeds of hate. I would hate to think that would take its place within any debate, within any power structure within this chamber. I think everyone in this chamber, from all sides, fully agrees today, as we stand here, that that is not appropriate.

It’s very interesting to me that we keep hearing that we need to fundamentally change the voting system so that 40 percent of the House doesn’t control 100 percent of the power.

Now, I would point out to the member that just spoke, because he listed off a few provincial election results that he wasn’t happy with, or down in the States…. I would point out that he doesn’t seem to take issue with the fact that the Alberta government was elected with the exact same percentage of votes, with the exact same percentage of seats as the Ontario government. Apparently, the NDP in Alberta were able to deliver a platform to the public that they could actually embrace and actually elect them in a majority situation, instead of them having to cut a deal with a third party to be able to cling to power, like we have here in British Columbia.

Even after 16 years, the NDP wasn’t able to figure out a platform that the public could buy into, to actually put them back into power. Instead, they have to try to rig the electoral system. It’s a farce.

If the members opposite truly wanted to have a broad spectrum of views being represented here through legislation, I would challenge the Premier, I would challenge the Government House Leader to actually bring forward even one of the 20 private member’s bills that currently sit on the order paper, stalled — that the government is fully in their rights to bring forward, yet they refuse to.

Those are private member’s bills that represent the opinions of 50 percent of this House, and the government is too afraid to bring one of those bills forward. And they’re telling the public: “We need to change the whole electoral system for that to happen.” That won’t happen, because this referendum doesn’t change the procedures of how this House operates.

We already have a coalition government — a coalition government that’s not delivering on any of their promises to the public, diluted-down promises. Their whole platform has been erased, yet we keep hearing from them that we have to change the whole electoral system for them to be willing to entertain the opinion of anyone else in this House that doesn’t currently sit on the government side.

There are 20 private member’s bills on the docket that we could deal with over the next ten days of this legislative calendar, but I’m certainly not holding my breath that the Premier is going to actually be a man of his word and operate this House differently. He hasn’t been a man of his word when it comes to this referendum. He has walked away from every promise he has made for this referendum, and that is a disservice to the public.

It’s disingenuous at best when he stands up and tries to say: “The only way the House will operate differently is if we have future minority governments in place.” We already have that in place. They are ignoring that completely.

The only thing this referendum does is it would allow the Green Party — without securing one more vote, without securing one more riding — the ability to handpick and hand-appoint 12 extra members. That’s what the last election would have resulted in. We would have gone to 36, the NDP would have gone to 36, and the Green Party could have gone from three to 15. The leader of the Green Party would have been able to hand-select, handpick 12 other people that didn’t get one vote in this province to sit in this House.

That is fundamentally wrong. Everyone else of the 87 of us had to earn the right and earn the privilege with our communities to be elected, and we need to continue to make sure that happens.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to stand in the House today and speak in favour of this motion.

[11:25 a.m.]

It’s very simple: 40 percent of the vote equals 40 percent of the seats. Now, we’ve seen example after example….

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: I hope the member will stay and listen to my comments, but unfortunately, he can’t handle the truth. I’ll let him head to wherever he wants.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: He’s in the House. The member was in the House.

We’ve had examples, such as New Brunswick. Recently Liberals there had 38 percent of the vote, and guess what. The PCs had 32 percent and ended up having more seats than the Liberals. That is fundamentally what’s wrong with this system we have.

The member before mentioned what happened in the U.S. with Hillary Clinton getting three million more votes than Donald Trump, yet Donald Trump cleaned house. There is something fundamentally wrong with our system when we can have 30 percent or 40 percent of the vote and have 100 percent of the power.

Now, I have to clear up some false statements that have been made in this debate. First off is this idea that you’re going to have extreme parties if you have proportional representation. Well, guess what. We have extreme parties with first-past-the-post. You don’t have to look past Quebec recently, where they’re denying people who wear turbans, where they’re denying people who wear hijabs to work as teachers, to work as police officers. That is within the first-past-the-post system.

You have a new party that’s forming. This gentleman who is starting a party from the Conservative Party…. He’s a branch of the Conservative Party. They’re spreading out and starting their own party against immigration and against diversity, saying: “Diversity is the enemy.” That is first-past-the-post.

There is example after example of first-past-the-post where extremism comes. Actually, you know what? The member speaks about it, and I’m going to speak about the extremism of their coalition. I was at their convention this weekend. All I heard was speaker after speaker say: “You know what? I want to remind you. We are a big-tent coalition. Let’s stick together. Please, please stick together.”

We have members as part of this big coalition here. We have some who support SOGI in the curriculum system. I commend some of the members over there that did some work on bringing that into the curriculum system. Then we have members who are actively campaigning against it and putting out misinformation. This is about keeping our kids safe, and their coalition over there has two extreme views.

They can’t even agree if climate change exists, on that side of the House. You’re talking about extremeness of a coalition, where one side doesn’t even believe that climate change exists and one side, a small portion of it maybe, that believes it exists. That’s just climate change.

You can go on, issue by issue. They’re lecturing this out of the House that you can’t have a coalition with two parties that disagree when they’ve had, for 16 years, a coalition that doesn’t agree on fundamental issues in our society.

I was, again, watching the B.C. Liberal convention and hearing them talk about how great the leader was and how happy they were. If they had first-past-the-post system in their leadership race, Diane Watts would have been the leader of their party. But they have Andrew Wilkinson now. Perhaps that’s why their membership….

Deputy Speaker: No names.

R. Kahlon: They don’t want proportional representation. Perhaps that’s the reason.

There are so many things I can say, but I found this doozy I wanted to share with the members. Former Premier Christy Clark, on the radio…. I have to read this quote, because it’s so fascinating.

“I see so many people whose interests and, in many cases, whose incomes are dependent on keeping the system the way it is — people who, unlike you, relish the ugly realities of the first-past system. I liked our first-past-the-post system. Now, of course, looking back, I realized that at the time, I liked it because our current system served my personal interest as a politician very well, thank you very much.

“I was an elected politician. I had been chosen by the first-past-the-post system. And I, like many of the interests, didn’t want to see a change in the system that worked very well for me.”

“Worked very well,” she said.

“What do I hear,” she said, talking about people she’s been hearing from on the radio. “What do I hear when I talk to you about politics? I hear that people are sick to death why our political system works. I increasingly know that the frustration is born out in the polls with fewer and fewer young people going to the polls every single year. They just say there’s no point in exercising their franchise — a franchise, by the way, a generation fought and died to protect. They say that there’s no point in doing that because their vote doesn’t matter.”

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

[11:30 a.m.]

R. Kahlon: This is the former Premier, Christy Clark, that’s talking about this.

M. Bernier: I think I’ll start by recognizing and acknowledging the member who spoke before me for basically giving credit to the people of British Columbia, who understood that the B.C. Liberals are a coalition, that we have a free voice, that we have free opinions, that we can actually be respectful and have those debates and that we represent a large portion of the province of British Columbia.

Unlike the members opposite, who are told by their Premier what to say, how to vote and what to do, we actually have a free voice on this side. That is something that we actually acknowledge….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Bernier: That allows us to represent a lot of people, which is probably why for 16 years we stayed in government. It’s because we were able to have those discussions and put forward ideas, platforms and opinions for the people of British Columbia to decide or not to decide whether they wanted to put us in government.

Let’s go back to the topic at hand. I think it’s really important to recognize what this government is trying to do and, with this motion — 40 percent of the popular vote — what they’re trying to put forward. What they’re neglecting to tell the people of British Columbia is what’s happening right now.

We have 87 separate ridings, separate elections, in the province of British Columbia right now. If I look at my riding as an example, I got almost 80 percent of the popular vote in my riding last election. There are people in this House that are sitting here right now, on my side and on that side, who got closer to 40. My vote is worth one, just like theirs. I’m representing an area, a jurisdiction, based on an election that took place under that system. Is that fair? Absolutely. We have drawn this province up to recognize the geographical differences, the economic differences, the ranges of opinions that we have in this province and why those differences need to be respected.

Now, this motion that the government has put forward here, where they say 40 percent, and they want to have all that…. Under proportional representation, what the government is not saying is that 90 percent of the population should tell the rest of the province what to do — that 90 percent of the population, in urban British Columbia, will now have the say of what happens in the rest of the province. The reason we have 87 separate ridings and 87 separate elections is to avoid that exact situation, to recognize the geographical, economic and regional differences that we have.

When you look at this referendum that the government has put forward, they are taking all of that away. They are not coming straight and clear with the people of the province of British Columbia on how they’re actually putting this referendum forward. Now, if they were willing to stand behind what they’re trying to preach, give all the information and go to exactly what they say they’re trying to accomplish, which is the voters having the say, they have completely gone the opposite direction by not putting that information out there.

I look forward to the next speaker after me probably reading the same speech that the three before him read. At the same time, what they should be doing is actually acknowledging that they’re not giving fair information to the people of British Columbia to make a fair and informed decision. They have not had the guts to come out and say: “We’re getting rid of 87 ridings.” They’ve tried to do this whole, “Your vote will count,” and all these great slogans.

Maybe they should be truthful and actually tell the people of British Columbia…. Maybe they — a good portion of them will be in this position — should be going back to their ridings, advocating and telling them: “I’m lobbying to get rid of your voice. I’m lobbying to get rid of your MLA. As an NDP MLA, I no longer want to represent you. It’s not going to happen, and that’s why I’m voting with what my Premier has told me to do.”

By the way, every single day it seems like there’s a new announcement or a change as they’re trying to manipulate this whole system. As soon as they see one door closing, they try to open it somewhere else, with a new announcement to try to give the money-back guarantee and try to scare people into voting for this system with all these slogans. They have not done their due diligence. They have not put forward the right information for the people of British Columbia.

This motion today is just another example of a slogan that means nothing — that has no meat on the bones of what’s going to happen in the province if PR passes. If they had done their job, put the information forward and taken politics out of this debate, then, obviously, it would have been more fair for the people of B.C.

[11:35 a.m.]

They have not done that. They have not accomplished that, which is why people are either throwing away their ballots or recycling them — can’t be bothered to vote. How is that fair to our democratic system? They have failed to do their jobs.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to stand and discuss the motion put forward by my friend from Surrey-Fleetwood. I join the voices of my colleagues, who are happy that the people of British Columbia have an opportunity to have a say on the system that we use to elect us here in this House.

I will just point out that my friends from both sides of the House have made good points. Some of them — there are degrees of agreement with specific points. We have places where we don’t disagree entirely; we have places where we do disagree entirely. This is a debate, and this is a question being put to the people of the province, with very good information from the independent Elections B.C. to ensure that the people of the province have the information they need. I don’t hear any examples of the opposition saying that they’re helping their constituents understand the vote. They’re scaring them a little bit, but they’re not giving them a true representation of what the options are that are available to them.

Quite frankly, the previous member for Peace River South talked about the fact that we have 87 elections in this province, and we in fact do. Every MLA gets elected. The first time I was elected, it was with less than 50 percent, and subsequent to that, it was with more than 50 percent. I would point out that this — a bit illusory — memory that he has about the 16 years of Liberal government suggested that all our voices were heard. In fact, I would say one of the best arguments for proportional representation is the record of the Liberal government. I think that many people in this province are in fact motivated to change the system because of 2001 and the subsequent elections.

I think it’s fair to say that, when there were 77 members of their party in this House and two members of the opposition, a lot of power went to government, and that power went to their heads. They made a lot of decisions from which we have not yet recovered in this province. They made a lot of decisions that created an extreme social deficit in this province. That was because there was one party with all the decisions, one party with 100 percent of the decisions.

They made changes in my community that, if my voice had been at the table, would never have occurred: over 100 percent increase in ferry fares, tests for senior drivers that were not based on science or any evidence at all. There were so many things that this government did that caused harm to my community and that would not have been contemplated had the voices of minorities been included in their decision-making process. Their government since 2001 is the best reason that we need a proportional representation system in this province.

They can continue to use fear as much as they want. They can continue to make up examples that don’t exist. Unfortunately, some people listen to them. I hope that the people of this province recognize that their vote will go towards their voice being heard in this chamber, regardless of if it’s the winning party or not, because their voice matters in this House. Their voice should matter in this House.

The way they like it is that they want to be able to rule with 100 percent of the power. Luckily, we escaped that this last time. We have examples of places where extremism takes over in first-past-the-post. It’s not about the electoral system. It’s about the strength of character of the people of this province. I have faith in the people of British Columbia to make a good decision, to get a balanced view in this House and not have a winner-take-all situation where we have some policies that are good for some and bad for others.

We’ll have policies that are developed in cooperation, in conjunction with each party. It’s possible. I’m not a cynic in that respect. I believe we can get along. I believe we can get together and sit at a table and figure out policy that serves the best interests of British Columbians. It’s not a winner-take-all situation, nor should it be, in our democratic system.

We have extremists on that side in this House now, and they’re talking about a new system that’s going to create extremism. We have people of all kinds, in this province, in our parties as they exist.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: They’re not going to have more power. We’re going to have the power of the people in a proportional representation system.

[11:40 a.m.]

I sure hope the people of British Columbia know that it’s not a scary thing, as the Liberals would like us to think. It’s a modernization of our system, and I encourage everyone to be out there, casting their vote and making their voice heard, as it will be under a proportional system.

B. Stewart: It gives me pleasure to rise in this House to speak to the motion before us. I rise to speak to the motion that “this House recognizes that 40 percent of the popular vote should not equal 100 percent of the legislative power.” This motion is flawed. The very makeup of this chamber proves that.

A coalition of 56 percent of the popular vote holds the power and currently has 51 percent of the seats. Were this motion true, our party, having received just over 40 percent in the last election, would hold 100 percent of the legislative power. Unless the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is regretting being handcuffed to the Premier, then our 40 percent of the popular vote equals zero percent of the legislative power.

But do you know what? That’s okay. That’s the system that has produced stable governments in pretty much every election in our history here in British Columbia, be it NDP, Social Credit, the B.C. Liberal Party, the Conservative Party. This province has benefited from governments with clear mandates and authority to make good and clear on their election promises.

Members on the other side want to take that away, to a system where election promises garner votes and then fade away when political parties escape to post-election coalition talks. As the Leader of the Third Party has said in this chamber, election promises don’t matter when the confidence and supply agreement trumps all.

To be fair, the government has indeed fulfilled some of its promises, especially those that they borrowed from the B.C. Liberal budget back in February of 2017. Things like cutting PST on electricity and reducing MSP to 50 percent, eventually phasing it out.

But where is the $400 renters grant? No hydro rate freeze. No $10-a-day daycare yet. Perhaps the government would prefer that the motion say that this House acknowledges that 40 percent of the seats should make good on only 30 percent of their promises in order to secure 100 percent of the power.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. The Greens are so desperate to change our electoral system to their benefit that their 4 percent of the seats have voted with the NDP 100 percent of the time. That’s the type of democracy that they prefer.

After the confidence and supply agreement, the Greens have effectively handcuffed themselves to the NDP in exchange for this PR referendum. This is not democracy. This is a power grab.

But imagine if it were strategic and they had decided to support the government, be it NDP or Liberal, on a vote-by-vote basis. Then 4 percent of the seats in this House would be dictating the direction of the government. That’s the dream scenario for the B.C. Greens.

They bungled it in 2017, and now they’re going to make sure that we change our entire democracy so that they can punch well above their weight going forward. In reality, the B.C. Green Party does not support this government’s motion as it is currently worded. Forty percent is far too high. They’ll never come close to that.

Taxpayers are funding a $1 million secretariat so that the Greens can manage their relationship with the NDP. Really, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head should have asked the member for Surrey-Fleetwood, via the secretariat, to rewrite this motion. It’s divorced from reality.

It should say that both the NDP and Green support PR and that “be it resolved that this House recognizes that 16 percent of the popular vote should equal 100 percent of the legislative power.” But that’s what a slim majority in this House seems to truly believe, in supporting proportional representation.

This motion is flawed and so out to lunch. I will not be supporting this motion.

[11:45 a.m.]

B. D’Eith: The people of British Columbia are voting on whether or not to modernize our electoral system. Right now we have a system, the first-past-the-post system, where 40 percent of the vote leads to 100 percent of the power. The members opposite are doing everything they can to maintain the status quo. “The process is flawed,” they say. “The systems are too complicated,” they say. “Pro rep will lead to the emergence of dangerous fringe parties,” they say. In fact, they’re willing to say about anything to confuse and to instil fear in the voting public so they’ll vote no.

They say these things for one reason. They know that if pro rep passes, they will not be able to continue to get false majorities in our Legislature under their big-tent coalition. It’s as simple as that. They know that they will not be able to continue to get 100 percent of the power with only 40 percent of the vote, and they’re terrified.

Since 1928, only one majority government has had over 50 percent of the vote — one. That’s the way the B.C. Liberals like it. The status quo ensures that their coalition stays intact, and they can try to get another majority to swing policy back to the interests of their big business backers.

At their convention this weekend, the B.C. Liberals talked about opportunity. Perhaps they should have talked about opportunism, which would have been a better, or at least more honest, slogan when dealing with the party that governed with impunity for the last 16 years. For governments that get majority after majority do just that. They govern with impunity. Policy suffers. Legislation is less challenged. Governments lose touch with the public, something that the Leader of the Opposition actually said: “We are preaching to people at 30,000 feet.” This was the Leader of the Opposition.

What’s really at stake here is keeping a system that promotes big-tent politics and policy lurch or moving to a new system that will allow every vote to count, where parties work together, where politics is more civil and the will of the majority is actually reflected in the Legislature.

Now, the Attorney General conducted the largest public consultation in British Columbia history, with 90,000 people and dozens of organizations. The referendum questions were based on this, were adopted by cabinet and vetted and approved by Elections B.C. The Liberals want to say it’s rigged. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The process was open, transparent and consultative.

What about the questions? The first question is as simple as it gets: whether or not people want to stay with first-past-the-post or move to a proportional system. It doesn’t get simpler than that.

The second question asks whether or not we will choose between three systems: dual-member, mixed-member or rural-urban. Elections B.C. sent out a voters guide to every B.C. voter with very clear and non-partisan explanations of those systems. On line, Elections B.C. actually posted videos explaining these to people. I have every faith that the B.C. public can make an educated decision as to how to proceed with this referendum, something that the opposition doesn’t seem to have. I think that we should have faith in our voting public.

“What about the dangerous fringe parties? No,” says the no side. In fact, the most outrageous strategy that the no side has is the idea that fringe parties are going to suddenly take over the government. In fact, they’re doubling down on this strategy.

The reality is that out of 14 parties, other than the three in the House, only one received 1 percent of the vote. That was the mainstream Conservative Party. All the rest were under 1 percent. In order to get a seat in pro rep, you need 5 percent. The fears that the B.C. Liberals are promulgating are simply unjustified.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The most egregious of these is about the far-right parties or Nazis coming to the Legislature. In reality, that would mean that 100,000 people, or 5 percent of the voters in British Columbia, would have to vote for a Nazi party to surpass this threshold. Let’s face it. If we have 100,000 voters voting for Nazis, we don’t have a voting problem. We have a societal problem.

The no side should be ashamed of this tactic. It’s unfounded, it’s inaccurate, it’s inflammatory, and it’s misleading.

Why am I voting for pro rep, and why should we support it? It provides stable governments. Forty percent of the vote leads to 40 percent of the seats. The voter turnout is higher, especially among young people. Government policies are closer to the majority view. Citizens are actually more satisfied with the performance of democratic institutions, even when their party is not in power. There’s only a small in­crease in the number of parties, and the share of women and Indigenous members elected to the parliament increases.

These are all amazing reasons why we should support pro rep and why I am supporting this resolution and why I am going to vote for pro rep moving forward.

G. Kyllo: I’m proud to rise on behalf of the hard-working constituents of Shuswap and speak to the motion that’s before the House. I’ve got to say that I don’t take my position as MLA for Shuswap lightly. I’m very proud and honoured to represent the hard-working people of Shuswap, who have a diverse range of different talents and experiences.

[11:50 a.m.]

It’s through me that I bring their voice to the Legislature. It’s really important as we have a look at this motion that’s before the House.

In the 2013 election, I was elected with just under 50 percent of the vote, but I worked hard to represent the constituents of Shuswap and to reach out and actually take all their concerns and bring those to Victoria. Over the course of a four-year term, I was able to increase my vote to where, in the last election, I did have over 50 percent of the vote. I’m very proud and honoured for that.

I think, as the member for Peace River South mentioned earlier, that in our province with 87 different ridings that have very different geography, different economies within these specific ridings, it’s important for the elected MLA to make sure that they are truly the voice for their riding. I’ll tell you that when constituents come to see me in my office, I care not for their political persuasion. It matters not. My job is to represent all of the constituents of Shuswap. I do not take that job lightly, nor does any of my colleagues. I hope that even colleagues on the other side of the House do not take that job lightly.

It’s extremely important to make sure that when we are representing our constituents, we bring those diverse views to this chamber and to our caucuses so that their views and their voices are not overlooked.

Now, unfortunately, what we see with the current way that this referendum is being brought forward to British Columbians is it’s actually stripping their voice. So instead of electing your MLA, a certain number, a significant number, of MLAs will actually be selected for you off of a party list. How could an MLA, under a new form of PR, actually be selected from a party list, who doesn’t even necessarily have to reside within your own riding…?

Interjection.

G. Kyllo: How are they going to potentially bring the views of your constituents to Victoria when their political persuasion is totally…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member for Shuswap has the floor.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s important to take note that the idea of being able to elect somebody locally is so fundamentally important to your democratic right. To potentially, under this new, flawed system that is actually being put before British Columbians, take that and put that into the politicians’ hands….

We know clearly why this referendum is before the House. It is nothing more…. The Green Party certainly would like to see their vote count increase the number of seats in this House, to increase their actual influence on government. Do you think that after the referendum, if it was to move forward, the NDPs or Greens would actually want to broaden their political views and broaden the way that they reach out to different provinces?

I was very proud to be at our B.C. Liberals Convention this past weekend. It was all about that — how we’re going to open up the doors and windows to our party, how we are going to take this time in opposition to look at how we can actually improve and broaden the way we provide better representation to all British Columbians.

The manner in which this referendum was brought forward is absolutely shameful, and I certainly will not be in any way voting to support a change in the referendum. It’s very important that British Columbians, if they are presented with that opportunity to choose a different type of electoral system in this country or this province, are provided with all of the information.

That is not being undertaken under this current referendum, with 29 different details being left for the politicians to determine after the referendum. That is wrong.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me pleasure today to speak for a more democratic legislature, a more democratic electoral system. I am not in favour of a system that privileges the minority over the majority, and currently that’s, unfortunately, how the electoral system in B.C. works.

All you need is one vote more than the next person with the most, even if the rest of the population voted completely differently. You could get ten votes, the next person gets nine, the next person gets eight, the next person gets seven, and the next person gets five. The person who gets ten votes gets the majority of the seats under our current system. That doesn’t make sense to me.

I would rather a system that urged parties to work more collaboratively, got MLAs from the different political parties to put a little water in the wine, try and find ways, use humility to try and build collaboration and better teamwork.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Chandra Herbert: That’s how you get better communities. I believe that’s how most of our neighbourhoods work.

[11:55 a.m.]

We don’t say to the people: “Well, you know, you have a slightly bigger family than mine, so you must get to control who runs and who’s able to use the playground.” We don’t do that. We say: “Kids can learn to work together. They can play together on the same playground.”

Unfortunately, in our current system, if you had the slightly bigger family, in this example, you get to rule the playground. Others might get to ask to play, but if you decide that they can’t play, well, too bad. Even if there are more families — ten families of three, one family of five — that family of five gets to rule the roost. That doesn’t make sense.

Of course, we were just at Halloween. If you were out trick-or-treating with your kids, here’s an example of how first-past-the-post works in that example. One kid gets 25 candies. The next kid gets 20. The next kid gets 15 candies. The kid that got 25 candies all of a sudden gets to control all of the candies. Do some of the kids get some? No, actually, all the kids get no candies except for the one kid that got 25. That’s the first-past-the-post system.

I think a better system is actually where you get to cooperate. One guy gets 25. The next gets 20. Maybe they work it out. They go: “Well, we’ll share some of that. The one that gets 15? We’ll share a little bit with them, too. Let’s find a way to work together in community.” I’d rather have governments that worked to establish that all of our voices have value as opposed to one that privileges the minority of use.

Now, I know that the opposition has been quoting Glen Clark, saying: “He’s against proportional representation, so we agree with Glen Clark.” It wasn’t so long ago that the opposition decried the fact that Glen Clark formed government with less popular vote than they had. The B.C. Liberals cried and said that that was illegitimate, that that was wrong. He got 39 percent; they got 42 percent, I think. They didn’t get to be government under that system. I don’t think that was fair.

I want a system that actually reflects the popular vote, not distorts the popular vote. That’s why I support proportional representation. I believe we should have a Legislature that actually represents the full value, the full voices of our system and where you actually get parties to work together so that you have a better representation of the popular will, rather than just: “I got one more candy than you. I got one more vote than you. I get to control everything else.”

S. Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Trevena moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.