Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. In section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 39, Poverty Reduction Strategy Act.

[2:40 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 53 — RECALL AND INITIATIVE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

D. Davies: I rise today to take my place to continue speaking, and certainly representing the good residents of Peace River North. I’m happy to continue to speak on the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, Bill 53. I also call it the CYA act.

Before I go on to that, I was just handed a note. I’ll just take two seconds to recognize a couple of the constituents of my riding who live in Fort St. John. Jay and Elizabeth Morrison just had a new baby girl. I’d like to congratulate them and their families for this wonderful day, certainly for them.

As I continue on with this discussion around Bill 53…. I stated in the House, the last time when I was speaking, about how proud we are as British Columbians, as Canadians and how proud I certainly am to be standing in this place — and having such an incredible democracy that we can have these kinds of debates.

This system we have that we all work within has delivered peaceful transitions of power since Canada’s inception in 1867 and, of course, since British Columbia joined Confederation in 1871. We have continually, for the most part, elected governments that generally reflect the will of people. We’ve built, over these years….

We could lay this template over top of our country, but certainly, talking about British Columbia, we have built a place that is the envy of the world, a place that is peaceful, a place that has one of the strongest economies, certainly, in the country, if not in the world, a resilient province. I know and I’ve talked to many, many people that have moved to this province — a place that people are absolutely proud to call home.

Yet we keep hearing about policies about fixing our democracy. I find it really strange that we are trying to change things completely from something that effectively works very well. Again, as I mentioned a moment ago, people are coming to Canada to observe our democracy. People come here from around the world to observe our elections, to bring best practices back to their countries.

So when I hear these promises from across the way….”We’re going to fix our broken democracy. We’re going to fix it. We’re going to make it right.” We’re talking about the…. Of course, we have the referendum on electoral reform and this bill, Bill 53, that we’re debating right now — all in the name of fixing our broken democracy.

[2:45 p.m.]

Well, every step that’s been taken or that is being taken or worked toward is actually an erosion, a whittling down of our democracy.

As I mentioned a second ago, British Columbians are voting on a referendum on proportional representation which proclaims to bring a new and improved — 5.2, 2.0, whatever model you want to look at — democracy to town that somehow is going to make people’s voting better, that somehow is going to have better results and make Canada this incredible place in the world.

Well, we already have that. There are examples upon examples throughout Canada, throughout British Columbia, that demonstrate that. Instead I believe that our democracy that we cherish in this province is being threatened by the government across the way and its friends in the Third Party that are doing the exact opposite — taking this power, taking this pride in what we have as a democracy and handing it over to parties.

For all the talk of making every vote count…. Again, just this morning it was debated in this place, talking about how we are going to fix our broken democracy. The reality is — and we’ve seen this throughout the many months of debate that we’ve had on proportional representation, and now we’re hearing it on this recall legislation — that these choices that are going to be made or will be made under this new legislation are going to be happening well before election day, well before a recall takes place.

It’s going to be happening behind closed doors. It’s going to be happening with the gangs inside the parties and not in the public domain, not in the hands of the citizens of British Columbia, which is really worrisome. What that side of the House calls more democracy, I call an erosion of our democracy. Our democracy, I believe, is under fire.

With MLAs selected and appointed from party lists, the power of political parties will be entrenched. Party insiders will choose who is on the list. They might even choose themselves. People will see their democratic rights fade and that the choices they made are preselected. That is less democracy, not more democracy.

The very bill that we are debating here, Bill 53, is yet another case of the government eroding the very democracy that we have stood behind, the very democracy that many, many men and women from Canada have fought for in world wars, in other conflicts around the world — this very democracy, the very democracy that that government is pretending to enhance.

That side of the House is claiming that they’re cleaning things up. They’re bringing in rules. They’re bringing in these new rules in line with all the other changes that they have made. In fact, it’s kind of like how they got rid of big money while letting union and paid activists work on municipal campaigns — having kind of two standards.

British Columbians are proud of our present Recall and Initiatives Act. Every British Columbian in this province has the right to challenge an MLA and have them removed from their position after 18 months, if enough people in their constituency agree with them. It’s a bit of a safety net that citizens in this province have. It’s a great initiative.

Someone across the way said the NDP brought it in. I’m not debating who brought it in. I’m saying it is a great act. It is something that British Columbians are proud of. If an MLA is in there, they run on a campaign, they get elected, and all of a sudden, they start doing this or that which goes against the wishes of their constituents, it is the right of citizens, if they should sign 40 percent ever the electorate up, to have that individual recalled.

[2:50 p.m.]

Again, that is an extremely important piece of our democracy here in British Columbia. In fact, it has been used. The recall legislation has been used. There have been 26 petitions, as we have heard previous speakers mention, launched since 1995. It has only resulted in having one MLA leaving their spot.

The recall actually never fully came to fruition. The MLA in question resigned the post prior to everything happening. But I’m not debating the legislation. In fact, it is a great piece of legislation and one that is being threatened right now by this government. This government is restricting some of the pieces of the legislation that have been laid out. The worst part — and I’m not repeating anything new — is this has been tabled by a minister who is presently being targeted by a recall.

We can talk about…. While the official campaign hasn’t begun, this, that and the other thing. But in reality, I can look at a very active campaign that’s happening in that riding right now. There have been multiple protests that have been held in the riding. Hundreds of people have shown up to these protests. There’s a very active recall campaign around the minister on Twitter. There’s a webpage that is in place that has a lot of activity. For someone to say, “Well, there isn’t a recall campaign at play,” I find that a bit absurd.

We hear some comments about: “Oh, the official campaign. It’s not going.” It is happening. There are hundreds of people that are engaged in this. Whether or not the official date is being called, which I believe the official date is this Friday, there are people right now working to have this initiative, this piece, this very powerful and very important piece of our democracy being challenged right now.

It’s unfortunate that he’s using his powers as the Attorney General to introduce these changing rules in the middle of this campaign. Well, not in the middle of this campaign. It’s in the middle of the pre-campaign, moments before the launch of the official campaign.

I kind of look at this…. When this legislation was being written, I’m imagining this work is happening and you’re writing all of this stuff down. I cannot for one second believe that there wasn’t a moment when this legislation was being written that it never crossed the mind of the Attorney General that: “Hmm, I wonder if this pertains to me. I wonder if…. Gee whiz, is there anyone talking about me on this? Is there a campaign going on?”

I’ll guarantee that the Attorney General is well aware that there’s a campaign going on. He’s had people out in front of his office in his riding. He’s had people carrying signs and protesting in the park. I’m sure he’s had people calling and phoning and tweeting. Maybe the tweets aren’t getting through. I understand that they’re disappearing and emails are disappearing. I’m not sure what’s going on there. We’ll figure that out later — as I digress — maybe Morse code.

I don’t know, but I’m sure the Attorney General is extremely aware that there is a campaign against him. So when he was writing this bill, he had to have had this going through his mind somewhere. To me, if that is the case, I can’t see there not being a conflict. That is what really doesn’t sit well with me. This is why I call this the CYA act.

Interjection.

[2:55 p.m.]

D. Davies: It would be unparliamentary of me to spell out the acronym. Cover your butt. Yes, the cover-your-butt legislation. So it’s to be expected that this same minister has been portrayed as the government’s squeaky-clean independent arbiter of electoral reform while, at the same time, acting as this fierce proponent for scrapping our current electoral system. There are so many different pieces, you know. One acronym…. I was trying to find some others. It’s like asking Colonel Sanders to be an independent arbiter of voting on imposing vegetarianism. I mean, it does not make sense.

There are other pieces of this bill that are in here. MLAs are only able to be subject to a single recall campaign. Once a recall campaign is attempted, there can be none other during that term in office. Well, again, why? I have to beg the question. Why? I mean, it’s the citizens’ right under recall legislation that if they’re not happy and they can canvass the support of 40 percent of the voters, they should be able to initiate recall any time they want, as in the past.

Constituents that have legitimate concerns are being cut off and told: “You know what? You get one chance at this. You can never, ever do it again.” That is a complete erosion of our democracy, like we’ve seen in a couple of other bills that have come through this legislation recently. It scares me, quite frankly. It scares the residents of my riding, and I’m sure it scares the residents of many in British Columbia.

Another piece of this is looking at the first couple of folks that walked through the office to state that they do have a legitimate recall campaign. Right now many people who are upset, many organizations who are upset can walk into Elections B.C., state their case and launch a recall campaign against any MLA who sits in this House. Now that is being changed, and, again, we’ve got to start thinking about why.

Limiting it to two people — two or three; I can’t remember now. I think it’s the first two people that walk in. The first two or three. Nonetheless, the first two or three people that walk into Elections B.C. are the only people that are able now to launch a campaign. Well, that just screams for some hanky-panky — if I might use — to happen. “Well, jeez, I know that there are people mad at me, because I’ve got webpages, Twitter accounts, Facebook accounts. I’ve got people rallying out in front of my office. I’ve got people marching through the parks and up and down the street. I know that there’s something out there, and I know people are upset at me. I know organizations in my riding are upset at me. I know businesses in my riding are upset at me. Boy, I’d better limit it to only a couple of people — the first two people.”

It’s like a door-crasher on Boxing Day. I can just imagine the first two best friends lining up: “Don’t worry. I’ve got you covered. I’ll come in, and I’ll get this campaign going. I’ll be the first to register, and we don’t have to worry about a campaign against you.” It’s not right. It should be left the way it is. There should be no change. As many people who want to recall a campaign should be allowed to continue with a campaign.

The bill also seeks to take off six months, another additional six months of actually trying to set up this campaign. No campaign can be launched six months prior to a scheduled general election. Well, I wonder why that rule might have been in place. If people are really upset at their MLA in their riding — and let’s presume that this keeps going on and the recall is unsuccessful — well, we don’t want anybody coming out with their voices on a recall campaign when I’m trying to get elected. Well, that is stifling people. That is stifling our citizens, making sure that they can’t have another venue to voice their concerns.

[3:00 p.m.]

To me, it’s quite worrisome when we start looking at pieces of legislation that are just…. Well, it’s voter suppression in my…. In fact, I happen to have here a definition of “voter suppression.” It’s a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their vote or exercising their voice.

Hmm. You’re not allowed to exercise your voice in a recall campaign six months prior to an election. Well, if that is not suppression, I’m not too sure what is. Again, this is just another erosion of our incredible democracy that we have in British Columbia, that we have here in Canada. I cannot believe that we are moving forward with legislation like this on the eve of Remembrance Day.

So citizens have this right to recall. At the end of the day, true democratic power rests with every single British Columbian, every single voting British Columbian. As I’ve said throughout my entire time here talking, I can see nothing that does what the members on the other side of the table are trying to say — as strengthening our democracy. All I can see happening here is the exact opposite — whittling away at people’s rights to demonstrate against their MLA, their rights to come out and say they are displeased, and limiting people’s rights to recall their MLA.

I put it as…. You know, all of us here in this room ran election campaigns. It seems like an eternity ago, but I think it was about 18 months ago. Yeah, I guess it was. It was 18 months. Hence, we’re right on the heels of a possible recall campaign. All of us know too well that we need to go out and garner support from people, to have a campaign.

Of course, things have changed with limits in place, with folks that now are not allowed to do corporate donations. But one of the pieces in this bill is limiting the amount of money that you are allowed to raise for a recall campaign.

I want to make sure that I get the number right. I think it’s $5,000 that is the limit. But again, by imposing limits on a recall campaign, I can only help but to wonder what the reasoning for that is.

Well, $5,000 is not a lot of money. I live in a small community with a couple of small local newspapers. I take a business card ad out in my newspapers, and it costs me $500. If we’re moving and looking at larger centres — maybe here on the Island, Victoria, the greater area, or Vancouver — well, the costs are exponential. If we want to buy any kind of media time, the costs are huge. Even just getting signage made, the costs are enormous for people to get out and do that that.

Imposing, in this legislation, a limit of $5,000 on a recall campaign is nothing but another step of suppressing people to voice their opinions. Hon. Speaker, $5,000 isn’t a lot of money, and $5,000 is hardly going to do anything in allowing citizens to go out and enact their democratic right of trying to set a recall campaign up against their MLA.

I’m arguing this as general legislation. I don’t care if it happens on this side or that side, this Legislature sitting or future Legislature sittings. I think the rules need to remain as they are in place now. I think that it’s absolutely appalling already that these are even being opposed, that we’re even debating these four days before recall campaigns are set to go in place. It’s absurd that we’re here debating it. I’m just absolutely amazed.

[3:05 p.m.]

A $5,000 cap. It’s maybe a little easier in a small riding that you can bike across, which many ridings in this province are. But there are many of us in here that represent large ridings, diverse ridings. Powell River–Sunshine Coast — a riding that you’ve got bodies of water you have to jump across. You’ve got diverse range.

In my riding, it’s 12 hours to drive from one side to the other. Madam Speaker, $5,000 is nowhere near enough money for a recall campaign. I certainly don’t agree with that being enforced here in this piece of legislation.

Just a neat little piece here. I guess probably most of us know Jon McComb. He’s one of the speakers on CKNW. On Friday, I guess, he was on the radio. The Attorney General was talking about — and this is a little piece that I just talked a moment ago about — having these false-flag recall campaigns, from preventing…. Jon McComb asked the Attorney General about having these people lining up at the front doors and having the first two in there registering and setting up this fictitious campaign so nobody else can come in.

The Attorney General stated that: “Theoretically, it’s possible, I guess, to have supporters launch a recall campaign against their own candidate that they might otherwise support.” And Jon McComb, myself, others certainly on this side of the House…. Jon McComb said: “This is a major flaw in this piece of legislation.”

As we move forward, as this is debated, I’m certainly not going to be supporting this bill — this bill that challenges our democratic rights and whittles down our democracy that has been built up and that I’m very proud to call my own. I’m sure all of us are proud to call this great democracy our own. A bill that erodes this…. To me, it’ll be an extremely sad, sad legacy for the government of the day if this bill passes.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. [Applause.]

T. Stone: We’ll assume that that applause was for my colleague, or jointly, for my colleague from Peace River North and for myself. I appreciate that.

I’m very pleased to rise and speak to Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. And, oh, what a tangled web that we weave when we first practise to deceive. Bill 53 — this government’s latest attempt to manipulate democracy for the sake of their own self-preservation. The word “outlandish” comes to mind.

British Columbians are hearing about this latest move on the part of this government. Frankly, I share the reaction that most British Columbians are having, which is that I’m not sure whether to laugh or to cry upon learning, in more detail, what the intent is behind this legislation. In fact, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act before this House might be causing gales of laughter if it wasn’t so serious, so brazen, so hypocritical, so wrong on many, many levels.

Historically speaking, in our parliamentary tradition, out of respect for the office, the role of Attorney General has been somewhat above partisan politics. An Attorney General has a very different, a very unique, role to fill. He or she is called upon very often to remain above the fray for the good of all members of this chamber, for the good of British Columbians.

Today we have an Attorney General, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who I would suggest is arguably and shamelessly the most partisan Attorney General that this province has seen in decades. He is a man who has no shame in doing whatever it takes to preserve his government’s precarious hold onto power.

[3:10 p.m.]

This is yet another brazen attempt to manipulate our democratic processes. This time, it’s through Bill 53. There is seemingly no limit, no boundary, to curb what this Attorney General will do to advance his interests and the interests of his party.

This bill is designed to constrain democracy and the rights that British Columbians have today related to initiating or participating in a recall campaign. Of course, the government is attempting to make these changes only days before the existing recall rules allow for members of this, the 41st parliament, to become subject to recall campaigns. It’s all about keeping the NDP-Greens in power.

Now, in terms of the highlights of this legislation in and of itself, the contents, I will say this. The bill does add a pre–general election blackout period of six months to apply a start to a recall petition. The existing 18-month blackout period after general elections, that provision which has always been there, stays there. But I will point out that this addition of this pre–general election blackout period does reduce the window for a recall campaign by another six months.

Secondly, this bill removes the possibility that an MLA might be subject to more than one recall petition at a time. Apparently, once the Chief Electoral Officer approves a recall campaign application, no other recall campaign can occur against that same MLA. Whoever files first gets to launch the campaign and the only campaign.

This clearly opens the door for false recall campaigns to prevent a real one from being launched. This opens up the entire recall process to manipulation. One can only imagine that members of this House could, theoretically, have friends or insiders or party members launch a fictitious recall campaign to prevent any further recall campaigns from being launched. Then, of course, nothing happens with that first campaign, and the recall campaign fails.

Now, I’m not just surmising that that is what could happen. The Attorney General, just the other day on the Jon McComb Show in Vancouver, on November 1, said: “Yes, theoretically, it’s possible, I guess, to have supporters launch a recall campaign against their own candidate that they support.” That’s the Attorney General acknowledging a fundamental flaw, an opportunity that exists in these amendments to allow for manipulation of the recall legislation. That is wrong.

This bill also applies to recall campaigns the same spending and advertising rules that the NDP introduced to the Election Act for general elections. Again, that’s a ban on corporate and union donations. It also provides for the $1,200 cap to recall campaigns. That, obviously, will make it much more difficult for recall campaigns to have the resources that are often necessary to have a chance at success.

The bill requires third-party advertisers to register and disclose their funding sources. It establishes a $5,000 value cap for the petition recall period, and third-party advertisers need to register as well.

The bill brings in significantly more disclosure requirements for spending. This actually creates another way to rule a recall campaign unsuccessful if the CEO finds a spending or disclosure violation that materially affected the outcome, thus setting that outcome aside.

I would be remiss if I didn’t highlight that, once again, the government has chosen very deliberately not to include third-party contributions or volunteer contribution limits in these amendments. Why? Well, this follows a pattern.

We warned in this House last year that changes to the local campaign financing legislation that did not provide for limitations to third-party contributions would allow for abuse in the recent municipal elections. Lo and behold, there were reports of all kinds of said abuse taking place.

[3:15 p.m.]

We had emails from unions that clearly indicated that, much to their bemusement and their surprise, there was a loophole in the legislation that you could drive a truck through — that allowed for canvassing, for telephone phone banks, for polling, for leaflet drops and all kinds of other third-party contributions that the unions can make to support the union’s chosen candidates. Well, those same loopholes exist in this bill before us today, and that is a shame.

Make no mistake about it; it’s no accident that this Recall and Initiative Amendment Act is being announced now — again, just days before recall campaigns can be initiated. And surprise, surprise — a government member who is facing an increasingly frustrated and an increasingly angry electorate chomping at the bit to exercise what is their democratic right, which is to initiate and to participate in a recall campaign of their MLA…. Surprise, surprise. This foment of dissent is taking place where? In the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey. And who is the MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey? Well, none other than the Attorney General. This smells.

This is a matter of principle. It’s a matter of principle that represents this attitude: win at all costs. Of course, the NDP is supported by the ethically challenged Third Party members, who have also abandoned virtually every single principle that they ran on, every principle that they have stood for, in order to contribute their parts to the self-preservation of this NDP-Green government.

Now, the recall tools that are available to British Columbians have been there for a number of years now — for a number of decades, actually. Since 1995, in fact, British Columbians have had the ability to fire their MLA or at least try to express their discontent with the service being provided by their MLA. If an MLA received 40 percent of registered voters asking for that MLA to be recalled, then that MLA would be recalled.

It’s not like this is easy. Since 1995, 26 processes were initiated utilizing the existing recall legislation, yet not once has it actually been successful anywhere in British Columbia. It’s a very high bar to achieve. The number of voters that must support the recall, within a very tight time frame, makes it very, very difficult. But some have come close. There are some members that have come close.

I do note, back in the day, in Parksville-Qualicum — this is going back to 1998 — where the number of signatures required to recall then MLA Paul Reitsma was 17,020 votes. That’s what was required. Guess how many eligible voters were confirmed to have signed that recall petition? Well, 25,430. It didn’t succeed. Why? Because the MLA in question resigned before that recall process could go through.

It has also come close in a number of other ridings. I mention Delta South where just under 10,000 valid signatures were achieved against a requirement of 13,000 and change. That was back in 2002. And there are a few other examples.

So it hasn’t actually worked, but it’s come close, and it’s been a tool that British Columbians have had at their disposal, from a democracy perspective, to hold their MLA to account and to express their displeasure. But it is very, very, very difficult to achieve.

Nonetheless, the concept of placing restrictions on expenditures for recall campaigns is indeed worthy of debating. No argument from the opposition on that point. But the timing of this bill is very interesting. Why would the government introduce these amendments now? Why would they introduce these amendments only a week ago? Why is there suddenly interest in amending the Recall and Initiative Act today?

The government could have moved forward with these amendments at the same time as they were moving similar amendments with respect to the local elections campaign finance reforms that were brought in and that were supported by all members of this House.

[3:20 p.m.]

They could have moved these amendments at the same time as the new spending and contribution limits that were brought in with respect to provincial election campaigns and that were supported by all members of this House. But no, they opted to wait and bring these amendments forward now. Why? Well, let’s look to the neighbourhood of Vancouver–Point Grey, where there appears to be some uncomfortable unrest in the tony neighbourhoods of this constituency, where the sounds and the sights of unrest are bubbling up to the surface. There actually have been signs placed along many roads, many of the streets, in Vancouver–Point Grey expressing displeasure with the local MLA.

Again, who’s the MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey? Who is that MLA? That MLA is the Attorney General of British Columbia. The man who’s riding into town on his white horse to save us once again is the very man subject to a recall campaign in his own riding and who is introducing legislation here in this chamber with respect to recall campaigns. That is wrong.

The man who stands the greatest chance of being recalled, only days before a recall campaign can be formally initiated, has personally introduced Bill 53, legislation which places new and significant limitations upon the recall process itself. This is a move breathtaking in its brazenness, as the Attorney General takes sanctimony and arrogance to a whole new level. A move that reeks of self-serving manipulation to ensure his own self-preservation and the self-preservation of the members opposite. It’s outlandish, it’s desperate, and it’s shameful.

It’s serious enough to smack of a personal conflict of interest. We have rules that govern how we perform our duties in this House and how we perform our duties outside of this House. There are expectations. There are standards to ensure that one’s personal conduct does not interfere with one’s official duties, especially when you’re a member of the executive council.

What does the act actually say? Sections 2 and 3 of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act state the following. Section 2(2): “For the purposes of this Act, a member has an apparent conflict of interest if there is a reasonable perception, which a reasonably well informed person could properly have, that the member’s ability to exercise an official power or perform an official duty or function must have been affected by his or her private interest.”

Section 2(1): “For the purposes of this Act, a member has a conflict of interest when the member exercises an official power or performs an official duty or function in the execution of his or her office and at the same time knows that in the performance of the duty or function or in the exercise of the power there is the opportunity to further his or her private interest.”

Section 3: “A member must not exercise an official power or perform an official duty or function if the member has a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest.”

I will regale the House with further details from the conflict-of-interest act. Section 11 of the conflict-of-interest act sets out the requirements that a member of the executive council must follow in circumstances where a conflict of interest or apparent conflict of interest may arise.

Section 11(1) says: “If, during the exercise of any official power or the performance of any official duty or function by a member of the Executive Council, a matter arises with respect to which the member has a conflict of interest or apparent conflict of interest, the member must (a) refrain at all times from attempting to influence the matter, and (b) at any subsequent meeting of the Executive Council or a committee of the Executive Council at which the matter is considered, disclose the general nature of the private interest and withdraw from the meeting without voting or participating in the discussion.” Madame Speaker, taken directly from the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act.

There are many reports indicating that the MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Attorney General, could be targeted and is being targeted by a recall campaign by the voters in his riding. Surely he knows that he’s in a personal conflict by participating in the debates, by participating in the votes, let alone actually having the audacity to be the person to bring in front of this House legislation that actually significantly restricts the ability of people to engage in successful recall campaigns.

What does the Attorney General do? Well, press on, of course. There’s too much at stake to allow local constituents to exercise their displeasure with their local MLA and with this government. In a recent interview, the Attorney General said the timing of the legislation was designed to land before recall campaigns could officially begin. He mentioned his own potential recall campaign, noting: “I don’t want to be in a situation where supporters fundraise to defend me by accepting the kinds of donations from unions and corporations that I have fought to eliminate.”

[3:25 p.m.]

Give me a break. What an absolute load of garbage. The anger being expressed at the Attorney General by his constituents is palpable. That’s what’s going on here. The evidence is everywhere, with one-time supporters in Vancouver–​Point Grey having turned 180 degrees as they now see that NDP political interests trump sound government, sound policy and fairness in this province. Don’t worry about keeping promises. Don’t worry about that at all. “We’ll just buy back your support later.” That’s the NDP’s game plan here, and it’s wrong.

Now, for the sake of diving a little deeper into why the constituents of Vancouver–Point Grey would not be happy with their member, well, there are quite a few reasons, quite a few items that one could point to that people might be upset by and that might be causing this rise of frustration and anger and concern with their MLA. Maybe it’s the 18 new taxes which the NDP have brought in. Maybe it’s the so-called school tax, which has absolutely nothing to do with schools or education in British Columbia. You think that maybe could have something to do with why people in the Attorney General’s riding are upset with him at the moment?

Perhaps it’s the phony speculation tax or the MSP replacement tax. Or maybe it’s the carbon tax that’s no longer revenue-neutral and still going up. Maybe it’s the gas tax. Maybe it’s the increase in parking fees. Maybe it’s all the development cost charges which are fuelled by decisions made in this House by the NDP-Green government. But it’s not just taxes. Perhaps people in his riding are still wondering: where is the $10-a-day daycare? Where is the $400 renters rebate that renters were supposed to have received on an annual basis? Where’s the tuition rebate that students around British Columbia were promised in the last election? Again, another critical promise missing in action.

Maybe voters in his riding are actually not very happy that he’s a member of a government which has done more to cement the infrastructure legacy of the former B.C. Liberal government, in moving forward with Site C, moving forward with LNG. Oh, it can’t be. Oh yes, it’s happening. As the Leader of the Opposition said on the weekend: “Even the NDP can’t screw up the LNG opportunity that is now in front of British Columbians.” Maybe it’s because the NDP have done nothing on housing affordability, despite all their vaunted promises and commitments. Maybe it’s because life is not getting any more affordable under the NDP. It’s actually getting less affordable. Maybe that’s a reason why voters in Vancouver–Point Grey are not happy with their local MLA.

Maybe it’s this ridiculous sham of a referendum that is being shoved down the voters’ throats — proportional representation. I was very interested, as I’m sure many members of this House were, to learn that to this point, there have been three weeks of voting, a period for people to send in their ballots — three weeks from the middle of October to November 5. Elections B.C. reported out today that in this move to replace our electoral system — because it’s the number one most burning issue on the minds of British Columbians in communities across this province — out of 3,288,908 eligible voters in this referendum, an astounding 22,342 have voted as of November 5, in three weeks of voting. That’s fully 0.7 percent voter turnout to this point.

It gets even better. In Kamloops–South Thompson, my riding, only 696 people have bothered to send in their ballot. In Kamloops–North Thompson, only 771 people have bothered to mail in their ballot. But forget about my riding and the riding of my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson. How about the Premier’s riding, Langford–Juan de Fuca? There are 43,000 eligible voters in that riding. The number of ballots received by Elections B.C. as of November 5: three — three ballots.

The members opposite can chirp about people not having received their ballots yet. Elections B.C. confirmed that half of British Columbians were to receive their ballots within the first two weeks that they were mailed out, by the end of October, and the balance were to have their ballots by November 2. The lack of turnout reflects a lack of interest which reflects a lack of belief on the part of British Columbians that any time in this parliament should be focused today on this ridiculous sham of a referendum.

[3:30 p.m.]

This referendum…. We’ve talked about all the different aspects of it, why it’s a fraud being perpetrated on the people of British Columbia. Again, maybe the Attorney General’s constituents are upset about his overseeing what is proving to be a highly manipulated process — all of the details of this referendum being determined in the secrecy of cabinet.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

No citizens’ assembly, despite the gold standard that’s been replicated in many other countries around the world with a citizens’ assembly, where it’s recognized that the citizens are at the heart of a democracy, which means that citizens should be at the heart of any change to that democracy — including electoral reform change — so you do that through a citizens’ assembly.

“No. We’re not going to do that here in British Columbia. We’re going to reduce the threshold for approval from 60 percent plus one to 50 percent plus one. And we’re not done yet,” says the Attorney General. “We’re going to do away with the regional threshold. There’s not going to be a 60 percent voter requirement for all the ridings in the province — 60 percent of ridings to approve. That’s gone as well.”

Why? Because that probably would have killed the referendum, and that’s not what the Attorney General wants. So we’ll get rid of that. No minimum turnout requirement. I sure as heck hope they impose some kind of minimum turnout requirement if 0.7 percent turnout to November 5 is any indication of what we are likely to expect overall when all the ballots have been received and counted.

We were promised a very, very simple question — a yes-no question. Instead, we got a confusing, two-part question. “Let’s make sure that we make this as difficult as possible for people to participate, so let’s hold the referendum right on top of the municipal election campaign. Let’s do that. Let’s not have any advance polls. We’re not going to make it easy for folks who have to leave the province for some reason to actually participate in this before they go. Let’s not bother providing military personnel overseas with a ballot either. Their vote doesn’t matter much at all either.”

How about the ridiculous spending rules that have been wrapped around this referendum, which essentially has served to muzzle MLAs in being able to effectively communicate with our constituents? Absolutely unacceptable. Not to mention that there are no riding maps and that, in total, 29 details — critical details — to this referendum are still not known today and won’t be known until after the referendum is over. That is absolutely unacceptable.

But it doesn’t end there, because the Attorney General is one crafty fellow. He’s crafty. He brings in Bill 40, which bestows upon British Columbians this promise of a second referendum, a do-over. “Don’t worry about it. We can do this all over if it ends up being a train wreck.”

Elections B.C., apparently, was even directed to include in their booklet that was sent out to British Columbians that that second referendum guarantee was written in stone. “You can take it to the bank.” No, you can’t. That hasn’t passed this House yet. That is still before this House, and the last time I checked, there were only nine sitting days left in this session before we adjourn for the winter. But let’s just put that in there. Again, another brazen attempt to manipulate the process.

I mentioned the local election campaign finance reform, where you can drive a truck through the third-party contribution limits — because there aren’t any. “Let’s not put those in. That might constrain the ability of our union buddies from being able to fund and support their chosen candidates. We’re not going to put that in there.”

How about the fact that this government hasn’t taken any action…. They won’t even acknowledge that foreign money, particularly from the United States, is playing a huge role now in influencing and manipulating politics and public discourse here in British Columbia. U.S.-funded election activism is, apparently, in vogue if you’re a New Democrat in British Columbia.

These are organizations like Leadnow, Tides Foundation, Dogwood, the World Wildlife Fund, Corporate Ethics International, Environmental Defence, the Polaris Institute — I could go on and on — whose sole objective is to ensure that there are no roads, there is no logging, there’s no mining, there’s no hydro development, there are no pipelines, there’s no oil and gas development. “Let’s make sure pipelines don’t get built in this province. Let’s destroy the aquaculture industry while we’re at it.” And they do this by raising all of the….

Deputy Speaker: On Bill 53, Member. Bill 53.

[3:35 p.m.]

T. Stone: They do this by raising all of the negatives associated with everything that I’ve just talked about. But do we see any action from this government, from this Attorney General? Where is he when you need him to ride in on his horse to save us from all this foreign influence of money? It just goes on and on.

We’ve canvassed the union-only requirements in public infrastructure projects. Let’s just take away the democratic rights of workers in this province to actually work for the union of their choice or, God forbid, to actually not work with a union — choose not to actually be a member of the union. Let’s just take those democratic rights away.

Deputy Speaker: On Bill 53, Member. On Bill 53.

T. Stone: How about the fixed election day? One of the very first things that the government did in partnership and cahoots with the Greens was to give themselves another six months in power by moving the fixed election date out. Unbelievable.

There is so much this Attorney General has done and is wanting to do to shape and influence British Columbia’s democracy in, I would suggest, dark, shadowy and unseemly ways. In talking about the growing list of examples of this, it almost feels like the Attorney General’s “shenanigans greatest hits tour.”

There’s so much going on that represents an attack on our democracy. Each and every one of them is a brazen attempt to manipulate long-established and tested democratic processes. And this is, of course, all coming from a gentleman who used to head the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

Bill 53 comes down to principles. I have the utmost confidence that British Columbians from Vancouver to Vanderhoof, from Cranbrook to Kitimat and from Delta to Dease Lake will see this legislation for what it is — unparalleled political gall and a shocking display of covering one’s backside.

That the members opposite would think that it makes sense, let alone that it’s appropriate and that it’s right to introduce amendments to recall legislation and to have those introduced by a member, the Attorney General himself, who will be and is subject to a recall campaign, is the epitome of arrogance in this chamber from this government.

I would say that this manipulation of democracy…. I’ve walked through many examples: these changes to recall, throwing our electoral system out the window for prop rep, banning big money from politics except when it suits the government’s purposes, turning a blind eye to all of this foreign money coming into our province and now wanting to impose serious restrictions on the rights of British Columbians for the recall act. This is wrong, and British Columbians deserve so much better.

S. Cadieux: I’m pleased to take my place on Bill 53. Well, maybe pleased isn’t exactly the word, considering I’m absolutely appalled that it’s being introduced at this time. But regardless, I am here today to speak to it.

The question I have, primarily, with this legislation is: why now? We reformed the election financing rules back in the spring. This legislation has been on the books since the early ’90s. Everybody knows it exists. There are no surprises here. So why wasn’t this fixed in the spring?

Now, this legislation is rarely used. Only one of 26 recall petitions have even come to a remotely successful conclusion. With that, the MLA chose to resign. What’s the rush? It’s not like this is being abused. It’s not like citizens are willy-nilly deciding they’re going to recall an MLA and go out and have success in that endeavour.

The bar set by this legislation when it was introduced in the ’90s made sure that wouldn’t happen. It was crafted carefully. The thresholds were set to ensure that there had to have been an egregious circumstance that riled up enough — in fact, 40 percent — of all of the voters in the previous election that they would sign a petition. It has to be done in 60 days.

[3:40 p.m.]

We know, and I know you know, Mr. Speaker, that in an election campaign, it’s impossible to reach every voter, every doorstep, and we know when elections are coming. So 60 days is a very short time period in which to create the knowledge of and to drive the signatures required for a successful recall campaign.

Even back in 1995, the financial spending limits set for these recall conditions were so stringent that it would be impossible to spend enough money to let enough people know that this was happening.

I understand the government’s position on getting big money out of politics and, in fact, support the effort. But that is not what this is about. There’s no big money in recall campaigns. There’s no evidence that there’s big money in recall campaigns. Again, I support the general effort to…. Or I would support legislation that would align this legislation with the legislation we already passed, but it doesn’t do that. In fact, what I think this looks like is more about getting people, getting the voters, out of recall campaigns than getting the money out.

We are in the middle of the referendum on electoral reform. Right now citizens are deciding how we will or will not be elected to this place. If there is a change, then this legislation, this Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, would need a wholesale rewrite. Why right now is it so essential that we go in and rewrite all the rules related to recall in situations where we’ve never seen a successful one tabled to this day? What’s the rush?

There’s plenty of time and there’s plenty of legislation currently on the docket that we need to run through. In fact, we saw three new, hefty bills introduced today. So there is lots to discuss, and the same level of scrutiny should be given to those bills. Instead, we’re having to give scrutiny to this one.

Let’s see why. Could it be because there are already a number of groups apparently organizing to launch and be ready to launch recall campaigns? Could it be that one of those campaigns is very, very openly targeting the Attorney General himself? Could it be that such a potential effort could be very embarrassing to a government in the middle of a referendum campaign?

Could it be that the government is nervous that a recall campaign, under the Recall and Initiative Act without amendment, could actually be successful against the Attorney General? Could it be that the Attorney General’s constituents are so upset with him and the government’s decisions that he’s nervous about that? Because I just don’t see the rush.

Could it be that the Attorney General knows that there is this potential campaign against him that is being organized? Otherwise, why do we need to bring this here now?

The member for Chilliwack-Kent made a good point. I’m going to quote what he said. He said that the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act contains within it this little amendment that “once the Chief Electoral Officer approves a recall campaign application, no other recall campaign can start against that MLA.” What a giant change in just a few words — taking away the ability of a citizen to independently launch a recall campaign should they deem that to be necessary against their MLA.

[3:45 p.m.]

Wasn’t the whole purpose of the recall act to give to the voters the right to say, “I am not satisfied with my representation. I am so concerned that I am willing to take the incredible time and energy required” — not to mention the personal sacrifice in putting themselves out there to talk to their neighbours — “to say: ‘I want you to sign this recall for our MLA because I don’t believe they’re doing what they said they would do for us’”? Isn’t that what this was about?

I believe it was. But with the addition of just a few words in this act, the Attorney General seeks to limit that ability. Well, that, indeed, looks incredibly self-serving at this moment in time.

I would agree with the member for Chilliwack-Kent, when he says that none of this makes for more accountable government. If the government, for some reason, is seeking to choke out a recall campaign under their watch, it is particularly suspicious that they’re doing it when numbers are so close in this House.

Government cannot afford to lose a member, even if that member does not represent his or her constituents, even if they’re not doing what their constituents want, even if they’re doing the very opposite of what their constituents want, even if the MLA does something egregious. The NDP are going to make sure that an MLA is safe by setting in place a huge number of practical barriers to a recall. The member for Chilliwack-Kent hit this on the head.

You know, it could be that government is trying, with this legislation, to hit a nerve with the opposition, to try and deflect from the other pieces of contentious legislation that they’ve got on the books today.

The employer health tax that double-dips — maybe they didn’t like the conversation that was happening in this House on that. Maybe they were tired of the conversation being had in this House on the speculation tax that doesn’t deal with speculation. Or maybe they were tired of having a conversation in this House about the referendum amendment act — the act designed to give government just a little bit of insurance on the referendum.

It’s certainly easy to see why the government would be nervous. But let’s be clear about a few things. It absolutely makes sense to align reforms on election financing with the Recall and Initiative Act at some point in time, absolutely, and I don’t think a $1,200 limit is unreasonable in that context.

However, this legislation goes too far. It suggests that an individual citizen who wants to recall their MLA, regardless of party affiliation, can only donate $1,200 a year to any such endeavour. Well, I don’t see how those two things should be connected.

What if a member of the B.C. Liberal Party, who, in the past or even in the year, has donated the maximum to my party in support of me, and then I do something that they really find egregious? Why should they not be able to donate $1,200 to an endeavour to recall me? I would think they should be able to do that. I don’t think they should have their hands tied by the party that normally they would support, or any other party. I think this goes too far.

The municipal elections just happened. With that, we saw numerous examples of a giant loophole that we pointed out to the government during the discussion around the electoral finance reform legislation in the spring that they refused to close.

[3:50 p.m.]

What did we see? Well, lo and behold, people saw fit to use that loophole, a loophole that allowed unions the big money we’re trying to get out of politics. According to the Premier, corporate and union donations are what we were trying to fix, yet unions were paying staff members to work on campaigns.

Well, that’s big money in politics. I don’t know about you, Mr. Chair, but I know in my campaign, one of the things that was the biggest part of a campaign was the volunteer labour. Now, in my campaign, it was volunteer. It was my parents. It was my friends, on their own time, on the weekend, working hard to help me get elected. That’s how it should be.

People should not be there because their employer tells them: “No, don’t come to work today. You’ll keep getting your paycheque, but you go work on this campaign. We need to get this person elected, because they’re friendly to us.” That is exactly what we were trying to prevent with election finance reform, yet the NDP left that giant loophole there.

And whoa, to our surprise, that giant loophole is right here in this attempt to fix the Recall and Initiative Act. It’s such a rush that we must do this right now in case a recall is launched at the 18-month mark against someone in this Legislature, perhaps the Attorney General. “We must fix this legislation, but we mustn’t close the loophole that allows for unions to donate staff to campaigns.” Well, I think that’s a pretty big oops.

Again, I understood this legislation, it being on the books — understanding that it was there and it was an option for constituents. For me as a voter, prior to being elected, I understood that this Recall and Initiative Act was there to provide voters with more opportunity to engage in democracy. I believe that the government actually believes what they say about wanting to improve democracy and improve engagement in democracy, but with this act, I believe they’ve taken a giant leap in the wrong direction.

How is it that this act is ensuring that independent citizens are the power behind local campaigns? It isn’t. It certainly doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the legislation of getting big money out of politics. For the government to now put forward yet another bill that fails to deal with a loophole that everyone is aware of is either completely incompetent or completely self-serving. I would believe that it is probably the latter.

I think we should just hold on to this bill and say no to it for now. I believe that we should come back to it and align it, properly align it, with the election finance reforms that were made earlier and with the ones that — we, again, have seen evidence — need to still be fixed. So we’re going to have to do that.

I certainly think we should wait until after a referendum that is currently underway, with an incredibly dismal turnout so far, but that could potentially — even with a potentially dismal turnout — change the way we elect members to this House.

[3:55 p.m.]

If that happens and a move to proportional representation passes, then we certainly know that we will need to make significant changes yet again to the Recall and Initiative Act.

At this point in time, neither the Attorney General nor any member of government that I have heard has been able to stand in this House — or in the hallway — and give any sense of how the Recall Act would work under proportional representation under one of the three proposed systems. I mean, how would it work?

If MLAs are appointed from lists, then how do you recall one of those? Perhaps the process would be similar. But if no one actually voted for that member, and they were appointed from a list, even if the recall was successful, how would you fill a vacancy? No one has been able to answer that question either, and it’s fundamental to removing a member from the House — how one would then be chosen to replace them. These are legitimate questions with no answers.

Clearly, should the electorate vote for change, this act would need to be amended to deal with those issues. So clearly, we are going to need, potentially, to come back in as little as six months and amend this. What’s the rush today?

I haven’t heard, from any member on this side of the House, a big concern about changing the way recall works because any of us are afraid that we could be recalled. It’s equally as big an opportunity for a member of this side to be recalled. And because there have never been any successful recall campaigns, we’ve never heard about big money being a problem. We’ve never heard about money being a problem, considering you can only spend $25,000. What is the rush?

I’ll tell you another thing that’s problematic about this and what’s making me skeptical about why it’s being introduced now. It’s why it’s so necessary right now to deal with third-party advertising beyond the restrictions and to make it more difficult for third-party advertisers to participate in a recall campaign beyond the restrictions imposed for by-elections that only last 28 days when a recall session is 60. It would stand to reason that, over 60 days, one would be able to spend a little more money. You have a little more time; spread it out a little bit. But there’s no rationale for this change. There’s no argument for why this threshold was set.

I just really believe that consistency between legislation surrounding elections — how people do or do not get elected to this place and how people do or do not get unelected from this place — seems like a reasonable request. That’s why I really see this coming to the House now as self-serving and, frankly, based in fear. I don’t see how limiting participation increases democracy.

Right now, we’re in the middle of the referendum. Now, it’s a flawed process, or a rigged game. As people have started to tune in and get informed about the referendum, they’ve said to the Premier: “Jeez. You reneged on that promise. You told us it was a yes-or-no question, and it’s not.”

[4:00 p.m.]

As they get informed, they see that the question is: would you like to keep first-past-the-post, or would you like to switch to something else? Then they get asked to choose from three vaguely described — two almost hypothetical — systems. People have started to realize that some of these systems could include closed lists. It’s right there in the report from the Attorney General. So now, right now, in the middle of the referendum, we see a Premier and cabinet scrambling to tell us that they don’t support closed lists.

Interjection.

S. Cadieux: Perhaps the minister would like to take a chance responding to the legislation, when she has her turn, instead of shouting little quips from the other side.

N. Simons: “Bill 53” is what she said.

S. Cadieux: I heard what she said. My comments are very much related to Bill 53, because it’s questionable why Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, is important right now in the middle of a referendum campaign. These things are all tied together. They’re tied together, because we don’t have answers to how this act would be affected by the outcome of a referendum.

And we now hear, in the middle of a referendum: “Oh no, the Premier and cabinet don’t support closed lists.” But it’s right there as an option in the same document that was approved by cabinet, laying out the referendum.

So the government must be feeling the heat. Instead of rushing this process for their own benefit and the benefit of the other folks keeping them in office, they could have had a citizens’ assembly to keep the question non-political. But they chose a political route to define the question, and now they’re backtracking on the content of that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about Bill 53.

S. Cadieux: I am, Mr. Speaker, talking about Bill 53. I’m talking about how the two pieces of legislation are inextricably linked and why I can’t support the amendment of the Recall and Initiative Act when I don’t know the outcome of a referendum.

The ballots haven’t been counted; we don’t know the outcome. Maybe we will change; maybe we won’t. Maybe there’ll be closed lists; maybe there won’t. But we don’t have any of the answers to those questions. All of that has implications for how a recall campaign would or would not happen and how a member’s seat, should they be recalled, would or would not be refilled.

It’s all too convenient — this legislation, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, with its selective amendments that make recall even more difficult than the rules that exist today and that haven’t seen one success in over 20 years. In over 26 attempts, not one success. Why? Because it’s difficult. Not one complaint about the interference of big money, but it’s urgent on the part of the government that this be done right now, today. That is why we’re seeing this here today, as a part of a suite of changes.

This is an attempt to block the efforts of citizens to recall the very person who has introduced the bill. It reeks, and it’s as simple as that. The timing is suspect. The amendments are overreaching. It’s another attempt to sway the rules in favour of an outcome, and it’s infringing on democracy. It’s doing the exact opposite of what the government professes to be doing, which is making positive changes for democracy and having more voices included. This is going to include less voices, by the very nature of the amendments. Less voices.

[4:05 p.m.]

While I support amendments to limit financial contributions, to make amendments that line the legislation up with the previous changes made to election finance reform, that is not what we have here today.

This House has lots of work to do, and we are constantly told why, by ministers, “We can’t possibly see the change to this or the change to that,” like pay equity or amendments to ensure that people have access to accessible housing. No, those things…. The government is just too busy with legislation to do those things. So why would we waste this House’s time on this legislation when we have, at minimum, a realistic prospect of needing to come back and fix it again in six months?

The voters own the right to elect all of us, and we have the privilege, if elected, to serve here and discuss and debate legislation that should serve the best interests of all British Columbians. This legislation to me looks to serve the best interests of a very few. Because of that, I will not be supporting it.

T. Redies: I rise, like my colleagues, to speak to Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. While a relative newcomer to this House, I think I’ve been around long enough to smell a rat. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I smell a rat with this Bill 53 legislation.

The fact that this legislation was introduced eight days before the recall of the Attorney General was to begin, I must say, smacks of self-serving intent. Whether it’s pretending that he’s a so-called neutral arbiter of the proportional representation referendum or now introducing legislation that seems to be designed to save his political seat, this Attorney General appears to be acting out of self-serving interest. The cynical among us can’t be blamed for thinking this might be a last-ditch effort to make sure the Attorney General isn’t successfully recalled in his riding.

Some with any background in conflict-of-interest matters might actually think the Attorney General is not acting with the public’s best interests in mind. Instead, some might think he is demonstrating a remarkably blatant and self-serving predilection to preserve himself.

It wouldn’t have taken a rocket scientist to figure out that the housing tax measures contained in Budget 2018 would cause serious concern to constituents in the Attorney General’s riding. The Attorney General is a smart man, so it would certainly be surprising that he didn’t make that connection almost immediately. His riding, along with West Vancouver, is the hardest hit by the government’s housing taxes in the province. Many of the Attorney General’s constituents are facing a doubling or a tripling of property taxes, mostly from the ill-conceived, surreptitiously named school tax on homes worth over $3 million. And the Attorney General’s constituents are very, very angry.

As indicated by one constituent quoted in the Vancouver Sun: “Our tax has gone from around $1,500 to $18,000 last year. This year, with the school tax, the tax is going to be up to $32,000.” Thanks to the NDP’s housing policy, this family is facing a 20-fold increase in their taxes. No wonder so many people in the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey are upset with the Attorney General. No wonder so many of his constituents are mounting a recall campaign.

Even though the Attorney General is supposed to represent the people of his riding, all he has done has actually been dismissive of people’s concerns. Instead of being helpful, he has referred to the appreciation of his constituents’ homes as ill-gotten gains, like it is their fault for having bought homes that have substantially appreciated in value, implying that the government has a right to force them to pay tax on that appreciation, even though it has nothing to do with their income or cash flow. And now, through no fault of their own, constituents in the Attorney General’s riding and others close by are facing massive property tax hikes.

[4:10 p.m.]

They are justifiably angry. None of these taxes were declared during the election campaign, so the Attorney General’s constituents, understandably, are feeling ill-used. This is no doubt a very strong reason for why the legislation is being tabled at this time.

In a Vancouver Sun article in May 2018, Kirpy Sangara, a local constituent of the Attorney General’s riding, stated: “I don’t think people who live in this neighbourhood should be punished because their house prices have gone up. They have nothing to control the rise or fall of the price of housing within their neighbourhood. House prices have gone up. It does not mean they have been mailed a pile of cash that gives them the money to pay for some exorbitant tax.”

The Attorney General knows that many of these people are not high-income earners but retirees, whose only mistake, according to this government’s policy, was to buy on the west side 30 or 40 years ago, when prices were much more affordable.

Can you imagine having your property tax bill increase substantially, almost overnight, especially when you are on a fixed income? It would be extremely distressing. Lynne Kent, a 71-year-old owner on the west side, is one of those homeowners who is facing a tax increase that she says she simply cannot afford. For Mrs. Kent and her husband, the school tax means an extra $2,000 annually. Similar to other Point Grey constituents, the Kents bought their three-bedroom bungalow in Kitsilano in the early ’70s for about $40,000, which was equivalent to their household income at the time.

As retirees now, they live on a Canada Pension Plan and old age security payments, plus some savings. The extra $2,000 is a hardship for them. And this is why people like the Kents are motivated to recall the Attorney General. I think this is why the Attorney General is bringing in Bill 53 at this time, because he knows some people are very, very motivated to have him recalled.

You know, the new school tax, when added onto the increased tax on the appreciation of the Kents’ home over the years, is forcing them out of their home. The Attorney General has been quite dismissive of these situations, saying that people can sell if they can’t pay the tax.

In a letter to his constituents in March 2018, he wrote: “When, and if, people fortunate enough to own a home in this price range decide to sell, they will benefit from a great windfall.” Well, that’s not a very good answer to people like the Kents, who’ve lived most of their lives in Kitsilano. It’s their home. As Mrs. Kent went on to say: “We raised our kids here. We have grandkids who are in university, who are part of our family life here. We hope to have great-grandkids here. It’s our home. We didn’t buy it as a money-making asset. We bought it as a home.”

While the Finance Minister and Attorney General have indicated that retirees and families with children under the age of 18 can defer the tax, Mrs. Kent indicates that is not the point. She says: “We want to pay our taxes. It’s not that we don’t want to pay our taxes, but we want it to be fair.”

So the Kents and others like them are certainly motivated to recall the Attorney General, which, again, is a large motivation of the Attorney General to introduce Bill 53 now.

While the Kents and others who own their houses outright might be able to defer the tax, families with children under the age of 18 often cannot. And that is because families with children under the age of 18 typically have mortgages that are often, in this day and age, very high mortgages. After all, this is Vancouver.

Contrary to what the Finance Minister and the Attorney General have both indicated, when you have a mortgage, you can’t defer property taxes. That’s because deferred property taxes are a priority charge on a home. They rank in priority of the bank’s mortgage, even if they were deferred after the mortgage was taken out. So no lender is going to permit people to defer property taxes, which could be ahead of the bank’s mortgage charge on the property. So that won’t be a choice for families with mortgages.

It’s also going to affect those older folks who want to get a reverse mortgage to help fund their needs in their old age, because, again, deferred taxes would be a priority charge to the reverse mortgage.

Again, instead of making life more affordable for British Columbians, the government has just made sure that retirees on a fixed income, older people needing extra funding to live their lives, and many families with children under 18 will not be able to live in the west side.

[4:15 p.m.]

As noted in their May 2018 letter to the Attorney General, the West Point Grey Residents Association wrote:

“The assessed value of a property has no relationship to an owner’s ability to pay or the equity they may have in the property, since it may be highly mortgaged. A large surtax based on assessed value will put many owners in the position of being taxed out of their homes, forced to sell, to raise rents on secondary suites or to go into debt because they legitimately do not have the income to cover this large increase. Most of the houses that would be affected are old and certainly not luxury. This tax also puts further pressure on demolition of the character houses that are more affordable than new and tend to have more secondary rental suites.”

So even affordable rentals are likely to be affected. Rents will have to go up, or landlords will be forced to sell their character rentals because, of course, the government has also reduced the ability for landlords to increase rental rates to the rate of inflation. So landlords don’t have any way to absorb the additional cost of this school tax. And these character home rentals are probably the last affordable rentals available in the area.

So landlords and, ultimately, renters will not be very happy with the Attorney General. All of these unintended consequences remind me of a quote by Winston Churchill, who once wrote: “Trying to tax a country into prosperity is the same as a person trying to lift themselves out of a bucket by the handles.”

But I digress. Clearly, the people of Point Grey and other parts of the west side are angry because they are being potentially priced out of their homes. This is why the Attorney General is introducing Bill 53, because he knows that there’s a very good chance that a recall will be successful in Point Grey. He’s taking every opportunity to make sure that doesn’t happen.

As yet another example of an unhappy local constituent, Point Grey doctor Steve Wiseman told the Vancouver Sun, May 2018: “This proposal is highly distressing to many, as it will result in local families literally taxed out of their homes. An assessment notice doesn’t mean you have $3 million in the bank or, in fact, anything in the bank. It does not mean you can now afford to buy the house you own, versus ten or 20 years ago when it was purchased. It doesn’t mean you don’t have a substantial mortgage or kids in university or a sick mother. And it doesn’t imply anything whatsoever about your income and ability to pay.”

Another Point Grey resident, Aaron Beatty, has said the NDP’s claim that it would use higher taxation to fund the hiring of teachers was “just a decoy.” He went on to say: “Once the NDP gets that money, it will squander the funds in any way the party wishes, and its wishes will multiply each year, provoking the party progressively to raise the property surtax. From the NDP’s perspective, homeowners are property-surtax suckers.”

Well, it would appear that the government’s property-surtax suckers are not going to take this lying down. Red signs asking for the Attorney General’s recall are all over Point Grey. Again, I suspect this is making the Attorney General very nervous, which is why Bill 53 is being rushed in at this time.

This tax, as I noted, is also completely unrelated to the owner’s ability to pay. We raised this with the Finance Minister in estimates last May, and her responses to our questions were very dismissive of the pain that this was causing many west side homeowners who don’t have the cash flow to pay the dramatically increased taxes.

This school tax, along with the speculation tax, also flies in the face of fair taxation and the long-held precedent that people are taxed based on the ability to pay. That’s another reason why people are unhappy and are looking to recall the Attorney General. The ability-to-pay principle is a basic principle of taxation, which maintains taxes should be levied according to a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

The well-known 18th century economist and philosopher, Adam Smith, wrote about four general canons of taxation in book 5, chapter 2, of The Wealth of Nations saying: “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities — that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

To put it simply, the tax systems of the western world have typically been based on the following criteria: that taxes are proportionate to one’s ability to pay, non-arbitrary, payable at the time and in a way when the taxpayer has the income to pay, and also that they must be reasonable to administer. So it’s not surprising…. When the people of Point Grey see a tax where the government has done no modelling, has arbitrarily implemented the tax on property owners and the tax has no relationship to people’s ability to pay, it’s no wonder that people in Point Grey are up in arms.

[4:20 p.m.]

Again, this provides a very serious motivation for the Attorney General to bring in Bill 53 to avoid a successful recall. No, I suspect that the Attorney General knew right away, when he saw the direction of Budget 2018, that he was going to be in trouble. Now we have Bill 53, ostensibly designed to take big money, both corporate and unions, out of politics — but again, timed precisely to make sure it is harder for the Attorney General’s constituents to launch a successful recall. Once again, the Attorney General appears to have designed legislation to suit his own purposes.

This bill contains a number of actions with respect to governing recalls of MLAs in our province, but let’s look at a little history. The act was introduced by the NDP in 1995, and B.C. is the only province in Canada with this type of tool for dissatisfied voters. As my colleague from Surrey South said quite eloquently, this was designed to enable voters who were concerned about actions of their MLAs to have an opportunity to do something about it.

In the province of B.C. today, the existing recall legislation allows sitting MLAs to be recalled — that is, of course, to lose their seats — if 40 percent of registered voters in a riding sign the petition. As many of my colleagues have said today, it’s a very high bar to cross and one that has not been very easy to implement in all the years that it has been in place.

There have been 26 recall petitions, and only one was successful. This sudden urge to bring in legislation to prevent corporate or union interests from financing recall campaigns suggests, again, that the Attorney General is very concerned that his recall could be successful, even though there is a very high bar in place.

Now, the new legislation being proposed by the Attorney General contains a number of initiatives, including applying the same spending and advertising rules the NDP introduced in the Election Act, including limiting donations to individuals and capping that at $1,200. It also includes removing the possibility that an MLA might be subject to more than one recall petition at the same time, as once the Chief Electoral Officer approves a recall campaign application, no other recall campaign can occur against that.

It also allows for the establishment of a $5,000 cap for the petition-period recall advertising for third-party groups. The legislation also reduces the window for a recall campaign by another six months, where recall campaigns cannot be undertaken within six months of a general election.

For me, I don’t have a problem with the capping of corporate and union donations with respect to recall campaigns, but I do have a number of problems with the legislation. First, as discussed, the timing of this bill — who has authored it and who has presented it to this House — certainly raises eyebrows. It will be interesting to see how the conflict commissioner rules on the matter before him. Regardless of his ruling, the Attorney General’s timing in introducing this bill raises the spectre of a conflict of interest.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time on boards as a director, and I’ve also had the benefit of completing the Institute of Corporate Directors program. In corporate governance, particularly nowadays, directors must avoid all actions that would result in a conflict or a perception of conflict.

Now, because of my interest in governance, I decided to look at the MLA conflict of interest act. According to that act, “a member has a conflict of interest when the member exercises an official power or performs an official duty or function in the execution of his or her office and at the same time knows that in the performance of the duty or function or in the exercise of the power there is the opportunity to further his or her private interest.”

The act goes on to say: “For the purposes of this Act, a member has an apparent conflict of interest if there is a reasonable perception, which a reasonably well informed person could properly have, that the member’s ability to exercise an official power or perform an official duty or function must have been affected by his or her private interest.” Finally: “A member must not exercise an official power or perform an official duty or function if the member has a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest.” Again, it will be interesting to see how the conflict commissioner rules on this issue.

[4:25 p.m.]

At the very least, one would have thought the right thing for the Attorney General would have been to remove himself from the architecting or presentation of this legislation, or at least to have waited until his recall was over to introduce the changes.

Back to the specifics of the bill. My second concern, as with the campaign financing legislation, is that the NDP has deliberately left open the door for paid union workers to so-call volunteer to help in campaigns while at the same time being paid by their unions. We know this is happening now with proportional representation. The NDP’s union buddies are actively requiring their members to campaign for PR while they’re being paid by their unions.

This is not right, because it is a form of campaign financing. In this case, the unions are paying their workers to campaign for the NDP’s interests. No doubt, the NDP have reminded the Building Trades unions of the very large payoff they have received with the union benefits agreement. The requirement of all workers on large public sector infrastructure projects to join one of the 19 Building Trades unions within 30 days was certainly a quid pro quo for the millions of dollars of support these unions gave the NDP to get them into power.

Now, the flip side is that the NDP expects them to provide paid labour to fight for proportional representation. I would not be surprised if this loophole has also been left open to support the Attorney General in his efforts to avoid recall.

My third concern is the provision to restrict recalls to only one filed application. This raises the very potential spectre of phantom recalls to prevent the very real recalls from taking place. That is a concern, because, again, as my colleague from Surrey South so eloquently put it, voters in British Columbia should have the right to exercise their democratic rights.

My final concern is the $5,000 cap on advertising, which would seem very low indeed. There are certainly, as I said, a lot of red signs in the Point Grey area, maybe more than $5,000 worth. So I wonder if it is the Attorney General’s intention to penalize those people who in good conscience wanted to fight the school tax and make these restrictions retroactive. If that is the case, it would certainly be an overreach, I believe, of legislative authority, given that the Attorney General forgot the recall aspect of campaign financing in the earlier legislation.

People are, understandably, unhappy in the riding of Point Grey, and they have a right to their say in a free and democratic society.

In summary, for all the reasons noted above, for the very suspicious timing of this bill, I will be voting against it.

N. Simons: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. I disagree with the characterizations put forward by my friends in the opposition. They make some points that I think are valid, but overall, the idea that it’s a big conspiracy is somewhat laughable.

We have people saying we should have done this earlier, and some people saying we should wait till later. Nobody wants to just say: “Well, this is the timing that we have, and this is when we’re in the session. This is the appropriate time.”

Every single one of us, potentially, could be subject to a recall — every single one of us in this House. So there’s a conflict for every single one of us to bring this up.

Interjections.

N. Simons: Never for me, of course. I know my colleagues agree that this would be highly unlikely, and even the thought of it is difficult to ponder.

However, we do have a bill that comes under the jurisdiction and the authority of our Attorney General, and the Attorney General did what he was supposed to do and he presented the bill to the House.

We can talk about timing. I could say we should have done this earlier. I would say that, you know, a lot of what we do depends on what’s happening in the House, how much work is being undertaken by the legal services. There’s a lot to go into legislation. I think it’s entirely appropriate that we deal with getting big money out of politics once and for all. I think this is just one of the strategies that we’re planning to use.

I believe that, obviously, as a member, I spent enough time in opposition to know that it’s possible to put forward amendments. The amendments at least indicate where the concerns are.

[4:30 p.m.]

I don’t think that this big conspiracy theory is really a valid argument. I am troubled by the characterization, because quite frankly, this is simply legislation that brings the Recall and Initiative Act and the process around fundraising for recalls into line with other legislation around election campaigns. I’m pleased that we’re doing this. I think that it’s entirely just part of what we told the people of British Columbia we would do. We saw the biggest scourge of political interference by big money. We’re taking big money out, and it includes in the recall process.

The other thing that I hear from the opposition is that this process of recall has never worked. So I don’t understand why the temper tantrum about it. I think it’s clear. The purpose of this legislation is to make it fair. They’ve talked about the unlikelihood of the success of recall campaigns, so I’m not sure why this is such a big deal.

We have a lot of important legislation to debate in this chamber, and I’m hoping we can get on to that. While the other side is complaining about how much legislation we have to do, they’re deciding to stop and stare at this piece of legislation just because…. They think that because the person responsible for bringing in this piece of legislation has done so, it’s some sort of a secret mission. I would have been happy to present the bill. I don’t have the authority.

I think that even members of the opposition are in agreement. They simply have a concern about the timing. Well, the timing is the same for everybody in this Legislature. Nothing could have happened…. It’s not during a campaign. There’s been no campaign officially started. It’s prior to the establishment of a campaign.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I think it’s entirely appropriate to do this. It’s better than to do it after one has started. Since our laws say. It’s clear that you’re not allowed to do it until after a certain point in time. Then we’re doing it just as appropriate.

I find the arguments being made a little bit overreaching. If they simply stopped their little conspiracy theory about the Attorney General and thought about the legislation as it fits into other legislation we’ve brought forward, I don’t suppose that they would have as much of a problem with it. Maybe we should have done it in the spring. That would have eliminated every single argument that they’ve put forward, it seems to me. Simply talking about the timing and pretending somehow that there’s a mass revolt somewhere in the province…. I don’t think so.

The previous member talked about two of the wealthiest constituencies in the province having the biggest problem with some of our tax initiatives. We’ve done a lot of things to make life affordable for a lot of people. We haven’t done everything. We haven’t made it perfect, but I think the steps that have been taken are good steps. They’re steps in the right direction.

We continue to evaluate all the legislation that’s been put forward, and we will continue to do so. That’s our responsibility as government — to establish and enact legislation and be constantly reviewing it for its efficiency, for its fairness. I don’t suppose that’s going to change at all.

I think right now what we’ve done is decided that, as everyone in the province would suspect, if there are opportunities to donate to the political parties or to individual politicians, they should be fair in all circumstances.

Whether it be a recall or an election campaign, we have rules. We have rules that prevent those with the deepest pockets from having undue influence on our process. The process exists because the NDP brought in recall legislation. The process exists because we’ve talked about electoral systems. We have systems in place. We have systems in place that need to be robust and, across the board, need to be applied.

We have expenditure limits in all forms of our electoral system. We now have expense limits in the recall part of our electoral system. It’s highly appropriate. It’s timely. It’s necessary. We’ve done it at a time when it had to be done. It’s been approximately 18 months since the previous election.

I commend our government for staying true to the promise that we would remove big money from politics, from the political process, from the undue influence that it’s had in this chamber. I’m proud to support Bill 53.

[4:35 p.m.]

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to rise to provide some comments on Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. I think I need to start with recognizing a couple of the comments that the MLA from the Sunshine Coast just made, where he made the point — and I’ve heard him say this on other occasions — that there are valid points being made on this side in the argument and the concerns that are being put forward. He talked about how maybe there should be some amendments.

Well, I guess the question that that raises, to me, is the diligence and the amount of work that went into bringing this legislation forward, particularly when you look at one of the key issues that we’ve been raising in this. It’s the fact that the loophole remains in place in this legislation, introduced here in Bill 53, around the ability for the paid support or the paid union support, worker support, to continue to work in those campaigns and not have that count towards any of the financial contributions to it.

This has been identified clearly before in the municipal election and acknowledged that it’s an issue. They had a chance — and they could have done it — to do this in this legislation. I can’t believe that — if the drafters, knowing the experience, from a legal perspective, with the Attorney General — that issue wasn’t considered or known in bringing this legislation forward. It certainly is not something new. It isn’t certainly something that has not been identified previously. The members opposite, the government, were advised of this situation. We saw it play out through the municipal election process.

Surely it is known, and there would’ve been options put in front of the minister in bringing this forward. It goes back to the question: if you knew about it and could have done something about it in bringing this forward, why not? It goes then back to the concerns that we have raised around the timing of this, the closeness to a recall campaign being launched and getting underway in that particular riding held by the Attorney General.

I think the concerns that we have been raising on this side of the House are valid in this process. When the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast says we have valid concerns, I think he may have been referring to that one. I wonder whether he would’ve been prepared to stand up and say, unequivocally, that he would support and vote for amendments to that respect or whether he would’ve been allowed to do that and whether those amendments would’ve been or could be brought forward in this legislation.

To me, all of this — this legislation, the process around the referendum process, Bill 40 with the legislation to provide for the do-over process…. I commented previously that this has really all been built on such a shaky foundation. It’s really kind of like a Shakespearean play, a sort of tragic farce that is playing out here. It might be quite entertaining in all of this if it wasn’t so fundamental to our democratic process and the rights of our voters and our citizens in these processes, particularly around the recall legislation.

[4:40 p.m.]

Then I want to indicate, as others have, that I support bringing in the financing limits on this. But elements of this bill really restrict the ability of people to move forward. We’ve talked about the fact that it’s a high bar and hasn’t been used successfully, over all of the years, on the 26 initiatives that have been launched. One of them probably would have been successful if it had gone through the process.

So the checks and the level that have been established are there in order to ensure that when these are brought forward, it is really for legitimate reasons and for legitimate concerns, where the views and the concerns of the voters in those ridings really have created that level of concern where they feel that this is an option they need to move forward with.

The concerns around the structure of this legislation, the fact that you can’t have another recall campaign that can occur against that MLA until that recall campaign ends…. Whoever files first gets to do the campaign. Now, that sets up the process of the ability to have, as members have talked about, the false flag processes. If you can get your application in there even when you don’t want to proceed with it, then that leaves 60 days before somebody else can start another campaign. You get the potential for a rolling set of false flags in the process.

Members have pointed out the comments when the Attorney General, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, was pressed on this, on the Jon McComb Show. The Attorney General said: “Theoretically possible, I guess, to have supporters launch a recall campaign against their own candidate that they support.” We have commented that this is a major flaw in the legislation.

The Attorney General has recognized that that is a potential. He says it’s theoretical. I think it’s more than theoretical. If you leave that kind of loophole or ability within the legislation, it becomes more than theoretical. It’s a step or a process that people could use. The legislation provides for it. So it’s not just theory; it is part of the legislation.

Just like their overall approach on electoral reform, we have a process where there are so many options being put out, so much information that is not included in the options, theoretical statements being made, statements like, “We don’t support open lists. We want closed lists” — all of those things. Yet the legislation, the options, the information that people are voting on provide for it, along with a whole bunch of other information that’s not there, in terms of how those options may work.

Again, if — and it’s an if — the vote goes in favour of changing to a form, as yet to be determined, of proportional representation, there’s no clarity, at this point, how recall provisions will work under those circumstances. This legislation — or this provision in the recall legislation — will have to be brought back once again.

[4:45 p.m.]

It really begs the question of what the motivation, the rationale, the rush, is for bringing it forward at this time. I think it is more than coincidence that it is being brought forward now, less than eight to nine days to when recall initiatives can get underway. Again, going on this seems to be, just to me, a continuing pattern of democracy being challenged in the process.

The bill also seeks to take six months off a window for recall prior to a scheduled general election. That’s 180 days. But when you look at the provision before you can start — 18 months — and you take six months where you can’t at the end of the process, that’s over half the time, in 24 months out of a four-year election cycle, where you can’t initiate that action.

I can understand the rationale for the beginning part of it. Clearly, things will develop, and you need to see the performance of the MLA that you’ve elected — or the local voters do. But to take away three cycles…. We’ve talked about the fact that you can start the process, and then it’s 60 days that the timeline’s on it. To take away three opportunities in that process, and when you have the additional theoretical issue of somebody launching a false flag one, then you’ve again taken away opportunity from voters in that case.

I would think that if it got to the point where a duly elected MLA had done something that required recall to start, you should be able to do that at any point right up until before the election. If it was successful, it’s not likely to trigger another…. Some people may say you don’t want to do it because it might trigger a by-election. Given the fact that you have six months until you call a by-election, that’s probably not a major concern.

But what you have done is take away three timing windows for the initiatives to be launched when you take away that six-month period — as I said, over half the time of a term where you can’t initiate these efforts.

I again question…. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast questioned our motivation in continuing to pursue it. It’s interesting to note that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is the only member on the opposite side of the House who has stood up to defend this and to argue for the rationale of why we should be considering this at this particular time. He also, as I said, indicated that we’re making some valid points.

I wonder just how invested many of the other members on the other side of the House here are in this legislation. They might have preferred that this be left because of the perceptions of conflict on this, the perceptions of conflict of interest, the timing and the linkages to the referendum legislation. Again, it will impact this. The history with respect to recall legislation around the bars that have to be achieved really question as to why this couldn’t have been left until the appropriate opportunity — until after the referendum, when you know what form of electoral process you would be dealing with.

[4:50 p.m.]

The question has been asked, and the question is not able to be answered, in terms of how recall will work under any of the proportional referendum options. Again, to us and to me, this seems to have set up significant risks and potential of conflict of interest. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson and the member for Surrey–White Rock have pointed out, very correctly, the provisions of the legislation under the conflict of interest and the fact that there is conflict of interest, and then there is the reasonable perception of conflict of interest, particularly for a member of the executive council.

Again, I would have thought, with all of the legal background of the Attorney General, that that risk would’ve been recognized and should have been avoided in this process, because again, I feel that the timing of this is not coincidental. It has been brought forward to put more impediments and more constraints in the way of moving forward with the recall process in a place where a very significant initiative is likely underway in terms of the recall initiative.

It is really around challenges to our process. We all are responsible to our voters in our ridings. We need to make sure that they have the ability to take these steps if they feel that we’re not doing the job; if they feel that we have done something that is in violation of the values that are expected out of MLAs, out of the impacts that policy decisions may have. They need to have that ability. It should be under a process that is consistent with the financing rules that are brought forward in the campaign financing reform.

Members here have commented on the fact that we agree with that. But the other steps that are being taken here are overreaching and, again, designed, in my view, to protect the interests, in this case: to be self-serving at this point in time; to have set up, I think, a very real potential of conflict of interest on this; and maintain loopholes that were in place before, which were clearly known and clearly identified and could have been dealt with in this case, even with the legislation being brought forward.

For those reasons and the overall concerns that have been identified clearly on this side of the House, I won’t be supporting this legislation. I think it needs to be pulled back and put into a proper process where these issues are addressed. Some of the valid concerns that are being raised, which were acknowledged by the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, should be dealt with. This should be done at a time when this important democratic principle of being able to recall your MLA….

For a variety of reasons, if that’s the case and voters in your community feel that they should do that, it should be done in a clean, transparent way. By bringing it in at this time, with these limitations in it, that’s not the case here.

As I said, I won’t be supporting this legislation. I hope the members opposite would pull this back and deal with this in a much cleaner, better process.

[4:55 p.m.]

D. Ashton: I rise today to speak to Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. All of us, as British Columbians, and those that we represent, have to be incredibly proud when we take a look at how our democracy has unfolded over the years since it was originated — I think it was in 1871, if I remember correctly — as the sixth province when we came into the domicile of Canada.

Over those years, we have elected stable governments. When there have been governments that have had issues, the populace makes the decision and makes that change. On a broad spectrum, we have continually shown the will of most of the people of British Columbia on a continual basis. We’ve built an incredibly prosperous place in British Columbia that all of us call home. Many, many people in the world today would love to be able to call British Columbia home.

You know, what’s transpiring right now is something that, to me, is like that little character in the Peanuts comic strip where he always had that black cloud over his head as he was walking along carrying his blanket, if I remember it. To me, that’s what’s transpiring right now in this house of the people. It’s a real shame.

The Attorney General is a man who, in his previous life, was a staunch supporter of social justice and justice for individuals in all communities in British Columbia, but unfortunately, what’s transpiring right now is a situation that he has brought forward where, in my opinion — and, I think, in many others — he is trying to protect not only himself but others that may be affected in a referendum recall where there is an opportunity, small that it be, where a member can be recalled in this House.

That is something that the NDP brought in, in the ’90s. They did a good job of it. They had good legislation, from my understanding of it. There was a balance. The people had to reach not just a nominal amount but a critical amount that would really show the will of the people. All of a sudden, that’s all changing, and I just don’t see why.

You know, the members on the other side of the House, when they were in opposition, did a darned good job. This is my fifth year and my second term of being here. I was fortunate, in the first term, to be able to sit where the government sits on that particular side of the House and to listen to….

[The bells were rung.]

D. Ashton: Oh, it must be in the other House. May I continue?

What is transpiring here with the members of the current government now is…. When they were in opposition, they had really honed their skills over a period of time. To be frank, they did a very, very good job. I would ask them just to think back on this — to think back to if the government that I’ve been fortunate enough to represent during my first four years had brought in legislation like this. I cannot imagine the sharpness or the tone of their attacks that would be witnessed in this House, especially during the time frame that this is being brought forward.

I take a look, and I think: “My gosh, if another government that was in a situation where they’re in a very minority situation” — I’ll say one of us — “where the government of the day was prospect to what is amounting to a recall against his leadership in his particular riding, that would really be very disruptive to the balance of power in this Legislature, and we, as a past government, had brought that forward….” Like I say, can you just imagine what would be transpiring?

[5:00 p.m.]

I switch very quickly over to the MLA representing the Sunshine Coast. I listened to his speech where he said that there were some incredibly valid points that were being brought forward. I’ve known that member for five years, and I challenge that member that the cooperation that he seeks and many others seek in this House on a continual basis….

Well, here’s an opportunity. Here’s an opportunity to bring this forward, because my peers on this side of the House have brought forward some very, very good points about why this legislation that is being proposed appears — to many, and to me it is — tainted, in a lot of ways, to offset a very firm democratic process.

What I would like to see is…. For all members of this House that have said they want to see cooperation and some mutual concern brought forward that represents everybody in the province: here’s an opportunity to do it. Here’s an outstanding opportunity to say: “You know what? Large money contributions have been removed, not only from individuals but also from unions.”

There have been some other issues that have been removed. But one thing that hasn’t been removed is the opportunity of third-party contributions through feet on the ground. That’s one of the things that I really think that we need to be looking at as we go forward.

I need to give you an example. I was actually the individual that phoned up Elections B.C. because I was called by a concerned citizen in Penticton, during a municipal vote, where Fair Voting B.C. was stationed inside a school — inside the working doors to go to where people were going to the polls. They were handing out their information regarding proposed proportional representation, a referendum that is coming forward. And I questioned that.

As a former city councillor and regional district chair and mayor, we couldn’t have a sign anywhere within 300 feet of a polling station. I asked them, and they told me that they had had permission from Elections B.C. and that all their p’s and q’s were in order. The follow-up was that Elections B.C. didn’t give them permission, but Elections B.C. said it wasn’t within their jurisdiction. It had to be municipal.

What was really funny, as I was leaving…. I actually have a lot of respect for this young lady. She used to work for the city of Penticton. She’s the president of the New Democratic Party in our area. I stopped and asked her, and she said, “Dan, we have permission,” which, you know, I found out to not be true, but I can understand why she said it.

She says: “Dan, we’re a lot more organized.” And I have to understand that they were, because I recognized some of the individuals that have been putting this literature out. Unfortunately, for a lot, they are individuals that have worked in positions with a union that are now entitled to be able to put their feet on the ground and help something for a party that has always had a tendency to be a bit more favourable towards organized labour.

Myself, in my whole lifetime, I’ve been involved with five unions. I worked incredibly hard for those unions, because they gave me a lot of benefits that I was not able to get elsewhere. But I also worked very hard for the company that the union was encompassed with to ensure that — coming from the side of the family that I came from, private enterprise and that — I was pulling my weight during that day.

What I would really like to see is that we take one more step in the government, at this point in time, and that show of cooperation takes out that one figure that was not addressed, which is the opportunity of third parties to be able to do contributions. And those contributions are not monetary. It’s organized, and it’s feet on the ground.

[5:05 p.m.]

When I listen to what transpires, not only with the referendum that is taking place at this point in time but with recall…. I quickly asked some folks that work very diligently for us to give me a sheet that included some of the recalls dating back to the ’90s. It’s with interest that….

There were 26 recalls. During the 1990s, there were nine recalls for members of the New Democratic Party and one independent. Then the balance, 17 recalls, for the B.C. Liberal Party up until…. I think the last date was 2015.

What I really, really find interesting is when you look at not only the numbers returned…. Seven out of 26 was the number of actual signatures that were returned. But it was the number of registered canvassers. There are five where there are no registered canvassers. I find that really interesting.

What is being proposed with this recall and initiative amendment is that people can file a recall notice and supersede anybody else coming in and absolutely not do anything for the proposed 60 days. It is kind of interesting how that just coincides with what is actually taking place and how it would coincide if the recall and initiative amendment is adopted.

There have been lots of comments about what individuals think about this. However, I’m not going to say some of the words. But it is definitely, in my opinion, a closed card game where somebody has an ace up their sleeve, and they’re just waiting for the time to deal it. And it appears to me that it is being dealt at this point in time.

What we need to ensure is that there are opportunities for all. I’ve heard, on numerous occasions, from many in this House, including the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, that we need to work together. I think this is an example of where we could actually sit down….

We heard from the member from the Sunshine Coast that some of the concerns that have been raised here today are valid. We could actually sit down collectively with the Third Party and really tune this legislation up so that it actually means something, it is not slewed to one side or the other and it gives an opportunity for people to maintain a right.

British Columbia is the only province in the country that has it. So to be able to maintain that right but also give British Columbians the opportunity that, if they are not satisfied with the representation that they’re getting from their elected official, they’d have recourse to be able to take it back — take that member and challenge that member back to the situation where he may lose his position.

Democracy is something that I think many of us take very, very lightly. We get in here, and we use that term an awful lot, but it seems that once we leave the auspices of this people’s House, democracy has a tendency to slew towards political ideals. I think that that needs to be taken into consideration when people are actually reviewing what is in this Bill 53.

I would like to see more democracy not only when it comes to ideals that are broadcast by each and every one of us in this House but once we leave this House. I think, personally, that there is a great opportunity right here for each and every member in this House to have some real sober second thought on this and to think about how this could be brought forward where there is not a perception of conflict.

As an elected official on council, I can remember my first term when we had a solicitor come in and explain conflict of interest to us. He said that if you even have to think about it — if you even have to think that there might be a perception of conflict — there is a perception of conflict, and you should step away from it.

There’s been enough information brought forward not only by ourselves on this side of the House but by citizens outside to ensure that the Attorney General has the opportunity to pull this bill back and then grab the bull by the horns and say, “Enough is enough. I’ve heard loud and clear from every member in this House and the outside that this bill needs to be rethought,” and bring it forward.

[5:10 p.m.]

There are all kinds of things that we have the right to be incredibly proud of being elected in here, including the opportunity to have ourselves and our peers outside challenge an MLA. But when the restriction that is being brought forward by the current government and being tabled by a minister of the Crown — and especially an Attorney General, which, in my opinion, should be up here and completely impartial — there is a situation where there is enough conflict, in my opinion, that there is a restriction being brought forward on fairness by the Attorney General. I really, really think he should be utilizing his power to change the rules that he has brought forward in Bill 53.

You know, governments make decisions sometimes that are not perfect. I think because of the way, unfortunately, some politicians or all politicians can be reviewed…. If a politician started saying, “No, this was an honest mistake. This was something that wasn’t considered fully. This was something that, in the scale of everything else that is happening with proportional representation, there is an opportunity that I should take a look at this bill again. And with the respect to the House, I would like to pull it off and have a relook at it and speak with those in staff to ensure that what we have brought forward is actually squeaky clean….”

I think, personally, that there are an awful lot of people outside of this House, those individuals that we represent, who would really think a lot more highly of the actions that have been taken to date if that was done.

I would challenge the Attorney General tonight, when he goes home, to think through not only what he’s heard or what his staff have been presenting about what’s been said in this House; rethink it through.

My dad said that the best pillow is a clean conscience. I don’t wish the Attorney General a lack of sleep tonight, but I do wish that he would think about everything that has been said by members on this side of the House about some of their concerns regarding just some of the points — not the entire bill — in this bill. He could have some real sober thought on it.

I really think that if this does proceed, it is not only going to be a sad day in this Legislature. I think there are an awful lot of people outside that have eyes on what’s going on and have eyes on not only proportional representation. They will be thinking about the process.

We are so attuned to what goes on in this House. Many of the citizens that we represent instil so much trust in us. Not only those that were part and parcel of the party that helped us get elected but when every one of us…. I don’t know anybody in this House that doesn’t represent all the citizens in their riding. I’ve heard from numerous people in government, where they’d said: “We don’t care if you voted for us, if you didn’t vote for us, or you didn’t vote at all.” I’m in your office with an issue, and I’ll make you a bet that 100 percent of the people that have the privilege of being able to sit on this floor of the people’s House help those individuals to the best of their ability.

I really think that those are the individuals that are going to be a little bit more than slighted when they see this bill come forward. If it happens to pass, which I hope it doesn’t in its present form, that is just going to add one more cloud to that little fella in that comic strip that walked around with his blanket and that dirty dust cloud hanging over his head all the time. I just hope that that’s something that the Attorney General will think about.

With all due respect, I cannot support this bill the way it has been presented. I really hope each and every one of us will really think this through before we lift our hands to say yea or nay to the bill in the next few days. Thank you for the opportunity today.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: Well, thank you, Madame Speaker. It’s great to see you today.

It’s always a privilege to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the constituents of Shuswap, speaking to Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018.

[5:15 p.m.]

When I wake up in the morning, I’m Canadian first, and I’m British Columbian second. I think our democracy, in this country and our province, has served us extremely well, and we have a lot to be proud of. Unfortunately, this bill, along with the manner in which the current proportional referendum is being put forward to British Columbians, is really trampling on our democracy.

You know, if we look to the specifics of the recall legislation…. All of us are here because we chose to run for office, and we entrusted our constituents, within our respective ridings, to entrust us to represent their interests to the best of our abilities.

As much as we can be elected to represent them, I think it’s important that all of us here also have to face the smell test, and that’s not just in the next scheduled election. It’s to also make sure that we’re truly being accountable to the people — that we’re responsive to the needs of our constituents and not just the select few that may have put us here. I think it’s important for all MLAs to know that when you are elected, you are here to represent all of the constituents within your respective riding.

The recall legislation that was brought in by the then NDP government — in 1995, I believe, was the date — was brought in specifically for that. It was to address that fundamental right of voters, in order to say: “Yes, I have the power to put you into office, and yes, we also maintain the ability of removing you from office if you stray too far from the electorate.”

So we would ask ourselves: “Why are we here?” There have been 26 recall campaigns since 1995. And of those 26, it’s been shared with the House that only in one instance was there ever enough signatures garnered to require the removal of an MLA. Even in that instance, the MLA for Parksville-Qualicum at the time saw the writing on the wall, and he resigned before he was actually removed from office. So on 26 different occasions, whenever the recall challenge actually occurred, only once was it ever activated on.

Now, in all of those previous times, I certainly don’t recall any time when members from either side of the House ever had any questions or concerns about the recall legislation. It’s a very high bar. It requires collection of signatures of over 40 percent of the constituents that were eligible to vote in the last provincial election. That is no small undertaking. It takes a lot of time and energy, and people don’t undertake those recalls lightly. There has to be a significant reason for constituents to be very concerned.

Again, back to the fact that we are actually duly elected by our constituents and the voters within our respective ridings. We also have to continue to be responsible and respectful and ensure that we are representing the interests of all. Should we not be able to do that, I think that all of us here…. I certainly don’t have any issue with the current recall legislation. I think that it keeps all of us honest, and it keeps our hearts and minds in our respective ridings, trying to represent the best interests of our constituents.

Now, with this bill being brought forward by the current Attorney General, I think that we kind of have to give some pause and thought and wonder: “Why now?” Why not 18 months ago? Why not 23 years ago, when this legislation was first put into power? Why was there never a concern brought forward in any one of the other 26 instances when there was discussion about recalling an MLA?

I think we all know why. It is the policies of this current government that are having a significant negative impact on the business community, and it’s the fact that the Attorney General is under fire from constituents within his own riding on why this is coming forward. It’s extremely self-serving. And it’s actually trampling on the democracy of British Columbia.

The fact that it’s being brought forward now, at this particular time when the Attorney General is under significant scrutiny, within his own riding, on the huge litany of punishing business taxes that have come from this current government, it’s no wonder that the Attorney General is bringing this forward.

[5:20 p.m.]

I know that he’s trying to put it out there under the auspices and the cloak that it has to do with other MLAs that are also, potentially, going to be under recall. But in this instance, when you have a look at the timing and the amount of concern that has been expressed for the current Attorney General, you have to take pause and wonder. This is very self-serving. This is an abuse of legislative power of this current government to try and put forward a bill that will help to protect and to prevent and inhibit and help to disable the ability of constituents to have that fundamental freedom of choice and that fundamental right of recalling a member to which — in the eyes of the constituency — that member is no longer representing the interests of their communities.

In the last election, B.C. Liberals won the election. We had the highest number of seats. We had the highest percentage of the popular vote at 43 seats. The NDP had 41 seats and fewer votes than the B.C. Liberals. However, they were able to work out a confidence and supply agreement with the three Green Party members, and that gave them the majority — the 44 to 43 seats, which allowed them to form government.

We respect that, because those were the rules of the game when we entered the last election in 2017. We knew what the groundwork was. We knew the rules by which we were required to play. And at the time that we all ran and we all put our names forward in 2017, we knew full well what the recall legislation was. There was lots of talk at the time, and lots of work has been done, about electoral financing reform — changing the rules on how we actually fundraise.

There was never any discussion or dialogue about recall legislation and how this recall legislation should be changed — changing the timing so they’re looking at actually constraining the ability of anybody actually undertaking a recall campaign within six months of a general election. I don’t recall a lot of attention in the media. I certainly didn’t hear from any of my constituents expressing any concerns about the current recall legislation and how we had to start monkeying with it. So it’s not of any great surprise, I don’t think to British Columbians, on why this is before the House.

We also have to give consideration to the current government. It is one of the weakest governments that can actually be elected to form government. And on this side of the House, we are the strongest opposition that has ever been elected to the Legislature. So the current NDP-Green government that is in power in British Columbia right now — they don’t have a ten-seat majority. They don’t have the support of the multitude and masses of British Columbians that’s going to allow them to start tinkering with democracy in the middle of the legislative session.

I think it’s just that very basic fact that has British Columbians the most concerned. I know it’s the most concerning to me.

We look at this particular bit of legislation that’s before the House, and we know the reasons why it’s coming forward. It’s protectionism, trying to help bolster and help support the current government that is hanging on by a sheer thread with a mere one-seat majority in this House. And we also have a look at the current referendum that is being put forward to British Columbians.

The referendum has been canvassed in great detail in this House. British Columbians are very concerned about the manner in which it’s coming about. And again, it is a trampling on the democratic right of citizens in British Columbia.

[5:25 p.m.]

The fact that this proportional representation referendum is coming forward in the manner which it is, with the reduction in the threshold from 60 percent to 50 percent, and when the Premier of the province has actually backed away from promises and commitments that he made prior and during the last provincial election. That’s things like a simple yes-no question — a broken promise — and that there would be a citizens’ assembly, an independent body to actually come up with the form and put a clear choice before British Columbians — again, another broken promise.

We have to take this bill into the bigger, broader complex of these other changes that are happening, significant tax changes that I know have the business community actually scared — literally scared for their future. In the first mid-term budget update, we had a 1 percent increase in corporate taxes in B.C., in spite of inheriting a $2.7 billion surplus. A $2.7 billion surplus? I would think that the time to raise taxes is when there’s actually a deficit, when there’s actually a need for additional dollars. But in spite of inheriting a $2.7 billion surplus, what did the NDP government bring in, in their first mid-term budget update? A 1 percent increase in corporate taxes, a 2 percent increase on the top tax rate for the highest-earning British Columbians.

On the first day, they repealed the tax neutrality of the carbon tax. Now, when the carbon tax came in, of course, the members opposite…. Their slogan was “Axe the tax.” They thought it was the worst thing on the planet. Or that certainly was the way that they were campaigning. The one thing that I think that British Columbians held their hat on — and I think that the international political climate were so happy about and actually what made B.C.’s system so amazing — was the fact that it was going to be revenue-neutral to government. Any new incremental increase in tax was going to be delivered back in other tax breaks to help the masses of British Columbians.

What did the NDP do? They repealed that. They don’t want to see the tax neutrality. They want to have full discretion to be able to use those carbon taxes however they wish.

Let’s fast-forward to the current budget in February of this year. Again, a huge litany of new taxes, and they’re quite lengthy. But I certainly know that my constituents are reminded of them almost daily, with the increases in carbon tax. We have the new health tax that is actually impacting those that have worked hard and have significant equity in their homes.

The speculation tax is something that has no correlation to a tax on speculators. You know, a family that have had a cabin in West Kelowna for 25 years that’s actually provided great family vacations for their family. Suddenly, they’re now being called speculators, and they’re going to be subject to this new speculation tax.

Then the most punishing of all is the employer health tax. It matters not whether a business is profitable. Businesses could be breaking even or even losing money but, hey, you won’t be able to avoid being fully impacted by this new employer health tax, which takes place and comes into effect on January 1 of this year.

Businesses are struggling. It’s reducing the competitiveness of B.C. businesses, and I think that it’s these measures, largely, why the current Attorney General is under so much negative scrutiny within his own riding.

This Recall and Initiative Amendment Act just simply doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s not lost on British Columbians why it’s before the House. The details of the bill are such that it’s going to make it more difficult and more challenging for anybody to initiate recall action against a particular member. And it’s another way that a member can now not have to fully face and be fully accountable to your taxpayers and to those voters that actually put you into office.

You know, it’s a great democracy we have where we can actually get elected to office, but we also need to make sure that we have strong recall legislation that makes MLAs accountable to their constituents and makes sure that constituents and voters feel that they have the ability of taking you out of office if you stray too far from providing that proper and broad representation of all of your constituents within your respective riding.

With that, I certainly have no ability to support this bill in its current form, and I’ll be voting against Bill 53.

[5:30 p.m.]

C. Oakes: It is a true privilege to rise in this House today to speak to Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. I am appalled by what is being introduced at this time.

I try to review each piece of legislation and look at it in the context of our democratic principles, our democratic rights and, most importantly, how each piece of legislation that is brought forward into this House — the effects it will have on the citizens…. In this case, I am again speaking to the citizens of Cariboo North, who I proudly represent here in this Legislature.

I believe that Bill 53 is a shocking attempt to manipulate this democratic institution and remove citizens’ rights to participate and hold MLAs accountable. A fundamental right of democracy is a citizen’s ability to ensure that there are accountability measures for each of us in this House. No matter what party you represent, whether you are an independent or a part of this party or any of the parties represented here, that accountability is critically important.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I know that when you send us, as your representatives, here to this House, there is comfort in the ability to understand that there are accountability measures. There is the ability for you, as citizens…. If we are not upholding or doing the business that you sent us here to Victoria to do, there is an element of ability through a recall legislation to hold us to account.

I believe that Bill 53 is no more than an insurance policy by this government to ensure that they are able to maintain their seats and the seats of their junior partner. I look at this piece of legislation that is being brought forward to this House eight days before a recall campaign is possible. This bill is nothing more than a life preserver for the government, and I am deeply, deeply appalled.

I understand and we have heard very clearly — they’ve articulated their concerns — the concerns of the constituents of Point Grey. They’re angry, and they are mounting a recall campaign. The Attorney General can dismiss his constituents’ concerns, but he cannot dismiss the fact that we have recall legislation that puts in place the very likelihood that in eight days, a recall campaign will be enacted against this Attorney General.

This bill is just another example by the Attorney General and this government to dismiss the very democratic institutions that we all are very proud to be here as Canadians. It limits citizens’ rights. It limits citizens’ ability to hold their MLAs accountable. It eliminates the ability of individual citizens, who may reflect individual views, to say to their MLA: “I do not like what you are doing, and therefore, I will enact a piece of legislation that was brought forward in the ’90s to recall my MLA.”

This legislation is problematic. We are skeptical, and we have a right to be. What is the rationale for this bill? It is self-serving. It’s an insurance policy. It is in the middle of a referendum campaign — days before a period opens up where citizens have the first chance since the election of May of 2017 to demonstrate their displeasure and hold their MLA accountable for the policies, processes and actions of their representative. Limiting the participation of citizens and removing the ability of citizens to hold their MLA to account is what this bill before the House today is.

[5:35 p.m.]

Once the Chief Electoral Officer approves a recall campaign application, no other recall campaign can occur against that MLA. Whoever files first gets to do the campaign. That’s this little piece of the legislation that is being brought forward that I think causes all of us on this side of the House the most amount of concern. Again, once the Chief Electoral Officer approves a recall campaign application, no other recall campaign can occur against that MLA. Whoever files first gets to do the campaign. I speak to the citizens of Cariboo North. The first group that puts in a recall would be the first group that has the ability to move forward on a recall campaign.

Now, what if there are multiple citizens that may have different interests? I know in every single one of our ridings, whether it’s people that are concerned with agriculture, whether it’s people that are concerned with natural resources or social issues, they have different views and have the right to bring that forward to their MLA.

If their MLA is not accountable, they should have the right to enact a piece of legislation. This bill is removing that ability. It is a pattern that we are seeing of this government of restricting citizens’ democratic rights.

Align that with the results of what is happening with Bill 40, a bill that we are debating yet is listed by Elections B.C. as if the bill has completed debate. It is dismissive, and it makes a mockery of the very democratic institutions that all of us were sent to this House…. It also dismisses the fact that we have fundamental rights, as citizens, of accountability.

So why now? The recall legislation has been on the books since the 1990s. If it was such a significant concern of the NDP government, why wasn’t it fixed when the election reform was brought forward by the NDP government in the spring?

They didn’t decide, with this legislation, to close the loopholes, which we all know continue to exist with the election reform. They are rushing it through, no differently than they rushed through the proportional representation. Then they rushed through Bill 40. Things that we are still debating in this House, but they are rushing through….

The recall legislation was carefully crafted in the 1990s. It sets forward a significant threshold, enough to sign a petition of 40 percent in 60 days, with a short timeline to drive the signatures. There was no evidence that there was big money in recall campaigns. Yet that seems to be the crux of what the NDP and the Green members are bringing forward — why this legislation is necessary.

We are in the middle of a referendum. To rewrite recall legislation at this time again dismisses the very nature of people that are taking very seriously the referendum around proportional representation. We know that, depending on the outcomes of the proportional representation referendum, it will have significant consequences and changes to the operational structure of the parliamentary business of this House. We will need to look at how we amend legislation by member and who will be and is subject to recall campaigns, depending on methods that are being selected. Again, it is a manipulation of democracy to bring this bill forward at this time.

Another reason I am very concerned about the changes that are in Bill 53 is the relationship that it has to the parliamentary business of this House and the important work that happens in this Legislature and the importance for citizens to be able to hold their MLA to account. I would like to spend a moment to discuss parliamentary business of this Legislative Assembly and the committees that work on behalf of the assembly. I feel that far too often, the work of this Legislature is outwardly communicated to the public with short clips of question period as if, by nature, question period is the fulsome nature of what happens here in Victoria in the Legislature.

[5:40 p.m.]

What I feel is far too forgotten is the integral work that the parliamentary committees, the standing committees, make to the deliberations of this Legislature. The committee system allows for a more detailed examination of policy and other matters than is possible in the larger House. At times, the committee system also provides members of the public with opportunities to have direct input into parliamentary processes. Committees consider only those matters that are referred to them by the Legislative Assembly, and within their terms of reference, committees are afforded total independence of their deliberations. The committee system allows for a more detailed examination of policy and other matters.

Some of the select standing committees are established by the Legislative Assembly at the commencement of each session — during the second session, was amended, establishing nine select standing committees. Those are Aboriginal Affairs; Children and Youth; Crown Corporations; Education; Finance and Government Services; Health; Legislative Initiatives; Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills; and Public Accounts. At the commencement of each session, a committee of selection is appointed to prepare a report of lists and membership to compose the nine select standing committees to this House.

In addition, special committees may be created by the Legislative Assembly to examine a single, specific issue. A special committee ceases to exist after it has completed its investigation and has presented its final report to the House. A common type of special committee is one that recommends the appointment of a statutory office to the Legislature, such as the Auditor General.

The use of parliamentary committees allows for, of course, a more detailed examination, as I have said. In recent years, committees have taken on incredibly important work on a wide variety of topics, including sustainable aquaculture, the use of cosmetic pesticides and the provincial mid-term timber supply.

Select standing committees may be referred the subject matter of a bill or vote within estimates, but in practice, these referrals rarely occur. I will, Mr. Speaker, if you permit me, examine why this relates to this bill, Bill 53.

At first, a committee of course elects a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, and they review its terms of reference and embark on drafting a business plan. At the beginning of each legislative session, a committee of selection is automatically authorized to determine the membership of all parliamentary committees. The committee of selection usually appoints between ten and 12 members to each committee.

Committees are a creature of the House and are, by nature, subordinate to the Legislative Assembly. They generally observe the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, and they report back to the Legislature.

Typically, a parliamentary committee is empowered by a motion tabled in the Legislature by a government minister. The motion calls for a committee to investigate a particular matter, and the Legislative Assembly votes on that motion. The substance of the motion becomes the committee’s terms of reference. The terms of reference outline the task given to a committee and also permit the committee to meet, call witnesses and retain personnel as required. The terms of reference may also specify that the committee must report back to the House within a given period of time.

Beyond these typical specifications, the committee is free to interpret the scope of its mandate.

The reason I raise the importance of standing committees and select standing committees is because I know, firsthand and from all members of this House who’ve had the privilege to serve on standing committees, the importance of the work that is done.

Often I believe that the general public may not be as familiar with the work that happens in this House, and it’s critically important for all of us to have that dialogue and to educate and to ensure that we are reaching out and ensuring that the work of this House is broadly broadcasted out to our citizens.

Parliamentary committees vary in size, but typically comprise private members of the Legislative Assembly from all parties, in proportion to their representation in this House.

[5:45 p.m.]

It’s interesting that as we have the conversation, right now, around proportional representation, the very nature of the parliamentary committee and the parliamentary structures that we have in place today are, in fact, a reflection of the values, views and representation of the parties that we actually have here in the House.

In speaking with the Clerk’s office, which I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank for the diligent and important work that they do on behalf of our democratic institution. They work diligently on behalf of members of this House and, in fact, all British Columbians. I would like to thank you for the work that you do.

I raise this because I believe it is important for citizens to understand the nature of the work of what happens in this Legislature. I’ve heard significant rhetoric around members supporting proportional representation that significantly dismisses the workings of this parliament, dismisses the work of standing committees and dismisses the nature of how parliamentary committees and the parliamentary business of this Legislature actually work.

Recently I had the great privilege to serve on the Special Committee to Appoint an Information and Privacy Commissioner. I must share that I found this work incredibly rewarding, and I found the work incredibly important. I know that, in this House, the Chair of the committee has also shared these similar comments.

The work of this committee is so relevant, as it was prior to the release of the investigation in the U.K. of election tampering. Of course, later on, that was discussed and identified with election tampering in the United States. It was critically important for us that, with the global evidence of what is being infiltrated around the globe with policy and election hampering, we make every attempt within parliamentary business here in this House to attempt due diligence and for the work that we did to appoint a competent, intelligent Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I believe that, with the significantly increased examples of foreign money being introduced into British Columbia from the United States and other jurisdictions that is being used to manipulate B.C. public policy and, in fact, the election process, now more than ever having a competent, intelligent Information and Privacy Commissioner is important.

When I review the funding…. Of course, in the United States, their corporation tax laws are different. They have to acknowledge who they are funding. When I look at organizations such as Leadnow, Tides Foundation, Dogwood, World Wildlife Fund, Corporate Ethics International, Environmental Defence and the Polaris Institute and the work that they are doing to try to influence the United States, influence what is happening here in British Columbia, I find it incredibly disturbing.

In fact, I think it would be an incredibly relevant opportunity for us to have that dialogue here in this House if you are talking about trying to remove financial influence in the elections process, as we are discussing in the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, Bill 53.

These committees are important. What I find discouraging, often, is the dismissive nature that one party in particular treats these committees. One only needs to look at the attendance of the standing committees to understand the importance placed on them.

I recognize that it’s unparliamentary for me to acknowledge in this House who is in attendance at committee meetings and who is not. It is unparliamentary. But what I can advise citizens who may be interested is that if you go on to www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentarybusiness, you can review all of the minutes that are done by the standing committees and the select standing committees, and you can review for yourself who is in fact in attendance regularly at these meetings.

I raise this because I think it’s critically important for us to ensure that, as citizens, if you have a participant or a party that, say, maybe says: “Agriculture is a critical part of our platform. This is our platform and this is what we’re moving forward….”

[5:50 p.m.]

I think it’s important that you have the ability, as a citizen, to go on to the website and look at the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food and find out who in fact is actually attending the meetings. It is one thing to go out into the public and to suggest that we care about agriculture or we care about specific things. But when it actually comes to the workability and what is happening here in this House and in the actual working committees, which take the message and the parliamentary business — that people do not have the courtesy to come and to attend these meetings is appalling.

If I look at what the nature of the recall act is…. That is why I believe it is incredibly important to protect citizens’ rights to make sure that they have the ability to recall MLAs who are not living up to what their platform has identified and are not living up to the contributions or what they have recognized in press releases.

This is a brazen attempt to undermine our democratic principles. It’s in advance…. It’s in public interest. It has constrained democracy, in providing citizens of British Columbia, in initiating and participating in recall….

We have seen an incremental erosion of the rights of citizens of British Columbia under this government, concerned with the repeated habit of this Attorney General and this government that dismisses the very citizens that are the heart of our democracy. This legislation removes the ability for general citizens with a few words from the Attorney General — to limit general citizens of British Columbia, in a self-serving effort to protect his seat.

It doesn’t make for more accountability in government. We are suspicious, and we have a right to be. Government is putting up barriers for citizens to recall members. The numbers are so close in this House that the government and their junior party have put forward this bill, an insurance policy to ensure that they are protected.

Again, let’s look at what this government has done. When we look at proportional representation — no regional threshold, no minimum turnout. Where did the simple yes-and-no…? It is an attempt to muzzle MLAs. Where is the ability for us to really go out and to discuss with citizens? You’ve removed the ability of citizens to have their rights and efforts to talk with their MLAs. We have 29 critical details still unknown. And what I find incredibly offensive is to the military men and women who serve and protect every single day — where is their ability to participate in the referendum that is currently happening?

We are currently days away from recognizing the enormous contributions, the 100th anniversary of the armistice and everything that Canadians lived up to, to make sure that we had the rights of democracy here in this country. Where was the ability to provide men and women the ability to have their say in what is happening here in British Columbia?

We continue to have foreign money influencing public commentary. It is not good enough. That is what should be debated in this House. It opens up a recall of manipulation. Members could theoretically launch a fictitious recall campaign. The Attorney General acknowledged this recently on a radio show. It removes the possibility that an MLA might be subject to more than one recall petition at the same time. It is just not good enough.

We have every single right to wonder about the lack of accountability that this bill will bring in to our constituents, and I think it is appalling. In the words of the Leader of the Third Party, recall campaigns should be about making politicians accountable to their constituents. By the very nature of what is being introduced under Bill 53 as an amendment act, it is removing the citizens’ ability to have that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

These rules will apply to both prominent recall campaigns and politicians who are attempting to stay in power. But what if there are multiple groups that may want to bring forward legislation or recall of their members?

“I am disappointed, although not surprised….” These were the words of the Leader of the Third Party. I can say to the member of the Third Party that I am deeply disappointed, although not surprised, in your attendance at standing committees in this House.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: On a point of order. I’d like to remind the member that the rules of this House are very clear. You do not comment on the presence or absence of members in the chamber or at committees.

Mr. Speaker: Member, may I ask, because we have a committee ready to report, that you adjourn debate for a moment.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. I’m sorry.

Are you just going to be a few more minutes, then? Proceed.

C. Oakes: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Well, again, out of respect for the institution of this House and the parliamentary business, which has been the nature of the fulsome of what I have talked about today…. Again, I take parliamentary business in this House incredibly serious. I would hope that members and constituents around the province look and investigate the work that we are doing. It’s important work that often does not get the attention or the review that I think is critically important.

Just in closing, again, I would remind my constituents of Cariboo North: at all times, please feel free to go to www.leg.bc/parliamentary-business. It really does demonstrate the amount of effort that happens in this House. Quite frankly, it also represents that often the votes are unanimous. Often they are required to be unanimous. I think it shows a different workability than often the rhetoric that is used outward of this Legislature.

I take very serious the job of an MLA. In closing, my comments are: I feel that Bill 53 erodes that ability for citizens to hold their MLA to account. With that, I am done.

Mr. Speaker: Member, may I request that you adjourn debate for reporting of a bill from Committee A.

C. Oakes: I will adjourn debate for the reporting of a bill.

C. Oakes moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 39 — POVERTY REDUCTION
STRATEGY ACT

Bill 39, Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. S. Simpson: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

[6:00 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — POVERTY REDUCTION
STRATEGY ACT

Bill 39, Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings].

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 53. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 44.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 53 — RECALL AND INITIATIVE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

D. Clovechok: I’m always proud to rise in this House as the duly elected MLA for the incredibly hard-working people of Columbia River–Revelstoke. It’s a place that, by living there, represents a choice and a lifestyle. We’re mountain people, and we love to do things that come with that. They’re honest people who still believe in — actually, demand — honesty from people and believe in the power of a person’s word and their handshake.

I also rise today to speak to Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. British Columbians have a lot to be proud of when it comes to their democracy. Their electoral system has delivered a peaceful transition of power since we entered Confederation as the sixth province in 1871 — a province that was cemented into Confederation by a promise. That promise was the national dream: the Canadian Pacific Railway.

We were a young land but a land that was growing under a new and successful democratic process. We’ve elected stable governments for the past century and a half — governments that are envied by others in the world. We have reflected the will of the people, a people that is unified but as diverse as the spans of this nation itself.

As the iconic Canadian Pierre Berton wrote: “A Canadian is someone who knows how to make love in a canoe.” We are creative and innovative when our freedoms are not suppressed. We built a prosperous and peaceful place that is the envy of the world. Canada and British Columbia are places of infinite promise. The hills, the lakes, the mountains, the prairies and the forests make it a place of peace and repose of the mind.

When I look at the most recent municipal elections throughout my riding, I am so proud of the women and men who stood up for their communities and their people and told them: “You matter to me.” The people have their trust in these folks that were just elected, as they have put their trust in me.

We, together, share values and are willing to fight for the lifestyle we so value. We hunt, we fish, we ski, and we quad. We’re artists, we’re musicians, we’re philosophers, we’re ranchers, and we ride horses. We do all of that. We live in freedom to choose and make choices that make ourselves happy and fulfilled.

[6:10 p.m.]

We live in a province and a country that are free, but as this weekend approaches, the poppy on my jacket reminds me that freedom does not come free. If you look at the history, women and men have fought, bled and died for this country, for this province. They fought for a democratic system that was sacred to them, worth dying for.

Bill 40 and Bill 53, which we’re speaking of today, presented by the B.C. NDP, are an affront on the memory of those who served and continue to serve. World War I; World War II; Korea; all the peacekeeping initiatives that were struck out by Canadian men and women; Vietnam, where 40,000 Canadians fought in that conflict — this bill, to them, is shameful.

Despite our long history of successful governance and general societal peace, some have risen to the challenge and the standard that have served us and so many. We are currently in the midst of one of the greatest incidents of misdirection and double-dealing that we have ever seen in the history of this country and, most certainly, in the history of this province.

For instance, the other side of the House said they were going to get rid of big money. They were going to get it out of municipal politics. Yet big money remained, with union-endorsed candidates enjoying the support of union-paid staff. Their actions failed to line up with their words.

Right now, British Columbians are voting in a referendum on proportional representation that proclaims it’s bringing more democracy to town, that some people’s votes will count more and their ideas will be better reflected — of course, inferring that the current system, first-past-the-post, doesn’t do that.

But instead of more democracy for people, this government and its buddies the Greens are delivering more political power to parties. They’re twisting the rules so that they can maintain that power. Ever since that coalition formed, which was done by the slimmest of margins, the grand sum of their actions can be boiled down to securing power for themselves, not empowering British Columbians.

Looking at how our current referendum came to be, there are plenty of examples of this type of behaviour. When people tell me that government isn’t providing enough information on the referendum or the potential PR options, what do we hear from that side? The government tells us: “Well, just wait. We’ll get more information to you later. We just want to get a feeling of what’s going on.” When the Premier was asked, he said: “Just have faith. Trust us. Take a leap of faith.”

Well, that’s not how I believe the governing body should behave. The B.C. provincial government exists to serve British Columbians, not to keep them in the dark. Despite the claims from some members on that side of the House, this is not merely cynicism. We are acting as a road sign, warning British Columbians that they’re about to go over and into a deep and unknown abyss.

You know, when I talk about proportional representation…. This Bill 53 is entwined in all of this. When I flew here to Victoria this past Sunday — you get to know the pilots, because I fly with Pacific Coastal, and you can talk it them as they’re flying the plane — we got to talking about proportional representation.

This pilot, she was the captain. She was from Powell River. She asked me: “Well, what do you think of proportional representation?” I told her my concerns about lack of information, no riding maps and the list goes on and on.

I asked her what she thought. She told me. She said, “You know what? I actually like the concept of proportional representation. I like the idea that maybe more people could have a voice, but what I don’t get is that I don’t understand this. They haven’t provided me with the information that I or my husband needed” — these are her words now, not mine — “to make a decision.” She said: “We voted to keep first-past-the-post, because we didn’t have enough information.”

[6:15 p.m.]

That’s a shame on that government. For all the talk of making every vote count, the reality is that the real choices are being made before election day and by a small group of party insiders.

Deputy Speaker: Member, make your comments relevant to Bill 53.

D. Clovechok: I am, sir. This is all intertwined in Bill 53, but thank you for that.

Most people are completely unaware of how their representatives may be elected or appointed. An appointed representative may not live in your riding. The list goes on and on. At least, that is what we have to guess from experiences we’ve seen elsewhere in the world.

What that side of the House will tell you about proportional representation — which is associated with this referendum, in my humble opinion — I call an affront to our history. With MLAs selected and appointed from party lists, the power of parties is entrenched. It’s entrenched. The party insiders will choose who is on the list. They even choose themselves. Future MLAs will have to pass a party test, not a test of local voters. That is less democracy, not more.

For me, it matters. This is about leadership. It’s about inspiring not only those who work for you but who you work for. The Premier of this province broke his word again and again to British Columbians. Again and again, and it continues to go on and on. Broken promise. Broken word. No honour.

The bill we are debating here today is yet another case of this government stifling the very democracy it is pretending to enhance. That side of the House is claiming they’re cleaning things up, bringing new rules in line with other changes that they’ve made. Well, that sounds all well and good. I’m sure that message will play well to discerning ears, like how they proclaim they got rid of big money, all the while letting union-paid activists work on municipal campaigns. Upon closer examination, it’s easier to see that this is just more rhetoric.

Let’s look at the actual meat and bones of what they hope to achieve. If I were investigating, this is a crime. This was a crime scene. I take in all the evidence, and there’s one suspect that comes clear in my investigation on both sides of the proportional representation bill and, of course, Bill 53. That’s where the link comes that I was mentioning to you. That is, of course, the Attorney General.

B.C. allows sitting MLAs to be recalled. Yes, that’s what they do. They have the opportunity to recall them, and they lose their seat if 40 percent of the registered voters in this riding sign the recall petition. B.C. is the only province in Canada with this kind of tool in our toolbox. It was an act that was introduced by the NDP in 1995. I tell you, it doesn’t come very often that I agree with them, but I agree with that. I think it’s a good piece of legislation.

It protects British Columbians — they’re proud of their Recall and Initiative Act — and British Columbians expect that from their government. Every British Columbian has the right to challenge an MLA and have them removed from office if 40 percent of those constituents agree with that removal. You can’t just run rogue as an MLA. You are accountable to your people. This piece of legislation allows that accountability and protects the citizens of this province from someone running rogue on their own.

We’ve heard in this House all day today that, since 1995, there have been 26 recall petitions that have been launched over the time period and not one has been successful. However, in the instance of the successful recall…. There was one, but it wasn’t tallied. The recall was moot because the MLA in question, a gentleman by the name of Paul Reitsma, had, I think — I don’t know the man — the honour and the courage, upon that recall vote, to say: “You know what? I’m going to resign. I am going to resign, because the faith that I had as an elected MLA is no longer there.”

[6:20 p.m.]

It was moot. They didn’t do it. I would suggest strongly to the Attorney General that he follow suit with that MLA and show some honour and resign.

Under our current electoral system, our province’s MLAs are accountable to those who elected them. We should keep it that way. No, we must keep it that way. If an MLA is no longer representing the values of those who elected them, then people should be able to recall them and to do so unencumbered by needless regulation.

Voters are protected under this legislation from the tyranny of one. The tyranny of one that I’m talking about today — we’re seeing it in this House — is led by the Attorney General. To re-emphasize, the voters’ democratic right is being targeted with restrictions proposed by this government in a bill tabled by a minister who is being targeted by this recall. He’s using his position. He’s using his legislative power to change the rules in his favour in the middle of the game.

It is to be expected. After all, the same minister who, portrayed as government’s infallible independent authority on electoral reform while at the time acting as a fierce and formidable proponent for scrapping our electoral system…. Again, conflict after conflict of interest from this individual.

You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to create an unbiased, even-keeled referendum, then you need to get out of the way. It’s like asking a fox to have an unbiased opinion on a vote to support open-range henhouses. Well, that fox is going to eat well. The member has a vested interest in this, in trying to change the rules that he’s currently targeted by.

One of the most egregious offences that this bill proposes surrounds the recall attempts. So if the bill passes — let’s be clear on that — MLAs will only be subject to a single recall campaign. Once one recall is attempted, there can be no more during that term of office. One and done, if you will.

Well, I’m accountable for four years, in that election cycle in British Columbia, to my constituents. If they want to get rid of me in a recall and it fails and I continue to behave in a way that they still want to get rid of me, they should still be able to get rid of me. Thank goodness that folks where I live don’t want to do that.

This provides a loophole where a false-flag recall campaign can occur in order to prevent a real one from launching, effectively shutting out constituents with legitimate concerns. The way that it’s set up is egregious in itself. That again, yet again, is an erosion of our democracy. I can see no reason to leave this caveat in the bill, as it clearly can be used maliciously.

Even on the radio, with Bill Good, the Attorney General said — I paraphrase — that: “Yeah, somebody who actually wants me in could actually walk in the door, call a recount. I know I won’t be recalled, but it could happen.” It could happen — his own admission.

I would hope something as underhanded and as fake as this recall would not happen. But I would like to see that the loophole is closed. But believe me, I won’t be holding my breath.

The bill also seeks to sheer six months off of the window for recall, the six months before a scheduled election. Again, this is reducing democracy and limiting the tools available to citizens.

Additionally, it seeks to ban corporate and union donations, making a $1,200 cap for recall campaigns. How do you raise the money to do your recall campaign?

This guy, this individual, this Attorney General, is being recalled. He knows that, and he is doing everything in his power to prevent it. Legislatively, he is using his power as a legislator to stop this from happening. Where in the world does that happen? Where? Right here in this chamber, that’s where.

[6:25 p.m.]

Third-party advertisers need to register. Brings in significantly more disclosure requirements for spending. Creates another way to recall a campaign unsuccessfully by the CEO finding that a spending disclosure violation affected the outcome, thus setting aside the outcomes. Volunteer contributions are not considered a contribution, all in the name of banning ghost millionaires — I like to call them ghost millionaires; according to these guys, everybody is a millionaire — and deep-pocketed boogeymen.

In the 26 previous recall attempts, we have not seen big money. Show me where big money had an effect. Show me. Under the current cap, the cost of supplies, photocopies and forms alone would make it incredibly difficult for a group to run a successful recall campaign. Talk about covering your behind. That’s what’s happening here.

Currently volunteer contributions are not considered contributions and don’t go towards the cap. But we’ve seen, through municipal elections, a lot of organized labour participating in these elections, some of which provided sponsor volunteers to help out with select municipal campaigns. So the rhetoric is rhetoric. The problem with caps is that, with everything else in this bill, it makes it very hard to run a reasonably well-machined recall campaign.

So get out of the way, Attorney General. Do the right thing. Be honourable.

It does not matter in this debate that in 26 tries, only a single recall was successful. What does matter is the opportunity for a fair recall here. If his constituents feel strongly enough that he has to be recalled — and, believe me, they do, because we’ve seen it on the streets, we’ve seen it on the placards, and we’ve seen it everywhere; they believe he should be recalled — then stand up to it. Face it. Don’t run from it behind legislation. Citizens have the right to recall. They have that right, and that’s where they enjoy true democratic power.

Recalls are hard enough to pass under the former rules. You’ve got to have 40 percent, as I’ve already stated. It’s no easy task. But again, this bill reduces democracy and limits the tool available to citizens. This isn’t partisan. This is about British Columbians being able to exercise their democratic right and their fundamental role in this democracy, and that is to recall an individual that they’ve elected that they don’t want anymore. It’s about the opportunity for a recall. Citizens have that right. Government by the people should protect the people where they can enjoy true democratic power.

The members opposite tell us they’re all about people. Well, not so much here. I’ll sum up with this, as the Government House Leader just gave me the wrap-up, and I respect him, so I will do that. It is clear the MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey is doing his best to eliminate even the slightest possibility of being recalled because he holds the chair of power that enables him to do that.

There have got to be people over there that are going: “Oh my god. I can’t believe this is happening.” They can’t all believe this. This bill eats away at British Columbians’ right to power and representation and to our democracy as a whole. This will be a sad legacy for this House and for British Columbians if this government passes this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today. I cannot support this bill, and I thank you very much. I’ll take my seat.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Before the next speaker, the House will recess for 30 minutes.

Deputy Speaker: The House will be in recess until 7 p.m.

The House recessed from 6:29 p.m. to 7 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: I call continued debate on Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act in this House; and in Section A, continued committee stage of Bill 44, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. [Applause.]

J. Sturdy: Thank you to that full gallery. I am pleased to rise today to speak alongside my colleagues to Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act.

Canadians, British Columbians, have a lot to be proud of when it comes to their democracy, at all levels of government. To be sure, we have recently seen a roller-coaster of democratic results across the country, and certainly in our province, in recent memory.

We had our provincial election resulting in a unique position in our national history, and recent and rather tumultuous municipal elections with a tie, and several races being decided by as few as one or two votes, including in my riding of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, where the decision with regard to the mayor on Bowen Island was decided by 896 votes to 894 votes. Two votes separated the two mayoral candidates in a first-past-the-post style of election — two votes. I hope no one is actually saying that every vote doesn’t count.

The electoral system has delivered peaceful transitions of power since we entered into Confederation 147 years ago, as the sixth province of Canada, in 1871. We have elected many stable governments that have served the public well. They have reflected the will of the people. We have built a prosperous and peaceful place that is, in many ways, the envy of the world.

A recent Condé Nast survey shows our province identified as one of the best places in the world to live. I don’t think that many would disagree that, of all of the countries to be born and live your life in, Canada is exceptional. The province of British Columbia stands out even in Canada and, by reference, the world. One metric is that — according to the Conference Board of Canada — with regard to life expectancy, British Columbia places behind only two of Canada’s international peers, Switzerland and Japan.

That’s a pretty exceptional place to be. Yet according to the government and their Green power buddies, B.C. is broken. They say it must be remade. Years of economic growth, balanced budgets and great health and education outcomes are, they contend, a fiction.

We are in the midst of one of the greatest, I would submit, bait-and-switch sleights of hand that we have seen in our political system’s history. Though we keep hearing of promises and policies aimed at fixing our democracy, many of the steps taken by this government have brought about an actual erosion of democracy.

For instance, that side of the House has said they were getting big money out of our municipal politics. Well, some big money perhaps, but the less visible big money remains, with many union-endorsed municipal candidates enjoying the support of union-paid staff. We saw this in the recent municipal elections. The actions have failed to line up with the words. Gaping holes have been left in this legislation.

[7:05 p.m.]

What is appalling is that we see that this loophole remains in the legislation that we are debating today. Why? We saw the Municipal Affairs Minister recognize the concern with regard to the municipal elections. Why did the minister who submitted this bill for our consideration not feel…? After having a loophole come to light just recently, he would now see it repeated. Does it in fact suggest that it was never an accidental omission — that it was intentional?

The government, perhaps, always intended allowing third-party volunteer and staff donations to continue in our electoral system, to reward their supporters. Is there a history that supports this thesis? Well, we only need to think back to the 2017 general election, when the provincial NDP campaign had several senior staff, including their campaign manager, being paid for by third parties.

Now, not only in this bill does the loophole remain, but it has in fact, in many ways, evolved. Can we even call it a loophole? After all, it’s now codified. We look at this bill, and lo and behold, we see that in-kind volunteer donations or donations of volunteer time are explicitly protected. “The value of the following is not a sponsorship contribution: (a) services provided by a volunteer.”

A volunteer perhaps is paid by a third party or a union, but does it fit this definition? Government, it appears, has made this an explicit loophole in this 50-page plus bill. Government has now made what was an issue in the municipal campaign an explicit part of this recall campaign legislation. I would suggest that this is a corruption of our democracy.

Right now British Columbians are voting in a referendum on proportional representation that proclaims it’s bringing more democracy to town, that somehow people’s votes will count more or be better reflected. Instead of more democracy for the people, this government and its friends in the Third Party are delivering more power to political parties. For all the talk of making every vote count, the reality is that the real choices are being made well before election day by a small cabal of insiders at party headquarters. At least, this is our best guess based on experiences that have been demonstrated in other jurisdictions that have adopted these systems.

We can only assume what the results will be here in British Columbia because the actual mechanics of what is being proposed have yet to be revealed, depending on many things that are yet to be decided. And 29 is the number that comes to mind. Today not a single voter in British Columbia, if we go to PR, can say with confidence what riding they reside in, what boundaries the riding will be, how many MLAs could be designated to the riding or how many votes an elector may have, amongst others.

If proportional representation does indeed pass, after the Greens and the NDP have their way with some of these decisions — ultimately, they’ll be making these decisions — as a result, changes to this bill will need to take place as well.

[7:10 p.m.]

We know that under proportional representation, the members of this House may well be selected off party lists, particularly if the system that the Premier has endorsed and voiced support for — mixed-member proportional representation — is selected. How does that work under this Recall and Initiative Act? How does recalling an appointed MLA actually work?

We know, of course, that under PR, MLAs will need to be acting in accordance with their party directives, in accordance with what the list-wielding party boss says. That is, in fact, what is going to be occurring under proportional representation, because when you’re selected off a party list, your loyalty is to that party and to that party leader and not at all to the voter. In fact, there’s, in many ways, no connection — no direct connection, certainly.

How does recall work in that context? Your loyalty as an MLA and your accountability are to your party leader, the list-makers, not to your supposed constituents, because they didn’t select you in the first place. So how would recall work in this scenario?

What that side of the House calls democracy, I call an erosion of democracy. With MLAs selected and appointed from party lists, the power of political parties is simply entrenched.

Could a recalled MLA simply be reappointed from a list? It would just be absurd if they were reappointed to the same riding, but this is a pretty crazy bill. But perhaps they’d just be reappointed to another riding and could end up in this chamber again from off that party list.

In New Zealand, the leader of the New Zealand First and his caucus didn’t win a single seat. He even lost the one he’d held before. He lost it. He came in third. He was explicitly rejected by his constituents, but he was appointed off a list and became Deputy Prime Minister due to a similar coalition agreement that we see today. He was even Prime Minister for two months while the Prime Minister was on maternity leave.

Who is it that will choose who is on that list? Party insiders. In fact, the party insiders may even select themselves to be appointed. It’s crazy, but future MLAs may have to pass the party test, not the test of local voters. People will see their democratic rights wane, and the choices they make, in many ways, are pre-selected. This is less democracy, not more.

The bill we’re debating today is yet another case of this government eroding the very democracy that it is pretending to enhance. That side of the House is claiming that they are cleaning things up and bringing rules in line with other changes that they have made, like how they got rid of big money while letting union-paid activists work on municipal campaigns.

British Columbians are rightly proud of our Recall and Initiative Act.

The member for West Vancouver–Capilano mentioned last week that he may be the only member of this House that references Encyclopaedia Britannica, which in some respects — in many respects — is commendable. However, Encyclopaedia Britannica, according to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, defines a recall campaign as a populist innovation facilitating “an attempt to minimize the influence of political parties on representatives.”

[7:15 p.m.]

Every British Columbian has the right to challenge an MLA and have them removed from office if enough people in the constituency agree with it. But that right is being restricted by this government in a bill tabled by the very minister who is being targeted by a recall. He’s using his power, with the support of the Green Party, to change the rules in his favour in the middle of the game.

I’m surprised, frankly, that the leader of the Green Party supports this Machiavellian move. This is the type of principle that the leadership of the Greens purports to condemn, yet doesn’t. The minister, indeed, should have been sensitive to the optics of the issue, but clearly, his assessment was that this was worth it: the end justifies the means.

I guess, I suppose, it must be observed that this is a common trait of both parties sitting on that side of the House: the end justifies the means. So I suppose that this cynical action is to be expected. After all, it’s the very minister who is portrayed as the government’s independent arbiter of electoral reform, while at the same time being a fierce and formidable proponent for scrapping the system.

If this bill passes, MLAs can only be subject to a single recall campaign. Once one recall is attempted, there could be no more during the term of office. So we could see the false-flag recall attempt begun. The Attorney General even admitted to it last week, when he said: “Theoretically possible, I guess, to have supporters launch a recall campaign against their own candidate that they support.”

Hmm. Yes, possible. An MLA under threat could even, as the Attorney General put it, theoretically start their own false-flag campaign on the first day they’re eligible and just allow time to run out. Then they will no longer be eligible for a grassroots recall campaign, and they’re safe in their constituency for the rest of their term. No recourse for their constituents to recall an MLA that is not representing their concerns. Constituents with legitimate concerns will be shut out from acting. That is, yet again, an erosion of our democracy.

I won’t even raise the spectre of a fake recall being held just to pre-empt the actual recall from being launched. It actually boggles the mind. I mean, nothing is impossible; that’s for sure. I think with all of those so-called democratic enhancements happening, one can’t imagine an antidemocratic move going that far. Or can we?

This bill also seeks to lop six months off the window for recall, the six months before a scheduled general election. Members of this chamber are now only eligible for recall for half their terms, for two years, instead of the 18 months delay, with the remainder being eligible for recall — again, reducing democracy and limiting the tools available to the citizens of this province.

It does not matter in this debate that in 26 tries, only a single time has recall sort of succeeded. What does matter is that the opportunity for recall is there. Citizens have a right to recall. The true democratic power should rest with the people, and this bill erodes that and our democracy.

This will be a sad legacy for this House and this government if this bill passes. I will not be supporting Bill 53.

M. Bernier: I was slow to my feet because I was wondering if anybody from the government side was going to speak at this time. I know my friend from Powell River–Sunshine Coast would love to heckle me, and I would love to allow him to do it from there, but I know he can’t.

[7:20 p.m.]

I want to take the opportunity to, obviously, do what the citizens of British Columbia have been calling for, the number one issue on the minds of everybody in British Columbia, since the election and before, and the reason why they put this government in power, even though they didn’t quite do it…. But of course, they’re ringing the bells on the streets, saying: “Please, please, government, raise my taxes.” It’s time to do that.

I’m glad we’re spending all this time in this session that we have in front of us talking about taxation bills and increases, like the school tax that doesn’t go to schools and the employers health tax going to employers who can’t necessarily afford it.

You look at the fact that they’re trying to change our democratic system in the province of British Columbia through this farce of a referendum that they’ve put together. Of course, everybody was calling for that, just like they’ve been calling, loud and strong, for Bill 53 here to be read in the House, because it’s so important to the people of British Columbia.

Well, I’d like to say that. It seems like the only person that seems to think it’s important is the Attorney General himself. Because I haven’t seen…. Aside from one or two, people across haven’t stood up to defend this bill — to defend their minister, for that matter. And I have a hard time with this, for a multitude of reasons.

Our democratic process in the province of British Columbia is being eroded. It’s being eroded under this government, time and time again, with these bills that are being put forward in this House.

Now, we’ve been criticized by some of the members opposite that we’re spending too much time debating this in the House. Well, if we’re not going to spend time in this House debating the fundamental electoral process and democratic system that actually is the foundation, then what are we doing here?

That is the purpose of this House. It’s to have those debates to ensure that the rights of the people of British Columbia are being heard, they’re being listened to and they’re being debated. More importantly, you would hope, at the end of the day, good decisions are being made for them as well.

Since 1871, as some of my colleagues have said, we’ve had, for the most part, stable governments, governments that have been elected by people — and, in some cases, unelected by people — through an electoral process that they know.

Now, the reason why the bill that we’re debating today, Bill 53, is relevant to how we elect people is because once somebody is elected to this House, those same people that made a decision to elect that person in a riding that helps constitute the number of seats in here that will form a government — minority or majority — equally deserve a voice of recall for members in this House. That should be no less important than the process of electing someone into this place.

When we go through elections, individuals, people, have a choice of what kind of platform they’re going to put forward, what they stand for. And the people will come out and either vote or not vote for that person, or for somebody else, based on what they stand for, what they say they’re going to do, what they hope to accomplish, what the dreams are of themselves, the government they represent and what they hope to do for the people in that riding.

Well, if they can’t be now held accountable for what they say, we might as well have PR where people just get appointed off lists. Oh, wait a second. That’s actually what we’re going through.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: You know, the member opposite…. I quite want to acknowledge some of the comments that he makes about promises that are made in elections. Elections are a time when the voters should have the right to hold government to account. They should be able to look at, “What did you say? What did you promise? What did you deliver?” and then decide whether or not they’re going to return them to office — the individual and that party.

[7:25 p.m.]

Case in point: the last election. We live with the outcomes of that election based on the decisions of the people in the province of British Columbia. They did not send a clear, solid majority of more than 44 seats to this House. We’re in a minority government. That was a message from the voters. We need to accept that. We need to move on. We need to learn.

I think that government, on the other side, also needs to acknowledge that they were not also given a clear, solid mandate with the 41 seats that they have in order to move forward and change the electoral system in the province of British Columbia. The system that we’re going through is very…. It’s not only undemocratic but unfair to take the rights away from citizens to be able to hold people accountable, not only through the electoral process, but afterwards, through the recall process.

I mean, that is fundamental to our democratic system — to hold politicians, political parties…. The people who represent the voters of British Columbia in this House have to be held accountable. If we start reducing and eliminating those very foundational systems of democracy, then we’re in a lot of trouble here.

Now, when you listen to the people…. Well, first of all, let me take a second here. I think we all stand in this House and acknowledge — interestingly, even the government will do this, going through this process — that we live in, probably and arguably, one of the best places in the world.

We have some of the best health outcomes in the world. We have some of the best educational outcomes in the world. In most of these areas, we are the envy of most countries and jurisdictions on the globe. We have some of the strongest, best economic drivers in our province and some of the best diversity when it comes to our economy. We have, over the last 150 years, built a very strong, stable country, province — one that we brag about and one that we, arguably, should be very proud of.

Now, the reason why I went through that, because nobody is going to argue that in the House…. Yet in the same day, the same sentence, the same breath that members opposite will tout how great this province is, they all start screaming how horrible it is under this electoral system and how things have to change — another level of hypocrisy that we’re seeing right now through this referendum.

You can’t, on one hand, say how great things are and that we are better than everyone, and then turn around, in the same breath, and say: “Oh my god, the sky has fallen. We need a complete upheaval of our electoral system and change.” You would think, listening to them, that we live in a Third World country that nobody would ever, ever want to emulate or to be like. At the same time, we sit in this House and in this province and talk about how great things are and how well we have it.

Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. No one is going to argue that. Again, a reason why we go through an electoral system and elections is so people can put ideas forward, so they can put their dreams forward and try to make the province even better. If we’re going to start, under this bill, continually eroding the rights of the citizens of British Columbia, of course we have to stand up in this House and defend that.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Now, you know, I appreciate, again, because I don’t usually write speeches…. I usually work off being heckled by the member opposite who just gives me so much to work with and so much ammunition when he talks about getting big money out of politics. Well, it’s too bad that the government can’t follow through with what they promised, as well, on this. Another broken promise by this government.

[7:30 p.m.]

You can’t go halfway if you’re going to do this, to the members opposite. You can’t say: “Look how great we are. We got big money out of politics. By the way, don’t look at the unions over here that are working for free or paying their staff so they can be out working around the communities during elections.” Case in point — we all saw this in the last municipal election.

The member opposite can try to pat himself on the back. I’m sure his right arm is getting pretty sore because he does it all the time. But he has to also look in the mirror and realize that the government is failing to follow through with the exact promises that they made in the last election.

That brings us right back to why Bill 53 is so important. These members need to be held accountable. In saying that, so do we, and so do I. If people in my riding feel that I’m not doing the job that I said I would do, if they feel that I am not representing them anymore, if they feel that I said a bunch of things that no longer represent the values or that I’m not delivering on any promises I made down here and they choose to do a recall campaign against me, well, that’s the democratic system. They should be allowed to do that.

Should this be about one person or another? Absolutely not. But it’s about eroding the fundamental process in order to do that. When you want to get into the bill that we have in front of us….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

M. Bernier: I thought Wheaties were for breakfast, not for dinner. But it’s great to see that the member had them, obviously, right before he came in here.

When we talk about what we have in front of us here, we have an Attorney General, who himself…. It’s well known in the public that there are people out there considering looking at doing a recall campaign on him, as well as others, possibly, in this House on both sides.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I’m not arguing that. And they should have the full right to do that.

Now, this bill that they’ve put forward is saying: “No, no, no. They don’t all have the right to do that. Just the first person or the first group that gets in the door has the right. Everybody else — sorry, sign closed on the door. Go home. You missed your opportunity. There’s already a group who started a recall campaign.” This is completely set up to have a fraudulent system, a fraudulent process, again, not fair to the exact people that we are supposed to be representing, which is the voters in the province of British Columbia.

The recall campaigns, again, are fundamental. For this minister to put it forward, again, perceived or not…. Sure looks perceived. He’s in a perceived conflict by doing this. Now, of course, the members opposite are going to argue he’s not, and that’s great to defend it. None of them, except for one or two, will stand up in the House and say it, but that’s fair enough as well.

But to have a system where they want to say: “Okay, we’re going to be getting big money out of politics, and now we’re getting it out of referendums, except — oh, I’m sorry — we’re going to keep those same loopholes….” So who knows about what we’re going to allow unions — probably only 19 of them, I might add — on what they will or won’t do on the referendums, as well as in recalls.

But it opens up the door, as well, for them to say…. Okay, what have they done to close the door for foreign money? Or for outside influence? They’re so worried about the people of British Columbia that they don’t seem to care about what everybody else in the world is doing in trying to come in and impact and influence what’s happening here in the province of British Columbia.

When you look at how this is playing out, this is right in line with the same thing we’re seeing with this referendum: not enough information and a bit of trickery here and there. “We’ll only tell you what you want to see. We’re going to try to manipulate the process to make sure that we’re taken care of. Oh, by the way, voters, nothing to see here. It’ll be fine. Trust us. Take a leap of faith.” Well, we’ve seen how that has worked out on most promises so far that government has made and that they haven’t been able to deliver on.

[7:35 p.m.]

They sure are trying hard to deliver on this referendum. Well, actually, no, they’re not. If they are, they’re doing one heck of a poor job of it when you look at, even today, just what’s happening with this referendum. I mean, they’ve acknowledged that they haven’t given the information. The Attorney General stands in the House and says: “Well, you know, if people don’t have enough information” — basically, what all the mainstream media and everybody is saying out there — “well, I guess people are just going to vote for keeping first-past-the-post, then.”

Well, how is that doing your due diligence and your job as a government? “We’re just going to throw things out there half-assed, see what sticks to the wall and get people to vote for it. Sorry if there’s not enough information. Don’t hold us accountable. Don’t have a recall on me. Don’t make me stand up and actually admit what I did or didn’t do.” But they’re doing the same thing through this whole referendum. And now they want to just try to hide all these things behind the recall as well and say: “Well, there’s nothing to see here”?

When you look at what’s happening right now and why it’s relevant and why this recall bill is so important to make sure that the democratic system and the opportunities for all people to have a say…. It’s because this government has failed to do the same due diligence, I would say, during this referendum.

You know, they’ll stand in the House and scream bloody murder that 45 percent of the vote is 100 percent of the power. Yet they’ll have no problem during this referendum saying: “Well, even if 5 percent of the people vote, that’s okay, and we’ll accept that.”

Well, they can’t have it both ways there either. They can’t turn around and have no thresholds for voters, no thresholds in this referendum, and turn around and say: “Because it really doesn’t matter how many people vote as long as we get to stay in government.” They’re only saying that right after they turn around with the whole mantra of 40 percent, 45 percent and how that should or shouldn’t work.

Again, they can’t have it both ways. If they want to be saying that in the House, then they should have put minimum thresholds, at the very minimum, so they would have a clear mandate or a clear direction from the people in the province of British Columbia of what they would like to see, and then we live with that outcome.

When you look at today’s numbers that came out from Elections B.C.… This is going to be the one time, probably — and hopefully the only time — that I will actually say that I am glad I’m not in government. I would be embarrassed if I was on that side, when they are spending so much time and $15 million of taxpayers’ money that could have been spent somewhere else on months, they say, of putting information out there — but there’s no information, mind you, so I would like to know where that $15 million went — to have a referendum, and you look at the outcomes today of 0.7 percent of the people have actually put in their ballot and returned it as of today.

Now, are we encouraging our constituents? Absolutely. We’re encouraging our constituents to do the right thing by saying: do you have the information? No. So you should be voting.

You know what’s really going to be scary? The amount of ballots that we’ve seen thrown in the recycling bin or the garbage bin, the amount of people on social media who are saying: “This is a farce; I’m not even going to bother voting because I haven’t been given information.” The government seems to be okay with that. They seem to be okay with the fact that people are not happy and that people feel they’re being manipulated.

You know, even the mainstream media is out there right now, basically saying this entire process has been manipulated. This should not be about politics. This should not be about one party against the other. This should be about the democratic system and the voters in the province of British Columbia, who have a right as citizens of this province and of Canada to have a say, to have a vote for their MLA, and for it to be respected appropriately.

[7:40 p.m.]

The members opposite want to continue down this mantra of: “Don’t worry about, you know, the rest of the province. We’re okay. We’re okay if 90 percent of the vote comes from about 5 percent of the geographical area of the province.” They seem to be okay with that. I, on the other hand, am not okay with that. We have a system that has 87 ridings for a reason, which means we have the opportunity for 87 recalls under this bill.

Now, are we going to see them? No. Have we seen a bunch in the past? Absolutely. Have they actually gone through and succeeded? No, they haven’t, aside from one, as we’ve heard, where it might have been close. But the actual member dropped out before it was completed.

But what I find interesting is even the Attorney General himself, who has put this bill forward…. In the last election, he received 12,300-and-some-odd votes to win his seat in this House, to be in here as a minister making decisions on behalf of the Crown and the government. That’s how our system works. I acknowledge that, I accept it, and I congratulate him on that, because that is how our system works.

I do find it, though, a little ironic that he gets elected in this House with just over 12,000 people. But to be recalled, he has to actually have 16,000 signatures against him. So it’s easier to get elected into this House and become a cabinet minister of the Crown, the Attorney General, making the rules, decisions, policies for this province…. It’s easier to do that than it is to get unelected. Yet he still and this government still wants to put Bill 53 forward to make it even harder for the people in this province to have a say on that.

Well, obviously this bill is really important to the people of B.C., because, as I said, they’re just screaming for making sure…. “Make the rules tighter and give me less of a voice.” That’s exactly what this government must be hearing. Because it seems at every turn, that’s what they’re doing.

When you look at the voter turnout that we have today, even in the riding of the member who put this bill forward today, he’s got less than half a percent voter turnout who have come out to vote. But that’s okay.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: It’s as of today, to the member opposite. He can read it. He has seen it. It is out there, and I’m sure that there have maybe been three more in his riding today that have been counted.

That seems to be okay, though, because the Attorney General has acknowledged and stood in this House and said: “It does not matter what the thresholds are.” So that 0.4 percent in his riding — if that’s where it ends up and nobody else votes, less than half a percent of the people in his riding who understood this enough to actually get engaged, because this government has done such a poor job of delivering the information to people and getting them involved….

But that’s okay that under half a percent is a mandate for the Attorney General for his riding. How is that fair to the jurisdictions around the province, to the people of British Columbia?

This bill requires a lot more work. This bill requires a lot more attention. But more importantly, it needs to be scrutinized. It needs to be looked at — all of the different options and loopholes that might be in there.

By the fact that none of the members opposite en masse seem to think it’s important and seem to think that they should be standing up in this House and talking about it, I’d like the opportunity to move a motion. I move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 53) intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment Act be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting therefore the following:

“Bill (No. 53) not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.”]

[7:45 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, please proceed. The motion is in order.

On the amendment.

M. Bernier: Now, the reason why I put this motion forward…. Obviously, when we talk about all of the issues that we have right now with what the government is putting forward, this bill needs a lot more discussion. It needs a lot more scrutiny. At the very least, it needs to go to this committee to review it and to come up with better solutions for what can be proposed, something that this House can then have a fair and rational discussion about and debate on those merits to move it forward, more importantly, in a fair way to help the voters in the province of British Columbia. They deserve nothing less, and unfortunately, nothing less seems to be what they’re getting, given a lot right now.

Now, when you look at what we’re going through right now, again, in this province, and why the Recall and Initiative…. It should be a lack of initiative, I think, since it’s the government putting it forward, but it is called the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. It really needs not only a second look, but people need to understand why the recall process is so important to begin with.

It was brought in, if I remember, in 1995 by the government of the day, and that was after people actually said: “This is something we want. We should have the right to recall our MLA.” And to their credit, that bill was brought in, and a recall act was put into place.

Again, it’s a perfect example of how you can’t bind future governments, which they’re trying to do with one of the other bills in the House by saying that there will be an election eight years from now if people vote for PR. Well, it seems like every single day we’re getting another amendment bill coming forward from this government that’s just reminding us — and should be reminding the people of British Columbia — that it doesn’t matter what you do. A future government with a mandate, you would hope, can go forward and can actually change that. Because things change. The province changes. The needs change. The wants change. The political parties change. Change is inevitable.

Well, unless PR comes through. We don’t know what kind of change we’ll have, because the government has failed to tell us some of the basic information of what change would look like.

They want us to trust them on Bill 53, on this amendment, yet they haven’t proven through any of their other actions that we should. You know, that’s why we need to make sure that this is moved forward to the committee. Because we have not been given, this House has not been given, enough information to debate it properly. More importantly, again, that means the people of B.C. have not been given the information.

You know, I think that a lot of it has to do with, maybe, fatigue. There has been a lot going on in the province in the last year, year and a half, politically. Case in point was just a couple of weeks ago: the municipal elections. For some reason, we had a referendum simultaneously happening, which I didn’t think was allowed, but the government doesn’t seem to want to look at rules. They’ll just start implementing things.

We had a municipal election at the same time as a referendum. So is there a lot of fatigue out there? Absolutely. Was this choreographed and scripted by this government on purpose to get a low voter turnout? I don’t know. I would sure hope not. I wouldn’t want to be that cynical or skeptical. But the evidence that we have in front of us is sure showing that there’s not enough information out for people to make an informed decision with a high voter turnout of people actually voting one way or the other.

[7:50 p.m.]

I want to just acknowledge some perfect examples that I saw today on social media that might explain why we need to be referring a lot of these bills to committee rather than forcing them and pushing them through in such a quick — arguably, again, unnecessary — manner, as this government and the Attorney General seem to continue doing.

I’ve got one gentleman — again, a mainstream media person — who said: “Not surprised. People are tired. They just went through municipal campaigns. People have reached their capacity right now for engagement. Government knew this would be the case when it decided to schedule a vote at the same time as a municipal election and, even worse, with no quorum. Why did they do it? Was this their goal all along?” It went on, in the media, to say: “So who’s going to be held accountable for this referendum train wreck?”

I’ve been saying for months that there needs to be a minimum voter threshold provincially and regionally. A bunch of experts even said the same. They know who they are. Those warnings were ignored, again, by this government and followed on the last one in this social media post from a media person: “The no side didn’t pick when this referendum would be held. The government is on the yes side with the Green members. That’s why we’re doing this. The government decided when this referendum would happen, how it would happen and, whether it’s by design or accident, everything is in the yes side’s doing if it fails.”

Again, that goes right back to my point with this amendment. Everything is being rushed. Everything is being pushed through — whether it’s Bill 53, whether it’s the other amendment acts under Bill 40, whether it’s Bill 5, originally, for the referendum. Every single thing that the government is doing is being rushed through without the due diligence of scrutiny that can happen through the committee to make sure it’s being done properly.

We even have Elections B.C. out there advertising a “get out of jail free” card in this referendum based on information that government gave them — which actually is not true, because it’s a bill in front of the House that hasn’t even passed yet. How can it rightfully be out there in print as a fact?

People are making what they would think is an informed decision based on that information when it’s not even true, when it’s still in front of this House. We have no idea when that bill may or may not pass, whether it will or won’t get royal assent, yet people are making decisions as we speak on how they’re voting on this referendum based on, I would say, false information.

Now they want to do the same thing with Bill 53, which is why I put this amendment forward to have it referred to committee. That is, by far, the very minimum of what we should be doing. There are holes that a truck can drive through in this bill, just like most of the bills that this government has put forward. They have failed again to meet the test, at least of fairness for the voters of B.C.

When we are talking about Bill 53 and the amendment that we have on the floor, this is, again, one of the most fundamental parts of our democratic system. The only thing that should be more important than somebody having the democratic right to elect a representative in their riding is the democratic right to recall them if they’re not doing their job.

This government is trying to change both of those. They’re trying to change how we elect people and make sure that there are no regional thresholds, that there are no minimum thresholds. They’re trying to manipulate the whole electoral system to stay in power, stay in government or, more importantly, just to appease the three Green members at the end as part of their agreement to stay in government.

You sure have to wonder if their heart’s really in this. They keep putting forward these bills, but they don’t really speak to them. They keep putting forward ideas to the province, but they don’t really advertise them or actually say it’s going to be good. They let third-party groups from Ontario come in and do the work for them, or they bring other people from other parts of the world or from Washington state to come in here and actually advocate for government.

[7:55 p.m.]

They don’t seem to want to do it themselves, probably because in the back room they realize how flawed it is. They realize they haven’t done their due diligence. They realize they haven’t done their fundamental job of making sure they’re sharing all the information with the people in their ridings and the people of this province.

You know, if we want to talk about making things up, it’s pretty well everything this government has put forward so far. Show me one thing. Actually, just a second. I won’t make things up. You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to stand here. I’m going to explain all three processes under PR to the same level that this government did.

Actually, it’s almost like a moment of silence for the people in the province of British Columbia and how they must feel right now. They feel like it’s a rest-in-peace moment here, with the amount of information that they’ve gotten. The people deserve better.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Yeah, actually the people are waiting for it. This government has been in here 15, 16 months, made a world of promises and have not delivered on anything. I think they’re waiting as well, to the members opposite, since the most important thing to this government was to call a fall session to do absolutely nothing.

At least when we called fall sessions, it was to put legitimate ideas forward, legitimate bills, things that are actually going to shape what’s going to help the people in the province of British Columbia. This government puts forward bills to say: “How do we stay in government longer? How can we manipulate the system? How do we make sure that, oops, if we actually manipulate it so well, we get to stay in government, that they don’t have a chance to recall us now?”

That sounds like a good use of a fall session. “Let’s just modify all of what we do to make ourselves look good, stay in power, stay in government, but actually pull the wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia.” The people of B.C. deserve better than what this government has put forward.

Interjections.

M. Bernier: Even I have to smile at that one.

The only problem is that I gave a moment of silence based on the information. This government’s last couple of months have been silent when it comes to facts or information. I gave about a snippet of what the people of British Columbia have experienced under this NDP government when it comes to fair, factual information that’s going to help them to make an informed decision on what’s going to be, fundamentally, the democratic system that runs this province.

I’m sorry if my little moment of silence offended the NDP members. In fact, you can only get a small idea now of what the people of B.C. are feeling and how they’re not actually getting what they deserve in this province.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: There’s no problem keeping me awake during my speech. As the member knows, I don’t have a speech, and I can go on as long as he’ll let me. So keep heckling me.

Now, when we look again at why I’m referring this bill to committee, it’s to ensure that the people of British Columbia are treated fairly — something that’s not happening.

I know that I have other colleagues that are equally frustrated with the process this government has put forward and who would like to speak to this amendment. I invite the other side, as well, but it doesn’t seem like they’re really too concerned about democracy and the democratic process and taking rights away from people in B.C. It’s just going to happen. At least on this side of the House, we’re doing what we can, as opposition, to hold this government accountable for their actions.

I appreciate that at least some of them are sitting in their seats, and they can continue heckling me, if they so choose.

[8:00 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think, again, that we need to be looking at our systems here in the province. That’s why I’m honoured to put this amendment forward, to refer it to a committee, and I’m hoping that the government will do the right thing and support this amendment so we can have what we saw earlier, where we all stand up in this House and support something that’s supposed to be right and the best thing for the people in the province of British Columbia.

I look forward to them supporting this amendment, as I know our side of the House will, because it’s the right thing to do to make sure that we have the best democratic systems in our province — not for us, but for the voters and for the people who put us here in this building to make decisions on their behalf.

M. Morris: I’m going to speak in support of the motion. I think this is a fairly complex topic that deserves to be considered at the committee level, because there are some differences here.

Recall is designed for citizens to recall their representative from the electoral area because they’re disappointed in the fact that that representative hasn’t fulfilled the duties and obligations that he or she said they would, perhaps during the election process, or they’ve been absent in their duties over the 18 months prior to recall being available to them. It’s a legitimate purpose, and I think it’s being downplayed a little bit by government, the importance of it, with the legislation that they’re introducing with this bill.

The courts have determined that an elected representative for their riding has a dual role. The function is that of a legislator or legislative person. They represent their riding in this House. They speak to the bills. They provide that presence for their electoral district in this House in every opportunity that they can.

The other role that they fulfil — and I’ve heard comments on the other side of the House, both from the Greens and from the NDP, with respect to the other role — is the role of ombudsperson, where they represent every single person, regardless of political stripe, coming into their office with a problem to either help get through the bureaucratic process that we have in this province or to help navigate a complaint through, perhaps, to the Ombudsperson or whatever. The courts refer to that role as that of an ombudsperson.

So an elected official within their electoral district fulfils the role of a legislator and also as an ombudsperson to help these folks navigate through the system. I can only surmise that any individual or any citizen that decides that he is going to recall his elective representative is unhappy with either one of those two roles.

I would say, in this case, in the case of the Attorney, it’s probably both roles. Legislatively, I don’t think they’re really happy with the fact that they’ve imposed 18 new taxes on the constituents within that electoral district. And from an ombudsperson’s perspective, I just recall the town hall that the Attorney was holding in his area that had restrictions on who could attend. He wasn’t adequately representing everybody that came into his office with the complaints that they had, in order to navigate through some of the issues that they have.

The Attorney, in my humble opinion, is in a conflict-of-interest position by presenting this bill. A conflict situation is a situation in which a person is in a position to derive a personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity. In this case here, he’s trying to foil the attempts of the citizens in a recall, which has been made public. There’s a website on there. It’s well known to everybody that there’s a recall initiative.

[8:05 p.m.]

I have to ask the Attorney why he chose this particular time to introduce this bill in the House. He’s had ample time to think about this. He introduced legislation earlier on in this session, when they formed government, to change some of the electoral processes. We see this mockery of a referendum that they have and the vague reference to proportional representation. I’m wondering why he chose this particular time to introduce this bill.

As we were, when we were sitting on that side in government, oftentimes we would have another minister introduce a bill. If a minister was sick or away or unable to introduce the bill at that particular time, we would get another minister to introduce that bill.

I think that probably the best thing that this minister, the Attorney, could have done is give this bill to another member to introduce and champion through the process of the first and second reading, the committee stage and the third reading, in order to avoid any perceived or real conflict of interest that people may have here. An ordinary person might look and say: “Jeez, there’s an active recall going on in that particular riding there, and it was a conflict for the Attorney to try to push this legislation through.”

I want to get into a little bit of discussion on the differences between the electoral process and recall. The citizens of this great province of ours, in the individual 87 ridings that we have, are responsible for participating in the electoral process to elect their representative for their riding. Voters are the only ones that can vote somebody in as a member of this Legislature so they can fulfil their role as that of an ombudsperson or a legislator in this fine institution that we represent.

Voters are also the only ones who can recall. So the constituents, in this case, in the Attorney’s riding, or in any riding, for that matter, if they’re unhappy with the performance of their representative — if that representative has not fulfilled the obligations that he or she has said they would, during the electoral process, to live up to the platform and the policies that they had campaigned upon, the promises that they made that we see broken in this House every day — then the citizens have that right, under the existing recall legislation, in order to do that.

This government has introduced the referendum. They’re looking at going into proportional representation. Proportional representation runs contrary to recall. I don’t know how we would be able to recall if a citizen was unhappy with the representation by his or her representative in their electoral district. How would they recall under whatever new electoral process we have, with multi-member ridings, in a proportional system?

I would suggest that it might even be beneficial for this government to wait to introduce any kinds of amendments or recall legislation until such time as they know what direction they’re going to go with proportional representation, because that’s going to change the complexities of everything that we do in this province.

It was a former NDP government back in the mid-’90s that introduced this recall legislation. It has been utilized on a number of occasions, and this is the only jurisdiction in Canada that has recall legislation. It’s been used 26 times, I understand, to try and recall individuals. It hasn’t been successful. The threat of recall, in a couple of situations, has caused members to take action that prevented the recall from being followed through or from being successful.

[8:10 p.m.]

I think it’s important to talk about the distinct difference between a recall and a general election. Just bear with me. I’m speaking to the amendment, in the fact that we need to send it to committee. We need to send it to committee because it’s quite complex. It’s not quite as simple as the Attorney likes to make it out to be. I think he’s crossing over a couple of areas that need to be defined here.

Let me go to the electoral process itself. Every citizen in British Columbia has the right to participate in the election of Members of the Legislative Assembly, to participate in the electoral process. When we talk about funding — I’m going to get back to that; that’s what my core argument is hitting, with the funding that is mentioned in this bill — in an electoral process itself, it’s a party. The party is funded. The candidate is campaigning on behalf of the party itself, or he or she could be an independent person as well. They have limitations, set in legislation, on how much a candidate can spend during an election process and how much a party can spend overall in the province. The limits are put in place for specific purposes.

This is a Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with electoral financing and whatnot, here, a few years ago. They said the electoral fairness in exercising spending limits is threefold. The first is to promote the equality in the political discourse process — to promote equality so that all parties, all candidates, have the chance to strut their stuff and deliver their platform and their policies.

The second one was “to protect the integrity of the financing regime applicable to candidates and parties” — to protect the integrity of it so that everybody is pretty much operating from a level playing field, that everybody is operating with the same amount of money. That third-party spending — you know, there’s a number of factors there. That levels the playing field so that everybody is dealt with on an equal basis.

Then No. 3 is “to ensure that voters have confidence in the electoral process.” That’s important. If voters don’t have confidence in the electoral process, perhaps we won’t see them coming out to vote, or they’ll get frustrated. They’ll think that their vote doesn’t count, as I hear over there from time to time. There are some fundamental things that are in place in the political process to elect candidates to represent their constituents in this House, to guide them as they move along.

In a recall process, it’s a little bit different. There are no political parties involved in a recall process. It’s citizen-generated. I’m going to quote from a document that I pulled off the Net. It was talking about British Columbia being the only jurisdiction in Canada with a recall process, but the criteria here are important. This is the distinct difference here.

“A recall proponent must obtain an application from the Chief Electoral Officer, as well as provide a statement of no more than 200 words explaining why, in the proponent’s opinion, the member should be recalled. If the Chief Electoral Officer approves, a proponent has 60 days to gather signatures from 40 percent of those on the list of electors for that electoral district in the last election who are currently registered to vote.” A distinct difference here.

If we have a citizen or a group of citizens who are unhappy with the performance of their MLA in his role as a legislator or as an ombudsperson, and they think, “We have to take him out of there. There’s a whole bunch of people that are like-minded, and we’ve got to do the job to remove that individual from this House,” it’s not political. They have a statement of 200 words that they are allowed to register with the Chief Electoral Officer, explaining. If he is in agreement with that, then they’ve got their work cut out for them. Then they now have to go out, and they have to recruit an army of volunteers to go out and get those 40 percent of signatures of the list of electors for that district.

[8:15 p.m.]

If you have a riding like the Attorney’s riding, for an example, with tens of thousands of people living in that riding, it’s going to take a lot of people to try and get that 40 percent of signatures within 60 days. That doesn’t come cheap. There’s the recruiting process itself: how do you recruit? How do you find those volunteers? Do you use social media? Do you advertise on radio and television? Do you have people knocking on doors, asking for those volunteers? Do you set up in a mall? There are a number of things there that have a cost to that.

People are spending money on gas, on meals, perhaps on hotel rooms. When you get electoral districts like mine, which takes me about four hours to drive from one end of it to the other, or you have large electoral districts — where you can’t go from one end to the other without spending a night in a hotel, or two or three, and meals — the cost to a mere citizen for him or her to go out and collect the 40 percent of those votes is an enormous mountain for those individuals to overcome on their own.

To merely prescribe or legislate, as the Attorney is attempting to do in this case, to restrict the amount of money that those poor citizens standing out there in the cold and the rain trying to gather signatures, to restrict what they can do…. The Attorney said he wants to take big money out of politics. It’s not political. Removing a member of this House is not a real political move. It’s somebody who is not happy with the work that that individual has done in this House.

With his 200 words, he’s explaining: “I’m not happy with the way my representative has handled X, Y and Z in the House. I’m not happy with the way the representative has introduced 18 new taxes. I’m not happy with the way this representative has isolated different parts of this community so that nobody wants to invest in their summer cabins.” They may not be happy with the way the representative has positioned himself with respect to resource development.

There are a number of things that that individual or a group of individuals may not be happy with, but they have to explain that in 200 words. Then the work is cut out for them. They’re not going and standing up on a platform saying: “Vote for me because I’m going to be the best person for the job. I’m going to ensure that we do all these things.” They’re going out on a rainy day, with an umbrella and gumboots on, trying to get people to sign a petition, to get the 40 percent of signatures that they need of all the registered voters in that area. A big job. One person can’t do it. A dozen people can’t do it. Perhaps 100 people can’t do it. It depends on the size of the riding.

These people have to get together all the time to compare notes and best practices, how best to do that. Maybe somebody standing at the door wants a little bit of information, more information, on the deficiencies that the particular representative has demonstrated and that has initiated the recall. Maybe they need to print documents in order for the citizens that are signing this so that they have access to all the information that they need.

The citizens groups do this without the support of any politician — contrary to the Attorney mentioning, as I’ve heard other members in government mention, the fact that it needs to be harmonized with the existing legislation to take big money out of politics. Well, it’s not political. This is a poor citizen going out and trying to recall, to get his representative out of government so that they can have a by-election and elect somebody that will go in there and do the job. It’s got nothing to do with politics. It’s just: “Get that individual out of there, and find somebody that can do a better job.”

It’s the same as we do in our own workforce. If I get hired by a company and I’m not doing the job that I’m supposed to do, they’ll fire me. They’ll call me in, they’ll talk to me a couple of times, and if I don’t straighten out and do the job I’m supposed to do, they’re going to fire me. I’m sure that the member that introduced this legislation has probably heard from his constituents as to what he can do better in order to gain their support, and he hasn’t complied with that. So these people are disenchanted, they feel disenfranchised, and they’re looking at doing something that will represent their interests in that particular riding.

[8:20 p.m.]

Any one of us, in the 87 ridings that we have, could be recalled if we don’t do our job. Most of the people in this House bend over backwards to provide the service to the individuals, to the citizens that we have in our ridings, without any regard for their political stripes.

We have people coming in…. You know, in my office in Prince George–Mackenzie, I’ve had union representatives coming in. I’ve had teachers coming in to discuss different areas of concern that they had when we were in government and even when we’re not. I’ve had truck drivers come in. I’ve had all sorts of people coming in wanting to voice their thoughts — on different tax regimes, on different legislation, on why we did one thing and not another. That occupies a large part of my time.

My staff, the constituency assistants that I have — I’ve got constituency assistants in Prince George and an office in Mackenzie — deal a lot with those ombudsperson’s roles on my behalf. They help those constituents navigate through the myriad of bureaucratic processes that we have in this province. They sit down and explain it, step by step, to these individuals so these individuals have an opportunity to make a decision.

As I said, these are very complex issues when we talk about recall. We can’t mix it with the day-to-day complexities associated with an election campaign. It’s totally different. This is why the member has introduced the amendment to send this to committee so they can reflect. They can have a close examination of it and determine the best way forward to ensure that the Attorney’s issues are dealt with.

If government has concern over big money in recall initiatives…. Again, I haven’t seen any evidence from the government side as to where this big money is or how much money has been spent on recall in the past, on the 26 recall initiatives that we have had in the past. I’d like to see a breakdown of how much money was spent on them. I think we’ll be surprised that there wasn’t much, because it’s just poor citizens out there, in their gumboots and an umbrella on a rainy day, trying to get those signatures.

The courts have said that the rights of a citizen to hold views not espoused by a registered party and to communicate those views are essential to the debate upon which our democracy rests. Totally recognize that: a citizen has a right. They get overpowered by political parties. They’re overpowered by a process that is run by political parties and political candidates.

This is their opportunity to get out and say exactly what’s on their mind, to do whatever they need to do to recall their representative, if he or she is not performing the duty that they had envisioned for that person or that that representative had promised during the actual election campaign — to do certain things.

I think 18 months is a pretty decent time. I know this bill was purporting to extend that by another few months, but 18 months is a pretty good estimate. If you can’t figure out whether a person is doing a good job after 18 months, then there’s something wrong with the process. When I was in HR dealing with the performance of employees in different categories, oftentimes you’d have a six-month probation period or maybe a one-year probation period.

When I had a new manager come in to run a large part of the organization, he might have had 100 people under his or her command. I would often give them 18 months in order to understand what was going on and, once they understood what was going on, to come up with a vision of where they were going to take their area forward and to come up with a strategy on how they were going to get there.

I think 18 months is reasonable in this case. And here we have, 18 months after an election, people saying: “Okay, here’s a government that promised us the world. They said: ‘We’re going to make life more affordable for everybody. We’re going to do all these wonderful things. We’re going to have a referendum with one question. We’re going to have a referendum that has regional thresholds and provincial thresholds involved in it. We’re going to have a number of great things out there. We’re going to eliminate the MSP, and we’re going to do a bunch of other things to make life more affordable for everybody.’”

[8:25 p.m.]

So 18 months into it, the constituents are a little bit annoyed in some ridings. I’m sure that that’s probably what is pushing them to consider recall in the Attorney’s riding and perhaps some other ridings that we have here. Those promises haven’t been met.

We have a referendum in place right now that is…. The performance is abysmal with the mail-in ballot system that we have, which is another topic that would take a long time to explain. Mail-in ballots are usually held for people in remote areas or weathered-in or for people who are sick that can’t get in to a ballot place.

This government established regulations that said: “Hey, we’re going to have this mail-in ballot system, and everybody…. It’s going to be wonderful.” Well, today we’ve got 0.7 percent of the ballots returned so far. We’ll have to see what happens over the course of the remaining voting period itself.

I think it’s these kinds of things that are frustrating the constituents in some ridings, who are saying: “I don’t like what’s going on here, and I don’t think we can wait past 18 months to see what else is going to happen here.”

I think we’re going to see our property taxes go up because of the employer health tax and the impact it has on municipal governments, police services, health services, schools and all those other entities that have multi-$100-million payrolls that they have to pay their 1.95 percent payroll tax on to cover off the health insurance that we have in the province here now. So our property taxes are going to go up.

We have the speculation tax. We have those 18 new taxes that are impacting everybody. That’s what’s giving them pause to reflect and say: “Hmm, is this what I was promised by my representative that I voted in or that we had voted in as a whole?” And they’re saying: “No, it wasn’t. None of this stuff that’s happening today was in the platform. None of this stuff was what they promised. Life is certainly not more affordable for me. Life is getting harder and harder.”

Income taxes are going up. Taxes are going up. It’s costing more. The carbon taxes are going up. Life is becoming extremely difficult for a lot of people as a result. So naturally they migrate to look at solutions like recall, in order to say: “I think it’s time that we remove this representative from this role, because he or she hasn’t fulfilled their promises, and we’re going to do everything that we can.”

I agree wholeheartedly with the initiative to forward this bill to the committee, to have them pop the hood open on this, have a look at it, make whatever adjustments they feel are necessary and then bring it back to this House after a matter of weeks, after they’ve had time to determine that.

With the PR referendum on the horizon, it’s going to change the complexities of recall. I think it would be prudent just to wait until all that happens. Have the committee look at it, and then we can bring it back to this House and have a look at it. I support it going to committee, and I look forward to more discussion on this.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise today to speak to the amendment to Bill 53, that being that: “Bill (No. 53) not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.”

Why this amendment makes perfect sense to me is one piece, two words within the amendment that really stick out: ethical conduct. I can think of nothing more that needs to be fully looked at and scrutinized by this committee that this amendment would move this to than the ethical conduct of this bill. For this bill to not be looked at properly, I think, would be wrong for so many people in British Columbia.

[8:30 p.m.]

People expect that we will enact rules and conduct our­selves in certain ways. Then they feel confident in those directions and that guidance. With this bill, what we’re seeing is a total self-serving piece of legislation that, coincidentally, seems to be getting brought in by an Attorney General who, for months now, has driven by big signs in his riding that are advocating for a recall. So here we are, a few days away from when a recall campaign could be launched, and the Attorney General brings in a piece of legislation that is self-serving to the end.

That’s why we’ve heard it referred to as the EPA, in terms of a protection act, and that’s why I think it needs to go to this committee — the Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills — because I think there really does need to be that other look at it.

This bill would try to amend a piece of legislation that has functioned for 27 years in British Columbia and has had 26 unsuccessful recalls during that time, so it’s already a very high bar for the public to try to reach. Setting the standards that they have in this bill will make it essentially impossible for anybody to ever contemplate a successful recall campaign.

For an Attorney General who used to be the head of the B.C. Civil Liberties, it’s bad enough what he’s doing with the Referendum Act when it comes to a proportional representation referendum. It’s bad enough how he’s trying to use this House in the middle of a voting period to bring in other legislation that would impact people’s decision-making in that referendum. That’s all bad enough.

It’s bad enough that the government keeps bringing in Monday morning motions to deal with proportional representation in the middle of that same referendum. But no, we still have an Attorney General, as a former head of the B.C. civil liberties union, who seems to think that this bill, all 49 pages of its splendour, seems to somehow be good for democracy in our province. And it’s categorically not.

The number of clauses in here that would restrict people — the citizens within existing ridings — to even remotely try to launch any sort of recall campaign is astounding. Again, for the former head of the B.C. civil liberties union to insert a clause that says, essentially, you do not have the right to congregate in your own home around recall…. Now, I’ve taken that to a little bit of the extreme, but not much, because what the clause actually says….

It’s interesting, because I doubt the members opposite have actually read the bill that’s been introduced, because they’re refusing to speak to the bill. And even if they did, they would only be allowed to parrot very select words written out for them.

What the clause says…. And I would invite the members opposite to pull out their binder of bills and actually flip through and find it. The section says that if you host people at your house, and you are in charge of the recall campaign, you are not allowed to accept donations over $100 if you’re inside your own private residence.

This is a piece of legislation. This is a section being introduced by an Attorney General who used to be head of the B.C. civil liberties union telling people: “Be careful what you do inside your own home.” It’s not telling you to be careful that you make sure you document all of the donations properly. It flat-out tells you that you cannot accept more than $100 in the privacy of your own home to fund a recall campaign. Now, that is absolutely ridiculous.

If you have every intention of running a recall campaign properly — and I would hope and encourage everyone that does to document donations properly, to submit the proper forms, to account for them properly and to not exceed any thresholds of the $1,200 or any other limits that are in place — why does it matter to the Attorney General, if I’m hosting a dinner party for my neighbours to talk about a recall campaign, how much you actually collect in donations at that event in your own private residence? It is beyond ridiculous.

[8:35 p.m.]

To talk about the extreme level that members opposite will go to, to try to characterize what goes in a recall campaign, we heard the Leader of the Third Party continually, on second reading, go on about people accepting several cheques of $1 million in value for recall campaigns, which is ludicrous in the extreme. It’s absolutely ludicrous that that’s what they jump to. That’s what they’re trying to paint to the public, the problem they’re trying to solve.

Well, the problem they’re trying to solve is that they have a long string of broken promises in 18 short months. The problem they’re trying to solve is that the Leader of the Third Party — despite what he told everyone in his riding that he would be voting against in this Legislature, if he was so lucky as to be re-elected back into this place — has broken every one of those promises.

Site C is a go. LNG is a go. Kinder Morgan is now nationalized, making it more likely it will still proceed, once the next round of consultations happen. And the list goes on and on and on.

It would not surprise me…. I believe Oak Bay–Gordon Head actually initiated a recall campaign once before for the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. It was a B.C. Liberal at the time, but Oak Bay–Gordon Head certainly does know how to start up a recall campaign. So I could totally see why the Leader of the Third Party might be a little bit worried — what’s going on in his own riding with his own supporters — given the long string of broken promises.

That’s why this amendment is important. This amendment would allow people, a committee, to look at the ethical conduct of this bill in general. It would give it time to actually be looked at properly, investigated properly. The public could then have time to digest whether or not this actually seems reasonable or not.

It’s not reasonable that we have a piece of legislation here trying to restrict people’s ability to recall any member of this House, regardless of political stripe, that sets a maximum spend limit lower than what the Municipal Affairs Minister set for municipal campaigns for people to try to get elected. Does that make any sense? Most towns are about the same size as the ridings.

Does it make any sense that I would be allowed, if I ran for mayor in Kamloops, to spend $50,000 on a mayor’s campaign? But if someone wanted to institute a recall campaign under this legislation, they’d only be allowed to spend $25,000 total.

When they want to talk about getting big money out of recall campaigns, that could’ve been accomplished by putting in the $1,200 donation limit, like we’ve seen in the other pieces of legislation. But that’s not what’s been done here. Instead, we have 48 pages of section after section after section designed to suppress people’s ability to voice what they feel is improper action or conduct by somebody that they elected to this place 18 months earlier.

I would point out there was actually a referendum in 1991 to institute this. In fact, it was Premier Johnston, at the time, that started that. Soon-to-be Premier Harcourt agreed during the campaign that the NDP would institute this if elected, even though it was non-binding to a new government, the referendum. You know what? It passed with 80 percent of the vote; 80 percent of the vote said yes to this piece of legislation that the Attorney General wants to suppress and turn his back on.

In fact, in Vancouver–Point Grey, it was about 72 percent of the people who actually voted for this legislation. In Oak Bay–Gordon Head, it was about the same. But provincially, it was about 82 percent that voted for this legislation.

It’s interesting how convenient it is for the former head of the B.C. civil liberties union to suddenly walk away from anything that resembles that, be it the rigging of proportional representation vote, which we now are seeing at 0.7 percent voter turnout after two weeks. But don’t worry. There’s no minimum threshold needed. So once we get to about 3 percent, that should really give us a clear indication of what the voters are thinking in this province, according to the Attorney General and the Premier.

[8:40 p.m.]

There are only about two weeks of voting left. Remember, it has to be received by November 30 by Elections B.C., which means that unless you live right in the heart of the Lower Mainland, for anywhere else in the province, you should probably have it in the mail by November 23 at the latest. So that means even for the Lower Mainland probably November 25, maybe the 26th, so we have a couple more weeks to go.

Ballots have been out in my riding for two weeks. My riding is actually one of the better performers, and we’re at 1.6 percent voter turnout. It’s astounding. It’s such a torrid pace. Municipal elections have higher advanced voter turnouts, and they’re chronically low on voter turnout.

In Kamloops’s case, our voter turnout this time was 30 percent for the municipal election. It was 33 percent four years ago, 30 percent this time, and we set records for advanced voting this time. So if we’re at 1.6 percent after two weeks, wow, I can totally see us getting all the way up to the lofty goal of maybe 4½ percent voter turnout by the time this is over.

The Attorney General doesn’t mind. That’s already been such a circumvented referendum act that he has no problem on the whole recall. That’s why this amendment is so important. Time and again we have seen the Attorney General think he can do whatever he wants when it relates to people and their democratic process. The fact that he has been able to drive by recall signs in his own riding for months now didn’t trigger, back in the spring session, when he was already driving by those signs, that maybe he needed to do this back in the spring? This didn’t trigger that maybe this should get brought in on day 1 of the new Legislature?

No. Instead, we have an Attorney General that waits until there are about eight or nine days to go before it gets active and tries to insert this piece of legislation under the guise of actually trying to keep his supporters from having an unfair advantage. That’s not how recall campaigns work. There’s not a counterpetition being signed, saying: “Let’s keep the guy in office.”

There’s not a countercampaign, unless the Attorney General thinks that his supporters and his friends in various unions are going to go door to door and make sure people aren’t signing, or follow around the petitioners that are trying to get signatures or try to block them from standing in front of grocery stores and get signatures. I’m sure that’s not what he meant by it.

I’m not quite sure how he thinks that he would have some unfair advantage to defeat a recall campaign with this legislation not in place. This legislation is nothing but a self-serving attempt to try to suppress people from having their voices heard — their voices, which 26 times now have actually failed, their voices, where you don’t see multi-million-dollar provincewide campaigns, because it’s very localized to a riding.

When you hear from members opposite the odd time they actually choose to speak on this…. I think their silence is telling in itself. Their silence indicates how little pride they actually have in this piece of legislation. We don’t hear loud rounds of applause like we heard earlier today for the poverty reduction plan, which is the plan to bring in a plan later on so that we can have a plan on how to deal with that plan sometime next year.

This Recall and Initiative Amendment Act needs to have the amendment we have in front of us right now to give it the time to be properly vetted, to give it the time, most importantly, to go through the lens of ethical conduct and to make sure that people understand and have a good look and see just how badly the Attorney General is trying to suppress their rights as neighbourhoods and communities to have their voices heard against any one of the 87 members of this House.

As I said, most of these — in fact, 26 out of 26 — have failed, so I’m not quite sure what the Attorney General is so terrified of. I think most people that mount a recall campaign know they’re facing very long odds and know it probably won’t succeed.

[8:45 p.m.]

In fact, if you look at a counterpetition at the municipal level, where municipalities want to borrow money to do a bigger project, you only need 10 percent of the signatures to be able to either force a referendum or just have the project die. And even those rarely succeed in getting 10 percent of signatures.

For the Attorney General to try to totally put his thumb on top of anyone’s ability to do what they feel is their civic right and obligation to send a message to any one of the 87 in this House is an affront to democracy.

Those people have the right to enter into a recall campaign, knowing full well it’s a long shot, knowing full well none have ever succeeded. They have that right to try to voice their displeasure of that member, to make sure it’s known far and wide that they have displeasure towards that member, that that member has been acting in a way that they feel is not appropriate or voting in a way that they feel they were told totally opposite would happen during the election — much like LNG, much like Site C.

I’m sure there are many people down in the Kootenays that are wondering about the Energy Minister suddenly voting for LNG after years and years and years of campaigning against it. I’m sure there are a great many people in the Minister of Environment’s riding that are kind of confused by his stances on a great many things in this House.

Do I think they’ll get recalled over it? I don’t think it’ll be successful. So why should they be so afraid of the existing legislation? Why can they not see how badly this piece of legislation tilts it even harder away from allowing people to try to make sure that they have their voices heard, to try to vent, to try to work off some of the frustrations they see happening and to be able to send a message.

This piece of legislation does that. This piece of legislation hammers down on anyone that may dare stick their head up and say: “I don’t like what’s going on.” Now, that may work very fine within the NDP circles internally, when they want to memo and tell their members that you shall not, you dare not, you absolutely will not ever speak out publicly, negatively, about anything we bring forward. They can memo that all days of the week.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In fact, I just saw an interesting ad in a publication where it had a picture of the ballot for proportional representation. And it wasn’t that this is how it was recommended you vote. In fact, it was a BCGEU government newsletter thing that they put out to their membership. It said very clearly underneath — I’m paraphrasing a little: “You must vote this way.” There was no ambiguity around what the message was. It wasn’t an optional type of statement. It was, “You must vote this way,” and it had a picture of the ballot. That’s what is considered democracy on that side of the House.

S. Chandra Herbert: You know that’s not true.

P. Milobar: That is 100 percent true. If the member would care to actually read any of the publications that their supporters send out, he would find it out to be true as well.

Again, instead of debating the bill, instead of reading the bill, instead of having anything productive to add to the conversation, the members opposite are choosing to stay silent until the mood strikes them to heckle a little. That’s fair enough. They know that no one on TV can actually hear their heckles, so essentially they’re talking to themselves.

This bill is astounding. It’s astounding that the former head of the B.C. civil liberties union would think that this is actually a good piece of legislation and it enables people to have their democratic rights and their ability to actually voice their opinion. That’s why the amendment is so important.

But noting the hour, I will reserve my right to continue on. I will reserve my right to continue on because I know the other side is very interested. I will adjourn for the day.

P. Milobar moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 8:50 p.m.