Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Bill 5, the Constitution Amendment Act, in this chamber. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I’d like to introduce one very modest athlete, an inductee to the Delta Sports Hall of Fame. That would be the member from Delta.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION
AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

On section 6.

Hon. D. Eby: We are picking up on committee stage on Bill 5, which is the Constitution Amendment Act. With me are Nancy Carter, executive director, and Renee Mulligan, legal counsel, of the civil policy and legislation office, Ministry of the Attorney General.

The section that we’re talking about involves section 6 of the bill, and members opposite are going to be asking me questions as the minister responsible for the bill. This particular section proposes to move British Columbia’s fixed election date to the fall. It deals with when advance polling opportunities are for people to vote. With the fixed date that’s proposed, the advance voting might fall on Thanksgiving. The member opposite raised concerns about that.

What I’m going to do now is move the amendment to section 6. I wonder if I should pause so that members who don’t have copies and might need copies can get copies of the amendment.

The Chair: Thank you. Please proceed.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve listened to members’ concerns about advance voting falling on Thanksgiving in some calendar years. After consulting with Elections B.C., I’m proposing the following amendment to section 6 of the bill.

To clarify, this is an amendment to section 6 of Bill 5, not an amendment to section 76 of the Election Act. The amendment is as follows.

[SECTION 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

6 Section 76 (1) is repealed and the following substituted:

(1) Advance voting opportunities must be held during a period that consists of 6 consecutive days and commences

(a) during a period that consists of 6 consecutive days and commences 8 days before general voting day for an election, or

(b) if general voting day for an election falls on a Monday, during a period that consists of 6 consecutive days and commences 9 days before general voting day for the election, or

(c) if one or more of the dates for an advance voting opportunity to be held under paragraph (a) or (b) falls on a holiday other than a Sunday, on 6 days during a period established by the chief electoral officer that

(i) commences 12 days before general voting day for the election, and

(ii) ends at least 2 days before general voting day for the election.]

There’s a section of text deleted from the provision as drafted in the bill. Sections (a) and (b) are consistent with the meaning — are intended to be consistent — with what was put forward in the bill, and have been redrafted just to be consistent with the new section, which is section (c).

The amended section, which is section (c), will give the Chief Electoral Officer the discretion to establish the six voting days before general voting day in years when advance voting falls on Thanksgiving Monday or another statutory holiday. For fixed-date elections, this will occur for elections with a fixed fall election date on October 16, 2021, and October 18, 2025.

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: What the intention of the amendment is, is to give the Chief Electoral Officer discretion to establish the six advance voting days in the event that the advance voting day falls on a holiday.

The advance voting days have to be set within a period commencing 12 days before the general election and conclude at least two days before general voting day. We talked about that a little bit yesterday. They need at least two days between advance voting and general voting day to prepare for general voting day, because it’s a lot of the same staff who are involved in general voting day.

The reason 12 days before general voting day was chosen was to allow flexibility for advance voting. The member raised a number of concerns about people taking vacations over Thanksgiving, for example. It applies for both an on-demand election or a by-election where there is advance voting.

The concern was: well, maybe there’ll be a by-election or some kind of election that doesn’t relate to Thanksgiving, but maybe it comes just before Christmas and Boxing Day or the Easter statutory holidays. So you might actually have two statutory holidays in the advance voting period. This section contemplates that as well. It gives the Chief Electoral Officer the flexibility to establish advance voting days that don’t fall on those holiday dates.

I’ll provide you with an example of how advance voting will work in 2021, because the general voting day is October 16 and Monday, October 11 is Thanksgiving, which is within that advance voting period.

[2:50 p.m.]

Because an advance voting day falls on a holiday, the amendment would create the authority within the Chief Electoral Officer to have the discretion to establish the six advance voting days at the Chief Electoral Officer’s discretion.

The advance voting days must start at least 12 days before general voting day and end at least two days before general voting day. The Chief Electoral Officer, who has the responsibility, shall inform the electorate about advance voting and general voting days and will choose the days at the time the writs are issued. The Chief Electoral Officer tells us that a news release would be issued setting out the advance voting days, in addition to other methods of informing the electorate of advance voting. That’s newspaper ads in every community in B.C., on each voter’s voting card, on the Elections B.C. website and through social media.

These changes will ensure that voters who are travelling over holidays, such as Thanksgiving weekend, have greater flexibility with voting opportunities in years where advance voting coincides with the holiday, which was the concern raised by the member.

When we looked at the advance voting dates set out and the election day, we consulted with Elections B.C. to ensure that the days chosen allowed for operational concerns to be taken into account and to ensure that the momentum of advance voting leading into general voting would not be lost between the last day of advance voting and the general voting day. We looked at the history of advance voting in B.C. elections and compared voter turnout at advance voting over the last several B.C. elections.

We also looked at different voting opportunities currently available. In addition to the six days of advance voting and general voting day, a voter can ask for a vote by mail package and vote by mail or vote at any district electoral office at any time up until four hours before the close of general voting.

We considered the experience of four days of advance polling in federal elections, under the Canada Elections Act, in particular the 2015 federal election, where advance voting occurred on the Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday over the Thanksgiving long weekend. According to Elections Canada, despite the fact that advance voting occurred over a holiday weekend, the voter turnout was at its highest in 20 years.

While we’ve kept this in mind, on balance, we are changing the advance voting days to ensure that voters who travel over holidays, such as the Thanksgiving long weekend, will have even more options and flexibility to vote on advance voting days before and after their holiday.

I’d like to thank the member for his suggestions in this respect. The reason why we looked at this amendment was the questions raised by the member. I think it’s a good example of how we can work together to make better legislation in British Columbia.

J. Rustad: I’m pleased to see him taking that into consideration. Thank you. I think it is a good example of how you can work through committee stage on bills and sometimes come to agreement that there may be some changes needed.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: Other changes. I guess I must have failed in terms of that irrefutable logic, as my colleague has suggested.

However, I do want to ask just a couple of quick questions with regards to this. I’m not sure if the independent member from the Green Party wanted to ask questions as well. In particular, what I’m wondering about…. We went 12 days before the voting day. Why 12 instead of 14? The reason why I’m asking that is because to add 14 would add in the previous weekend to give the opportunity for a Saturday vote, as opposed to having all those days fall on weekdays or the long weekend.

Hon. D. Eby: There are two values that we’re trying to balance here. One is the idea that you’re building momentum towards a general voting day, with increased media attention on the fact that people are advance voting and that the general voting day is coming up, and the idea of flexibility for the Chief Electoral Officer in setting the advance voting days.

We looked at it. We wanted to give maximum flexibility while trying to preserve some of that momentum that the voting day is coming and that the advance voting is connected to and part of the larger process related to general voting day. So we settled on a 12-day window for the six advance voting days.

In the bill as presented, we had the six days as one block of six days of advance voting, with the idea that we would be condensing that and that would build momentum towards general voting day and help drive voter turnout on general voting day. We are sacrificing that momentum to spread that out over not six days but over 12 days.

It’s a significant increase in flexibility. I heard the member’s concerns about it and attempted to balance those concerns with the goal of the bill, which was to preserve that momentum that’s important in informing the electorate about the election that’s happening.

J. Rustad: I just want to be clear. I think the original bill talked about eight days prior to the election. This is now going to 12 days, so it’s not quite as said.

[2:55 p.m.]

The minister is nodding. Just to make that point. I’m still concerned, as people are away and like to take holidays over the course of that weekend, that there would be a Saturday available. Previous elections held, I think, in 2017 and 2013 — I’m not sure about previous years — had two weekends as advance polling dates. I wonder if the minister can confirm that.

Hon. D. Eby: In the 2013 election, there were only four advance voting days, so there was only one Saturday. The May 2017 election was the first time that there were six advance voting days, to recognize the increased preference among the electorate to have increased opportunities to vote. During that, there were two Saturdays.

It’s important to note that this amendment doesn’t prevent there from being two Saturdays. The Chief Electoral Officer, I imagine, in consultation with the parties that sit on that committee that informs Elections B.C. decisions around these kinds of issues, could well set two Saturdays for voting days. Certainly, there will be at least one, because general voting day is on the 16th. In the example of the 2021 election, the other Saturday could be October 9, which is not a holiday, which is on the weekend before. It would be at the discretion, in this situation, if the amendment carries, of the Chief Electoral Officer.

J. Rustad: Okay. I’m just wondering, technically, with regards to voting, where is the…? As MLAs or candidates come forward and register, what’s the cutoff for registry to be on the ballot? I’m just wondering, in terms of…. Like I say, if you were to push it a little bit earlier, whether or not there is any kind of challenge around that. I think they have a number of weeks — one or two weeks or something like that — once the writ is dropped to actually file their papers to be considered a candidate during the election. I’m just wondering what that time frame is.

Hon. D. Eby: It’ll just take us a second to look that up. This amendment and this bill do not directly affect that, so we just need to look it up for the member.

The Chair: Saanich North and the Islands seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: I’d just like to take a few minutes to introduce the second group of Gulf Islands Secondary students to this House.

Welcome to the Scorpions. We had your first group in here for question period. You’re seeing a more tame and constructive part of the day that we have here, where we’re working through Bill 5, which is the Constitution Amendment Act. It’s making a couple of changes to the bill, and as you see here, the member for Nechako Lakes is questioning the minister, the Attorney General, on certain aspects of the bill. I hope you’re enjoying your time. Welcome to the Legislature.

Could my colleagues here make these folks feel welcome.

[3:00 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: The relevant section is section 56 of the Election Act. In order for someone to be nominated, “…the nomination documents…must be received by the district electoral officer, (a) in the case of a general election…between the time the election is called on 1 p.m. on the 7th day after the election is called, or (b) in the case of a by-election, or a general election that is not conducted in accordance with section 23 (2) of the Constitution Act, between 9 a.m. on the 3rd day after the election is called and 1 p.m. on the 7th day after the election is called.”

There are exceptions in relation to holidays and these kinds of things, but that’s the general rule. You have seven days after the election is called for general elections.

I note that the advance voting under the amendment would be starting no earlier than the 16th day after the election is called, and so that gives nine days for advance ballots to be printed in order to prepare for that.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that answer, and thanks to your staff for the work on that. I just wanted to make sure there weren’t any potential challenges that were created through that. I didn’t have the opportunity in advance to look at that time frame to make sure that there wasn’t a challenge created by that.

My preference would be to be able to allow for that second weekend in terms of advanced polling. However, noting that that doesn’t seem to be an option here, I want to thank the minister for the consideration of the debate that we had here, associated with the committee stage on this bill. It was a good debate.

Unfortunately, some of the amendments didn’t have an opportunity to pass, although I can say that this amendment will be supported. Thank you for bringing it forward.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:03 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:05 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Bill 5, Constitution Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. D. Eby: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Bill 5, Constitution Amendment Act, 2017, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Motion 8, government reconsidered response to 2013 Judges Compensation Commission.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 8 — JUDGES COMPENSATION
COMMISSION REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Hon. D. Eby: I move Motion 8 standing in my name on the orders of the day:

[Be it resolved that pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Judicial Compensation Act, the Legislative Assembly:

a. reject the following recommendations of the Report of the 2013 Judges Compensation Commission as laid before this Assembly on September 18, 2017 as unfair and/or unreasonable for the reasons outlined in Government’s Proposed Reconsidered Response to the Report of the 2013 Judges Compensation Commission filed in this House; and

b. set the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to be substituted for the rejected recommendations;

as follows:

1. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 of $241,500 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 is set at $244,889.

2. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 of $245,122, an increase of 1.5%, is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 is set at $248,562, which is a 1.5% increase on the substituted salary for fiscal year 2014/15.

3. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 of $250,024, an increase of 2.0%, is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 is set at $252,290, which is a 1.5% increase on the substituted salary for fiscal year 2015/16.

4. The recommended increase in the pension accrual rate for judges from 3% to 3.25% effective April 1, 2014 is rejected. The pension accrual rate is set at 3%.

5. Recommendation 5 that, effective April 1, 2014, government take steps to continue judges as active members in the Public Service Pension Plan to age 75 is accepted in part. Recommendation 5(d), to the extent that it applies to any retroactive measures, including return of pension payments, making back-contributions, or making interest payments, is rejected.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations contained in the report.]

I would like to take a few moments to speak to this motion respecting the compensation that is paid to the province’s Provincial Court judges. As members may know, the process that is followed to determine judges’ compensation is necessarily different from collective bargaining. The reason for this is the need to ensure that judges are and are seen to be independent of government.

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our justice system. It is a cornerstone of our democracy and the rule of law: namely, that anyone who is accused of a crime or challenges government before the courts can be sure that their case will be decided by an impartial judge. So government and the judiciary do not negotiate over judges’ compensation.

[3:10 p.m.]

Instead, there is a process governed by the Judicial Compensation Act under which government and representatives of the judiciary make submissions to independent commissions every three years. These commissions, in turn, make recommendations to government setting out what the commissions believe would be the appropriate salaries and benefits for judges.

The government and this assembly are not bound to accept the commission’s recommendations, but if we wish to depart from them, we must give reasons that satisfy a constitutional test that has been developed in case law over the years. Rejection of the commission recommendation must be based upon a rational reason that rests upon a factual foundation. Overall, the response must respect the commission process and ensure that the process has been effective.

In British Columbia, there was additional language in the Judicial Compensation Act that the Legislative Assembly must find a recommendation to be unfair or unreasonable before it can be rejected. Well, that language was removed from the act by amendments made in 2015, and nonetheless, applies to this particular reconsideration since we are required to revisit the 2013 commission’s report through the lens of the time period in which the commission functioned and the Legislature first considered the commission’s report. I will have more to say about that in a moment.

Before I address the reconsidered response government is proposing, let me say a few words about the judges of the Provincial Court. Although I have been Attorney General for only a short time, I can certainly say I’m impressed with the expertise and the commitment that our Provincial Court judges devote to their work and to the British Columbians who appear before them. The Provincial Court hears most of the criminal cases in this province, as well as a majority of family law matters. The court also adjudicates small claims matters. Although some of that work will now be expected to be handled by the civil resolution tribunal.

In all, some 120,000 cases proceed through Provincial Court each year and are adjudicated by approximately 140 judges. Aside from hearing the matters that come before them, the judiciary is an active participant in justice reform efforts. Major strides have been and continue to be made in addressing some of the difficult challenges faced by the justice system. Government is doing its part to meet those challenges and so is the judiciary.

Turning now to government’s proposed reconsideration of the 2013 Judges Compensation Commission, let me first express my thanks for the commission members whose task was not an easy one and who undertook their responsibilities faithfully — Simon Margolis, Queen’s Counsel, who’s the chair; Robin McFee, Queen’s Counsel; Randy Kaardal, Queen’s Counsel; Kirsten Tisdale; and Roy Stuart.

Responding to reports of this kind often involves making difficult decisions. The circumstances of this reconsideration are quite unique. I ask members to bear with me as I summarize the events that have led us to this point.

The Legislature first dealt with the commission’s report in March 2014. In that response, the Legislature unanimously adopted government’s proposed response which rejected the commission’s salary and pension accrual rate recommendations. That response was litigated by the Provincial Court Judges Association, and the matter was heard first in B.C.’s Supreme Court, then in the B.C. Court of Appeal.

The decision the Court of Appeal handed down this past February requires us to reconsider the commission’s report in accordance with the court’s reasons. The primary concern of the court was that litigation respecting the previous 2010 commission process, which did not conclude until after the 2013 commission process, resulted in retroactive salary and pension accrual rate increases for Provincial Court judges for the fiscal year 2013-14.

This sequence of events meant that the 2013 commission was unaware of that salary level when it undertook its work. The commission’s recommendations followed by the Legislature’s response then resulted in an actual reduction of salary for the first two years of the commission’s mandate — an outcome that was not intended.

Specifically, the litigation over the 2010 commission resulted in an increase in judges’ salaries for 2013-14 from $236,504 to $242,464. As this change was made retroactively, the 2013 commission and the Legislature had no knowledge of it and could not take it into account. Similarly, the pension accrual rate in effect at the time of the 2013 commission was 3 percent, not the 3½ percent that resulted from the litigation of the Legislature’s response to the 2010 commission’s recommendations.

As the Court of Appeal said in its most recent decision, the retroactive effective litigation “so altered the legal foundation for the Legislative Assembly’s resolution that, without fault to the parties or the Legislative Assembly, the resolution is fatally flawed as being based on an incorrect legal premise of the salaries and benefits applicable at the time the resolution was passed. In that circumstance and the Legislative Assembly never having had the opportunity to consider the issue of Provincial Court judges emoluments in the context of that court-ordered framework…. The situation calls for an order remitting the matter to the Legislative Assembly for fresh consideration.”

We have, therefore, reconsidered the commission’s report and recommendations with the Court of Appeals decisions in mind. As the Court of Appeal also clarified in its earlier decision respecting the 2010 commission process, on a reconsideration such as this, we are required to approach the commission’s report and recommendations in light of the facts and circumstances known to the commission and the Legislature at the time the commission process and the Legislature’s initial consideration occurred.

[3:15 p.m.]

In this case, it means the facts and circumstances, as they were in 2013 and 2014, altered only by the changed legal landscape of the court’s decisions.

As I said, we are guided by the need to respect the commission process in order to ensure that judicial independence is preserved. We must also recognize that it is government’s task to analyze the cost of the commission’s recommendations and responsibly balance the competing interests and demands on public resources. We are the ones who are accountable for the expenditure of public funds.

The commission’s report makes eight recommendations respecting judges’ remuneration, benefits and allowances. As set out in the motion, we propose that the commission’s salary recommendations be rejected, that one pension recommendation be rejected and that one pension recommendation be accepted in part.

In making this proposal, I can assure all members of the House that we have again looked carefully at what the commission recommended. Detailed reasons are contained in the government’s response document, which I tabled in the House a few days ago. I’d like to highlight some general principles that underlie those reasons.

First, members will note that the salaries we are proposing are actually higher than those recommended by the commission. This is necessary to address the overriding concern of the Court of Appeal that the result of the commission process, following the prior litigation over the 2010 process, was an unintended reduction in judges’ salaries.

I emphasize, as the Court of Appeal did, that this state of affairs occurred through no fault of the 2013 commission. We do not know what the commission might have recommended if the prior litigation had concluded before the commission undertook its work, but as it stands, simply adopting the commission’s salary recommendations would not properly address the issue identified by the court. Instead, we are proposing salaries that would result in modest increases above the higher 2013-14 salary that resulted from the prior litigation.

In doing so, government agrees with the 2013 commission when it found that a modest increase in the salary of judges for the period covered by the commission’s report is justified. At the time of the 2013 commission process and the Legislature’s first response to its report, significant fiscal restraint measures were in place across government, including limits on compensation increases paid by public funds.

For example, all managerial salaries in government were frozen and public service hiring was severely restricted to meet government’s fiscal targets. In addition, various spending controls had been implemented on travel, administration and other discretionary spending such as grants. These expenditure management initiatives were necessary in order to meet spending projections over the fiscal planned period by the then government.

The proposed salaries, in our view, appropriately reflect the recommendations of the commission, the reasons of the Court of Appeal and the government’s program of restraint as it stood at the time.

In regard to the pension accrual rate, we depart from the commission’s recommendation that it should be set at 3.25 percent. Instead, government proposes it be set at 3 percent. At the time the 2013 commission made its recommendations, it believed that the 3.25 percent accrual rate represented an increase. That is because the rate was then at 3 percent and was only retroactively changed to 3½ percent following the Court of Appeal’s 2015 decision.

The 2013 commission, nevertheless, considered and rejected the idea of a 3.5 percent accrual rate. The government agrees with the commission that 3½ percent is not an appropriate rate, but disagrees that 3¼ percent is the rate that should be implemented.

The government has analyzed the cost of a 3¼ percent accrual rate as compared to the government’s recommended rate of 3 percent. Adopting a 3 percent accrual rate results in savings to government of approximately $2 million over the three years covered by the report, which the government views as an important amount in view of the program of restraint as it stood at the time.

Government does not agree with the commission that a 3¼ percent accrual rate is necessary to maintain a strong court, and notes that 3 percent is the rate used in a number of other provinces. In government’s view, the accrual rate of 3 percent sufficiently takes into account the fact that most judges are appointed relatively late in their working lives. Additional reasoning for the government’s proposal is found in the accompanying detailed reasons.

Government also recommends that the assembly accept the commission’s recommendation to make other adjustments to judges’ pensions. Those adjustments include taking steps to seek an exemption from the federal Minister of National Revenue so that judges who continue to sit full-time to age 75 would continue to remain members of the pension plan.

We do not believe, however, that retroactive steps should be taken in respect to a small number of judges over age 71 who have already begun receiving their pensions. It would require changes to pension legislation specifically for the affected judges, and it would also officially change the individual incomes of those judges for past taxation years, which we understand is not permitted under the federal Income Tax Act.

That concludes my remarks on the motion. I recommend the proposed response to the House, and I look forward to hearing from other members.

A. Wilkinson: This is a fairly regular occurrence in this House — that the Attorney General is called upon to sort out the compensation of Provincial Court judges and judicial justices.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s an awkward topic because, as the Attorney General has noted, the compensation of these individuals, who are responsible for our judicial system….

[Interruption.]

A. Wilkinson: Well, now that we’re back on track here.

There’s bound to be a level of public scrutiny of this, and of course, there’s the intrinsic conflict of interest that is involved with judicial figures who may be involved in adjudicating the role of government and the actions of government. So as the Attorney General has pointed out, this has been, in recent years, referred out to an outside body that provides recommendations. Then, of course, it comes back to this body, the Legislature, to make the final decision on the process going forward in terms of compensation for judges and judicial justices.

These individuals are public servants, and they, of course, deserve the usual treatment for members of the public service in terms of an orderly resolution of their compensation. In the role of judges, they may receive compensation that seems to be fairly substantial, from the eyes of the members of the general public and even, for that matter, the eyes of other members of the public service. The concern, of course, is that there is competition for individuals of this calibre, in that they can earn substantially more in some law firms in this province, although that’s not uniformly the case.

Nonetheless, the positions that are available for Provincial Court judges and judicial justices normally receive an excess of applications over available positions. It is a desirable position at a certain stage in life for lawyers, and so the positions are generally filled without too much difficulty, which is, of course, a downward market pressure on compensation. This results in the bind that the Legislature finds itself in, in determining the compensation of these individuals in a semi-market scenario.

What we have heard from the Attorney General is a compromise position, as has been the case in the past, and the opposition is prepared to accept the recommendations made by the Attorney General on this issue.

The Provincial Court, of course, is where the hard-nosed part of the judicial system meets the public expectations. It is a very real and very tangible kind of judicial system involving, usually, middle to minor criminal offences, where there is what one can call the necessity for reasonably fast justice, but it also has to be justice. So this is not an easy task for Provincial Court judges.

They deal with a large volume of case law and claims and prosecutions. They, of course, service not only the criminal justice function but also the family court and small claims divisions — although we’re seeing the transition from small claims into the civil resolution tribunal, which is going slowly and, one would hope, successfully.

Nonetheless, being a Provincial Court judge is not a small task. It requires suitable compensation. They expect to be paid for what they do. And as I said, it’s a position of high esteem in our society and needs to stay that way and be compensated accordingly.

Of course, part of their compensation is a fairly substantial pension plan, which is attractive to many lawyers at a certain stage in life, as they look forward to a predictable future in terms of income and pension income, and also in terms of their role in society and seeking to be in perhaps a more esteemed role than they have been in the past — given that lawyers, politicians and a few other callings in life tend to be at the bottom of a pile, whereas being a judge or a pharmacist is generally at the top of the pile, along with Clerk of the Legislature.

These judges perform this very valuable function all over the province of British Columbia. Unlike the superior courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, they’re in every community of significant size so that justice can be delivered on a local basis. And of course, there’s a substantial amount of homework in what they do. The sitting hours of a judge do not comprise their entire workload in that they have to do a great deal of reading and review of materials outside of their sitting hours so that they can stay on top of the law and maintain their credibility when they’re in the courtroom.

I think it’s fair for us to proceed and for me to conclude by saying that we thank the Provincial Court bench and the judicial justices for the work that they do. We acknowledge their service to the province of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia and their important role in the overall judicial system.

With all of these factors taken into account, the opposition is prepared to support the position taken by the Attorney General on compensation of these two categories.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member opposite for sharing the views of the opposition with us and for the support for this motion.

With that, I move Motion 8.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Motion 9, government response to 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission in respect of Provincial Court judicial justices.

MOTION 9 — JUDICIAL COMPENSATION
COMMISSION REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR JUDICIAL JUSTICES

Hon. D. Eby: I move Motion 9 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[Be it resolved that pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Judicial Compensation Act, the Legislative Assembly:

a. reject the following recommendations of the Report of the 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission as laid before this Assembly on September 18, 2017 for the reasons outlined in Government’s Proposed Response to the Report of the 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission in Respect of Provincial Court Judicial Justices filed in this House; and

b. set the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to be substituted for the rejected recommendations;

as follows:

1. The recommended salary for April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 of $125,000 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 is set at $118,000.

2. The recommended salary for April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 of $126,875 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 is set at $120,000,

3. The recommended salary for April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020 of $128,778 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020 is set at $122,000.

4. The recommended reimbursement of 100% of participation costs incurred by the Judicial Justices Association of British Columbia is rejected. The Association will be reimbursed according to the formula established in the Judicial Compensation Act, which is 100% of costs up to $30,000 and two-thirds of costs between $30,000 and $150,000.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations contained in the report.]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion, let me state that the process for setting compensation for judicial justices is the same as for Provincial Court judges. Judicial justices attract similar considerations of judicial independence due to the jurisdiction they hold. They hear provincial offence matters, local government bylaw matters, and conduct small claims payment hearings. They also conduct bail hearing applications and issue search warrants 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from the justice centre.

While judicial justices’ jurisdiction is more limited than that of Provincial Court judges, they are important components of the operation of the justice system in British Columbia. They are required to dispense with the matters before them quickly, often with unrepresented litigants, while ensuring that their decisions are fair and just.

When addressing the 2016 commission’s recommendations concerning Provincial Court judges, I noted that the 2016 commission process is the first to occur following amendments to the Judicial Compensation Act in 2015, which included updating the factors that the compensation commission must consider, as well as merging the two separate commissions for judges and judicial justices into a single commission.

While we now have a single commission issuing a single report, there are now separate recommendations respecting each group of judicial officers, and they should be considered independently. That is why government is bringing forward different motions for judges and for judicial justices.

The 2016 commission’s report makes seven recommendations respecting judicial justices remuneration, benefits and allowances. As set out in the motion, we propose that the commission’s salary recommendations be rejected, along with the commission’s recommendation respecting participation costs for the Judicial Justices Association.

Government has carefully reviewed the commission’s report, including the analysis and findings that underlie its recommendations. Detailed reasons are contained in the response document appended to the notice accompanying this motion.

In regard to salaries, the commission’s recommendation is to adopt the proposals made by the Judicial Justices Association and would represent an increase of approximately 16.8 percent over three years. The estimated fiscal impact of the commission’s salary recommendations is approximately $1.5 million over the three years addressed by the commission’s report.

[3:30 p.m.]

We propose rejecting the commission’s salary recommendations for the following reasons:

(1) The commission did not properly consider subsection 5(5)(d) of the act respecting “(d) changes in the compensation of others paid by provincial public funds in British Columbia.”

(2) The commission did not properly consider subsection 5(5)(f) of the act respecting the current and expected financial position of the government.

(3) The commission did not properly consider section 5(5)(c) of the act respecting compensation provided to similar judicial positions in Canada, having regard to the differences between those jurisdictions and British Columbia.

In recommending judicial justices’ salaries, the commission applied the same reasoning respecting compensation paid to others from public funds and respecting the financial position of the government as it did for its recommendations respecting Provincial Court judges. Government’s reasons for rejecting them are therefore the same as those I described in the previous motion respecting government’s response to the recommendations respecting judges.

In short, the commission did not engage in a meaningful consideration of changes in compensation to others paid by provincial public funds, and it asserted that to do so would unduly politicize the setting of judicial compensation. The government disagrees with the commission on this issue.

In regard to the current and expected financial position of the government, the commission wrongly focused on government’s “capacity to pay” rather than addressing the question of whether and to what extent salary increases should be moderated by the current and expected state of government’s financial position.

Finally, in considering compensation paid to similar judicial positions in other provinces, the commission did not properly take into account differences in jurisdiction between those positions. In a number of provinces and territories, judicial justices or their equivalents have broader jurisdiction than do judicial justices in British Columbia. To give one example, in Yukon, judicial justices may impose custodial sentences of up to 90 days. This aspect of the issue apparently was not considered by the commission.

Judicial justices’ salaries currently are $110,249. Government’s proposed salaries would represent a three-year increase of 10.6 percent as opposed to the 16.8 percent increase recommended by the commission. Government’s proposed salaries would have an estimated fiscal impact of approximately $920,000. The proposed salaries take into account the considerations I have noted respecting changes in compensation to those paid from provincial public funds, government’s current and expected fiscal position and interprovincial comparisons with other judicial justices.

The proposed salaries also take into account other aspects of the commission’s findings, including the need to attract and retain qualified judicial justices. The commission noted that at the time it was in operation, there was only one approved candidate eligible to be appointed as a judicial justice. It also noted, however, that the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court had not undertaken any active recruitment of judicial justices because there appeared to be a sufficient complement. Absent recruitment efforts, it cannot be assumed that compensation levels are the cause of the low number of identified eligible candidates.

In addition, at the request of the chief judge, government is taking steps, through legislation currently before this House, to extend the appointment terms of current judicial justices from ten years to 12 years, which will assist in retaining qualified and experienced judicial justices on the bench.

Turning now to non-salary matters, government proposes accepting all of the benefits recommendations of the commission, which essentially leave those benefits unchanged except for an increase in the professional development allowance for judicial justices.

In regard to the participation costs of the Judicial Justices Association, government proposes rejecting the commission’s recommendation that government pay 100 percent of those costs. Instead, as with a similar recommendation in respect to the judges association, we propose that the formula for payment of such costs contained in the Provincial Court Act be applied: namely, the government pay 100 percent of the costs up to $30,000 and two-thirds of the costs between $30,000 and $150,000.

Again, one of the main purposes of putting a cost formula into statute was to create certainty around the costs payable by government to the association in view of the fact that government is not in a position to control the expenditure. I should note that the association’s costs for the 2016 commission process amounted to some $37,000, and government’s reimbursement under the formula would amount to approximately $35,000.

That concludes my remarks on this motion. I recommend the proposed response to the House, and I look forward to hearing from other members.

A. Wilkinson: My remarks from the prior motion are in large part applicable to this motion.

[3:35 p.m.]

It’s a slightly different category, in that Provincial Court judges obviously adjudicate and come to conclusions on convictions and sentencing, whereas judicial justices are more in the procedural mode in the offence categories and perform the functions that are required on shorter notice, such as bail hearings and dealing with traffic matters.

But many of the same principles apply. Given the pool of applicants, the compensation scheme as a whole, the need for third-party recommendation and the pressures on government, generally, it’s understood that the result will often not be what the recommendation is that comes from the independent panel.

Nonetheless, the opposition finds itself in agreement with the recommendations from the Attorney General, and we’re prepared to proceed on that basis.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member opposite for sharing the position of the opposition and for the support on the motion.

Motion approved.

MOTION 10 — JUDICIAL COMPENSATION
COMMISSION REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR JUDGES

Hon. D. Eby: I move Motion 10 standing in my name on the orders of the day:

[Be it resolved that pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Judicial Compensation Act, the Legislative Assembly:

a. reject the following recommendations of the Report of the 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission as laid before this Assembly on September 18, 2017 for the reasons outlined in Government’s Proposed Response to the Report of the 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission in Respect of Provincial Court Judges filed in this House; and

b. set the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to be substituted for the rejected recommendations;

as follows:

1. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 of $273,000 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 is set at $262,000.

2. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 of $277,095 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 is set at $266,000.

3. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020 of $281,251 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020 is set at $270,000.

4. The recommended reimbursement of 100% of participation costs incurred by the Provincial Court Judges Association of British Columbia is rejected. The Association will be reimbursed according to the formula established in the Judicial Compensation Act, which is 100% of costs up to $30,000 and two-thirds of costs between $30,000 and $150,000.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations contained in the report.]

In speaking to this motion, let me first express my thanks to the members of the 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission for their dedication and hard work. They were the Hon. Frank Iacobucci, who is the chair; Robin McFee, QC; Randy Kaardal, QC; Brenda Eaton; and Peter Lloyd.

I should also say that the comments I made on the previous motion respecting the work of the Provincial Court judges applies equally, of course, to our consideration of the recommendations of the 2016 Compensation Commission, as does the description of the unique process that is required for the setting of judicial compensation.

I would also note that the 2016 commission process is the first to occur following amendments to the Judicial Compensation Act in 2015. Those amendments merge the two existing compensation commissions for judges and judicial justices into a single commission and updated the factors that a commission must consider in formulating its recommendations.

[3:40 p.m.]

Those factors are: the need to maintain a strong court by attracting highly qualified applicants; changes, if any, to the jurisdiction of judges or judicial justices; compensation provided in respect of similar judicial positions in Canada, having regard to the differences between those jurisdictions and British Columbia; changes in the compensation of others paid by provincial public funds in British Columbia; the generally accepted current and expected economic conditions in British Columbia; and the current and expected financial position of the government over the three fiscal years that are the subject of the report. The commission may also consider other factors not included in that list. If so, it must explain the relevance of those factors.

The 2016 commission’s report makes nine recommendations respecting judges’ remuneration, benefits and allowances. As set out in the motion, government proposes that the commission’s salary recommendations be rejected along with the recommendation respecting participation costs for the Provincial Court Judges Association. The commission made seven recommendations respecting the benefits of Provincial Court judges, and government proposes that all those recommendations be accepted.

Government has carefully reviewed the commission’s report, including the analysis and findings that underlie its recommendations. Detailed reasons for the government’s proposed response are contained in the response document I tabled in the House a few days ago.

In regard to salaries, the commission’s recommendations would represent an increase of approximately 15.2 percent, over three years, above the salaries in place at the time the commission was in operation and approximately 11.5 percent over the higher salaries the House has approved as a result of the motion respecting the 2013 compensation commission.

It is the responsibility of government to determine the cost of the commission’s recommendations. I can advise the House that the estimated fiscal impact of the commission’s salary recommendations, over the three years addressed by the commission, is approximately $12.9 million.

We propose rejecting the commission’s salary recommendations. In government’s view, the commission did not properly consider section 5(5)(d) of the act, respecting changes in the compensation of others paid by provincial public funds in British Columbia, and the commission did not properly consider section 5(5)(f) of the act, respecting the current and expected financial position of the government.

In recommending these salaries, the commission did not engage in a meaningful consideration of changes in compensation to others paid by provincial public funds. The commission asserted that to do so would unduly politicize the setting of judicial compensation. Government disagrees with this. In fact, the precedents established by the Supreme Court of Canada do not define politicization in this manner.

It is through an independent compensation commission that the risk of undue politicization of judicial salaries is minimized. Further, apart from saying that too much emphasis should not be placed on compensation changes to public sector employees, the commission did not set out how it has, in fact, taken into account those changes. The commission made general references to salary ranges, rather than focus on rates of change in public sector compensation, as the act requires.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the allocation of public funds by the Legislature is inherently political. At the same time, we recognize that judges are not civil servants. The judiciary is a separate branch of the state and must be independent of government. But in enacting the recent amendments to the Judicial Compensation Act, this Legislature recognized that when making recommendations concerning judicial remuneration, the commission should consider the degree to which remuneration paid to others from public funds is changing.

This is a matter which this House may also consider and which we address in the proposed response document appended to the motion. It is government’s view that a consideration of changes to the remuneration of others paid from provincial public funds militates in favour of lower salaries than were recommended by the commission.

In regard to the current and expected financial position of the government, the commission erred by focusing on government’s “capacity to pay” rather than on the question of whether and to what extent salary increases should be moderated by the current state of government’s financial position, including its program of expenditure management. Theoretically, government always has a capacity to pay because they can incur debt or raise taxes. This is not the issue. The issue for the commission to consider is how the current and expected financial position of the government might impact the size of salary increases.

On that front, the commission did not explain how the evidence of government’s fiscal situation was taken into account in determining the size of the salary increases it recommended. Government’s fiscal situation has generally improved from previous years, but forecasts in surpluses are small, and managing expenditures among many competing program needs remains a challenge.

Government’s proposed salaries for judges would represent a three-year increase of 10.6 percent above the salaries in place at the time of the commission’s work and an increase of slightly more than 7 percent above the salaries the House approved in a previous motion a few moments ago. The estimated fiscal impact of government’s proposed increases is approximately $7.2 million, which is nearly $6 million less than the fiscal impact of the commission’s recommended salaries. This is a difference which government views as significant.

[3:45 p.m.]

Government’s proposed response takes into account the extent to which salary increases should be moderated by the current and expected state of government’s financial position and changes to compensation of others paid by provincial public funds. The proposed salaries also take into account other aspects of the commission’s findings, including the salaries of British Columbia’s Provincial Court judges compared to other judges in Canada.

The proposed salaries are expected to place British Columbia’s judges fourth in Canada amongst other Provincial Court judges, which is the same rank as that anticipated by the commission’s recommended salaries. Government’s proposed salaries, likewise, would reduce the salary gap between Provincial and Supreme Court judges, although not as much as the salaries recommended by the commission.

Turning now to the recommendations concerning judges’ pensions, we propose accepting the commission’s recommendation that the pension accrual rate be set at 3 percent. The commission noted that its mandate is to consider total compensation and not to overemphasize individual aspects of compensation in isolation. It further noted that aside from accrual rate increases, higher salaries themselves result in more valuable pensions.

Government’s proposed salaries, while lower than those recommended by the commission, nonetheless represent increases that will serve to enhance the value of judges’ pensions. The commission further observed that the 3 percent accrual rate is similar to the accrual rates for pensions of Provincial Court judges in most other provinces and that judges’ pensions currently are generous in comparison to what is otherwise available in the public or private sectors.

Government also proposes accepting several pension recommendations that were jointly proposed by government and the judges association. The effect of these recommendations would be to bring judges’ pensions into line with recent changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act that applied to others in the public service respecting the vesting period, the calculation of the early retirement factor and the provision of a lump sum commuted value versus a deferred pension if retirement occurs prior to age 55.

In regard to the costs incurred by the Provincial Court Judges Association for participating in the commission process, government proposes rejecting the commission’s recommendation that government pay 100 percent of those costs. Instead, we propose that the formula for the payment of such costs contained in the Provincial Court be applied — namely, that government pay 100 percent of the costs up to $30,000 and two-thirds of the costs between $30,000 and $150,000.

Indeed, the central objective of putting a cost formula into statute was to create certainty around the costs payable to the association having regard to the fact that government is not in a position to control those costs as they are incurred. Further reasoning for the government’s position is set out in our response document. I should note that the association’s costs for the 2016 commission process amounted to some $93,000, and government’s reimbursement under the formula would amount to approximately $66,000.

That concludes my remarks on the motion. I recommend the proposed response to the House and look forward to hearing from other members.

A. Wilkinson: These motions seem somewhat repetitive, but nonetheless, they are essential steps in clarification of the compensation of both Provincial Court judges and judicial justices. My remarks from the earlier two motions are applicable here, and I will not belabour the point by repeating them. These are important positions in our society, as a part of our most arm’s-length civil service, so their compensation is an important thing for consideration in this House.

I’m pleased to say that the opposition is prepared to accept and agree with the submissions made by the Attorney General as part of these motions.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member opposite for the views of the opposition and for their support on this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 10.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

[3:50 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

(continued)

M. Dean: Our government believes that it’s time for all British Columbians to have a say in the fundamental question of how we elect our MLAs. We are introducing the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act to allow a referendum on proportional representation, or PR, no later than November 2018.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This bill is about giving British Columbians more say over how their representatives are elected. The first-past-the-post system is most widely used in Canada and means that a voter indicates on a ballot the candidate of their choice, and the candidate who receives the most votes in an electoral district wins. This can result in 100 percent of power in the hands of representatives who receive less than 50 percent of the vote, let alone of all eligible voters. Yet PR is the most widely used system in the world. In fact, over 80 countries have some kind of PR, and there’s a whole wide range of models.

It refers to any method of voting that produces a result in which a political party’s share of the seats in the Legislature represents its share of the popular vote. PR is also the system that consistently results in higher rates of participation, a higher percentage of eligible voters exercising their right to vote. In a PR system, every vote counts, and people feel that their votes count, creating this motivation and engagement. Then, ultimately, the elected parliament better reflects the voting population.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, how long this debate has been going on for? This isn’t a new issue. “In an equal democracy, the majority of the people, through their representatives, will outvote and prevail over the minority and their representatives. But does it follow that the minority should have no representatives at all…? Is it necessary that the minority should not even be heard…? In a really equal democracy, every or any section would be represented, not disproportionately but proportionately.”

So wrote J.S. Mill in 1861. So it’s not a new issue. However, democratic systems continue to evolve, and they should always be developing and modernizing. How we develop these should be done through consultation with citizens and their informed engagement. I am committed to a healthy and progressive democratic process here in British Columbia and in Canada.

Our democratic process is living and needs to be always evolving in order to improve. Everyone will recall the pioneering work of the Famous Five that resulted in the historic decision to include women in the legal definition of persons that was handed down by Canada’s highest Court of Appeal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain on October 18, 1929.

This gave women the right to be appointed to the Senate of Canada and paved the way for women’s increased participation in public and political life. From my own heritage — now I’m returning back in time — the story of the suffragettes was another example of activist actions resulting in increased democracy and enhancing accessibility to the democratic process. However, of course, as you may well be aware, that actually entailed women chaining themselves to railings, going on hunger strikes in jail and, of course, the fatal action of a woman throwing herself under a racing horse.

Instead of that, how about a modern process, a referendum to hear from people? That is what this act offers. This act will encourage the engagement of all citizens in active consideration of our democratic system, rather than in dangerous activism to get things changed, and have their voices heard and their views represented.

What the Electoral Reform Referendum Act will do is enable a provincewide referendum to be held on the subject of whether to change B.C.’s voting system. This will give the opportunity to British Columbians to have a say on what this looks like.

I support this bill, ultimately, because it offers choice to British Columbians. It will be in the fall of 2018 that the referendum will be rolled out, asking the question of whether to change from this first-past-the-post system to a form of proportional representation. British Columbians will be offered information and the opportunity to ask questions and to debate the merits of changing the system.

This is about basic fairness and democratic principles. It’s about modernizing our democracy and giving people the power to decide.

[3:55 p.m.]

Now, many people living in the communities in my constituency are really engaged in this debate. Through the election campaign and ever since, they’ve approached me and followed up with me with questions and also provided me with information. For example, they’ve given me briefings on the benefits of engagement through all aspects of this process. Their informed position is that active engagement and robust consultation with British Columbians will be the most effective way of ensuring participation in the overall process and the whole debate. So I’m very pleased to highlight that public engagement will begin this fall on which voting system or systems should be on the ballot.

We will promote active, healthy debate and discussion and provide information on our current voting system and systems of proportional representation to make sure that British Columbians are able to make an informed decision. This is the evolution of democracy in process — another example of the historical pathway of democracy.

We encourage all British Columbians to participate in this engagement period by sending submissions to the Attorney General — all British Columbians, whether they’re engaged in the political process, whether they’re engaged in political parties or not, whether they’re representatives at any level of government, whether they’re organizations, political scientists, activists, everyday British Columbians.

We will engage with First Nations leaders and communities to ensure their voice, their experience, their perspective and their ideas are all heard and contribute to the process and to the next steps.

Public engagement will be facilitated through social media and on line, and there will be a dedicated website so British Columbians can really join in the discussion and provide all of their feedback and opinions. This act provides for the referendum also to be conducted by a mail-in ballot to the Chief Electoral Officer.

All of this feedback through the engagement process will be summarized, and advice will be provided to the Attorney General in a formal report. Now, this report will include a recommendation of questions to be included on the 2018 referendum ballot and will also help in the creation of regulations. The ballot construction will be determined following this engagement period.

All of this process will allow for there to be extensive engagement with British Columbians, and this engagement will provide input to the selection of the question or questions about proportional representation that will be on the ballot. Again, I think of really well-briefed people who live in my communities across my constituency, who have also highlighted that there could well be benefits to a two-question referendum model. This could build consensus, and it could avoid the issue of creating unnecessary division among British Columbians.

Another important aspect of this process is that the act sets the threshold for approval at a 50-percent-plus-one vote provincewide; 50-percent-plus-one is the majority of voters, and it has been used in other referenda on electoral reform — notably in PEI’s recent PR referendum in 2016 and also in New Zealand in 1993 and 2011.

Finally, as an example of the well-informed process of this, the Attorney General will act as an independent official and refrain from engaging in the debate. He’ll recuse himself from any cabinet or caucus discussion regarding the referendum.

To conclude, if a new voting system is approved, it will require government to introduce legislation to implement the new system in time for a provincial general election to be called after July 1, 2021. Our government believes it is time for all British Columbians to have a say in the fundamental question of how we elect our MLAs. This legislation will support this idea, and I support this legislation.

M. de Jong: I’ll save anyone the suspense. I’m troubled by the bill, and I’m troubled by the process that it purports to initiate — the chain of events that it would set in motion. To say that I’m troubled is probably a little bit of an understatement.

[4:00 p.m.]

The challenge, of course, is to try to articulate here in this chamber the nature of my concern. I’m not, having listened to some of the other speeches, under any real illusions about the possibility of persuading members opposite, that I would be successful in persuading them, either in the government NDP caucus or the Green Party, that the flaws in this legislation might impact them enough to alter their position on it. But nonetheless, I think there is an important function to be served in the course of this debate to outline to British Columbians, via this chamber and this assembly, the nature of the concern I and, I dare say, many, many in this chamber have with respect to what is before us.

To do that in, hopefully, a reasonably coherent way, I resort to that time-honoured approach that sometimes journalists and others use: to ask the basic questions about the who, what, where, why, how of the legislation.

The what is probably the easiest. In that regard, oddly enough, there may actually be some meeting of the minds between both sides of the House. The notion of periodically asking fundamental questions that relate to electoral processes, and even electoral reform, is not something that I find at all repugnant. I think it can be a healthy exercise and indicative of a democracy that is living, breathing, evolving. When I say that, I don’t just say it theoretically. There is ample evidence, even in the time that some of us have been in this chamber, of how that can work.

It is a source of frustration for me that frequently in the conversation around this element of reform — democratic reform, electoral reform — many have forgotten the strides, the significant advances, the significant changes that have emanated over the course of the last ten or 20 years. Many have forgotten or, I dare say, choose to forget that it was here in British Columbia, some 16½ years ago, that the first provincial jurisdiction in Canada took the step to set an election date.

Now, we take that for granted, and there has been legislation before us this session that seeks to alter that slightly. That debate has just concluded and been dealt with. But the principle of setting an election date is a very important part of that entire democratic exercise. I think people sometimes have forgotten what that represented in terms of the magnitude of reform.

It represented a huge tactical advantage for government. The fact that only the government…. And when I say, by the way, the government, I don’t want to pretend that governments of the past, all MLAs and private members, were involved in that. It was actually a huge advantage exercised not even by the executive council in its entirety but by the Premier of the day, who could manipulate issues and announcements in a way to create circumstances that would lend themselves to the government’s advantage.

I’m going to talk about some of the past elections where that may have occurred, but the point of my reference to it at this point is that that was an exercise in significant electoral reform that other jurisdictions have now followed, and in most of the country, it is taken for granted that that part of the political manipulation that used to characterize elections at the provincial level would disappear. And it has even graduated and gravitated to the federal level. There have been advances with respect to the use of technology that, hopefully, have helped to improve our electoral process as well.

[4:05 p.m.]

The question that the legislation before us refers to, though, speaks to an even more fundamental question that is part of our electoral process. That is: how do we determine who will be entitled to sit in the seats that we presently occupy in this chamber today? Lest there be any doubt on either side of the House, I see no problem and take no issue with posing those kinds of questions. I say that being able to….

I can go beyond simply the words and point to actions where governments that I have been a member of have done that very thing, both in 2005 and 2009 — twice in the last dozen years, where the citizenry of the province were engaged directly in that very exercise, asked to express a view on a fundamental question relating to a fundamental tenet of our democratic institution. How are we going to select the people who receive the honour to represent fellow citizens in this assembly?

If that’s the “what” and if I’ve established, hopefully with some measure of credibility, that asking those questions is not only not offensive but is a healthy part of the exercise of democracy, then we get to the “how,” the “why” and the “where.”

In considering that, I would draw upon some experiences that I’ve had in this chamber. I would say that in reference to the two previous referenda that sought to consult British Columbians — in 2005 and 2009 — the seeds for that were actually sown in 1996. Some in this chamber may recall that represented an election where the government of the day was re-elected. It secured significantly less of the popular vote than the opposition party did.

That gave rise…. And lest, again, anyone think I haven’t gotten over what took place, I use it only for examples. I’ve gotten over it. But the numbers were significant. I hadn’t remembered them, but in that election, the largest opposition party, which I was a member of, got just under 42 percent of the vote, and the governing party secured 39½ percent of the vote.

Those were the rules of the time, and the governing party was re-elected with, I think, a majority of three seats and managed to govern for almost five years on that basis. But it did trigger in the minds of the public a notion that there was something wrong with the electoral system.

I’d be kidding if I didn’t say that it had impact on my colleagues who served in opposition at that time, and it gave rise to a measure of public debate, and that ultimately manifested itself in a commitment from the then opposition, the B.C. Liberal Party, to initiate a process for electoral reform. That appeared in an election manifesto, an election campaign document, that pledged specifically to consult with British Columbians on the issue of electoral reform. And in 2001, the then opposition transitioned into government.

Now, I will point out, it was a transition unlike any other that British Columbia had seen. The governing party was reduced to two seats. The opposition secured the remaining 77 seats. It was a fairly overwhelming expression of either support or discontent, or a combination of the two, depending on which way you would like to analyze it.

Nonetheless, the party that formed government had included a pledge to address the issue of electoral reform. Now, I’m going say something else that may surprise members of the chamber. It didn’t surprise me at the time, but it disappointed me a little bit. The enthusiasm for electoral reform tended to diminish a little bit after that result, because from the perspective of the winning side — always right and everything — the imperative around considering the issue seemed to diminish somewhat.

[4:10 p.m.]

Yet a promise had been made, and I’ve always been very proud of the fact that the Premier of the day and the Attorney General of the day and myself and a few others — the members for Fort Langley–Aldergrove and Prince George–Mount Robson — were adamant that that commitment should be honoured, and it was. A citizens’ assembly, as had been promised, was initiated — a random selection process and non-political. They engaged in their own research. They arrived at their own recommended option.

Now I’m going to — members might expect — contrast that to what is before us and what is being initiated by the legislation that the government has tabled today. It is worth emphasizing that on a matter that is of this significance — that is integral to our democratic process — in 2005 the government of the day decided to take politics completely out of this and vest the authority for making recommendations for creating options, in the hands of a citizens’ assembly that was randomly selected and for whom people had no preset political connection or bias.

They did their work. It wasn’t easy work, and they came up with a recommendation, and that recommendation was submitted to the people of British Columbia. In 2005, the assembly had done its work previous to that after the 2001 election, and the option — the single transferrable vote that was recommended, which was their recommendation after considering all of the variety of options — received 58 percent support and support in 77 to 79 electoral districts. That fell short, but not by much, of the threshold that had been set. Sixty-one percent of eligible voters voted.

In the aftermath of that exercise, there continued to be interest in the subject, and the decision was made to resubmit the recommendation in the general election as part of the general election of 2009. Now, interestingly, in that election 55 percent of eligible voters voted, and 39 percent approved of the recommended option and only eight electoral districts.

What changed in between? My purpose is not to try and analyze that here, but I will say this, having lived through the exercise. The interest that had been developed and the time around the discussion…. There was a clearer understanding of what the local implications of the recommended option would be. There was something else that, I think, had a profound impact on the outcome, and that was that an electoral map was produced of what this would actually look like all across British Columbia. I think that was the thing that contributed particularly as support for the proposal largely evaporated. People in rural parts of British Columbia and other parts of British Columbia saw what the potential impact of this would be going forward.

I heard the previous speaker talk about the threshold, and some people have argued. And we’ve heard it again here today about the wisdom and the simplicity and the advisability of a 50-percent-plus-one threshold — a simple majority versus the requirement for something higher.

[4:15 p.m.]

The first point I would make in articulating my concerns around what the government is purporting to do is that it ignores, in my view, the convention that on issues that go to the heart of our democratic institutions, the processes, it is not just logical, but it is advisable that the threshold for change be set a little bit higher. That is certainly true with respect to the constitution itself, and some have argued that threshold is almost out of reach when it comes to affecting change.

This notion that on fundamental matters, foundational principles and instruments require a clearer expression of the public’s will is not unique just to our democratic institutions. Agencies, companies and societies, when purporting to change their foundational documents, generally have a similar requirement and a similar provision.

I would say this. Taken in concert with what has developed around voter participation, if we go back to the 2005 experience, where British Columbians voted, 58 percent of those who voted, voted in favour of the single transferable ballot. But only 61 percent of eligible voters voted.

Now, I get the argument that says if you don’t participate, too bad for you. But it is, in my view, a legitimate question and a legitimate concern to say that…. At a time when voter turnout is hovering around those levels, on something as foundational and fundamental as our electoral system, is it reasonable, responsible or wise to rely on a 50-percent-plus-one simple majority, when in other circumstances we have opted to do something very different?

I see that candidly as an issue with this legislation. I see it as being out of step with the approaches that have been taken in the past. I see it as being out of step with a responsible approach to such a fundamental question as this.

The other thing I am obliged and want to point out is that in our previous experience, recent experience, with electoral reform, we did something else. We recognized the huge geographic diversity of this province. The legislation that we are dealing with today, in my view, ignores that geographic diversity. It ignores the fact that the results of what could derive from this process will visit very differently on people depending on where they live in British Columbia. Yes, I am speaking of those more rural areas.

The geographic challenges that confront those who live in or represent the vast stretches of our province with much smaller population numbers has long been recognized. It is a feature of our electoral laws. Special circumstances. It is the rationale that gives rise to the existence of many constituencies in this chamber. It has been tested by the courts. It is a recognized feature of not just British Columbia, but the Canadian political landscape. The 2005 and 2009 referenda experiences and processes recognized those challenges by incorporating a second tier: a geographic threshold.

Today’s government pointedly, and I believe unwisely, has ignored that second tier of threshold. I believe that it is going to discover how upset, how angered, how frustrated people in those parts of British Columbia feel about their decision to ignore that geographic reality. Nonetheless, they have done so. I can speculate about why that is so.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’d prefer not to use histrionic language like: “They don’t care.” I think there is an agenda at play, and recognizing the rural interests of British Columbia stands in the way of that agenda. That’s disappointing, because if ever there was an exercise that should be above and beyond partisan political interest, it is the issue and the task of designing an electoral system.

I’ve described at some length the experience we’ve had over the last decade or more. We are now confronted by what the NDP, along with their Green allies, are purporting to present to British Columbians. I will say this: in describing, as candidly as I could, what gave rise to the earlier formal consultative exercises in ’05 and ’09, I am obliged to conclude that what we have before us today is born out of political desperation. It is driven by a blatant, partisan political agenda.

Members say that’s shocking. I hope it is. I hope it is shocking. Because the previous exercises were pointedly devoid of that kind of partisanship. This exercise has been designed from the outset to elicit a particular result, and the sooner members….

Interjections.

M. de Jong: It’s really interesting when someone has a different idea about what constitutes a fair and reasonable process. The challenge from the other side is that somehow you are undemocratic or less democratic. I don’t have to take lectures from members on the other side, because I was part of a government that twice went to the people of British Columbia and asked them to express an opinion on this, free of any political interference.

The options….

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I know members opposite don’t like to be compared in this way.

The options presented to British Columbians will derive entirely from a political conversation between the NDP and their allies. The legislation makes it clear.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Look, I know that members are uncomfortable when they are confronted by the fact that the last two times British Columbians were asked to express an opinion on this, the question didn’t come from a caucus room, didn’t come from the cabinet room and didn’t come from whatever room that secretariat operates in. It came from a citizens assembly of non-politicians. I know they’re uncomfortable being confronted by that reality. I understand it. I understand….

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong: I understand that they are uncomfortable being confronted by the realization, the accurate assertion, that the threshold the government has chosen to employ is purposely designed to allow the more populated parts of B.C. to overwhelm the rest of the province. I know they are upset to be confronted by that reality. I can hear them chirping now. I know they are uncomfortable being confronted by the fact that the process this legislation would give rise to is intended to result in a question that is confusing, convoluted and manipulative.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Only a member of the NDP would find a yes-or-no question confusing.

[4:25 p.m.]

Only a member of the NDP would find a yes-or-no question complicated.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Continue, please. Carry on.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Olympic member, from wherever he’s from, is trying to eat into my time, and I’m taking great offence — hardly a podium performance from the member.

I know that members opposite are uncomfortable confronted by the fact and the reality that when they discussed this, when the leader of their party — the now leader of the government, the Premier — was asked directly, he said this would be a straightforward question. This would be an uncomplicated question. This would be a yes-or-no question. He had, at the time he made that answer, a very compelling reason for why that was appropriate.

We have not heard any explanation for why the Premier now believes a complicated ballot with transferable votes, which is deliberately designed to stack the odds against the electoral system we presently have in place, is somehow now an appropriate and advantageous approach to take. I think it represents, unfortunately, an attempt at trickery, and if there was an area where trickery is entirely inappropriate, it would be in designing our political institutions and the processes by which we select people to this chamber.

I haven’t dwelt a lot on the challenges that would arise were we to move to a system of proportional representation. Others have done so. Others, to be fair, have articulated their view for why that is, to their mind, preferable. I respect that debate, but what I reject is the idea that at a societal level, it should take place as part of a skewed and manipulative system that is designed to elicit a particular response.

I have no doubt that members opposite, in the government and the Green Party, are bent to embark upon this change and this process, notwithstanding the flaws that I believe it possesses, notwithstanding the fact that I believe they have chosen to write off the concerns and the historic safeguards that have protected rural and less populated parts of British Columbia. That may well turn out to be one of the legacies of this government. It will be a sad legacy indeed.

British Columbians deserve to consider the questions of electoral reform through an exercise that is fair and free of political manipulation. That is not what this bill and the processes it purports to set in motion will do. It fails on both of those counts. It is unworthy, in my view, of support, and it will not receive my support.

J. Brar: I’m very pleased to rise in this House today to support the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

[4:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I know the member for Abbotsford West is one of the most experienced members in the House. He has raised a number of questions about the bill. I think the right place to raise those questions, as the member knows very well, is in fact the committee stage. I hope the member will raise those questions.

I also understand that the leadership race is on. It’s very important to stand in this House to make comments, keeping in mind that the leadership race of the B.C. Liberal Party is on.

This is a historic act that will significantly change the way we elect our MLAs. This will modernize our democracy, so I support this bill. Members on this side of the House believe that it’s about time. It’s about time for all British Columbians to have a say in the fundamental question, and the question is how we elect our MLAs. That is a very important question and an opportunity that every member of this House should take very seriously. I mean it. It is a serious question.

We have two very clear choices in front of us: stay with the status quo, the first-past-the-post system to elect our MLAs, or change the system with a new and better system we call proportional representation.

The members on the other side don’t want any change, and therefore they want the status quo. We have just heard the member for Abbotsford West making that case in front of us. They believe that the first-past-the-post system is a better system for them to win back power. Their rationale is purely based on greed: to win power. That’s why they don’t care about the people and about what is good for the people of British Columbia. Greed comes in the way, and that is the problem.

It is important to mention here, as well, that the members on the other side were also opposed to the policy which is, I think, one of best policies we have introduced in this House: to ban big money out of politics. Because of the same reasons, those members were opposed to that as well. Big money was good for them to hang on to power, and it was good for their donors. That was the situation. It was a win-win situation for the B.C. Liberals, and it was a lose-lose situation for the people of British Columbia.

On a serious note, the key question we all need to answer, that we all need to ask ourselves is: who should decide this very important question of proportional representation — people or politicians? I think the question….

Interjection.

J. Brar: The member speaking there, listen to my response first.

The answer is very simple. I know that people are listening in front of the camera there too. This is a very important question. We are going to change the system, the way we are going to elect our MLAs, and we are proposing the proportional representation system. The question is: who should decide that — politicians or people? The answer is very simple.

[4:35 p.m.]

We strongly believe, the members on this side, that it is not our responsibility to decide what electoral system is good for the people. We stand by that. The people of British Columbia are fully capable to decide as to what is good for them. That’s why we are introducing this Electoral Reform Referendum Act 2018 — to allow a referendum on proportional representation, no later than November 2018, and let the people of British Columbia decide what system is good for them. Not us — let the people of British Columbia decide what’s good for them.

The referendum will be conducted by mail-in ballot, so it will be easy for the people to participate in the process, with the Chief Electoral Officer overseeing the process.

The member for Abbotsford West just made a case here that under the previous system, this whole process was handed over to the people of British Columbia. He basically questioned the independence of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. This is not going to be done by the government of British Columbia. This is going to be done by an independent officer, and that’s the Chief Electoral Officer of the province.

The threshold will be a simple majority of 50-plus-one, and that will decide the outcome of this referendum. The member from Abbotsford West also questioned that. But they never question…. If you go back five, six, seven elections, they won the elections with less than 50 percent, and they never question that percentage. They formed government based on that. Sometimes they got only 39 percent of the popular vote, and they formed the government.

So 50-plus-one is the threshold, which is globally accepted and has been done by some other jurisdictions as well. If a new voting system is approved, we will introduce legislation in time for the 2021 provincial general election. That will be taken care of so that we can have an election under the new system.

Once again, this is a system which will be decided by the people of British Columbia, not by politicians.

I want to spend a few minutes to make sure that the people who are watching the debate know what is the difference between the old system and the new system. It’s very important for people, for us, to understand the difference between the old system and the proposed system.

The old system, known as the first-past-the-post system, is widely used in Canada. It means that a voter indicates on a ballot the candidate of their choice, and the candidate who receives the most votes in the electoral district wins. So that’s what basically happens under that system.

Proportional representation, also used by many jurisdictions at this point in time, refers to any method of voting that produces a result in which a political party’s share of seats in the legislature represents a share of the popular vote. In other words, if there are two parties in an election, and the total number of seats are 100, and if one party gets 55 percent, and the other party gets 45 percent of the popular vote, the party that gets 55 percent of the vote wins 55 seats out of 100, and the party that gets 45 percent of the vote gets 45 seats in the House.

That’s a broad definition of the system. There could be other definitions as well, which we will debate as we move forward.

It should be noted that under the current system, the first-past-the-post system, many times — as I have said — the party with less than 50 percent of the vote has won the election and formed government.

[4:40 p.m.]

That’s what we are trying to change. That’s what people don’t want to happen again.

Also, in this system, people will fully participate in the process. I must say that switching to proportional representation is a major electoral change in the system. That’s why it’s very important for us to engage the people of British Columbia in this process.

The public process will begin this fall. We will promote active, healthy debate and discussion and provide information on our current voting system and the system of proportional representation to ensure the people of British Columbia are able to make a fully informed decision. The ballot construction will be done once the public has had the opportunity to provide their feedback.

British Columbia has a long history of being actively engaged in changing the electoral system. The 2005 referendum on proportional representation used a citizens’ assembly to examine the issue and put the question to the voters. It is about basic fairness and democratic principles, it’s about modernizing our democracy, and it’s about giving the people of British Columbia the power to decide. That’s what it is.

The referendum will be conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer and will be by mail-in ballot, as I said earlier. This is the same system, the same method we are going to use, that was used in 2011 for the HST referendum. So there’s no difference there. The sky is not going to fall under this system. Our government is going to use a very similar method for the referendum that was used by the B.C. Liberals in the past.

While the voting period and dates for the distribution of the voting package will be determined through regulations, the act requires the close of voting by no later than November 30, 2018.

I would like to conclude this portion of my talk by saying that the people of British Columbia want us to change the process, the way we elect MLAs. This is the opportunity for everyone, the members in this House and also the people of British Columbia, to fully participate in the system to change the system.

I just want to make some comments about what the member made just a few minutes ago. He has raised some questions, interesting questions, about the process of which I have already spoken. He mentioned the citizens’ assembly was an independent body. So is the Chief Electoral Officer. It’s the same thing. It’s a completely independent office. The members on the other side…. If they don’t believe that, that’s their choice.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. Brar: That is a completely independent office.

The member also raised some questions about political interference. That was pretty strange to hear from a member. As I said earlier, he’s a wise member. He’s one of the most senior, experienced members of the House. But he’s talking about his fear of political interference. We have some examples. We have the B.C. Rail corruption case. We know what happened there. We have the ethnic outreach strategy. We know what happened there. So for the member to give us a lecture about political interference…. This is kind of out of character here.

This is a new system, and our AG has done an excellent job. As I said earlier, people want to change the system, which is a new system, and this is going to be done through a referendum. People will have the opportunity, and the members from the other side will have the opportunity, to oppose or support. It’s their choice. It will go to the people, and the people will decide about it.

Having said that, Madame Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity.

[4:45 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of this bill, the Electoral Reform Referendum Act. This bill outlines the basic process through which British Columbians will be asked whether they support switching to a system based on proportional representation.

We’ve heard from members of the official opposition that these democratic reform bills that have been brought forward in this session and that this government is introducing are all about power — that everything is about achieving or maintaining a tight grip on power. This mentality that everything we do in this place is all about power is exactly what is wrong with our politics today. It’s fostered by a first-past-the-post system that is built on a winner-take-all system, with few incentives for parties to work together.

In our current system, the norm is that parties gain absolute power over this place with the ability to push through their policy agenda without any support outside their ranks. They often get this with just 40 percent or less of the popular vote. This has many negative consequences. It undermines public trust in the government. If elected representatives don’t even trust each other, and see each other’s every move as grasping for power, how can members of the public trust us? How can the public trust that we are acting with their best interests at heart?

It also makes collaboration across party lines all but impossible. Parties in this place don’t work together. Even issues that should be able to be decisively dealt with get caught up in politics. Rare instances of collaboration on important issues are an exception to business-as-usual in this place. Politics often trumps sound, evidence-based decision-making.

My colleagues and I have said many times that we believe that politics need to be done differently in this province. That does not mean to be done by sound bite. We’re not saying it because it sounds good. In my view, we must do politics differently if we are going to tackle emerging, complex issues across British Columbia. We need a government that is capable of leading and taking on challenges proactively, not one that is forced to chase polls.

I think that what we have seen with the politics of ride-sharing is a particularly good example of the challenges that first-past-the-post embeds in our politics. Instead of all parties coming together to figure out how we can embrace change, while managing the impacts it will have on existing structures and existing industries, we ignore them or, worse, allow them to get caught up in political brinksmanship. Ride-sharing has been around in some North American jurisdictions for over seven years. Yet here we struggle to even get it debated in our House. We must be open to more collaboration and finding new ways for parties to work together to advance these issues.

My concern with this is not restricted to ride-sharing. I actually look forward to working with my colleagues to craft a solution that will work for British Columbia. No, my concern is that our politics seem to put up barriers in places that prevent us from tackling issues that change the status quo. This issue should be a central concern of all of us legislators.

One doesn’t need to look far to see how climate change, technology change and a changing global economy, to just name a few, will force us to confront all manner of challenging policy changes. Rather than being guided by political self-interest, we need to be looking at making decisions based on good, sound public policy.

To bring this issue back to the example of ride-sharing, as we in B.C. finally start to look at what a regulatory environment for this new business model may look like, other jurisdictions across this continent are starting to look at automation. Let that sink in. B.C. is at risk of being an entire technological change behind.

[4:50 p.m.]

This is unacceptable, and we must do better than this. I want to have a system that incentivizes members on all sides of this chamber to lean in and work together to craft legislation that will work in the best interests of all British Columbians.

Once again, to take up my example, automation will affect communities across the province in different ways. I want to hear from MLAs from Prince George or Fort St. John about how automation will affect their communities. We lose so much when our Legislature doesn’t provide space for these substantive conversations.

This is why I, personally, am so supportive of proportional representation, and why I’m supportive of this bill. We need to modernize our electoral system and move to a system that incentivizes and creates structures for political parties to work together. This starts with ensuring that the allocation of seats in the House better matches what voters voted for. We have seen the result of the solidified two-party system — divisive politics, distilled into good versus evil, political discourse that serves political parties and special interests and sweet nothing for the rest of the province.

What we have seen over the past 50 or 60 years in this province is politics serving politicians. As a result, we have political calculations — like I highlighted earlier with ride-sharing — determining the course of action, closing doors on opportunity, blocking capital at our borders because of big dam pet projects, and it goes on.

What we have seen over the past decades, as politicians in this place have been locked inside these big stone blocks — locked in the theatre, which is seemingly acceptable to everyone here as part of the pomp, ceremony and ritual of our system of government, shrugged off as a necessary part of the facade of governance — is that this system has only served the status quo, and new ideas, creativity and innovation have been muted and unwelcome.

It is time to break up this hegemony and free up the 87 representatives from the 87 ridings to get to work developing good public policy. Changing to proportional representation is about ensuring that all regions of our province are better represented and that people are incentivized to vote for what they want rather than against what they don’t.

Ultimately this choice, this change to our electoral system, rests with British Columbians. The government has committed to an extended engagement period so British Columbians can provide their input into what the process and the question should look like. I look forward to seeing more information about what this process will look like and engaging in discussion in the weeks and months ahead.

As I’ve sat in this place over the past number of days, or at least number of hours, and listened to the debate that’s gone on about this bill, I’ve heard some things that are really quite stretching, I think, some imaginations. As an example, it was pointed out that it’s hard to argue that every vote does not count in our current system.

Well, I happen to represent a party that received 17 percent of the vote and three seats. But if you took a look and we had some type of proportional system, our party would be represented by, rounding up, 15 seats, rounding down, 14 seats.

This might quiet some of the complaints that “members with three seats have so much power,” or we’re either “the green tail wagging the orange dog” or we’re “the junior partner.” I’m not sure. At some point the members of the official opposition will figure exactly which analogy they’re going to choose to use. Either we are the weak member in a strong partnership or a strong partner in a weak partnership. At some point, when there’s some leadership there, they will get that sorted out.

The reality of it is that the number of votes, the percentage of votes that the B.C. Green Party received in the last election is far greater than the number of seats that we are represented by in this…. And it would mute some of the complaints that, in fact, only three seats are wagging a dog or tailing a — whatever it is.

[4:55 p.m.]

I think that it’s important to note that as we have…. This proportional representation, this opportunity for British Columbians to vote on a referendum…. What they’re seeing in this minority government that currently exists is that there is an opportunity for us to break down those barriers. And while we haven’t been entirely successful with all members of this place…. That is going to require more work, and it’s work that I, personally, am committed to doing.

There should be a growing confidence in this government as every day passes and as communication increases and as we see public policy being developed in this province in a collaborative way, a way in which members of the government and members of the Greens…. Members are talking to one another, having discussions about one another, not surprising members of this place with legislation that was crafted in the morning and asking whether or not they’ll support it later in the afternoon.

I think that it’s important to point out that there should be a great deal of confidence in this government. We as Greens, as partners in a confidence and supply agreement, have committed right from day one this summer that we were going to be working with a government for a full mandate, because that is the mandate that the people of British Columbia gave all of the members of this place, all 87 members of this place, to work through…

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Peace River.

…an entire term, an entire mandate, given by the people.

I just wanted to close off with those comments and to reiterate that I will be supporting this. This is an initiative that the B.C. Greens have supported since our inception — to have every vote on election day reflected properly in the House, following that election.

L. Larson: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. This bill aims to influence the very foundation of our democracy in British Columbia, something that should not happen without proper debate and great consideration for the potentially unintended consequences.

Voting in British Columbia — or Canada, for that matter — wasn’t always as simple as it is now, nor was it always seen as a guaranteed right. At one time, participating in the democratic process was reserved for the elite and the affluent. Today any Canadian citizen who is 18 or older on election day has the opportunity to participate in our democratic process, a process which was built upon the idea that every voter has equal say in how they choose their government, one where they are able to listen to and choose a candidate and party that matches their ideals and know that their vote is going towards that candidate.

With that being said, I have some serious concerns over the proportional system that is being proposed through referendum for British Columbia. I’m sure many of you find this proportional representation bill a bit confusing or complicated. It is. It’s not a simple question but a multifaceted approach to electing representation to a central government. It is not area-specific but groups voters into larger districts where your representative does not necessarily live anywhere close to your community.

As it is not riding-specific either, it also means that rural British Columbia is no longer guaranteed local representation, as it will take all the provincial votes under one umbrella, with the numbers in the Lower Mainland vastly outnumbering the votes from rural B.C. One person will be elected for each region and another appointed.

This is concerning, because rural B.C. has needs and concerns that aren’t like any other part of the province. My riding of Boundary-Similkameen has 17 distinct communities. Seven are incorporated, only one of them with a population of 5,000 people. The others range in size from 500 to 5,000. There are two regional districts and three school districts.

[5:00 p.m.]

Over the last four years, I have, as the MLA, spent a lot of time in all of my communities. I have attended their events. I have advocated personally for funding for their infrastructure projects and also for arts, culture and sport, so that even the smallest community was better able to provide activities and facilities to create healthier environments for their citizens.

I have been there with them through fires and floods and experienced their struggles to recover. I live in one of the small communities in the middle of my riding. They know who their MLA is. There are forestry and agriculture in the Boundary, the eastern end of the riding. Trade negotiations affect their ability to make a living — and create uncertainty. The centre of the riding is mostly agriculture, in tree fruits and vineyards. Both have thrived under the Liberal government, and farming has become a way to make a living and support a family. The western portions of the riding, up to Manning Park, are dependent on mining as well as forestry and agriculture.

Proportional representation will make it extremely difficult for the concerns of my communities to be heard in Victoria. The instability and unpredictability of the current government’s partnership has already trickled down to the people of the Boundary-Similkameen, creating economic uncertainty. Those that best understand the needs of any given community live and interact with the community and its people rather than simply looking at data alone and making decisions for them.

The proportional representation ballot being proposed for the next provincial election is a ranked ballot. It is possible that none of your choices will make it into government if you live in rural B.C. The voters in the more urban centres will not know who your local people are and therefore will vote for those names and people who represent the issues of their urban centres. For my riding, an urban centre is Penticton or Kelowna, both with populations far exceeding the population of my entire riding. Even now we affectionately refer to those communities as the black holes that take all provincial and regional services and funding away from the small communities.

To that end, I find these changes very concerning. Our democratic process is meant to ensure that the needs of all British Columbians are represented, not just the needs of the more populous areas. The proportional representation system that the NDP plan on introducing will systematically erase representation from a large portion of rural B.C. and force voters to enter into elections not clearly understanding what their representation could look like.

Once voting is completed, one MLA will be elected under the new region, and from all of the people randomly elected, one more person will be appointed to represent our area in Victoria. While each current riding will have a locally nominated MLA, there is no guarantee of that person being elected by the voters in the broader regions created.

It means the people of Boundary-Similkameen, who are spread over a large geographical area in 17 distinct communities, could possibly not have a local representative. That is just in my riding. Other ridings in rural British Columbia have just as many, if not more, small communities.

My riding is uniquely linked by its people, who make their living in agriculture, forestry and mining. It will be broken up and mixed into much larger populated areas in the newly created regions system. When you mix in greater areas, communities and industries, the needs of the newly created region….

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, the Government House Leader seeks the floor.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I note that the estimates of the Ministry of Finance are now finished. So I would call, in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Member, please proceed.

L. Larson: When you mix in greater areas, communities and industries, the needs of the newly created region as a whole will supersede the needs of small, local populations, and the ability to bring those needs forward will diminish.

[5:05 p.m.]

By pooling needs and creating even greater regions for MLAs to represent, you reduce government’s ability to respond effectively, to address unique business and community issues in any of the smaller rural communities. The system the NDP aim to introduce will result in a system that will effectively force voters to blindly elect a candidate instead of encouraging a system where voters choose a person to represent them based on the recognition and needs of the community by that candidate.

People deserve to know who they’re voting for and should not be required to throw votes into a pool, hoping that they will be represented by someone who, at the least, has some semblance of knowledge of their local communities. As I have said before, the changes that the NDP and Green Party aim to introduce are complicated. It is extremely important that all residents of British Columbia are properly informed of the implications of a proportional representation system of government, including its history within the province. This referendum has failed twice before in British Columbia as the voters in B.C. recognize the unfairness of this type of system and its fundamental inability to adequately represent their needs in Victoria.

Currently the people of rural B.C. choose someone to represent them based on similar beliefs in what they agree on are the best ways to socially and economically represent their communities — someone who lives in their area and understands the challenges of rural life. However, their beliefs, values and community identity are lost when this proposed system puts everyone in the same pot.

Equality isn’t simply giving everyone the same thing. You need to recognize the needs of each community and raise them up so that everyone is level, not simply hand out the same cookie-cutter solution to everyone and hope that it will work.

Proportional representation is a system that encourages a large number of smaller parties and promotes coalition governments, forcing partners with potentially conflicting views to join together just so they can maintain power, as demonstrated by our current coalition government. This introduces an additional layer of unpredictability by forcing voters to roll the dice on who their party pairs with, never really giving them a clear picture of the party that they are voting for, which ultimately diminishes the value of their vote. It puts the decision-making for the entire province in the hands of less than 20 percent of the voters, as we are currently witnessing.

The difference here is, under our current system, voters choose apples or oranges. With the proposed proportional representation system, they’ll be forced to take the whole basket of fruit. PR systems bring with them a certain level of instability due to the need to accommodate the inevitable influx of political parties. In recent months, this government has already been able to chase away the odd investment, and we are on the brink of receiving a credit downgrade. To add insult to injury, the proposed system will likely result in a minority and coalition government, which will, in turn, produce more instability for voters and investors.

We aren’t entering into an infallible electoral system. We have already seen that proportional representation systems have unequivocally failed in other jurisdictions. While some of these countries have been able to maintain day-to-day operations, despite the problems that this system introduces, major decisions on major legislation or policy are generally held at a stalemate and often produce inconsistent policies. As proportional representation encourages a multitude of parties to form coalitions, conflicting interests and ideals will likely hamstring government, preventing any major decision to be made quickly and efficiently in times of major crisis.

Using Belgium’s 2010-2011 government as an example, they took 589 days to form government as multiple parties were unable to agree on a coalition. During that time, major decisions on the European debt crisis and migration were delayed by over a year.

[5:10 p.m.]

Thankfully, British Columbia is not currently facing anything like Belgium was in 2010. But the possibility of having to push back important decisions that have massive impacts on the lives of British Columbians simply because a government coalition needs to appease their partners is shortsighted and not something worth risking.

In order to maintain power in coalition governments, deals are often made behind closed doors, reducing government transparency and eroding voter confidence. Under this system, small parties will be able to hold larger parties at ransom to gain their support — a situation we are witnessing with the current Green and NDP coalition. So a group representing a very small percentage of the electorate have a disproportionate amount of power.

Proportional representation, while legitimizing smaller parties that are representative of solid citizen groups, also opens the door for extreme or fringe parties from far-right or far-left wings of political ideology. In other parts of the world, the very basis of democratic government is being undermined. Basic democracy is being chipped away by small extremist groups. There are many small groups that historically have organized enough and gained enough support to actually win seats in a proportional representation system. They are generally radically opposed to any form of democracy but are able to gain a public voice through this system and legitimize their narrow views.

The Rhinoceros Party would be an example. They were a politically registered party in Canada from the 1960s to the 1990s. Operating within the tradition of political satire, their basic credo was a promise “to keep none of their promises.” Their first leader was Cornelius the First, a rhinoceros from the Granby Zoo, east of Montreal. The rhino was chosen because they deemed politicians to be “thick-skinned, slow-moving, dim-witted and can move fast as hell when in danger.” I refer to this party just to demonstrate the possibility that such obscure groups can actually gain legal status as a party in B.C. under proportional representation.

The changes to Bill 5 that reduced the required numbers of elected individuals to be legally recognized as a political party in B.C…. It has been dropped to two from four, opening the door for anyone to form a party and be funded by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

If you desire a more grounded example, we need only to look at Germany. Their far-right political party, Alternative for Germany, or AfD, has many supporters who have advocated for the return of Nazism and have demonstrated Islamophobic and anti-Semitic tendencies. This year the Alternative for Germany party won 12.6 percent of the vote — thanks due, in part, to proportional representation.

I also have concerns over what the question or questions will be on the mail-out ballot and who will formulate the questions. This should be part of a public forum or conversation prior to the ballot in order for the questions to be formulated in a non-partisan way. This time around, the NDP have taken it upon themselves to draft the question for the ballot behind closed doors and without public consultation.

I have grave concerns about the question being anything other than a simple yes or no, as has been promised by the Premier. As the Premier has not kept his promises on any other issues, it is cold comfort to believe him this time — a stark contrast from the processes of 2005 and 2009 to bring proportional representation to British Columbia.

In 2005, a Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was set up to assess models for electing MLAs and issued a report, recommending whether the current model for elections should be retained or another model should be adopted. There was a referendum in conjunction with the 2005 general election, with a minimum of 60 percent approval required and a simple majority in 48 of the 79 electoral districts. Government was responsible for promoting awareness and understanding of the two electoral systems on the ballot, first-past-the-post and BCSTV.

[5:15 p.m.]

Again in 2009, a second provincewide referendum on electoral reform was held and failed. Government split $1 million in funding between proponents of the two systems. Interested eligible organizations or groups could apply for funding to support their beliefs on either side of the question.

Again, at least 60 percent of the total popular vote provincewide and more than 50 percent of the votes in at least 51 of the province’s 85 electoral districts would be required to approve either system. The single transferable vote again failed by even wider margins than in 2005.

The proposal to have a 50-percent-plus-one approval rating on this new referendum will further separate the urban and rural centres, as the population of the Lower Mainland exceeds the population of all of the rest of the province.

However, even in the face of these costly failures, the NDP have still pressed onward to once again push an idea that will only lead to instability in British Columbia. The only reason we are once again faced with another costly referendum is because the support of the Greens for the NDP government is based on this referendum happening.

Our current system allows for the people to decide who in B.C. to choose to represent them, based on a set of party principles and policies that they believe in. It is what is best for the majority, and it is the democratic government that has given the province of British Columbia economic stability and growth.

The proportional representation in countries such as Belgium, Netherlands, Spain and Italy has virtually ground their economies to a halt. A significant contributing factor to this power struggle occurs when multiple parties are all vying for power without compromising and working together — something that the Greens would have us believe is possible under proportional representation.

To believe that everyone, regardless of their personal and political beliefs, will come together and hold hands is incredibly naive and idealistic. There is more than one party in British Columbia because there are different views and ideas represented — views that people are passionate about and live by and do not compromise. When you put all of these variables into a single pot, you do not get unity. You get chaos, where no one party is able to come out on top without having to compromise core values and accommodate smaller, potentially politically extreme, parties.

In our current democratic system of government in British Columbia, other politically minded groups can become active. They can run candidates in a provincial election under a banner of their own choosing and, if they gain two seats, can become a recognized party in British Columbia. The opportunity already exists for differing views to have a say in our government and participate in policy-making decisions if enough people support their mandates. The people get to decide who they want to represent them.

I believe we already have one of the best democratic systems of government of any jurisdiction, and I will not be supporting this bill.

M. Bernier: It’s just apparent, looking around the room, that the government does not appear to allow this House to have quorum. I don’t think we can continue at this time until they’ve achieved quorum in the House, under standing orders.

Deputy Speaker: Point well taken. There are not sufficient members on the floor.

[5:20 p.m.]

Member, please proceed.

E. Ross: On May 9 of this year, my life took a new course. Quite literally. The provincial election changed the lives of everyone in British Columbia, but for me, personally, the people of the electoral district known as Skeena chose me to represent them here in Victoria.

A little over 13,000 people cast votes, ballots, and 6,772 people voted for me, the B.C. Liberal candidate. As I’m a new member of the Legislative Assembly, I had to quickly learn the job of representing Skeena, a constituency that spans over 23,000 square kilometres with a culturally diverse population of almost 32,000 people.

In order to be an effective elected representative, I quickly made a conscious decision to represent everyone in Skeena, not just the ones who voted for me. That means putting aside my own opinions, putting aside my own party affiliation and, instead, putting the interests of Skeena first.

Once I made that decision, my new role as a lawmaker became clear. My primary task of an MLA is to help to shape the laws that govern our province on behalf of those who elected me. A job is to review the legislation, debate its legitimacy and vote either in favour or against, based on whether or not it’s good or not for the province.

I also learned that the role of the official opposition isn’t simply to say no to government legislation at every turn. Every piece of the legislation that passes through this House has to be in the best interests of British Columbia, or it gets tossed aside. We wouldn’t be doing our job as elected representatives properly if we were to allow a distinctly flawed piece of legislation to become the law of the land, and Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum Act, is distinctly flawed.

It is flawed because at its core, this bill is hollow and devoid of any real substance on electoral reform. Instead, this legislation is the product of a hasty and ill-thought-out process. But before I even touch on the substance of electoral reform or even the topic of proportional representation, I want to draw your attention to the fact that this bill was born out of a hastily arranged agreement between two political parties in this Legislature, more commonly known as the NDP and Green Party coalition.

The confidence and supply agreement was signed on May 30, just 21 days following the provincial election. For those who haven’t examined that document in any great detail, I would draw your attention to section 3, entitled “Policy Initiatives.” Part (b) spells out how a New Democratic Party and Green Party government would hold a referendum on something called proportional representation.

The fact that both partners had to bicker over whether or not to hold the referendum in the first place is quite telling. According to the leader of the Green Party, there was no need for a referendum at all. On May 10, just one day after the provincial election, the Green Party leader declared on Global News: “In our platform, we said we would introduce proportional representation, and if we were to have a referendum, it would be after the fact.”

I’m not quite sure what the purpose of holding a referendum after the fact would be. It’s kind of like finishing your meal at a restaurant and then telling the waiter you’ve changed your mind about the order. But a mere 12 days before the Green Party tied themselves to the NDP, the leader of the Green Party stated quite clearly his position again during an interview with Canadian Press. “Our position had been that we would bring in proportional representation without a referendum, but we would be open to discussing a referendum afterwards.” That’s less than two weeks before the Green Party signed on with the NDP.

[5:25 p.m.]

So I want to ask: what convinced the Green Party leader to abandon his principles and drop his campaign promises? We know what the answer is. It was a self-serving political manoeuvre between two parties to assume power at any cost. Specifically, the NDP and the Green Party signed an agreement stating the following: “A referendum on proportional representation will take place in the fall of 2018, concurrent with the next municipal election, and the form of proportional representation approved in the referendum will be enacted for the next provincial election.”

This is precisely what the confidence and the supply agreement says, and it was signed less than five months ago. Not only has the government flip-flopped on holding a referendum in conjunction with the municipal elections, it is not going to be automatically held before the next provincial election, unless the Green Party agreed to support the NDP until July 1, 2021. If the NDP is defeated on a confidence motion before that date, then the whole deal is off.

What this bill represents to the Green Party is a carrot on a stick, and that’s part of why this bill is fundamentally flawed. This piece of legislation is not designed to serve the interests of British Columbians. It is aimed directly at preserving a power-sharing agreement between the NDP the Green Party. In other words, the NDP is telling the Green Party that you have to get into bed and stay in bed for at least the next 4½ years.

This bill is also hollow because it doesn’t even contain a hint of what the referendum question would be or how proportional representation would redraw the political map of the province. What this bill does set forth is an empty process with details to be determined sometime in the future by the NDP and the Green Party behind closed doors.

As an elected representative and as a lawmaker for this province, I find that unacceptable. We have a minority government desperate to cling on to power that answers only to the Green Party. Instead of holding a proper vote that would change our entire democratic system, the matter will be determined through a mail-in ballot. The government wants to bring B.C.’s democratic institution into the 21st century using snail mail.

Sometime next fall you’re going to be at work, hopefully, and the government is going to slip an envelope through your door. Along with all of the other junk mail and flyers, there will be an envelope asking you to rig the next election in favour of the NDP and the Green Party. That is unacceptable.

If there is one thing that unites an opposition party around a certain issue, it is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. When it relates to our democratic institutions, the people of British Columbia will suffer no fools. The NDP and the Green Party should not estimate the will of the people, because British Columbians will not tolerate political interference with their democratic rights. I assure you that there are people gathering around this province who are deeply opposed to this affront to our democratic system.

To be sure, the B.C. Liberal Party and myself are not opposed to electoral reform. Anything that would increase voter turnout or encourage more public engagement is worth considering. In fact, it was the B.C. Liberal Party that held two referendums on proportional representation, one in 2005 and one in 2009. But the B.C. Liberals, in both cases, did not determine the outcome. We instead turned the process over to the people.

In order to ensure transparency and boost public input, the referendum question was determined by the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. It was comprised of 161 citizens selected at random, with two people coming from each of the province’s electoral districts. There were also two Aboriginal representatives and a chair of the citizens’ assembly.

These were not politicians with vested interests. We are talking about ordinary citizens. That is another aspect which makes this legislation so deeply flawed. Rather than ask people for their opinion, the referendum question will ultimately be determined by the NDP cabinet, no doubt with the approval of the Green Party — all of this behind closed doors. What kind of democratic reform is that?

[5:30 p.m.]

Another major concern is that the government will take an active part in campaigning. That means it will have unlimited access to public funds to determine the outcome of the referendum itself. That is something that the B.C. Liberals did not do. In order to remain aboveboard, the Liberal government did not try to tilt the outcome. Instead, proponents and opponents each had access to a total of $500,000 in public funding. There was an equal amount given to a neutral public information campaign so that each British Columbian could make up their own mind without government interference. Now, this is the proper approach to electoral reform. Let the people decide, not government.

But that is exactly what this bill represents: a deeply flawed attempt to hijack the democratic process. Why else would the NDP and Green Party actively campaign for change unless it served their own political interests?

Overseeing the process of engaging the public and crafting the referendum will be none other than the Attorney General himself. He is supposedly going act as independent official and refrain from engaging in debate.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Attorney General finds it necessary to recuse himself from any cabinet or caucus discussion regarding the referendum. That’s because the whole question of democratic reform will take place behind the closed doors of cabinet. The neutrality comes a little late in the day.

As columnist Vaughn Palmer recently pointed out, instead of a simple yes-or-no question, something that most voters could clearly understand, the referendum question will now ask voters to rank a bunch of different alternatives. How are voters supposed to know the difference between, for example, a single transferrable vote system and mixed-member proportional representation? And even if the average voter does know the difference, how are they supposed to rank them in order of preference?

I’m going to try to do my best to describe what proportional representation is and how it would change the electoral map in British Columbia. Proportional representation is a system in which parties gain seats in proportion to the numbers of votes cast. Put simply, if 60 percent of voters vote for a political party, they would control 60 percent of the votes in the legislature. In order to achieve this, our government system of electing a representative from each constituency would be eliminated, along with local representation.

It would do away with the single-member constituencies that we currently have. For example, the people of my riding of Skeena would no longer elect a representative. Their votes would be cast in a pool instead.

If there were ten parties, the legislature would be based on the number of votes cast for each party. Proponents of proportional representation claim it’s better because each vote somehow counts even more.

In actual fact, proportional representation tends to favour smaller parties. For example, if ten parties compete in an election and the party that gets the least votes achieves the support of 10 percent of the voters, they represent 10 percent of the legislature. However, opponents of proportional representation argue that this system tends to lead to gridlock.

Last September a well-known commentator, Bill Tieleman, penned an opinion piece that was rather blunt: “The Greens’ blocking of NDP promises is a very troubling example of how a proportional representation electoral system would work if adopted by referendum next year. That’s because proportional representation practically guarantees no party will ever be able to form a majority, leaving every government dependent on small parties, like the Greens, to retain power.”

If you’re a member of a small party — for example, the Vancouver Island Party, which seeks independence from the rest of the province of British Columbia — you stand a much better chance of getting elected under proportional representation. And many of these new political players would represent single issues — like the Marijuana Party, for example — and not much more than that.

This is rather concerning, because proportional representation could give rise to small parties that have little interest in serving the general public, aside from their own narrow interests.

[5:35 p.m.]

From a rural and northern perspective, the loss of regional representation would have devastating consequences. There would be no longer a representative from Skeena, Peace River North or Prince George–Valemount. Due to a smaller population, we would be overwhelmed by the voting power of the Lower Mainland. As a matter of fact, Metro Vancouver, with a population of almost 2½ million people, would dictate the composition of the Legislature. They represent more than half of the population and would dominate the number of seats.

This would create a further gap between urban and rural British Columbia. We’ve already seen this in the last election, virtually all of the NDP and Green Party seats are located in the highly populated Metro Vancouver and southern Vancouver Island region. I find it rather ironic, considering it was our current system of government that accommodated the NDP and Green Party coalition in the first place.

I also want to point out another reason why the legislation is deeply flawed. The bill proposes a bare majority of 50-plus-one percent to allow for proportional representation to pass. It completely ignores the needs for regional support.

In the election last May, I ran on the campaign of jobs though economic development. It is the same platform that I have supported ever since I was first elected to my local band council in 2004. Now more than ever, Kitimat needs economic development if the residents want to stay, raise a family and, hopefully, their children to do likewise.

The Nisga’a also want economic development in parallel with the implementation of their treaty. The people of Skeena elected me to advocate for economic development and represent them — not some new political brand elected under proportional representation.

They didn’t elect me to come to Victoria to negotiate deals with other parties in exchange for my values. I understand the need for political parties. But I wouldn’t be serving my riding if I traded in agreement to kill the potential of LNG exports, for example. That’s what proportional representation would bring — single-issue parties funded by foreign interests, all with their own agenda.

This last election, for better or worse, the provincial government ultimately ended up being formed between a minority party and a party that didn’t have official status in the House. In the process of forming government, both the NDP the Green Party compromised their principles and their values. In the process, they left behind all the voters who read and believed their platform promises.

These are voters who took each party at their word. Within weeks of the election, they quickly changed course and betrayed their supporters. Voters weren’t expecting either the NDP or Green Party to compromise their values for the sake power of power. Neither did my supporters. Again, I find it rather ironic that it was the current system that landed the NDP and the Greens coalition in government in the first place.

The B.C. Liberals won the popular vote. That means that more people voted for the B.C. Liberals than any other party. They also won the most seats. To me that means 43 ridings still believe in government exercising fiscal responsibility, 43 ridings still believe in balanced budgets, and 43 ridings still believe that economic development is still a priority for British Columbia. Where will this be under proportional representation, when we know the Lower Mainland has a larger, denser population than rural B.C.?

Proportional representation combined with two-member parties will turn this Legislature into a deal-making arena, with a number of fringe parties waiting to be seduced or courted by other parties who create power. This deal-making, as shown by other countries in Europe who have proportional representation, will make this Legislature dysfunctional and inoperable. We don’t need a made-in-Europe solution.

This type of scenario, to me, can only be described as self-serving and not serving the people of British Columbia. The parties and, by default, this Legislature weren’t meant to serve politicians elected to this House. It was meant to serve all the citizens of British Columbia. Our democratic system serves a vital function. It is to elect a representative government.

[5:40 p.m.]

When voters cast their ballots, they rightly expect a government that serves the interests of British Columbia and its people, not government. The people of British Columbia are not expecting months of deal-making while the province suffers. That is not what I came here to do.

This bill is connected to the rest of the deal-making concocted between the NDP and the Green Party. No one voted for public campaign financing in the last election. Neither the Greens nor the NDP mentioned it in their election platform, but as soon as they got into power, all of a sudden we have taxpayers supporting political parties that they didn’t vote for.

I represent the people of Skeena. They did not vote for a bill that would silence their vote, but that’s exactly what proportional representation would deliver: a government dictated by the majority of the population that lives on the Lower Mainland. That’s not fair to rural and northern British Columbians.

It makes it a worrisome picture to see the Legislature ruled by 20 or so parties, each made up of two members. As I said, the whole process would then boil down to political parties being courted or doing the courting to advance their narrow agendas, regardless of promises made to voters. It is something that should be seriously considered. Not all fringe parties have the interests of a free and democratic country in mind. There are people who can get elected who believe in race superiority or even civil disobedience, based on narrow, short-sighted objectives.

One form of government that’s proposed under proportional representation is that a ruling party will select representatives to ridings. The ruling party will select representatives to ridings; the ridings will not select their own representatives. We aren’t living in Russia. We’re not living in Russia, are we? No. This is Canada.

What form of democracy relies on some ruling elite to dictate which region gets represented? A riding not being able to elect its own representative to Victoria is telling the voters that their votes mean nothing as compared to government’s authority. That’s wrong.

Electoral reform should be left up to the people. It is not the government’s role to decide how an electorate should vote. So on behalf of my constituents of Skeena, I will be voting to retain rural representation. I will be voting to preserve democratic values. I will stand up for northern and rural British Columbia, and that means I will be voting down a deeply flawed piece of legislation like this.

B. D’Eith: Well, before I get started, obviously the continuing dialogue on the other side is fearmongering — and the continued dialogue about the divide between rural and urban, which is a fabrication of the Liberal Party to basically further their own political agenda.

It’s really interesting to hear about this idea that this is somehow going to not help rural B.C. Well, it’s going to help everyone in British Columbia. But it’s really interesting…. When I heard the member for Boundary-Similkameen, it was speculation. There was confusion between the member for Skeena, who said there is no question, and then the member for Boundary-Similkameen, who went on and on about how the question was going to ruin rural B.C.

Well, the fact is that we’re going to have a public consultation on the question. That’s part of the whole…. That’s been ignored by nearly everyone I’ve heard today on the other side.

Anyway, I am speaking in favour of Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. During the provincial election — and the federal election, which I also ran in — proportional representation was an important issue for many people in my community, especially those who felt that their votes were wasted in a first-past-the-post electoral system, which has historically led to two-party hegemony or three-party hegemony in many countries using the first-past-the-post electoral process.

[5:45 p.m.]

When talking, in particular, to the young people in Maple Ridge and Mission, many of them felt disenfranchised — that their vote didn’t matter in a political system that was really set up to maintain the status quo and making the status quo paramount. When I was door-knocking, I heard many people talk about why they don’t vote or why they feel frustrated voting.

They expressed a lack of choices to express their political views. Yes, they could vote for independents or smaller parties, but they knew, in their hearts, that the vote would not result in any change from that which was elected — that the ruling parties would continue, and it would be business as usual.

This means our democracy has not progressed to reflect the growing diversity of opinions in our society as to how we should run our province. From my communications with people in my riding, there is a huge appetite for change in our electoral process. Why should we have a referendum now on proportional representation? We already had two referenda in 2005 and 2009 under the B.C. Liberals.

First, both the B.C. NDP and Green Party included proportional representation in their campaigns. When 57 percent of the voters support those parties in the 2017 election, I think we have a clear mandate to move ahead with this. Second, I believe that the former B.C. government did not really have any real intention of giving B.C.’ers a real option for change with their referenda.

There were two questions. This is interesting, because the member from Abbotsford was saying that there was a small number of random citizens that decided the form. Basically, a small number of people decided on the form of proportional representation that went to referendum. So the question was, basically: “Should British Columbia change” — this is the one in 2005 — “to a BCSTV electoral system, as recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform?” There’s no choice on any other proportional representation, and that’s the key here.

I hear over and over again this idea that there is one kind of proportional representation. Well, there are many forms of proportional representation throughout the world. We propose that there will be a made-in-B.C. form of proportional representation if it succeeds. That was not reflected in the first referendum.

The second referendum came in 2009. It said: “Which electoral system should British Columbia use to elect members in the provincial Legislative Assembly — the existing electoral system first-past-the-post or” — again — “the single transferrable vote electoral system proposed by the citizens’ assembly?” In both cases, as was also said by the member for Abbotsford West, this was a limited possibility that really, first-past-the-post or the kind of proportion of representation that a small group of people decided was in the public interest.

In fact, the public wasn’t actually able to weigh in — the whole public, the whole province — because it wasn’t a yes-no question on proportional representation. It was a question on a specific type of proportional representation.

There were lots of people who didn’t bother to show up. The percentages were…. Only 39 percent voted in favour of the second referendum. But a lot of people I talked to didn’t vote because they felt that the proportional representation system that was being proposed wasn’t the one they wanted. So it was doomed to failure. Quite frankly, I don’t think the B.C. Liberals really had any intention of bringing in any form of proportional representation. It was designed to fail, and it did.

In order to give B.C. residents a real choice, our government believes that it’s time to have a true referendum on changing to a new system to update our electoral system so that every vote counts. Our government introduced the electoral reform referendum in 2018 to allow a referendum on proportional representation to happen no later than November 2018. If a new voting system is approved, we’ll have new legislation in time for the 2021 provincial general election.

The referendum will be conducted by a mail-in ballot with the Chief Electoral Officer overseeing the process. This should be shown to be the most cost-effective. Also, we expect this to result in a lot of responses. Now, the threshold will be a simple majority of 50-percent-plus-one. And 50-percent-plus-one is a majority of voters. It has been used for referenda on electoral reform, notably in P.E.I.’s recent PR referendum in 2016 and in New Zealand in both 1993 and 2011.

Now, unlike what has been erroneously stated by the opposition many times — that there is no public consultation — there will be public engagement on the referendum. The engagement begins this fall in the bill on which voting systems should be on the ballot. And this process will encourage active, healthy debate and discussion and provide information on our current voting system and systems of proportional representation, to ensure that British Columbians are able to make an informed decision.

[5:50 p.m.]

The ballot construction will be determined following this engagement period. There’s been a lot of talk and speculation about what’s on the ballot, and a lot of fearmongering, but the reality is there’s going to be a process, unlike what the opposition is saying.

Now, while this is the form of the referendum in a nutshell, it might be helpful to actually step back and look at another jurisdiction that has not only had successful proportional representation votes but also has run proportional representation elections for over 20 years. Proportional representation has been brought in to Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

It’s important to note that many of these systems are different forms of proportional representation. Again, much of the fearmongering that’s coming from the opposition is in relation to different types of proportional representation.

Now I’d like to look…. In particular, I’d like to focus on New Zealand. New Zealand, like Germany, has a mixed-member proportional representation system and has for years. It’s a system where people cast two ballots, one for a candidate and one for a party. There are 71 first-past-the-post members and 49 list members that are elected.

Recently New Zealand had an election, October 19, 2017, which resulted in a new, stable government headed by a new Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. There was an 80 percent voter turnout and a reduction of the number of parties running to five, the lowest since the 1996 referendum. The population has expressed support for this system on a number of occasions, and it works. The point here is that this idea that proportional representation will inevitably lead to dozens of two-member parties is not necessarily true. I mean, we have an example right here with New Zealand.

I’d like to tell you a little bit more about their experience. It’s really nice, actually. The Ministry for Culture of New Zealand has actually spent a lot of time talking about this on their website and in other areas. I wanted to share an excerpt from an article from them.

“In 1993, New Zealanders voted in a referendum to change their voting system from a traditional first-past-the-post method to mixed-member proportional. This was the most dramatic change in the country’s electoral system since the introduction of women’s suffrage exactly 100 years before.”

I want to touch on that for a sec. What I have heard from members on the other side is: “This system is great. Our system is great.” Well, then why did we…? Back 100 years ago women had to fight for the vote, and our system was changed. Democracy has evolved over time. Quite frankly, many, many countries have seen the wisdom of allowing proportional representation.

Anyway, moving on.

“How and why did this electoral revolution come about? The origins of electoral reform lay in a gradual breakdown of public trust and confidence in politicians, parliament and the simple certainties of the old two-party system. This process began in the 1950s and 1960s and gathered momentum in the ’70s and ’80s, decades marked by economic uncertainty and the emergence of new social and political movements.

“As critics point out, the first-past-the-post system tended to create parliaments quite different in composition than the voters appeared to want.”

This is exactly where we are in British Columbia right now.

“The answer, some argued, was a system of proportional representation in which each party’s share of the seats in parliament would be close to the share of the overall vote.”

Now, in assessing their form of proportional representation:

“As the royal commission and pro-MMP campaigners had predicted, parliament has certainly become more diverse and representative of modern New Zealand society.”

That’s exactly what the intent was.

“Following the 2005 election, there were 39 women, 21 Maori, four Pacific and two Asian MPs among parliament’s 121 members. And 2008 returned 42 women and 31 members of Maori, Pacific and Asian descent.”

The point being that their form of proportional representation resulted in more diversity.

[5:55 p.m.]

“The comparative stability of New Zealand politics since the turn of the 21st century suggests that voters and politicians have largely adapted to life” — under the new system — “taking some of the heat out of the issue. In 2009, the national government announced plans to hold another referendum on the future of” their form of proportional representation.

They held it, and in the 2011 general election:

“This poll resulted in a comfortable win for MMP, with around 57 percent of the voters in favour of retaining the current system. Following the referendum, the electoral commission undertook an independent review. Its report, issued in…2012, recommended several changes, including lowering the threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent. These have not been taken to account.”

The point is, as can be seen, again, with the 2017 election that I just mentioned earlier, New Zealand has been able to bring in proportional representation, live with it for 20 years and make it work. It seems to have created a more balanced and diverse parliament without, I might add, the proliferation of extreme parties, as the fearmongers on the other side of this House seem to suggest, and can be seen as an example of how a new system of proportional representation could work in British Columbia. Of course, we still have to go through a process to see what British Columbians and the public would like to see.

In British Columbia, as in New Zealand, there’s clear interest in exploring proportional representation. So how are we going to do this? There’ll be an extensive engagement with British Columbians, who will provide input on the selection of the question, or questions, about proportional representation on the ballot, unlike what is being suggested on the other side of the House.

British Columbians will also be encouraged to participate in this engagement period by sending submissions to the Attorney General. Concerned groups will include political parties, whether or not they include representation in the House, democratic organizations, political scientists and, of course, everyday British Columbians. It’s important to hold public consultations on this important issue prior to the referendum. That way, we can get the question right and ensure that it reflects the interests of British Columbians.

Now, what’s the role of the government in this? The Attorney General will act as an independent official and refrain from engaging in debate and recuse himself from any cabinet or caucus discussion regarding the referendum. Government staff will provide neutral and factual information so that British Columbians can have their say and participate in a clear and fair vote to decide the future of our democratic process.

In order to ensure integrity in the referendum process, making the Attorney General an independent official is very important. Also, ensuring that the government will provide neutral and factual information to the public will make sure that people can make truly informed decisions without undue influence. Now, are their votes binding? Well, yes, they’re going to be binding. If the vote exceeds a 50-percent-plus-one threshold, yes, they’re going to be binding on the government. If that happens, government must take steps to implement the system in time for the 2021 election.

As far as funding, the act will enable government to provide funding for this purpose but does not require it. The amount of any funding that may be provided and the details of who will be eligible will be established following the engagement process. Government is actually committed to being neutral throughout the process, and therefore, the engagement and awareness campaign will be as well. If funding is available, it would be inappropriate to only provide to advocates for one side of the vote. The government will provide neutral factual information to British Columbians so they can participate in the modern democratic process.

How will this referendum be conducted? The referendum will be conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer and will be by mail-in ballot. This was determined to be an economical and also very effective way of getting as many British Columbians to participate as possible. This was actually the same method that was used for the 2011 HST referendum and the 2015 Metro Vancouver transit plebiscite. So I’m not sure why the members on the other side are so vehemently opposed to the mail-in ballot.

While the voting period and the dates for distribution of the voting package will be determined through regulation, the act requires, of course, that it be no later than November 30, 2018. If proportional representation does pass, it’ll be part of the general election after July 1, 2021. Regardless of the referendum results, any election called before July 1, 2021, would be conducted using the current first-past-the-post system. This is necessary because of the time it would take to change the province’s voting system.

In closing, the idea of proportional representation is not a new one. In fact, the case for proportional representation was made as early as 1861 by John Stuart Mill in his essay, Considerations on Representative Government. I’ll read to you from this because I think it really says it in very clear terms.

[6:00 p.m.]

“In a representative body actually deliberating, the minority must of course be overruled, and in an equal democracy…the majority of the people, through their representatives, will outvote and prevail over the minority of the representatives. But does it follow that the minority should have no representatives at all…? Is it necessary that the minority should not even be heard?

“Nothing but habit and old association can reconcile any reasonable being to the needless injustice. In a really equal democracy, every or any section would be represented, not disproportionately, but proportionately. A majority of the electors would always have a majority of the representatives, but a minority of electors would have a minority of the representatives. Man for man” — of course, nowadays, the equivalent person for person — “they would be as fully represented as the majority.

“Unless they are, there is not equal government….There is a part whose fair and equal share of influence in the representation is withheld from them, contrary to all just government, but above all, contrary to the principle of democracy, which professes equality at its very root and foundation.”

Now, this sets up the entire reason why we are talking about proportional representation. It’s this question, this very question about democracy, that we need to put to the people of British Columbia in a clear way that actually is not worded in a way that is destined for failure, like the last two referenda.

Really, it’s up to the province of British Columbia and the people to decide. Is it time for proportional representation, where every vote will count? Or should we stay with first-past-the-post and maintain the status quo?

I support Bill 6 and look forward to a referendum on the issue of proportional representation in British Columbia so the people of B.C. can vote on a sincere question on whether they would like proportional representation or not.

J. Yap: I rise in the House today to take my place in the debate and speak on Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

I have to say, right off the bat, it’s interesting that we’re going through this exercise once again, when this issue was canvassed thoroughly twice before in British Columbia — in 2005 and 2009, as we’ve heard other colleagues talk about.

It’s alarming how this exercise is being approached this time around by this government. I would argue that the previous methodology, used in the 2005 and 2009 referenda, involved extensive and comprehensive consultation, and that’s precisely what is needed. Because what we’re talking about here is fundamental change to our democratic institutions.

My concern and my constituents’ concerns are that this government and its junior partners are approaching this in the opposite manner. They are prioritizing their own interests, their own benefits and their backroom dealing over true openness and transparency with British Columbians.

Let’s take a look back at how B.C.’s two previous referenda on this issue were carried out. The 2005 referendum was a provincewide vote on whether to retain the existing first-past-the-post electoral system or to change to the BCSTV — single transferable vote — electoral system, as recommended by the non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

That assembly was set up to assess models for electing MLAs and to issue a report on whether B.C. should stick with the current method for elections or adopt another model instead. I want to take a moment to reflect on the fine work done by the assembly. This group, comprised of men and women from all across the province, took this exercise very seriously and were very thorough and thoughtful in their work.

I want to acknowledge the five residents from my community, Richmond, who were a part of it: Brook Bannister, Caroline Fader, Evelyn Krenz, Craig Peterson and Jack Zhang. It was wonderful to see such great local representation on the assembly.

Now, after extensive review, public hearings and public submissions from across the province, the non-partisan citizens’ assembly released a final report recommending a customized version of the single transferable vote, or STV.

[6:05 p.m.]

The Electoral Reform Referendum Act required a referendum to be held in conjunction with the 2005 general election. The threshold needed for the result to be binding in government was a minimum of 60 percent, with a simple majority in 48 of the 79 electoral districts. Voters could cast their ballots in the referendum at any voting opportunity at which they were entitled to vote in the general election. Counting of the referendum ballots occurred on the same days as the counting of the ballots for the election.

Legislation did not establish a role for yes-or-no groups, and no spending limits were in place for referendum advertising sponsors. The electoral reform referendum regulation established that members of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform could be present during referendum voting and counting as observers.

In order to ensure its neutral role in this exercise, Elections B.C. did not provide information regarding the two systems being put before voters. It did ensure that voters had the information they needed regarding the referendum process, but it was up to government to promote awareness and understanding of the two electoral systems.

When it came to the referendum question, voters were asked: should British Columbia change to the BCSTV electoral system, as recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform? With regards to threshold 1 — a requirement that at least 60 percent of valid votes cast voted yes — 57.69 percent did so, which means the threshold was not reached. When it came to threshold 2 — that in at least 48 of 79 electoral districts, more than 50 percent of valid votes cast voted yes — 77 electoral districts voted yes by more than 50 percent, so that threshold was reached. The referendum did not pass, because both thresholds were not reached.

Fast-forward a few years to 2009. There was another provincewide referendum, which was held at the same time as the general election. Government committed to this second referendum in its September 2005 throne speech immediately following the election where electoral reform nearly passed. Voters were given the choice between the current first-past-the-post system or BCSTV.

In this 2009 referendum, government split $1 million in funding amongst the registered proponent and opponent groups. Those groups were British Columbians for BC-STV as the proponent and No STV as the opponent. The Chief Electoral Officer gave each group $435,000 in funding to undertake public information campaigns to support and oppose BCSTV. A few months later, a further $65,000 was provided to each group.

The Attorney General’s office established a referendum information office to provide objective information to voters about electoral systems. I should note that because of concerns about the short implementation period and potential jurisdictional confusion between provincial and municipal electoral events, the province rescheduled the referendum to May 12, 2009 so that it would occur in conjunction with the next provincial election.

The question posed to voters in the referendum was: which electoral system should British Columbia use to elect members to the provincial Legislative Assembly: the existing first-past-the-post system or the single transferable vote electoral system, BCSTV, as proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform?

When it came to threshold 1, which required the votes of at least 60 percent of the validly cast ballots, 39.09 percent of the total valid votes cast voted for BCSTV, so there was no meeting of the threshold there. When it came to threshold 2, which required the votes of more than 50 percent of the validly cast ballots in at least 51, or 60 percent, of the 85 electoral districts, in just eight electoral districts did voters vote for BCSTV by more than 50 percent.

[6:10 p.m.]

Again, the threshold was not reached. The referendum did not pass. That’s two failed referenda.

Yet here we are again with this bill in front of us, apparently readying British Columbians to go through this exercise once again. Bill 6 provides the legislative framework to conduct another referendum, this time in the fall of 2018. British Columbians will be asked yet again whether we should change our electoral system from the current first-past-the-post system to a form of proportional representation, even though they have said twice now that they don’t want it. Maybe that’s because British Columbians do see the problems that proportional representation can cause.

Indeed, there are many negatives to this system. For one, as has been mentioned by colleagues, it can legitimatize extreme or fringe parties from the far right or the far left. It’s worth noting the current political climate, which shows that far-right leaders and political parties are rising in popularity around the world.

France’s far-right leader, Marine Le Pen, won a seat in France’s 2017 general election. In Germany, the far-right party, Alternative for Germany or AfD, received 13 percent of the vote in Germany’s 2017 general election. That was up from 4.6 percent in 2013. This is a party that advocates for a return to Nazism. Not only is it seeing an increase in support; this party will have 94 seats in Germany’s Parliament. The Netherlands is another example. Their four coalition government includes the Christian Union Party, which is an anti-LGBTQ party. So we see how proportional representation can create a platform for fringe parties to spread their extreme ideas and policy proposals to wider audiences of people.

Another big concern around proportional representation is instability. Again, looking at countries in Europe that use this system, we see examples of this. I mentioned the Netherlands. In their 2017 election, it took 208 days before government was formed. I also talked about Germany. The country is likely to go more than 100 days before forming a government. In Belgium, in 2010, it took 589 days before government was formed. That’s a year and a half. Spain went 314 days without a government in 2015, but then no government was formed, and a new election was held just six months later.

I shudder to think about how B.C. would fare if we went this long without a government, especially in light of some of the major events that have required serious action and decision-making, like the opioid crisis or this summer’s devastating wildfire season.

Here’s another figure for you. Italy has had 65 governments in 70 years. The average length of government is 21 months in that country — Italy. This is astounding, and I question whether we want to see these types of outcomes for British Columbians, although I suppose one could make the argument that we already are seeing uncertainty — a lack of strong decision-making and a lack of productivity here in B.C., thanks to the inability of this government to make timely decisions, to delay and dither and review projects that have already been extensively looked at, and also because of the shaky alliance between the NDP and the Greens.

Their relationship is often bumpy and rocky, but I have no doubt they are working together to achieve the desired outcome on this issue because they know — as other colleagues of mine have said — that proportional representation will work in their favour. So while British Columbians have rejected it twice, the NDP and Greens want another kick at the can, and they’re changing the rules to suit their needs.

[6:15 p.m.]

A huge concern that I have is the part of the bill that would see the referendum threshold lowered. A bare majority of 50-percent-plus-one vote is lowering the bar as far as you can possibly lower it. Don’t just ask me. I quote Province columnist Mike Smyth on a recent edition of CKNW’s Jon McComb Show. “The bar is as low as it can possibly go. To me, it’s…. I’m looking at this thing and saying: ‘Wow, this looks like they’re stacking the deck for this thing to pass.’” That was media pundit Mike Smyth.

Meanwhile, lowering the threshold also ignores the need for regional support. It raises the possibility that the large urban centres in our province will dictate the results of the referendum, and that is just not fair. Lowering this threshold for the referendum quite clearly demonstrates a lack of respect for the public.

It also demonstrates the apparent desperation of the NDP and Greens to secure their political alliance. They know they will benefit from a switch to proportional representation, and they’re doing anything they can to increase their chances of the referendum passing. I would argue, instead, that it shouldn’t be this easy to change something as fundamentally important as our voting system.

Moving on, I’d like to address a broken promise made with regards to the referendum question. The now-Premier had promised British Columbians that any referendum question would be a yes-or-no question. Back in May, he told the Vancouver Sun’s Rob Shaw, another media pundit: “You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no.” When Shaw clarified, “So you give them one system to vote on?” his response was: “Yeah, exactly.”

But instead of a simple yes-or-no ballot for PR — or proportional representation — voters will have to choose between multiple PR options against the current system of first-past-the-post. So there is yet another broken promise by this NDP government.

It’s worth noting that a first-past-the-post victory is not favourable under a ranked ballot vote, which is what is being proposed. Voters who choose first-past-the-post as their first choice will have to choose between multiple systems of proportional representation for their second and third choices. What it means is that if first-past-the-post doesn’t win on the first ballot, a victory for first-past-the-post is unlikely.

Furthermore, with regards to the referendum question, this bill ultimately ensures that it will be decided by an NDP cabinet behind closed doors. I quote another media pundit, reporter Keith Baldrey, from his regular column in the North Shore News. “The NDP says it will conduct a round of public consultation before deciding on the referendum question, but you have to wonder whether it’s already been written.” You couldn’t blame anyone for thinking that, given the myriad ways the NDP is working to arrange this so that the results are in their favour and in the Greens’ favour.

I’m also curious to see how the public engagement process is rolled out, given the concerns I’ve expressed earlier about the need for input from all corners of the province. We’ll surely be keeping an eye on that. It’s imperative that the public be fully aware of what they will be voting for in 2018, and what it means for them. They should have complete clarity.

Speaking of clarity, I want to shed some light on some of the strengths of our current first-past-the-post system, one of which is that it is simple to use and simple for people to understand. It presents voters with clear choices between the main political parties.

I would argue it offers more stability, because majority governments are often produced of whichever party from the political spectrum, and also because it produces strong oppositions, who have a key role to play in keeping the government in check.

[6:20 p.m.]

It excludes — and this is the important part — extremist or fringe parties from representation, which I touched on earlier. It places an emphasis on strong individual candidates, and popular independent candidates can be elected without a political party.

It promotes strong links between constituents and their representatives, something I know all members of this House, from both sides, value — that constituents know who their representative is, they know who their MLA is, and the MLA represents them to the best of his or her ability and advocates for them.

Often what we see in a PR system is representatives who are selected from party lists rather than involving the local community. If we applied that in B.C., it could mean, for example, that an MLA could live thousands of miles away without the local knowledge that makes us effective representatives for our constituents.

As a longtime MLA and local resident, I know my riding of Richmond-Steveston, not to mention the important issues facing the larger Richmond community. So instead of having a representative with that vital local knowledge and good local contacts, voters would face the prospect of casting ballots for candidates selected by party executives or other party insiders, candidates who don’t know the issues, who don’t know the people in the community with whom they can work together to resolve challenges. Is that what British Columbians would prefer? I seriously doubt that.

What’s more, the system often produces coalition governments that lead to legislative gridlock and inconsistent policies. It can also lead to a lack of accountability for parties and politicians to keep their platform promises. You might see a horse trading of platform promises during the post-election transition period. And voters may be unable to enforce accountability by throwing a party out of power or even a particular candidate out of power.

Those are just some of the disadvantages of proportional representation. I think British Columbians have recognized these disadvantages, as reflected in the two failed referenda on the electoral reform that I talked about earlier. I think they will come to see, as we do on this side of the House, this this whole thing is simply an exercise to benefit the NDP and the Greens.

Given the huge importance of this bill and how much it will affect British Columbians and democracy in our province, I know our caucus, on this side of the House, will be thoroughly examining and debating this bill so that we can ensure the public is fully aware of what’s in front of them in 2018.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. [Applause.]

A. Weaver: Thank you for the warm welcome from my friends to the left of me here.

I rise to take my place in the debate in support of Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum Act. This bill, as we know, sets up a framework for a referendum on changing our electoral system to one based on some form of proportional representation.

I’ve been listening for quite some time, downstairs and now up here in the chamber, to members opposite raise their concerns about this debate. And it’s quite remarkable, when you listen to some of the concerns, how they’re grounded in fear, grounded in alt-facts.

What’s even more remarkable is…. Let me take you to the throne speech — the throne speech that was read here in the Legislature on June 22, 2017. This is what the throne speech said.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Chilliwack-Kent just heckled me and said: “Old news.” I’ll come to what you spoke to, hon. Member, in response to this throne speech shortly.

[6:25 p.m.]

This is what the throne speech said:

“The results that British Columbians delivered in the May election require cooperation. Your government is committed to working with all parties in the Legislature. Following referenda in 2005 and 2009, there remains a desire by many members in this place to revisit electoral reform.

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

“It is vital that any referendum reflects the views of British Columbians, not just its political parties. Additionally, your government will work with other parties to strengthen lobbyist legislation and regulations.”

I look forward to hearing them speak against that one as well.

“Members, we gather for the first time since British Columbians sent you here following an unprecedented outcome in the May election. British Columbians want a stable government, and in sending us this result, they expect us to listen and find a way to work together. They expect us to collaborate, while respecting the dignity, rules and traditions that govern our constitutional monarchy, our democracy and this Legislature.”

Quite remarkable. Quite remarkable that this was part of the B.C. Liberal throne speech on June 22, 2017. What’s even more remarkable is listening to members now speak and compare it to what members said back in June of 2017. We just heard the member for Richmond-Steveston stand here before us and tell us how profoundly troubling he thinks this proposed referendum is. He’s aggrieved by this affront to democracy, which is being put forward by government as part of some kind of conspiracy theory in collaboration with the B.C. Greens.

Well, let’s just have a look at what the member for Richmond-Steveston said in his response to the throne speech on June 28. It says this. I’m quoting directly from Hansard. Hansard, you can go back and cut and paste here, as you listen to this.

“Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized in recent years. We held referendums” — note grammatically incorrect; “referenda” is the correct thing — “on electoral reform in 2005 and 2009 — both times of particular importance to me because I was either a candidate or seeking re-election as a member of this assembly.

“The discussion around electoral system is a key facet of our democracy, and renewing a healthy debate on our system is important. That’s why we have committed to a third referendum on electoral reform.”

I can’t make this stuff up. But there’s more. Let’s come to the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who just heckled me a few minutes ago, and see what he had to say. What did he have say? Well, he said this: “We said that the people of British Columbia will decide that question, and we will provide a path to that decision point. I have no problem with that,” he says. But now the member for Chilliwack-Kent feels this is an affront to democracy as well.

Let’s go to the member for Abbotsford-Mission, who is not here today but who spoke eloquently on June 29 and said this:

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

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

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

And on he goes.

We’ve heard some people talk about the fact that this is a leadership race happening within the B.C. Liberals, and there’s an awful lot of posturing going on there, trying to look like they’re strong champions of democracy here in British Columbia.

Let’s take a look at what a couple of those leadership candidates said in speaking to the throne speech back in June. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson, seeking leadership here for the B.C. Liberals, had this to say: “We are committed to enabling a third referendum with a clear question and absolute protection of rural representation.” I look forward to him voting in support of this bill as well.

[6:30 p.m.]

What about the member for Vancouver-Langara, also seeking leadership of the B.C. Liberals? Well, he had a lot to say. “For many, it’s important that we conduct a third referendum on electoral reform to give British Columbians an opportunity to consider, once again, what is the best electoral system for the province and its people. Again, we listened, and we’ve acted.” And on and on it goes — remarkable, frankly.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I could go on. Well, one of my favourites, actually, comes from the member for Penticton, who also felt this was an important issue. He says this following:

“We know that if there is a reform that takes place in the future on how people are able to govern out of this wonderful building…. There is a promise that has been put forward for electoral reform no later than November 30, 2018.

“I hope we work together, through that extensive consultation that should take place, to develop a clear question that British Columbians can understand and can see that it is 100 percent in its meaning and depth and, also, that not only protects urban areas but also protects the rural areas of British Columbia. I think that’s really important because sometimes rural B.C. is forgotten.”

And on he goes.

That’s seven members opposite who spoke strongly in favour of this legislation, but now somehow, because government has brought it in, it’s the worst thing since the development of I don’t know what. We hear about the rise of the Nazi Party coming in British Columbia. We had one member talk about the Rhinoceros Party. Oh, the fear of all these fringe groups that are going to spontaneously arise.

In fact, my favourite quote, of all the things I’ve heard spoken to this today, must go to my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands. He has said: “This party that was, for 16 years, in power is just going to vaporize into a bunch of gangs of two, and they are going to run around the province with clubs or something.” That’s the kind of level of fear that we’ve got going on here. There is fear. There’s fear internal to the B.C. Liberals that somehow they’re going to disintegrate into these roving bands of two across the province.

I really think we need to take this debate to a different level and actually start to talk about the different forms of proportional representation, because the legislation before us is nothing more than enabling legislation — legislation designed to enable a process to lead to a referendum. We’re not talking about what form of proportional representation. We’re not talking about one question or two questions. It enables the possibility of there being multiple questions. It’s enabling legislation.

We’ve already heard from members opposite that there apparently is only one form of proportional representation that’s going to be put forward here. It’s going to be some kind of system that they already think it is. I’m not sure what they’re articulating, but they all come back to the same message line that has obviously been prepared for them on what it’s going to be. You know, they’re trying to, again….

For so many years, the B.C. Liberals have created an artificial divide between rural B.C. and urban B.C. — artificial because they’ve driven a wedge between rural and urban B.C. in a desperate attempt to retain power. What they’re not telling rural B.C. is that proportional representation is exactly what will bring equity across this province. Right now, most of rural B.C. is represented by members opposite. The government does not have the depth and breadth of representation in rural B.C.

Under proportional representation, there would be an assurance that the Okanagan Valley would have representation in government as well as in opposition.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Again, the members opposite say: “Not necessarily.” Just have a look at the election results. The B.C. Greens would have had one representative in the Okanagan sitting here in the Legislature, under a form of proportional representation — in light of the percentage vote, 20-odd percent in a couple of ridings in the area, 18 percent in others. The B.C. NDP would have had a couple of ridings, but the B.C. Liberals would have had the majority here in the Legislature.

Now let’s go to Vancouver. Hardly, ne’er a B.C. Liberal to be seen anywhere representing Vancouver ridings. Or Vancouver Island — I feel for the lone member for Parksville-Qualicum. There would be more representation for Vancouver Island and Metro Vancouver in the Liberals here if there was a form of proportional representation. The people of Vancouver would be represented in opposition and in government. That’s healthy. Issues can be brought forward by opposition and dealt with in government, and the debates can ensue.

[6:35 p.m.]

I don’t know how many times, when the B.C. Liberals were in government, that I was contacted by people across this province, saying: “Please help us with this issue, because we do not feel represented by our Liberal MLA, because government is run out of the Premier’s office, and the Liberal MLAs’ issues are not being dealt with. Help us, please. Raise it in the Legislature. We’re not being responded to.”

If there had been a form of proportional representation, those constituents out in rural B.C. could have gone to one of the opposition MLAs from their region — not travelling to Victoria to meet the B.C. Green MLA or perhaps a B.C. NDP MLA somewhere else, but actually going down the street or maybe driving 50 kilometres to their local opposition MLA. That’s good for democracy.

What happens right now if you’re a B.C. Liberal on Vancouver Island or in large parts of Vancouver? You feel frustrated if your MLA happened to be in government and they’re not listening to you. You will try to go and find somebody who is listening. This happens, and it will happen. It will probably happen far less often here than it has been, because once you have been in power for 16 years, you get a sense of entitlement — a sense of entitlement, as if divine insight has determined that you shall govern without any kind of accountability.

But that is not the case. There is no representation by the Liberals in southern Vancouver Island. That’s wrong. We should have a Liberal MLA representing southern Vancouver Island. We hear the fearmongering opposite. We have the fearmongering opposite that, somehow, this will all be driven by urban B.C. and that somehow….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Chilliwack-Kent is now so affronted again. After speaking in favour of the referendum in June, he’s now saying it will be governed by urban B.C.

Why, Member, would you not stand up and say that? Why didn’t you stand up to your own party and say: “This is wrong? What’s in the throne speech I cannot support, because it’s a referendum on proportional representation that will be dictated by urban B.C. on rural B.C.” You didn’t say, that hon. Member — through you, Mr. Speaker. You had the opportunity. No, you sang the praises of the throne speech.

Now it comes to people like me, wondering “who do we listen to, and who do we trust?” We hear members opposite talk about these agreements signed in back rooms. The same negotiations are going on with B.C. Liberals. The same negotiations were being done at the same time with B.C. Liberals.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Not true. The member from somewhere in Vancouver, somewhere south of the….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale suggested it wasn’t happening. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale was not anywhere near that office and, frankly, probably was not ever consulted or had anything to do with that.

In fact, I was in those rooms, and yes, indeed, there were a lot of discussions going on, just like as happens around the world when you have minority or coalition governments and people are tasked — and the electorate says “go work together.” We tried to do that, but now we come back and we ask the question: “Did we make the right decision?”

It’s clear to me that the B.C. Liberals can’t be trusted. On the one hand, they argue for something, and now they argue against. For the B.C. Liberals, there are no principles anymore. There are no principles. It’s all about the quest for power. Say whatever it takes, no matter what it is — just “we need to get power.”

I come back to the justification for that, as articulated so beautifully by the member for Abbotsford-Mission before the parliamentary democracy meeting a couple days ago, where teachers from across this province came. He spoke passionately about the importance of being in opposition. He said: “The role of the official opposition is to get into power.” That’s his words, not mine.

That so beautifully represents what’s going on here in British Columbia. This is not about really doing what’s right for people. It’s not about rural B.C. If it was about rural B.C., we’d see them speaking for proportional representation. It’s about their desperate quest for power. What’s demonstrated is they lost principles in the last throne speech. I don’t even know how the members opposite can actually stand and look themselves in the mirror in the morning and say: “I feel comfortable now speaking against this after my throne speech was one that said we’re going to do the same thing.”

This is why, hon. Speaker, many of us have such respect and regard for the principled position you’d like to show — the non-partisan nature of that chair. I thank you sincerely for that.

[6:40 p.m.]

Much of the detail for the referendum….

Oh, before I continue, I do have a question which the Clerk might be able to address. Given that Bill 5 passed and was enacted, do we, as the B.C. Greens, now get to designate a speaker or not? Or do we have to wait till royal assent?

An Hon. Member: Royal assent.

A. Weaver: Royal assent? Unfortunately, you’re going to only have me for a half an hour instead of the full two hours.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Coming back to that. Much of the detail for this referendum, of course, will be left in terms of further consultation about, for example, the question. Again, it’s enabling the process that will lead to consultation that will develop the question. We will be part of that. We will submit as the B.C. Greens, following the normal process as everyone else. Through the public-run consultation process, we will make our views. We will not provide them to the Attorney General, nor do we want to be consulted on this, and we’ve made that very clear in supporting this bill. We believe that we will respond in the same process as everyone else in this province of British Columbia.

The reason why this is happening is government recognizes that a referendum on electoral reform can’t be based on what politicians want but rather what British Columbians want. Fifty-seven percent of British Columbians put this side of the House into a minority government situation — 57 percent. This is responsible to meeting a promise by both parties, with the B.C. NDP campaigning on this.

While the B.C. Greens didn’t campaign formally on this, it is one of our five guiding principles — representative participatory democracy. It is part of who we are. We didn’t need to campaign on it, because it’s one of our five guiding principles, and that is true of every single Green Party in every form or affiliation anywhere in the world. They fall with the same guiding principle.

I come back to some of the justification. Let’s go to 2001, in which time the B.C. Liberals won 77 seats. Good job. Well done. Even won Victoria, which is pretty remarkable. They did that with 57.6 percent of the vote. There were two NDP seats. So 343,156 B.C. NDP voters, with 21.5 percent, got two seats, and 57.6 percent of the vote got 100 percent of the power and 77 seats.

How is democracy served there? I’m not so sure it was. I’m not so sure it was served at that time. The B.C. Green Party at that time got 197,231 votes or 12.4 percent — 197,000 votes in British Columbia — and zero seats. Is that fair? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s fair, because there are hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who don’t feel represented by a government making decisions for them in their interests not in the people’s interest.

In that election, if you took the number of seats divided by the number of votes, each of those NDP-vote seats represented 171,578 voters. Each of the Liberal votes represented 11,908 voters. Each of the B.C. Green’s zero seats represented an infinite number of voters.

Now let’s go to 2017. In 2017, where we are here now, B.C. NDP got 795,106 votes — 40.28 percent and 41 seats. The Liberals had 796,772 votes, or 40.36 percent, representing 43 seats. And the B.C. Greens had 332,387 votes or 16.84 percent with three seats.

In 2013, 100 percent of the power was received by the B.C. Liberals, with less than one in four registered voters actually voting for them, because there was just over 50-some-odd percent voter turnout. So the B.C. Liberals, in 2013, had 100 percent of the power with less than one in four British Columbians supporting them.

We know that when people feel there’s something to vote for…. We know that when people wonder whether or not their vote will count, if they believe that it will count, they’ll come out to vote. That’s one of the good reasons for actually giving this forward, to increase voter turnout.

[6:45 p.m.]

Over the next several months, British Columbians will have important questions to ask. They’ll be asked what types of values they want to see in their electoral system. They’ll be asked how the referendum campaign should work. They’ll be asked what sort of information the government should provide about the choices on the ballot, what sort of questions they want to see, and so forth. There are many, many questions that will be asked.

If we think that somehow British Columbia is unique, I would say that we are one of the rare few who do not actually have proportional representation. I don’t know whether members opposite know that 85 percent of countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, known as the OECD, use a form of proportional representation.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: There are 23. There are two, actually. You’re incorrect. There are 23 — more than two, actually. There are 23 countries that use list proportional representation. These include the despot….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Twenty-three countries that use a form of list proportional representation of all the OECD countries. These include the notorious despot nations like Sweden, Finland and Norway. There are four that use a mixed-member proportional. These include the totalitarian regimes of New Zealand and Germany. New Zealand actually just had an election that saw the Labour Party elected and a confidence agreement struck with the New Zealand Greens and the Labour Party there.

Two countries, and these are Japan and South Korea — notably disruptive countries — use parallel systems of proportional representation. One country, which is troubled in turmoil all the time on every issue, Ireland, uses STV. What about this democracy that is clearly looked up to by nobody, a democracy in dire straits, about to collapse imminently? Well, France has a two-round system of proportional representation. What about Australia? Unfortunately, they get more medals than us in the Olympics every time. I don’t know why, but they do. Australia, a nation in turmoil — they use a form of an alternative vote system or STV for their senate elections.

Finally, just three countries out of 35 in the OECD use first-past-the-post. Guess who they are? Canada, U.S.A. and Britain. So we hear opposite that in fact….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: That’s not first-past-the-post. The member opposite should do his own homework about Australia. The House has preferential balloting. The member opposite would know this if he actually studied the system in Australia. It’s preferential balloting in Australia. It is not first past, the option.

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena needs to go and research this because he is one of those leadership candidates, and he should get on top of this file. We continue forth here. You continue forth here. I’m getting concerned of the time, but I do note that the committee Chair has yet to arise into the chamber, so may I….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I have lots more to say. I’ve got much….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I will come back to that. I’ll come back to conclude as we…. I will have to remind people as we move this debate forward to the next session when I do note the hour, which is not quite noted. I will remind members opposite about these quotes because it’s very, very, very important.

I come back, again, to the fearmongering opposite that somehow proportional representation will lead to all sorts of crazy parties establishing. Well, the first thing you do is you just raise the bar a little bit by saying, “Okay, you only get to participate if you get 4 percent or 5 percent,” which eliminates the two parties. The question is: who decides that? Of course, it is the people who decide that.

On top of this, we don’t have to look very far from British Columbia to see what can happen in a first-past-the-post system in terms of a leader. I would suggest to you that what we see south of the border is troubling. It’s troubling where first-past-the-post has led to a leader of a nation that has no problem with alternate facts. This is an example of first-past-the-post failing. This is a first-past-the-post failing.

[6:50 p.m.]

As much as I would like to engage this debate further with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who is so desperately trying to get time here on the floor, I do note the hour, and I do reserve my right to continue speaking to this matter at the next sitting of the House. As such, I move adjournment of this debate.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the House do now adjourn, after this scintillating debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.