Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 11, the Provincial Court Amendment Act; and in Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of Children and Family Development.

[2:35 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — PROVINCIAL COURT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — PROVINCIAL COURT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Bill 11, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. James: I call second reading of Bill 13, Pooled Registered Pension Plans.

[2:45 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — POOLED REGISTERED
PENSION PLANS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

These amendments to the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act will reduce the unnecessary cost for Gazette publication that is required every time British Columbia signs a multilateral agreement under the act or amendments to the agreement.

Pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs, are defined contribution pension plans that are administered across participating jurisdictions by regulated financial institutions, which supports employers with the responsibility of pension plan operations. PRPPs are the result of a federal-provincial initiative to make well-regulated and low-cost pension plans available to millions of Canadians who have no other opportunity to become pension plan members.

Membership is available to employees and self-employed in all participating provinces, including in federally regulated workplaces which allow members to move their pensions with them when they change jobs.

This Canada-wide framework for PRPPs was implemented in 2012 by the federal government. The act operates within that framework by adopting the federal legislation by reference, with some modifications for B.C.’s legislative content.

B.C. entered into the multilateral agreement respecting pooled registered pension plans and voluntary retirement savings plans in June 2016 with the federal government and with Saskatchewan, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Ontario joined the agreement in March 2017, and Manitoba is scheduled to join November 15. Under this agreement, the administrative burden is minimized as the federal pension regulators responsible for issuing licences and for registering PRPPs provide administrators with a single licensing and registered process which, again, saves the burden on employers.

The act currently requires every PRPP multilateral agreement and every amended agreement and notices of its effective date to be published in full in the Gazette. This is costly and unnecessary. The act already requires public access to be provided on the Internet, so it is already out there. It is already provided on the Internet. Every multilateral agreement and amending agreement is posted on the websites of both the federal and the B.C. pension regulators.

If this bill is enacted, the requirement for notice alone to be published would be maintained. The bill will also bring the act in line with the Gazette publication requirements in other B.C. statutes for interjurisdictional agreements, such as wills and estates and succession acts. So they would all follow the same rules — the full act and changes to be published with public access on the Internet but not required to be published in the Gazette.

Ministry savings. I think it’s important for the Minister of Finance to set this as well — that there are savings to be found if the passage of this legislation occurs. The savings are estimated to be $7,500 for the next amending agreement in November when Manitoba joins. Every penny counts. Savings increase by $1,500 for each subsequent amending agreement if other provinces join or if further amendments are needed.

The proposed amendments will also make very minor corrections to clarify two terms in the federal Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to ensure they don’t apply to our act because they already define the existing terms.

With that, I will finish second reading.

Interjection.

S. Bond: I always very much appreciate the Minister of Health’s enthusiasm, because the Minister of Finance here has indicated there are going to be some savings, as small as they are. I know he’s probably thinking they’re coming in his direction anyway.

I do agree with the Minister of Finance that every penny does count. She knows that she has a lot of promises to end up paying for. I just wanted to take a moment. I do appreciate the comments made by the Minister of Finance and bringing forward the amendments to this bill.

I wanted to just walk back a little bit in terms of the history of how we got here and why it’s so important, while today we’re talking about amendments that might seem quite minor to people. When there was a discussion a number of years ago, the previous government did work with the federal government and other provincial governments to look at a framework, which is now known as the PRPP framework. In many ways, it was to support British Columbians who all want to have the opportunity to save for retirement.

Nearly two-thirds of B.C. workers at the time, which was in 2014, were without a registered pension plan.

[2:50 p.m.]

By taking away the administrative burden of pension plans, it makes offering a pension much more attractive and affordable for employers. We know, and certainly the Minister of Finance knows, that pensions are a really important element of a family’s retirement savings plan.

We recognized, as did the federal and other provincial governments, that effective ways needed to be found so that current workers could save for their retirement. PRPPs are certainly an important option for people who need to save for retirement.

We worked with the federal government, we looked at what other jurisdictions were thinking, and we were one of the first provinces in the country to allow businesses to actually offer these pooled registered pension plans, something that, obviously, we’re very proud of. The minister also outlined other provinces that have enacted PRPP legislation, and that continues today.

One of the things that was important for us was the fact that it needed to be easy for employers to use. Employers, in this case, do not have to deal with administrative aspects of running a pension plan, and their contributions are optional. Providing a PRPP is voluntary, as are employer contributions. If an employer offers a PRPP to employees, the employees will automatically be enrolled, but each employee has the right to opt out.

At the time, Alberta and Saskatchewan had enacted very similar legislation.

In essence, this is a way that…. For British Columbians who needed an alternative way to look at having a pension plan and looking at retirement savings, this is one of the important options that’s in place.

When it comes to speaking to the amendments, I think the minister has laid out a very compelling case. It really is about avoiding duplication. Information is already published, and every time we do this, it mean that it needs to be gazetted. I can say that we certainly want to make it as easy and streamlined as possible, and unnecessary expenses do need to be removed. If passed, as the minister pointed out, only publication of the notice would be required, and full notice will continue to be published on the Internet.

This is one of those places where we find ourselves, I think, in raging agreement. It makes good sense, and I can tell the Finance Minister that we certainly welcome the improvement that she’s brought forward and we will be supporting the passage of Bill 13.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak in favour and support of Bill 13, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2017. This is one of the rare moments in this Legislature when all members on all sides of the House can agree on the importance of moving forward with a particular bill. I can see that everyone’s happy that we can actually all agree on one issue here.

As we know, the purpose of pooled registered pension plans is to reduce the burden on employers and to make pensions more accessible to people who work for, for example, small businesses, freelance operator contractors.

Previously, when new multilateral agreements were made, the full details of these agreements needed to be published in the B.C. Gazette for public information. Of course, the publishing is important, but that’s, in some sense, a relic of the past in this digital era that we are in today.

The requirement didn’t actually fit with other B.C. statutes, as well, where they just publish the date of the agreements. This initial legislation, I suspect, was rather hastily put together after the federal model that required full agreement publication to mirror up with the federal government. It was a little bit burdensome, the process that was put in place.

It’s already published on line. The B.C. Gazette is no longer the primary source that people go to, to refer to information. What this bill is doing, and why obviously we support it in its entirety, is it’s removing the requirement for full print publication of new multilateral agreements but still requires the date to be included in the Gazette.

All of the multilateral agreement details will still be accessible to the public, if they so wish, on line. But in essence, what’s really happening is this bill is reducing publication costs, which were over $65 a page, and aligning print reporting requirements with other B.C. statutes. There are a few definition amendments that were previously made, and the regulations have been brought into the act since it was opened.

[2:55 p.m.]

In conclusion, these are fairly minor changes, but their implication is very important. We believe that this is a good piece of legislation, and we’re very proud to stand with our friends opposite and with government to support this legislation moving forward.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, minister to conclude the debate.

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the members’ comments. Thank you for the positive nature of this legislation coming forward and the support. With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Mark: May I seek leave to introduce guests that are in the chambers?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: Today it’s my pleasure to introduce some friends in the gallery. They’re students. Their family members work with the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. They unfortunately missed the entertainment that goes on in these chambers during question period, but I just want to thank the family members, the friends, the colleagues that make our ministry whole and dynamic. I hope you enjoy your day learning about what we do in government.

Will the House please join me in welcoming — I’m going to say it really quickly — Mateo, Damian, Nicholas, Sammy, Lucy, Sydney, Jackson, Brandon, Nathan, Montage, Brandon, Lucy and Keegan. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 10, the Health Professions Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. A. Dix: It’s my honour to rise, speak and move second reading of the Health Professions Amendments Act, 2017. We have guests in the gallery, so for those guests I’ll say that this is a piece of legislation that changes the way the nursing profession is regulated.

Right now there are three colleges that regulate nurses in British Columbia. The idea here is to allow the government — by agreement of the three colleges, all three of which want to come together — to enable them to come together. Right now under the law, even if they wanted to come together, they couldn’t come together. So we’ve introduced a bill to allow that to happen.

That’s what I’m debating today in the House, what my friend the opposition Health critic will be debating and what my friend the Health critic for the Green Party will be debating in this session right now.

Every day nurses throughout British Columbia give their care and support to patients. They do it in hospitals. They do it in care homes. They do it in the community. They’re often the first point of contact for people who are suffering and struggling with their health, treating patients and their families with respect and doing their best to allay any worries. Whether they are registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, registered psychiatric nurses or nurse practitioners, nurses are a critical part of the health care system. If you need help, they are critical to you on any given day.

I’m someone who personally, in my life, has received the support of nurses trained to help people who suffer from type 1 diabetes, something that happened to me late in life. I spent a day of training with a nurse who specialized in diabetic care. That training was excellent, and since then, I have never been back to an emergency room.

That has a lot to do with the work of nurses every day in the community. We think of nurses, sometimes, in acute care, and we understand their role. But their role in the community and throughout the health care system is central. That’s why, with that in mind, our government is introducing these amendments to the Health Professions Act to further strengthen health care in British Columbia.

As I noted, this allows the three nursing colleges to amalgamate. That is what has inspired the legislation. I’m referring to the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of B.C., the College of Licensed Practical Nurses of B.C. and the College of Registered Nurses of B.C. They have been working together in recent years on nursing and on nursing regulations and standards. They’ve become more aligned in their efforts, and this legislation lets them take the next step and amalgamate.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think it’s important to understand that this work has been going on over a period of time. It is, of course, encouraged by me, and I’m introducing the legislation, just as it was encouraged by the previous Minister of Health, Terry Lake. Now all of that work over two governments is coming to fruition.

In 2015, the three colleges commissioned a business case to explore the impacts of creating a single nursing regulator. In 2016, the boards of all three colleges agreed that it would be in the best interest of the public to create a single regulatory body that would oversee licensed practical nurses, nurse practitioners, registered psychiatric nurses and registered nurses.

Under these amendments, the three colleges would be able to form one organization. This means greater consistency for the profession and one point of contact for patients and families. There would be a single set of bylaws for consistent structures and processes. The single regulator model for nursing is in Ontario, with Nova Scotia exploring a similar approach. A single regulator also exists in other Commonwealth countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia.

What we want to do here is make life simpler and safer for patients and make the professional efforts of nurses more effective and successful. Once these changes are made, if someone has a complaint regarding treatment received by any type of nurse, they would be able to go to one organization for resolution. This is absolutely, I think, a valuable change and, as I say, reflects the efforts, over a period of years, by nurses to come together and by successive governments to support them in their efforts to come together. That is the main thrust of the legislation.

There are two other provisions I wish to speak about, but I would say this: there is one amendment that we’ll be bringing in at committee stage — I say to members of the opposition and members of the Green Party — that will allow the legislation to come into effect at royal assent and not by regulation. I think it’s fair to say the nursing colleges want to get on with it. This will allow them to do it without waiting for a cabinet regulation. We’ll be able to discuss that at committee stage tomorrow, but the purpose there is to provide certainty and do what often oppositions ask to do with legislation, which is to have an understood date and not wait for regulation.

As well, and this is the second set of provisions in the legislation, the legislation will allow the appointment of an administrator for a health profession college if the board is deemed not to be acting in the public interest. The Health Professions Act currently states that it’s the duty of a college to protect and serve the public at all times. This is merely a safeguard in the unlikely event that a college board is seen to not be protecting the public interest — for example, acting in the profession of a health profession instead of a patient.

A number of other jurisdictions in Canada have already taken the step of including provisions to allow for the appointment of an administrator in these circumstances, including Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and Prince Edward Island. There are also a number of other acts in B.C. that allow for the appointment of a public administrator. My colleague the opposition Health critic is an expert on some — these include the Health Authorities Act, the Emergency and Health Services Act, the Public Sector Employers Act, the College and Institute Act, the Medicare Protection Act and the Laboratory Services Act.

Finally, and the third provision, is that patient care will be further supported by putting changes in place that ensure infection control breaches can be reported to public health officials in a timely manner. For example, if poor sterilization practices are observed, amendments will allow such instances to be reported immediately in the college process, rather than going through a college investigation process first. This is in the public interest.

To conclude, and I know you’re riveted by the conclusion here…. But this is, I would say, and I think people understand, really the conclusion of three years of work, especially in the nursing profession, and a lot of work to come once we allow these provisions to go ahead. This is a significant moment for them and a real achievement to be able, in fact, for people to come together and, in a way, merge colleges by agreement, work together by agreement to improve care for everyone in the province. I think it’s a good idea. Certainly, it will do a great deal to enhance the nursing profession in future — a profession to which all of us owe a great debt.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for bringing this forward and his very quick comments on this issue — one of the times, again, that we’re going to see in the House where there’s agreement. I appreciate the fact that the minister highlighted that this has been three years. It has been quite a few years that the three different colleges, the three different organizations, had been working together.

[3:05 p.m.]

Collaboratively, they had been working together, but in substance weren’t able to actually work under one organization, one college. I know we can completely agree that this is the right step to go forward in. It was something that we were working towards, as well, when we were in government, so I’m glad to see this government following through and making sure that that takes place.

The amalgamation, of course, is going to allow for a lot of opportunities between the three different nursing professions to be able to have not only efficiencies but discussions, because they do, unfortunately, sometimes represent a lot of the same people in different areas in the care that they do.

I do want to acknowledge and congratulate the minister when he says that he hasn’t had to go to emergency for so long. Unfortunately, I’m a lot more accident-prone, I guess, than the minister. I have succumbed to issues where I’ve had excellent care from the nurses — LPNs and RNs. I’ve been fortunate enough not to have had to have direct dealings with RPNs.

I would say this is very timely. It’s also maybe past time that this should have taken place. We do have 22 colleges right now within the health profession. There are opportunities to amalgamate some of those where there are not only like minds but like issues that can be addressed, discussed and moved forward. Whether it’s for patient care, patient safety and patient efficiency within the health system, organizations like this can help.

From my side, I’m looking forward to going to committee stage, where we can have just a few discussions and a few clarifications. But the crux of this bill we’re fully supportive of moving forward and helping the nurses, who do such amazing work in the province of British Columbia.

S. Furstenau: The member for Peace River South is assuming there’s agreement across the whole House, and in this case, he’s correct. I, too, rise to support this bill, Bill 10, Health Professions Amendment Act. I’ll get to swapping my medical stories in a moment.

There is currently legislation in place to create new professional colleges but no ability to amalgamate colleges, and what I appreciate about this bill is that it’s come forward from the nursing community and that it’s government responding to what the professionals have asked for in terms of their needs and what they see as the most effective ways to go forward.

Generally, we listen to our professionals. They are in the field. They know what they need and how to make things better, and this is an example of when government listens. Both sides of this House have been participating in that, and this is a good-news story.

It’s also important to recognize the important role that these colleges and professional bodies play in protecting the interests of citizens and that this will make that job easier for the colleges. That’s also very important as we want to make sure that we’re putting the well-being and the protection of citizens at the forefront of our minds.

I also appreciate that there will be the capacity to raise issues concerning unsafe practices or contamination. This is really important, again, for building that sense of trust and safety amongst citizens so they can know that if there are issues, they will be alerted to them immediately, rather than waiting for the investigation period.

I’m not accident-prone particularly, and I don’t have to visit a hospital, but we do have a house full of children, so I often, particularly in the summer months, spend time in the emergency room up in Cowichan. The care that we’ve received there has been exceptional and wonderful every time from both the nurses and the doctors. We’re always very grateful for that. So I support this moving forward.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Health to conclude.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you for the comments and support of members of the Green Party and the members of the official opposition.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 14, the Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017.

[3:10 p.m.]

BILL 14 — SHERIFF
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. D. Eby: This will not be a long speech. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

British Columbia sheriff services is responsible for, among other duties, the safety and security of courthouses and court users in the province. This responsibility includes the safe and secure transport of in-custody persons between court, police detachments and correctional centres.

Within sheriff services, the Integrated Threat Assessment Unit conducts threat and risk assessments. These assessments directly inform the management of threats and risks to the judiciary, legal counsel, court participants, the public and government employees.

When a potential threat is identified, the Integrated Threat Assessment Unit gathers information about the individual’s level of violence, criminal history, associations and prior responses to law enforcement. This information is used by sheriff services to ensure appropriate risk mitigation actions are taken to prevent harm.

Over the years, the Integrated Threat Assessment Unit has contributed to the successful management of a number of high-security and high-profile trials in our province, including Air India and the Robert Pickton trial, along with numerous high-security murder and gang trials.

Although the Sheriff Act and regulation make the sheriffs responsible for protecting the safety of all users of court facilities, and of employees of the provincial government, the ministry has been advised that the threat and risk assessment functions performed by sheriffs need to be clearly articulated in legislation.

In addition, the RCMP recently implemented tighter requirements for any agency accessing the Canadian Police Information Centre database. Although sheriffs currently have authority to access CPIC, as it is also known, the RCMP has identified that specific legislative authority is required for any agency accessing the database.

This bill will ensure sheriffs have the specified authorities and access to the information required to keep courthouses, courthouse users and government employees safe. The bill addresses the gap between legislative authority and actual practice by providing specified authority for sheriffs to perform threat and risk assessments. Additionally, it will address the need for sheriffs to access the CPIC database in the preparation of these important threat and risk assessments.

M. Morris: We’ve had a look at this bill, and we don’t have any issues with it. It does modernize the legislation and accommodates the change to some policy nationally, with the RCMP, in respect to CPIC and whatnot.

We fully support this bill as it stands.

A. Weaver: I, too, rise in support of this bill, Bill 14, Sheriff Amendment Act. This bill makes one significant change to the Sheriff Act, and it provides authority for sheriff services to conduct threat and risk assessments. Sheriffs in some specialized units already conduct threat and risk assessments, but they currently do not have the legislative authority to do so — a gap that this bill closes.

In addition, this bill will provide sheriffs with the legislative authority required to continue to maintain access to the Canadian Police Information Centre database for the purpose of conducting their threat and risk assessments.

It is really a very short bill. It’s one of four today that I think we’re going to see supported strongly by both sides of the House in all cases.

Section 1 of this bill creates the additional powers for the sheriffs, and if authorized by the director of sheriff services, sheriffs will be able to identify and assess threats or risks to a person, facility, building or property in relation to which they have a power, duty or responsibility.

It moves on to say that if authorized by the director, sheriffs may also identify and assess threats or risks to an employee of the government if the employee may be exposed to a threat or risk at the employee’s workplace or in relation to the employee’s work.

And of course, it also allows sheriffs, for the purpose of conducting a threat or risk assessments, to collect personal information and other information, including things like personal information on the Canadian Police Information Centre database — or any other law enforcement database, for that matter — personal information in the custody or control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which I understand the member for Prince George–Mackenzie used to work with, or any other law enforcement agency.

I, as other members, am very pleased to speak in support of this bill.

[3:15 p.m.]

As we know, sheriffs provide for the safety and security of British Columbians in a variety of ways — by protecting the courts of British Columbia and the participants in the judicial system, employees in the justice system and government, the public and public officials.

Sheriffs are responsible for ensuring the safety of the judiciary, legal counsel, court users, the public and government employees as well. Sheriffs are also responsible for the safe and secure transportation of accused and convicted persons to and from court. That sheriffs do not have the legislative authority to conduct threat or risk assessments has been identified as a legislative gap — a gap that this bill, as I mentioned, closes.

Sheriffs in some specialized units already conduct threat and risk assessments, as I mentioned, and these assessments inform the security plans and staffing levels required to ensure the safety of all users of our justice system. This is an absolutely critical service that they provide for the safety of all of us.

As I’ve mentioned, this is closing some provisions that are already in practice but not supported through legislation. I’m absolutely delighted to support this legislation and would like to thank the sheriffs in British Columbia for all of the work they do protecting British Columbians and ensuring smooth operation of our justice system. My only hope is that we can find more of them so that cases before court aren’t dismissed because of the lack of sheriffs in our judicial system.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the House Leader to conclude.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank those who have participated in the debate. I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Bill 12, the Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017.

BILL 12 — PUBLIC SAFETY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 12, the Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017. The road safety initiative will modernize the provincial traffic ticketing system and improve public safety through an introduction of electronic tickets, or e-tickets, that can be issued by police at the roadside.

Amendments to the Offence Act and the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012, are required to enable these improvements. The proposed amendments will allow for a new e-ticketing process that is more efficient, reduces cancellations of tickets due to error, increases public safety and maintains the secure capture and transfer of traffic ticket information.

The amendments introduce provisions to the Offence Act for e-tickets to be created, issued and served on individuals and for the violation data to be transmitted from police directly to ICBC and courts, if necessary, where it will be processed. The current provisions in the Offence Act permitting paper violation tickets are not sufficient to enable an e-ticketing scheme.

E-ticketing will increase convenience for citizens by enabling fine payment on line. Imagine that, hon. Speaker — on line in 2017 — along with existing options of paying by phone or mail or in person. As in the past, drivers will be able to reduce their fine amount by paying promptly.

E-ticketing is already in place and successful in 11 Canadian jurisdictions, including Nova Scotia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Manitoba, Toronto, York, Durham, Waterloo, Windsor and Ottawa. These amendments will bring B.C. in line with a modern approach to how traffic tickets are issued and help us see the public safety benefits that come with it.

For example, police agencies in these Canadian jurisdictions report that making the move to e-tickets has streamlined the process for both issuing tickets and entering them into the system, so much so that police officers can see time savings up to 60 percent per ticket. When you think about that across the system…. When my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie and I talked about issues such as core policing and the need to get police less paperwork and more on the road, this is one of those initiatives that will help that happen.

The reduction in time to complete a ticket increases officer safety at the roadside and frees them for other duties. Jurisdictions with real-time data upload of violations also report the benefit of this information for improved evidence-based policing and community safety overall.

[3:20 p.m.]

While the benefits to police are significant, the benefits to courts and the justice sector are even greater. All jurisdictions I mentioned have experienced significant savings in administrative costs by improving the data quality of ticket information and eliminating the need for that information to be entered in multiple systems, multiple times. It has resulted in a decrease in the number of stayed or cancelled tickets.

The proposed amendments are required to support the piloting of the e-ticketing within the following police agencies: Vancouver police department; Delta police department; Prince George city RCMP; Prince George north district RCMP; and the capital regional district integrated road safety unit.

The pilots in these locations are scheduled to begin in early 2018 and will assist in ensuring that the new e-ticket process is effective and user-friendly for police and citizens and provide the province with an opportunity to fine-tune the technology and any other required areas before a provincewide rollout.

The bill also proposes a minor clarification amendment to the immediate roadside prohibition part of the Motor Vehicle Act. The amendment proposes a simple removal of a reference to a subsection. The purpose is to clarify the authority for what is a very complex set of legislative provisions and, in doing so, to support the continued success of B.C.’s successful drinking-and-driving legislation, first passed by this House in 2010.

With that, that concludes my remarks.

M. Morris: This bill is significant in the policing world. I recall back in my days of writing tickets, starting back in the early ’70s. The process of writing out a ticket was the ticket book and a pen.

Oftentimes, you couldn’t read the writing. So the officer would fill the ticket out and put the date of the court appearance on the ticket and serve a copy on the individual who committed the offence and then fill out an affidavit of service on the back of that ticket. That would then go into the office. It would be looked at by a clerk, who would transcribe the information and put it into a database — once we had a database; everything was paper-based back in those days.

Then it would be re-entered again by a different clerk to go into a different database, and it would be captured at the end of the month in the month-end returns, in capturing all the data at the month-end return. So that work will no longer have to be done. It’ll be all electronicized.

This bill is going to allow peace officers to collect the driver’s licence from the offending driver, run it through the scanner in the police vehicle, and all of the information will be downloaded onto an e-ticket. He or she just pushes a button in the police vehicle. It prints out a very legible ticket with all the information on it, serves the ticket on the individual, who can immediately go on line and pay the fine on line. It’s is an amazing feat in 2017.

This alone will enhance the traffic safety that we have out there. The traffic officers, the dedicated traffic officers, will be able to turn their attention to more of the offenders out there, to more of the distracted drivers we have out there, and write more distracted driving tickets, unfortunately, because some of these people aren’t even paying attention to that. I think this will go a long way with respect to that.

The amendments cover all of the issues necessary for these to take place, to transform from a paper-based system to an electronic-based system. There’s been extensive work done already in identifying the proper equipment for the police vehicles throughout the province to work in the cold weather that we get in some parts of the province that we don’t see down here in beautiful Victoria.

As the Solicitor General was saying, there are pilot programs that’ll be taking place in Vancouver, the capital district here on the Island and in Prince George. Funny how that was. This was something that we were working on when I was the Solicitor General. It just so happened that Prince George fit in very nicely with that pilot project. I am really looking forward to the results that we will get from rolling this program out.

The Solicitor General alluded to it a bit there, but the number of tickets that were discarded every month…. I’m just going off the top of my head here. It was in the tens of thousands of tickets every year that were discarded or were thrown out because you couldn’t read the handwriting on the ticket.

That equates to into the millions of dollars of revenue that the province couldn’t get and return back to the communities under the revenue-sharing agreement that we had with all of the different municipalities in the province here. So in that one area alone…. We’ll be able to retrieve more fine revenue in the province as a result of just that one little issue.

[3:25 p.m.]

General duty members in the province…. We have dedicated traffic members in the province that will be utilizing this system. But general duty members, as well, oftentimes will pass up the opportunity to issue tickets for offenders under the Motor Vehicle Act because they’re too busy, because they’re headed to a complaint, or they’ve got a few minutes, and they’re writing up the file on the database on the computer in the police vehicle. I think with this system now, where you can just run the licence plate through the scanner, we’ll see a lot more interest with our general duty members and some more contributions there.

Our studies have shown — the studies from the ministry have shown — that fine revenue will go up. Hopefully, it will peak, because it’s not our goal to see the fine revenue going up. It’s our goal to see the actual offences going down. I think that with more time spent by police officers in addressing this with the public, hopefully, we’ll see that at the end of the day.

The other part of this bill deals with an amendment to allow the seizure and impoundment of vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Act. B.C. is leading the country on a roadside prohibition program, the immediate roadside prohibition program. It has reduced impaired driving deaths in the province by well over 50 percent in the last ten years, which is significant. All the other jurisdictions in Canada now are looking what we have done here in B.C.

It’s a tried-and-true system that has been tested right through to the Supreme Court of Canada. There have been some slight changes made to the legislation to address those challenges, but again, it’s just a little housekeeping issue, and it will make it a little bit easier for the peace officers to do their job out there.

I fully support all the provisions of this bill as they stand, and I look forward to the outcome that we’re going to see in British Columbia once we have e-ticketing on line.

A. Weaver: I too rise to take my place in the debates on Bill 12, the 2017 Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act. I too rise to speak in support of this bill.

This is the fourth of four bills receiving unanimous support today in the House. It’s too bad the school children that were just here left — did not see yet another bill be agreed upon. People could actually see when this Legislature works instead of the fights that often occur in question period.

This bill, as was mentioned by the former RCMP officer and the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, makes two substantive changes. It amends the Offence Act to allow for e-ticketing of drivers. As was mentioned, current legislation restricts police officers to issuing paper tickets in a prescribed form. This bill will allow for the issuing of e-tickets as well as paper tickets.

I can only imagine the multiple translations of a ticket that was written in my handwriting, and I do understand, as mentioned by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, that there must be many an occasion — and as personal experience, it was many occasions — where illegible handwriting led to tickets that would otherwise be issued not being issued.

It does concern me that this will be a money grab by the province. I’m hoping that the public listening to this, riveted to this on their TV screens, will recognize that no longer will illegible handwriting get them away from tickets.

I also do support the introduction of the ability to pay the tickets on line. I mean, literally, the government, pretty much…. This, in particular, is one of the last things in our society that allows you to pay on line. So it’s very timely that this is brought forward…. Timely is the wrong word. It’s about time that this was brought forward.

The three broad changes in this bill in the first section, changes to the Offence Act, allow officers, as I mentioned, to issue e-tickets and make copies of e-tickets, allows officers to create e-certificates of service and also allows for the transport of electronic records to ICBC.

It will be piloted in the select regions as a part of a road safety initiative prior to rolling them out provincewide. These regions include the CRD, Vancouver, Delta and Prince George. As part of the road safety initiative but separate from the legislation, as I mentioned, government will be rolling out a modern, new innovative ability to pay your fines on line.

[3:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The second substantive change in this act is to amend the Motor Vehicle Act to require a peace officer to impound a car that a person was driving at the time that person was given a notice of a 30- or 90-day driving prohibition as a result of a roadside alcohol test.

A review of this act by astute legislative reviewers and lawyers found that immediate roadside prohibitions for alcohol-affected drivers didn’t sufficiently cover the immediate impoundment of cars. That is, there was a loophole in the act that was not providing immediate coverage for the immediate impoundment of cars. This has been regular practice since 2010 — that cars would be impounded. But actually, there wasn’t legislation supporting this to occur.

Roughly, there have been something like 10,000 impoundments that have occurred since 2010 that relate to this change. The change to enable this to occur will now, obviously, be retroactive to 2010. So anyone out there thinking that they’re going to get some kind of reimbursement for having their car impounded is out of luck, as we quickly make this retroactive to 2010.

As I mentioned, there are no current or previous legal challenges relating to this amendment, as we bring it forward, which is a good thing. I’m not sure if something is going to happen in the next 24 hours. At least that’s what we were told. It’s simply a gap that government identified, or at least lawyers identified, and they felt it was prudent to actually close this gap.

As mentioned by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, this is an uncontroversial bill, something we’re pleased to support and, frankly, I would have thought, something we could have brought in, along with an earlier bill we discussed on Red Tape Reduction Day. We’ve made great steps in the province of British Columbia in reducing red tape without actually naming a day after the reduction.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I regret the opportunity to be the designated speaker on this particular piece of legislation and take full advantage of the two hours that would have been available to me.

I want to thank the members for their comments. This is an important piece of legislation. It does modernize traffic procedure in the province of British Columbia, which is occurring in other jurisdictions. The fact of the matter is that it will be more efficient. It will save time, which is a good thing.

I can assure the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head that this is not a cash grab, as my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie said. What we want to see is people driving safely, and this will help do that by eliminating, in essence, scribbly or illegible handwriting as a reason for a ticket being thrown out.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 12.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move continued second reading debate on Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

(continued)

M. Polak: When last we discussed this bill, I was in the midst of my comments. So I will just briefly refresh members’ memories as to where I had gotten to. The approach I was taking was one of not so much speaking with respect to the pros and cons of proportional representation, although that naturally enters into the discussion, but more so to highlight what I believe are the unique benefits of our current system and how those actually rely on the way in which we elect members to serve under that system.

I was, at the time, speaking about the role of private members and reminding this House and members therein that the only members of government are executive council. Everyone else is a private member with a choice to support either government or the opposition. I was talking about how important that is. We had a perfect example in this Legislature, after this election, of the significant impact that one individual member can have on this entire chamber and how it functions. And that’s how our system is intended to function. There are also other choices that members can make along the way. Those choices, as well, are impacted by the very structure of our voting system and the system on which we operate in this House.

[3:35 p.m.]

That revolves around the incentives in place and the potential negative consequences that shape decisions that are made by members in this House each and every day. Let’s take, for example, the choice that a member can make in this House to cross the floor. It has happened in this chamber. It has happened in our federal chamber. Members do that for all sorts of reasons, but they never do so lightly. Well, why is that? Part of that is because of the way in which we elect our members. Those members know that the consequence of crossing the floor — in other words, shifting their stated loyalties to that of another party and, in the case of a sitting, moving to support the different side of the government or opposition….

The consequences, though, are rather significant for any MLA choosing to do so. And they should be because of the potential to shift the balance of power in this House. The consequences that member faces are things such as an understandable backlash on the part of a community that voted for a particular viewpoint in majority and feels they have now been betrayed by the actions of that member. They know they will have to have a very good explanation for those people who are back in their ridings. Of course, in British Columbia, those constituents also have the option of recalling an MLA. Certainly, they could take their concerns about that forward in the future election that that member may seek.

A member may choose to sit as an independent. That could be because they have found themselves not in agreement with any of the parties that are existing here in this House, or it could be because of a personal philosophy they have that stands them in favour of being an independent. We have had independents sitting in this House. Indeed, we have independents sitting in this House now, although they do have a party affiliation. Again, they play a very important role.

Sometimes, as in the case of the current independent members, they decide to formally align themselves with a party. On other occasions, they decide they will make up their mind not based on which party they have aligned themselves with but on individual cases of votes on individual matters. There are a number of other issues that private members can have a huge impact on, but I’ll leave those as the examples I’ve chosen to highlight here today.

What does our system have to do with that? Why couldn’t members do the very same things in a proportional representation system? Well, they could, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Here’s why. The issues around the importance and significance of a private member and the choices they make really only matter with respect to shifting who has a majority in the House and, therefore, who can act as government to pass laws to change things, to change the rules of how we live. It is a very, very important piece of the incentives that affect members’ choices in this House.

With proportional representation, the idea that any one party is ever going to hold a majority position in this House is not very likely. It’s not very likely that we would see that circumstance. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but it’s highly unlikely. So now what have you done? Well, in the absence of a clear majority that is held by one party or, perhaps, a coalition that has formally united, there is no incentive for a member to act in a way that balances their own individual ridings and the manner in which they get elected there — in other words, the issues they stand on, how they represent their community — versus the desire to be a part of government or a part of that party that holds the philosophy that links to their views.

[3:40 p.m.]

Think, for example, of a member who would be supporting the government side who comes to a point where they don’t agree. Well, the prospects of being, potentially, in government, staying in government right now, would temper that individual’s decision. They would have to, within their own mind, reconcile: “Well, hmm, let’s see. I want to represent my community, but I also have a desire to be part of a majority. Therefore, now I’m going to have to have a talk with my caucus, maybe have a talk with my Premier.” You’re going to have to find a way to resolve this issue or leave and face the rather serious consequences. So it becomes not just your individual decision. Your individual decision isn’t all that matters.

If at the end of the day, the House is populated by individuals, some of whom have been elected in their local region, some of whom have been appointed by a party — we’ll get to that in a moment — your only incentive is to think about your own re-election in your own situation. So if you’re one of those elected members, you’re no longer thinking: “Well, gee, I want to get elected in Langley, but at the same time, being in majority is important to me.” I want to take Langley’s concerns, in my case, and try and resolve them around what government wants to do for the betterment of the whole province — right? — and, hopefully, find that compromise that benefits your own constituents but also the whole province.

That is how the existence of a majority on one side of the House — a majority of one party or a coalition — actually affects and shapes the decisions of individual MLAs and how they arrive at them. It’s extremely important, and it’s one of the reasons our system works so well, because it forces individual MLAs to think beyond just their own election in their own riding. It forces them to think of the whole province. You lose that when you lose the ability for one party or a coalition to form a firm majority.

Then there’s the issue of those who might be appointed. Well, for those who have been listening to the narrative I’ve been outlining, in my last speech before we broke and then now continuing today, they will probably have already formed the conclusion that is obvious. If you are one of those members who is appointed by a political party, your only incentive is to act with respect to what that political party would want you to do.

Contrary to some popular opinions, that is not what currently happens in this House. Why? Because, going back to the beginning of my discussion, every Premier and every Leader of the Opposition knows how to count, and they know that they have to maintain the confidence of their caucus or they will very quickly find themselves in the situation of losing their opportunity to lead that group, whether they’re a Premier or a Leader of the Opposition.

In the case where you are appointed, who are you influencing? You’re required to adhere to what your party wants. They appointed you, so you’re going to follow what they want you to do, and there’s no reason for a leader of your particular group to be concerned if you don’t like what they’re doing.

Currently if you’re a Premier in the province of British Columbia and a sufficient number of members in your caucus are unhappy with what you’re doing, you’re going to be pretty concerned. You’re going to be very concerned. You’re going to be asking them: “What’s wrong? How do I fix this? How do we find a compromise position? Maybe we have to change our position.” You’re concerned because you risk losing your majority. In the case of an appointed member who owes their loyalty only to the party that appointed them, that leader has absolutely no reason to listen to that member or to change anything.

I hope I have successfully outlined for members the very real tragedy it would be if private members were to lose the very important role that they play in this House. Each and every one of us can have a huge impact, well beyond just us as an individual, but it’s because of the way that this place functions. It’s because of a very proud history of our parliamentary democratic traditions, which aren’t there just as traditions.

[3:45 p.m.]

They’re there because they affect and shape how MLAs act, what choices they make and what types of things they consider when they make those choices. They force us to think about what’s best for our communities and what’s best for the overall province.

There is, in my view, no other system on this planet that does a better job of it. We’ve all heard the old Churchill quote about democracy being the worst form of government. I won’t repeat it. Democracy can be messy, but fundamentally, it’s a human endeavour so it will always be flawed. But I truly and sincerely believe that our particular system of democracy is the one that best causes individuals to rise to the occasion and act on their better natures.

R. Leonard: I’m very honoured to rise today in support of the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. I’ve heard loud and clear from the citizens of Courtenay-Comox how dissatisfied people are with the current first-past-the-post system. This legislation will provide us with the opportunity to test the will of the people in a clear, simple and accessible way.

The demand for a review of our system has been a persistent grassroots effort, fuelled by people — people who are passionate about our democracy and concerned about losing the freedom it provides. In our first-past-the-post system, my constituency gained notoriety on May 9 with my nine-vote lead. I’ve already told this House how many people have come up to me to proudly say that they were one of the nine.

They really understood how their act to vote made a real difference, that every vote does count. It’s an important lesson, because our democracy is struggling with the ever-declining numbers of citizens coming out to exercise their franchise. We need to have an electoral system that encourages people to vote because they know it will make a difference.

There is another lesson there too. There were many close wins in British Columbia — races which saw Liberals and NDP alike elected. Do those who voted for the other candidates feel that their vote counted? Probably not. In a multiparty system like ours, it’s almost impossible for the majority of voters to elect a majority representative. The last majority win of a party with over 50 percent of the vote was almost 90 years ago. With consistently more disenfranchised voters than rewarded voters, no wonder people are not motivated to go to the polls.

It is a great privilege to sit in this House and represent the people of our constituencies. I have no doubt that every MLA, no matter what party, works hard on behalf of all their constituents, no matter their political persuasion. However, if you are amongst the majority who didn’t vote for your elected MLA, you most assuredly are not going to feel satisfied with the priorities and directions of a government in a first-past-the-post system. This is reflected in the highly adversarial atmosphere in this House.

The current first-past-the-post system is not about numbers of seats won. It is about power — power which breeds the acrimony that echoes through this chamber daily. Why wouldn’t we consider a system that shifts away from power-based politics to shared decision-making?

Interjection.

R. Leonard: Members opposite harp on cooperation between parties like it’s some terrible thing. I just heard a reaction to that. But British Columbians want a process where everyone’s interests will be represented in government, where all views can be expressed and compromise can happen. That’s what the electorate is interested in, in my community.

The two federal members of parliament in my constituency worked very hard to consult the public on electoral reform last year. And 85 percent plus of thousands who participated in town halls and answered surveys sent to every household in the two ridings said that the number of a party’s seats won should be reflected by the percentage of votes received. They also agreed that there should be cross-party collaboration.

[3:50 p.m.]

Let me say that again. That’s 85 percent plus of thousands of citizens who took the time to respond. The interest is overwhelming. There is no doubt that government needs to respond, and this legislation provides that opportunity to hear from the people in 2018.

Last week I had the privilege of joining an all-party women’s caucus gathering. There was talk about how far women have come in the political system since we won the vote 100 years ago and also how far we still have to go. We talked about our responsibility to mentor other women to join the political fray. But I can tell you from my own personal experience: enlisting other women to run for office in this highly adversarial, charged system is challenging, and it shouldn’t be this way. We have an opportunity to choose a system that welcomes all voices.

I look forward to the public consultation process as we look at proportional representation in B.C. and give people the power to decide on a more responsive and representative government.

S. Thomson: I’m very pleased to rise today to provide some comments and perspective on Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act and to speak on behalf of members of the Kelowna-Mission riding and others. I wanted to start my comments with a thought, or a statement — the importance of representation and how it is integral to our democracy, and the fact that I believe in it very, very strongly.

I’ve always tried my best to represent the interests of the community that I represent — the riding that I represent and the broader community of Central Okanagan and Kelowna — in the best way I can. I believe our community has seen the benefits of that direct representation and stable government in B.C. and in Canada, particularly when you look and compare the stability and government that we’ve had over the many years to experiences and situations that we’re seeing in so many other jurisdictions.

It probably won’t come as a surprise to the members opposite, but I will not be supporting this proposed legislation. Not because I don’t believe that it might be appropriate, in a properly structured process, to consider whether our current approach continues to meet the needs of voters and the public in B.C. and whether it provides for fair, equal and equitable representation for all regions of the province….

In my view, this proposed legislation sets up a process that does exactly the opposite of that. It doesn’t set up a process that will provide for fair, equal and equitable representation. It doesn’t provide for a process that will, on something as significant as this, do it in a fair, equitable and reasonable process.

I’ve listened to some of the statements and some of the assertions from the members opposite, along the lines of, “Don’t worry. You should just stay calm. This is enabling legislation. It isn’t the question. It isn’t the process,” and that there will be consultation, all of those kinds of things. You know: “Stay calm. Don’t worry.”

But what we have here in this referendum act, the reform referendum act, is setting up a process that I think we need to be very, very worried about and to address directly, because of the process that is being set up. This bill proposes to change the fabric of our democracy and affect British Columbians across the province, regardless of who they voted for, and it has been crafted in a way to tilt the outcome in favour of a positive outcome for proportional representation.

[3:55 p.m.]

It’s going to be the third attempt at a referendum since 2005, the first two failing to meet both of the two thresholds that ensured regional and majority support. I do stand against this process and against this enabling legislation that’s in Bill 6, because it is really enabling a tilted and stacked process for a desired outcome.

It’s all part of a package that’s been carefully and craftily designed to ensure the members opposite can retain their hold on government. When you combine it with all the other steps that have been taken — financing reform, Election Act amendments, Constitution Act amendments, the timing of election — it’s all part of a package that is designed for a pre-intended outcome. This referendum legislation is really part of that whole package that is leading to that pre-intended outcome the members opposite want to achieve.

In fact, if you look at the legislation, section 3(2) specifically exempts this process from the Referendum Act. Apparently, for some reason, the government doesn’t feel the provincial legislation is good enough in this process. I haven’t heard a clear articulation of why the Referendum Act, and the current provisions of the Referendum Act, aren’t being utilized in this process. Section 3 specifically says: “(1) Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act or the regulations. (2) The Referendum Act does not apply to this referendum.”

Again, if we have the legislation in place, I haven’t heard a clear articulation of why the thresholds and the standards in that legislation shouldn’t be used in this process.

We have serious concerns, also, about how the question will be determined. Ultimately, the bill ensures that the question will be decided by the NDP cabinet behind closed doors, maybe within the context of their secretariat with the B.C. Greens. But again, the question that will be on the ballot in the referendum process…. The legislation specifically sets up that that will be determined by cabinet.

As I’ve said, this will be the third attempt at a referendum, as British Columbians voted on this in 2005 and again in 2009. They’ve said, twice now, that they do not want proportional representation, both times following a very extensive engagement and consultation process with the public and a threshold that was much more appropriate for something as significant as this — 60 percent in 2005, 60 percent in 2009, both with the requirement for regional support as well; a simple majority of ridings in 2005 and 60 percent of the ridings in 2009.

Additionally, in the provisions here with the legislation, there’s no minimum voter turnout required. This enables a simple minority in our population to make fundamental changes to our voting system.

We have further concerns with the nature of the public engagement process that has yet to be determined. In the 2005 and 2009 referenda, the independent and non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform defined the process, defined the question. Each time, the assembly ensured British Columbians from every corner of the province would be consulted.

I can tell you that on this side of the House, we’re not expressing these concerns and taking these positions just from a position of wanting to maintain the status quo or feeling that we would lose seats. In fact, with the current system, if you look back over history, there are precedents of the party getting more of the popular votes and fewer seats in the Legislature. We just have to look back to 1996, when we had that situation. Again, it shows that there are circumstances where the current system, first-past-the-post, results in parties obtaining power without having to have the full majority of the vote.

So this isn’t coming from a position of self-interest. It’s coming from a desire to preserve our democracy and maintain a stable and efficient institution. I’m not sure we can say the same about the motives of the other side of the House in this proposed legislation.

We as a caucus will be having extensive discussions. We’ll be examining and continuing to examine the bill so that we can ensure the public is fully aware of what they will be voting on in 2018 and what it means for them.

[4:00 p.m.]

It’s quite clear the members opposite intend on proceeding with this, despite the concerns that we are registering. We anticipate that they will continue to move forward with this, and we’re going to need to be very, very active to ensure that the public fully understands all of the implications of what they will be voting on and what the implications are of a change to a proportional representation system.

A bare majority of 50 percent plus one is lowering the bar as far as possible. It ignores the need for regional support and shows a lack of respect for the public and a desperation to change for the sake of securing a shaky political alliance. It shouldn’t be this easy to change something as fundamentally important as our voting system.

This is all going to be done without a formal consultation process. They have started this process without being clear on how consultation is going to work, and ultimately, as I’ve noted earlier, with the question that will be on the ballot to be determined by cabinet. It’s all, again, part of that calculated strategy. This government appears to want to consult on everything related to their promises, except on this, something so fundamentally important.

We’ve noted the key elements of the bill. Voting day — no later than November 30, 2018. Voting method — a mail-in ballot. Again, many members have commented about the mail-in ballot process. I think it has very serious implications for the level of turnout. Many have commented on how the mail-in ballot or mail-in process is…. Mail generally is not used nearly to the degree that it used to be, and I think this could have a significant impact on voter turnout in the process.

The referendum is binding — 50 percent plus one — again pointing out that there are no regional thresholds in the structure and also no minimum voter turnout in order to determine something so fundamental as this.

The legislation sets up the possibility, distinct possibility, of more than one question or more than one option on the ballot. The new system, if there’s a change, would be in place for the next general election on or after July 1, 2021. The provincial cabinet drafts the question. The provincial cabinet can order the ballots be counted on a preferential voting basis, stacking the deck against the first-past-the-post system, meaning that if no option reaches 50 percent on first count, second and third choices are redistributed and counted.

By putting this in the legislation, it really does signal the intent and the anticipation that the question and the ballot will include those multiple options, which goes directly against the commitments that were made by the now Premier of the province before the election.

The most concerning element, and probably the one that causes the greatest concern, is the possible outcome to remove the direct link and accountability between the MLA and the constituents in his or her riding. People will often, as many members have talked about, ask: “What is the best part of your job? What do you enjoy most in the work that you do as an MLA?” I think all of us collectively answer that it’s the ability to serve the individual, serve your community, serve the individual constituents and the ability to provide that service that helps them navigate the pathways in government.

[4:05 p.m.]

We know from experience that sometimes those pathways are difficult and challenging for people. We’re able to provide them assistance, whether it’s to get them benefits they’re entitled to or get their issues addressed through various agencies that they’re trying to deal with. In many cases, it’s even just to provide a direct and listening ear to the issues that they’re dealing with, because sometimes you’re not able to solve all of the individual problems that come in. You do your best, but having that direct ability to connect directly and to work directly on their behalf is often the most rewarding part of this job.

As we’ve commented, we do that in conjunction with our constituency offices, because we’re in the community. We’re part of that community. We’re not assigned to that community from some pool of candidates that may come from a proportional representation system.

We work directly in our community. I know all members do in terms of volunteering in their communities in so many ways, supporting initiatives like the United Way and, in our riding, organizations like Inn from the Cold and Freedom’s Door. I serve on the board of directors for Meals on Wheels in the community. We’re working directly and providing that support directly in our community. We’re accessible because we maintain offices where we’re directly available. We’re directly accountable.

Every four years, we put ourselves in front of the people that we are directly accountable to in that ultimate job interview that is based both on how you work directly in your community and on the record and platform of the party that you are representing. This is particularly important. It’s even more important in rural ridings and in ridings that include multiple communities that are part of that riding, because they understand and rely on that direct relationship. They know they can connect with and they know they can visit their MLA on a regular and as-needed basis.

We often comment on the great work that our members do in those rural ridings. I represent a riding in Kelowna-Mission. If I get on my bicycle and ride hard, I can go from one corner of the riding to the other in probably about an hour. I know so many colleagues who have to drive hours to visit the communities that they represent, but they do that because they’re directly accountable to those residents in those communities.

I talked about the ability to represent your communities directly. When we look at Kelowna-Mission, when we look at the Central Okanagan, we’ve seen the real benefits of having that direct representation, that direct accountability in our communities, in the investments that we’ve been able to provide in our communities, whether it’s investments in the health care system — in the hospital, KGH, and the cancer centre in Kelowna — or whether it’s the new school in Upper Mission in my riding.

It’s the very, very important and significant investment that the province was able to make in the rail trail, supporting the communities to be able to maintain that corridor and that access through from Kelowna to Vernon and preserving that for the future — adding great benefits to our recreation, adding great benefits to the tourism package in the Okanagan and, ultimately, preserving that corridor for future transportation initiatives. It’s the critical transportation investments that we’ve been able to make in the community as well, particularly on Highway 97 through the community.

The investments that we’ve made in the Okanagan innovation centre in Kelowna are really driving the tech sector in the community — a $1.3 billion economic impact, which is up over 30 percent over the last two years. That’s 7,600 people employed in the local tech workforce, 633 technology companies and over $500 million in exits and acquisitions in the last two years through that investment. The investment that we were able to work directly for and achieve in the community, in the innovation centre, is paying those tremendous dividends and has created that centre of excellence. That sort of collision of ideas — the talent, the mentorship and the investment — continues to grow.

[4:10 p.m.]

Then you partner that with the investments that we’ve been able make in UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College — both leading post-secondary educational institutions that are working so closely with our communities in addressing the future education needs and training needs both for our communities and for the province — tied in with all of those other investments, the leading growth in our airport providing that access into the community. All great investments have been able to be made because we have those opportunities to provide that direct representation and accountability to the residents and to the constituents in our community.

In my view, proportional representation puts all of that at risk, and the stacking of the deck in favour of a positive outcome on some yet-defined question puts that at even more risk. I’ve heard from many of my constituents, and I expect I will hear from more as awareness develops of the value of that direct relationship and their desire to maintain our current system, which has served us well.

As I mentioned earlier, the approach that is outlined in this legislation and why it’s so concerning, with the structure of it and the approach that is being taken, is also, again, another pattern, another part of the broken promises of this government. The now Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, stated unequivocally and very, very clearly that the referendum question would be yes or no. When he was asked: “You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no?” His response was yes. “So you’re going to give them one system to vote on?” “Yes, exactly” — so an unequivocal commitment that the question in this process would be a yes or no question, a choice between the current system or another option.

Instead what we’re seeing now is enabling legislation that is going to clearly set up the process for multiple proportional representation options — again, stacking the deck in favour of that intended outcome.

It’s a bit of a pattern that we’re seeing from this government opposite: a clear list and a continued growing list, a developing list of broken promises and changes in commitments. They’ve said we would not have taxpayers pay for election campaigns, and what do we see in Bill 3? Exactly the opposite. And now again here in this proposed legislation in Bill 6 — another broken commitment along with so many others. Whether it’s ride-sourcing or any of those other commitments, it’s a growing list that seems to be the developing pattern of this government.

This is the core of my concerns and the opposition to this legislation. It really is the disenfranchisement of rural communities in B.C. — the possibility that our election process could be fundamentally altered by the voting populous of Metro Vancouver.

In addition, there are a number of concerns. Proportional representation systems need to be carefully considered. They generally tend to produce minority and coalition governments that produce instability for voters and investors. They can often lead to legislative gridlock and make it difficult for voters to hold their governments and representatives directly accountable and difficult for voters to understand the electoral administration and the complexity of the system. It results in fragmentation of the party system.

With first-past-the-post…. Our current system, as I’ve said earlier, provides clear choices between main political parties. It provides for greater stability. It promotes those strong linkages between constituents and their representatives, and popular independents can be elected without a political party. It’s simple and easier to understand.

While I can be persuaded to support a potential referendum, it would need to contain qualifiers that this bill does not have. It needs to have the appropriate thresholds to give the province a voice in the matter. It needs to be set up in a way that protects the regional and rural interests, and this legislation does not do that. As I said, Vancouver alone can push B.C. beyond the sole threshold contained in this bill at a 50-percent-plus-one majority.

[4:15 p.m.]

It doesn’t ensure that a certain percentage of the voting-age population needs to participate in the referendum processes. We’ve seen examples in other jurisdictions where a small voter turnout was achieved in a referendum process, and the government then actually made the decision because the voter turnout wasn’t at a level that they felt represented the majority or represented the real feelings. They didn’t proceed with it.

But this legislation doesn’t even set that minimum requirement for a percentage of voters to participate or to exercise their vote in the process. It can be manipulated through the question posed, the type of vote, and again, as I talked about, the multiple option process, which tilts the results in favour of what we believe is the intended outcome.

For these reasons and others I mentioned before, I can’t support the bill as it is. I’m worried that this reform will alter our democracy, shift it to a system that is disproportionate, in a constant and unstable state of disarray. I worry that it will give undue influence to fringe political roots and the province could fall victim to populist impulses of the day.

I worry that the representation that government strives to give constituents on a direct basis in our ridings will be severely compromised as a result of the process, by having representation from a pool of candidates that aren’t directly elected in that riding. It will severely compromise the process, because after each election, they have to go to a process to camouflage the results into a minority coalition government in some way.

Finally, I worry that in the outcome of a heavily favoured PR referendum, citizens will be on the hook for future delays in forming government, because it will be unstable and unsustainable, requiring the citizens of the province to wait for the deals and the coalitions and all of those processes to materialize.

We’ve clearly seen in other jurisdictions, and the experience and the evidence show, the time it takes to put an effective government in place following those votes under a proportional representation system: 589 days in Belgium, 208 days in the Netherlands, 314 days and four months in Spain. All of those examples show just what the possible outcomes are of a proportional representation vote and a fragmented party system.

I will not be supporting the proposed legislation as it stands. I’ll work actively to ensure that my constituents understand the risks, the outcomes that proportional representation manifests, and that they have the significant potential to not have the direct representation that they can count on, that they can expect, that has served them well for so many years and that they can weigh in on every four years, in terms of that job interview, when we put the work that we’ve done and our record, both provincially and in our ridings, in front of them to make that choice.

I will be, as I said, voting against Bill 6 as it currently stands. I appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House today and provide this perspective and comment. It continues to be a great honour to represent directly the residents and the constituents of Kelowna-Mission. I look forward, as this proceeds, to making sure that all of those constituents understand the implications and the risks that will unfold as this process moves forward.

Thank you very much for the opportunity, and, as again, I will be voting against Bill 6 as it currently stands.

L. Krog: I was so moved by the words of the member for Kelowna-Mission that I just felt inspired to make a few remarks today about Bill 6. I was struck by the ingratitude expressed by the member for an area of the province that produced W.A.C. Bennett’s premiership.

[4:20 p.m.]

Goodness gracious, back in 1952, it was that single transferrable ballot. It was a political experiment that led to the creation of Social Credit, which is surely acknowledged by the B.C. Liberal Party to be the founder of the great coalition that governed the province of British Columbia for 20 years, from 1952 to 1972. And that, then, was reborn in that magnificent juncture, between Conservatives and Liberals, that became the B.C. Liberal Party in name only.

Now, the member talked about we might fall victim to populist influence. My goodness. W.A.C. Bennett — if you want to talk about populism, there was a virtual founder of populism in British Columbia. It was up until that time we’d had nothing but Conservatives and Liberals and those raving former socialists, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. Now, this member, ungrateful to his political heritage, has the temerity in this House to criticize populism.

My goodness. I don’t know how he’ll go back to his constituents this weekend and look them in the face and decry populism in the town of W.A.C. Bennett’s hardware empire. It is a shameful display of ingratitude in this place, and I am surprised that the member would use that kind of language. He talked about risks, as if to suggest that the single transferrable ballot, which was the first experiment of its kind in British Columbia’s political history, was somehow going to bring the whole place to collapse.

Well, we know what happened. In fairness to W.A.C. Bennett, who was a great populist, the first thing he did, which this Legislature can do if this passes, was turn around at the next election and change the rules.

The B.C. Liberals seem to be suggesting that this change is going to be chiselled in stone like the tablets coming down from Mount Sinai and given to Moses by God. This is not a change that can’t be corrected.

One would hope that if this passes — and this bill will pass, I trust — and the good people of British Columbia vote for a proportional representation system, they will have an opportunity, through the election of new governments and new members over time, to change it, if they wish — to go back to the first-past-the-post system, which has been the way we’ve been electing British Columbians to this Legislature, steadily, since the ’53 election.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Now, “Why ruin a good thing?” the member says. Oh, the ingratitude. The ingratitude again: “Why ruin a good thing?” I suppose I should be grateful….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: They’re expecting me to be grateful, because that present system has put us on this side of the House and left them on that side of the House. Now, as much as I am grateful for that, I’m conscious of the fact that the three Green members who sit beside me….

Interjection.

L. Krog: It is inappropriate, Member, to comment on the absence or presence of members in this Legislature, but you’ll learn that rule, I’m sure.

The fact is, it’s irrefutable. The numbers are there, and the Chief Electoral Officer can certify them. The majority of British Columbians — 57 percent of British Columbians — voted in the last election for two political parties, both of which were committed to electoral reform. And here we put a bill before the Legislature — the new government of British Columbia, supported by the Greens pursuant to the confidence and supply agreement — that gives the voters of British Columbia, not by diktat…

Interjection.

L. Krog: …the full opportunity to vote for the possibility of proportional representation.

I’m surprised that there seems to be such fear on the opposition benches. Now, they point to examples of other nations that have had proportional representation for a long time and have run into difficulties forming governments. But I have a question for the members opposite, and I would be delighted to hear — particularly, from one of the leadership candidates who appears anxious to follow me in the speaking order today — what they have to say about the Mother of Parliaments, Great Britain.

[4:25 p.m.]

Now, the British House of Commons is still elected by the first-past-the-post system. But surely the members will not deny that in devolving powers to the Welsh and Scottish parliaments, both of those legislative bodies have proportional representation. Uh-oh. Uh-oh. The Mother of Parliaments has actually allowed significant portions of the United Kingdom to elect members through a proportional representation system.

Now, there aren’t a lot of democracies left in the world that don’t have a form of proportional representation. That is the political reality. The good people of New Zealand voted on it, brought it in and then had an opportunity a couple of elections down the road to vote again. They decided, quite rightly and sensibly, to retain it.

I appreciate that the members in the opposition are doing their job. They are doing their job, and they are to be credited for doing their job, which is to oppose anything that the government proposes. We get that. That’s the British parliamentary tradition.

But for some of us who have been at this…. How shall I say? I won’t call it a game, because that degrades what we do in this place. But some of us who have been active in politics for a long time have come to recognize that when the voter turnout drops well below 60 percent in many elections; when people feel disenfranchised; when the success of the federal Liberal Party is acknowledged by the Prime Minister to one of many of his campaigners and his supporters, I’m told, to be based on the fact that they targeted voters who hadn’t voted before, whether they were middle-aged folks who felt disenfranchised or whether they were younger people who were looking for a change called proportional representation….

You might recall, as a keen student of politics, that the federal Liberal Party did campaign clearly, saying over and over again — I forget how many times the Prime Minister repeated it, something several hundred — that this would be the last federal election run under the first-past-the-post system.

My point is this. People in the majority federally in the last election voted for parties that supported proportional representation.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member for Prince George–Valemount is saying he didn’t do it. Gosh darn, that’s right. We certainly know that. That was just another typical Liberal thing, another major broken promise.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: If the members keep interrupting me, they’re just going to prolong my remarks, and I won’t be able to finish what I want to say.

A. Olsen: You should just speak all day.

L. Krog: I wish I could.

The point is this.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I flourish. Oh, thank you.

The point is this. Federally, Canadians voted for parties that supported proportional representation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Provincially the vast majority of voters in the last election provincially supported proportional representation. It is an idea whose time has come. As members well know, there is the old saying: “Nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”

The fact is this system leaves too many voters and citizens feeling disenfranchised, feel they have no voice and feel powerless. They believe they have no control over the politicians they elect because there are lots of good people running in smaller parties — not the two old major parties, the New Democratic Party or the B.C. Liberals — who somehow can’t manage to get members here.

Last election, we saw people rise up in British Columbia and vote for the Green Party. Now, I would have preferred if they’d voted for the New Democratic Party. But 17 percent of British Columbia’s voters voted for a party that’s main commitment — with great respect to the members, and they won’t like to hear this — may, they think, be about the environment. But so many of the people who voted for them voted for them because they know that they supported proportional representation.

We know that when the citizens’ assembly…. I’ve given Gordon Campbell credit in this chamber many times, and the members know it. The fact is the majority — something in the range of 80 percent — of the submissions to the citizens’ assembly set up by Gordon Campbell were in favour of proportional representation.

Interjection.

[4:30 p.m.]

L. Krog: I’ll get to that, Member.

Nevertheless, the citizens’ assembly, for reasons which I have never had explained to me, supported a system that is used in Malta and Ireland, which you couldn’t explain to your grandmother. As I always say, if you can’t explain it to your grandmother in a minute or two, you probably aren’t going to get public support for it.

The member for Prince George–Valemount says: “Oh, it was turned down.” The threshold was a 60 percent vote, and what was it? The member will correct me if I’m wrong. Was it 59 percent of British Columbians voted in favour of what the citizens’ assembly recommended? Which, frankly….

I’m going to make an admission here to the members. I didn’t support it, because I wasn’t prepared to vote for a system that I couldn’t explain to my grandmother. But if the citizens’ assembly had recommended mixed-member proportional representation, I would have happily voted for it.

I come back to where I tried to make a point before I got drawn off course by the kind interruptions of the members opposite. I have been around long enough to see what this system has produced. It has produced a system that is still largely adversarial and that does nothing to encourage cooperation or participation by members in a meaningful way in the passage or creation of legislation and in the good governance of British Columbia.

What this bill does is set us on the road to building a better system of governance for the people of British Columbia. That’s why I’m inspired to stand up and say a few words today, because I believe that. I believe that our present system is, in many respects, broken. It is unfair. It is not reflective of the way most of us achieve what we do in life, which is through cooperation and work with others.

The reality is, in the last election, as I say, voters made it very clear that they wanted change. And now an opportunity is being given for the voters to have a decision on that change. We’re even going to make it easy for them to vote in it — to vote on the very issue. Surely, that would be a positive thing. They’ll have an opportunity to make their views known and to express themselves. The government’s going to come up with a question or questions as may be necessary so that we can get a clear response from British Columbians. Then, if it passes, they’ll have an opportunity to vote.

What is so wrong about the concept that the voters of British Columbia would have an opportunity to change the electoral system by actually marking a ballot and sending it in? I mean, it’s not a difficult concept. It’s not a radical change. For heavens sakes, we’re not burning the Bundestag here. All we’re doing is proposing that people have an opportunity to change the electoral system.

I know that the members opposite, some of whom, perhaps, sat around the cabinet table for the last 16 years, have found this change somewhat problematic. Perhaps they don’t feel they have that meaningful ability to make a contribution to the Legislature in the way that they did before when they sat around the cabinet table. But that is a function of our system. Imagine a system where parties are forced to cooperate, where people are forced to make compromise and where legislative committees actually make real contributions to the legislation that comes before this House.

Now, I don’t want to sound like I’m being too idealistic about this, but what I’m saying is nothing far-fetched. It is an opportunity to move forward, and I’m surprised that the members opposite don’t wish to embrace the possibility that we can do things better in this place.

I mean, do the members opposite really expect me to believe that they really enjoy this process as much as they’ve enjoyed other aspects of their lives where they’ve seen things move forward? Where they’ve perhaps educated young students? You know, moved municipal politics forward without the burden of the kind of partisanship that is the greatest reflection of this place and that we see here every day in question period. The students wander in and the students wander out, and another group of students wanders in and another group of students wanders out sort of shaking their heads and wondering: “Is this what politics is all about?”

[4:35 p.m.]

It should come as no surprise that if your first real experience with politics is to come into this place and watch question period, and you’re 14 or 15 years old, it is reminiscent of the line, which I’ve quoted before, from Bismarck: “If people saw how laws and sausages were made, they’d have nothing to do with either.” That’s the reality. That’s what the world sees.

What gets on the news at night? Question period. Both federally and provincially. Do the members in this chamber really feel good about that? Do they think that’s the best way of getting the message out, so to speak, to the voters? Is that the best way of moving the country forward — to watch the harangue that goes on back and forth in question period?

I don’t think so. I think people are hungry for a change. And I think, to come back to my point about those voters that the federal Liberals….

Interjections.

L. Krog: Just in the system, hon. Members. Don’t get too excited.

They’re hungry for a change in the system. It’s why they voted the way they did federally. It’s why they voted the way they did provincially. And that’s why the disappointment around the Prime Minister’s broken promise is so politically damaging to the federal Liberal party. Because people feel betrayed.

The opportunity is being given to British Columbians to make a change.

I just don’t understand. I wish I could. I haven’t heard any cogent arguments from the other side. Now, I have heard a lot of prepared notes, speeches that say the same thing. The new message from the other side: “They’re breaking their promise.” Goodness, how long have we been in government? For 104, 105, 106 days, and they’re already accusing us as if we’d been in power for 16 years.

Gosh. It’s the kind of thing we used to say on that side of the House when we were over there, but there were 16 years of experience. And here we are, keeping a promise. We are keeping a promise. The promise is to allow an opportunity for the voters of British Columbia to vote on a new system. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Carry on.

L. Krog: I come back to the phrase the member for Kelowna-Mission used: “Fall victim to populist influence.” Now, I don’t want to accuse the members opposite of having the control issue that politicians do or, you know, people in life do, generally.

Jefferson said: “Trust the people.” Now, Alexander Hamilton — he didn’t trust the people so much. He really kind of wanted a more aristocratic system in the United States. Jefferson said: “Trust the people.”

What I’m saying — what we’re asking on this side of the House, this time as the government — is trust the people. Let them vote. Let the people vote. Let the people have a voice. I’m not personally a huge fan of referenda, but, surely, if we’re going to make a change to the electoral system, it’s the right thing to do. To fund both sides. To give people an opportunity to be heard. To let them make that choice.

I come back to the issue the member for Prince George–Valemount raised earlier — that it was defeated twice. The second time it went down to a stunning defeat. The member is absolutely right. But the first time out, 59 percent of the people voted for a system that, as I say, I couldn’t vote for. That’s how hungry they were for change.

So imagine this time, with a full opportunity for discussion of the issue, for presentations, for intelligent debate — hopefully. I can tell the members, having been to a forum with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the member for Cowichan Valley, and a couple of other folks who were academics and much smarter than the three…. Well, maybe not smarter than the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. In fairness, a Rhodes scholar is pretty much up there. But these were two bright people along on the panel.

What, 200 or 300 people in Victoria city hall, crammed in to talk about electoral reform, excited about it. Full of bright ideas, all wishing to participate. We should never be afraid of that.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member says: “Try that in Prince George.” Whatever system we have — and I know what the member is getting at — is always going to be problematic in terms of balancing rural and urban interests. I get that.

Having grown up in a rural community, Coombs, B.C. — you couldn’t get much smaller and still have a name.

[4:40 p.m.]

Having grown up in Coombs, B.C., I understand what it is to grow in a rural community. The first school I went to, for the first two years, was a one-room school, as they used to call it — one classroom, two grades. I get that. Most of my family worked in the logging industry, so I understand the concerns. But the reality of Canada is that people have made a choice to congregate in urban areas for a whole series of reasons.

We know full well that a vote in Prince George is probably worth two votes in Surrey. I’m not going to comment on whether that’s right or wrong, but that is the way that the present system works to some extent.

Proportional representation, I believe, will be a step forward. Yes, the concerns of rural voters are always going to be an issue. I understand that. That’s why we have an act that provides now and allows for a 25 percent plus or minus difference, to take into account those concerns.

I get it too. I understand it. The resources are out in the rural communities, and the folks in the urban communities get the benefit of it. We all understand that. There’s not a person in this chamber…. Frankly, the people in the rural areas get it as well. It’s not just the folks in this chamber, and it’s not just the folks in Burnaby or Surrey. We understand that.

But the concerns of the members exist today, under our present system. The same problems exist. Those problems are not going to be, in my view, exacerbated by a change in the electoral system such as what Bill 6 enables the voters to determine. It’s not going to be exacerbated by it.

What that means is if rural British Columbians believe what I think is, frankly, an exaggerated view of the concerns that I hear from the opposition benches, they will have that opportunity to reflect that concern by turning out and voting in this. And actually…. Pardon me. I correct myself. They don’t even have to turn out to vote; they’ll just have to mail in a ballot. We’ll make it even easier for them. We’ll make it easier for them. We’ll make it easier for every British Columbian to have their say in this debate.

So we will be able to measure whether or not those members over there, some of whom represent rural constituencies, are actually speaking for their constituents. It will be interesting to see what the good voters of the rural constituencies of this province do with the possibility of electoral reform.

The members opposite may be quite shocked at how this turns out, because I come back to a point I made earlier: I have faith in the people. I think they will make choices that are in their interests and that reflect the dismay felt about the present system. All of the evidence, all of the history of the great democracies that have existed much longer than ours, have all moved towards some form of proportional representation.

The leader of the free world — today acknowledged — is not the President of the United States elected by the first-past-the-post system. It’s an ex-communist chemist called Angela Merkel, who has to pull together a coalition to run a united Germany. That’s the leader of the free world. That’s what the media tells us. I see some nodding heads on the other side.

Everyone acknowledges it. The first-past-the-post system has elected as the leader of the so-called free world someone who’s absolutely unfit for office. But in Germany, facing difficulties around proportional representation that the members are concerned about, they managed to get together behind a person who, I think, by generally universally held view, is up to the job.

I just think that the evidence points…. Although our system as it exists has sometimes thrown up some great leaders and passed wonderful legislation, I’m old enough to remember, as are most of the members in this chamber, the minority governments of Lester Pearson.

[4:45 p.m.]

Now, need I recite what the members already know so well? Public health care nationally. The Canada Pension Plan. The decriminalization of homosexuality. Were those bad things? When did they happen? They didn’t happen with a Diefenbaker or a Mulroney majority — the biggest majorities in the history of this country and our system, first-past-the-post. It happened at a time of minority governments, where the ruling party — the Prime Minister’s party — had to rely on the support of others just as this government relies on the support of the Green Party members. That, I would suggest — and political scientists, many of them will agree with the proposition — is when you get good things done. Because the first-past-the-post system inevitably leads to a concentration of power.

I’m sure Nathan Cullen wasn’t the first person to say it, but I certainly heard him say it. He was quoted, and covered in many communities across this country when he said: “What kind of a system is it? What kind of a system is it where you can get 40 percent of the vote, you get over 50 percent of the seats, and you get 100 percent of the power?”

When you put it in simple graphic language like that, voters understand why proportional representation should be given a chance in British Columbia and why they should be given a chance to vote on it. At the end of the day, notwithstanding the protestations of the members opposite, that’s all that this bill is proposing. It is proposing to give a chance to British Columbians to vote on a new voting system. If they reject it, every political party, probably for the foreseeable future, will wash their hands of it for a while. We’ll wait. We’ll struggle along with the first-past-the-post system. We’ll do our best. Voter turnout will continue to decline as it has.

There was a time in this country and in this province when turnouts of 70 and 80 percent plus were just the norm. And I’m not talking about the period of history where you had to be a white person with property to vote. I’m talking about the history of this country after everyone had the right to vote, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or country of origin. Those days we haven’t experienced in this country nationally for a long time and provincially for a long time.

So today I am absolutely delighted to stand in this place and defend and offer my support to this government in Bill 6. Because we are finally going to move ahead, I believe, or at least have the opportunity to move ahead down the democratic road.

We are still a young democracy. I think the possibility of allowing voters to make a change by way of a referendum, conducted across the province, is a good and positive step. I hope, I trust and believe this bill will pass. But more importantly, I hope the voters of British Columbia, given this opportunity, will seize it with enthusiasm. Then, ten years down the road, if the thing hasn’t worked, some other legislature elected with other members will change it. That’s the great thing about this. We can try. We can move forward, and we will. I’m happy to support this bill.

M. Lee: I rise today to speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. There are five principle reasons why I oppose this bill.

[4:50 p.m.]

First, stability. Whatever its other strengths may or may not be, proportional representation creates unstable coalition governments. We’re clearly getting a glimpse of that now with a government formed by the second-place party in the last election being beholden to the smallest. If you think that doesn’t matter, we are living in a global economy. Investors are watching. They need stability and predictability. This bill will undermine both.

The second reason why I oppose this bill is fairness. B.C. is a diverse place. We have world-class centres in the Lower Mainland, thriving mid-sized cities and vast stretches of rural country throughout our province. Yes, there are fewer people in these rural ridings, but the ridings are huge in size. Just ask the member for Nechako Lakes or the members for the two Cariboo ridings how long it takes to drive from one end to the other. It would take me less time to walk across Vancouver-Langara.

Right now rural B.C. needs more support, not less representation in this House. Instead, two parties that people in rural B.C. feel have ignored their priorities, problems and strengths not only continue to ignore them, but they try to make sure they can keep ignoring them indefinitely.

Third, this bill would erode the relationship between this House and British Columbians. Every member here, each one of us, has earned the privilege of being here. We all did it the same way, putting our names forward in our communities and asking for people’s trust. That’s the real foundation of our system: the two-way relationship we each have with the people we represent. It doesn’t matter which party you’re from, your constituents know they can come to you.

As others have said, I may be new here, but I know that every single one of us has helped constituents who didn’t vote for us and who may never do so. Despite that, it’s a good thing, because that’s our job. It’s our sacred trust. Having members sent here on party lists, answerable only to a party HQ? That doesn’t benefit anyone.

Fourth, proportional representation opens the door for small, fringe, extremist parties. This will undermine our democracy, tarnish our international reputation and make many British Columbians feel less welcome and less safe. We can’t let that happen.

Finally and most seriously, this is undemocratic. It’s not just that British Columbians have already gone through this twice before, but this bill keeps lowering the bar. Changing something as fundamental as our electoral system should require a clear, undeniable mandate. In this past election, just over 60 percent of British Columbians chose to vote. If this referendum had a similar turnout, our electoral system could be changed with the approval of less than a third of voters in B.C. And 50 percent plus one is not good enough to splinter Canada; it’s not good enough to change the way we vote here in B.C.

If the NDP and Greens are so confident that this is best for British Columbians, why not ask for a clear majority? Why not ask for a clear, undeniable mandate? Instead, they are choosing to imitate the worst tactics of the Parti Québécois: referendum after referendum until they get the answer they want. When they do get it, the issue may then, to the detriment of all of B.C., be closed forever.

This bill is shortsighted, cynical and a dangerous undemocratic attempt to rig the system to the benefit of the NDP and the Greens at the expense of stability and accountability. For these reasons, I’ll be voting against this bill.

As I’ve shared with this House before, I stepped forward in the last election so that I could help to improve the trust and confidence in whom we elect at any level of government, regardless of political party. More importantly, it was to come to this House to do what every one of us wants to do, no matter our political stripe, and that is to keep our province moving forward as we work to build a stronger and better B.C. It’s the reason that those hundreds of hours of doorstep conversations during the election mean so much to me today.

[4:55 p.m.]

I want to protect what’s worth protecting and change those things where gaps may exist. The decreasing confidence and trust in our political process needs to be addressed. That includes the concerns of those who might feel they have been left behind, who feel their interests may never make it to our provincial agenda, or those who are disillusioned by the political process, do not come out to vote and leave decisions to others.

As I said, I came forward in the last election to improve the trust and confidence of our government, but this bill is not the way to do this. The members opposite talk about this being the people’s House. But with this bill, this House will belong to someone else. Some of the members will be selected by the parties themselves, not the voters of B.C. This is a fundamental change to our political process put forward by the NDP and Greens for their own benefit, and theirs alone.

We can discuss electoral reform, but there needs to be a process. There is an expectation of transparency, clarity and fairness. This bill falls short on all three. If we are going to go through with the third referendum in 13 years, British Columbians have a right to expect at least the same level of public engagement and discussion we had in 2005 and 2009. Instead, it will be decided at the cabinet table. That’s very different from what happened before.

First, let’s talk about the mandate and then about the process. The first-past-the-post system is a voting system that results in having a government with a stronger mandate. I agree with most members of this House that we need to increase voter turnout across the board, but if the NDP and the Greens believe a majority government elected with less than 60 percent turnout is a problem, why would the threshold for changing our entire system be set at 50 percent?

This bill establishes no minimum quorum or a minimum number of constituencies around the province for the referendum to pass. Without these additional requirements, based on a 60 percent turnout, 31 percent of the voters could determine the result. Metro Vancouver could determine the new system of voting for B.C., overriding the votes and the voters in the rest of this province. That’s not a legitimate mandate. The NDP–Green Party aren’t just moving the goalposts to benefit themselves; they’re shortchanging the process.

As a province, we have considered electoral reform by referendum twice before. The 2005 referendum was a provincewide vote that had a thorough and complete consultation with British Columbians. The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was set up to assess models for electing MLAs and then issue a report recommending on whether the current model for elections should be retained or another model should be adopted.

The citizens’ assembly was painstakingly put together to reflect the province — one man and one woman randomly selected from each of B.C.’s then 79 electoral districts, two Aboriginal members and a chair. The process, for over one year, ensured not only gender balance but fair generational and geographical balance. That was just 13 years ago.

Today we have the NDP and Greens representing only themselves and their interests. After that extensive review involving 50 public hearings, with close to 3,000 members of the public attending and 1,600 public submissions from across B.C., the citizens’ assembly released its final report. They suggested a specific model: the single transferable vote.

In that referendum of 2005, there was a clear question on whether to retain the existing first-past-the-post system or to change it to a single transferable vote. To pass, the electoral referendum act established specific complete rules: a minimum of 60 percent overall, with a simple majority in 48 of the then 79 electoral districts. That was the key, unlike with this bill. British Columbians from all parts of the province must be given a fair hearing on the electoral system, and regional considerations must be given weight.

[5:00 p.m.]

Just four years later, in 2009, this province had a second referendum on electoral reform, once again held during a general election. In 2009, voters were again given a simple choice, the choice between the first-past-the-post or the single transferable vote systems. Once again, this second referendum also required 60 percent overall approval and 50 percent approval in at least 60 percent — which then was 51 out of 85 — of the province’s electoral districts in order to be passed. In that referendum, voters in British Columbia voted in favour of maintaining the first-past-the-post system, at 60.91 percent. The single transferable vote system only got support from 39 percent of voters in that referendum.

The government of the day was also dedicated to making sure that British Columbians made an informed choice. They split $1 million in funding between the registered proponent and opponent groups. The Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act regulation set out a process for interested organizations to apply. The selection was based on eligibility, experience and capacity. The Attorney General’s office established a referendum information office with a mandate to provide objective information to voters about electoral systems.

With this bill, instead of establishing a citizens’ assembly to determine the form of proportional representation and the question to be asked, the NDP and Greens seem to think that they are the citizens’ assembly — the parties that finished second and a distant third, respectively, just five months ago.

This is a bill that has emerged from the NDP–Green Party agreement, with very little transparency and openness with British Columbians. Section 3.1(b)(ii) of the confidence and supply agreement between the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. NDP caucus, which was signed at the end of May 2017, says: “The parties agree that they will work together in good faith to consult British Columbians to determine the form of proportional representation that will be put to a referendum.”

This would indicate, first, that they would consult British Columbians on the form of proportional representation that would be put to the referendum. Secondly, it would indicate that there would be just one form, not multiple forms, of proportional representation that would be put to that referendum.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Well, it does. It says: “…determine the form of proportional representation that will be put to a referendum.” That’s one single form. It doesn’t say multiple forms, which is what is being suggested today by this government.

With one form of proportional representation, it should be a simple yes-or-no question, just like it was, as I outlined, in the first and second referendum. For example, that question could be this. Which electoral system should British Columbia use to elect members to the provincial Legislative Assembly: the existing electoral system or the proportional representation system proposed by the NDP-Green coalition?

By the way, without any citizens’ assembly, as it was in the first and second referendum, without any independent body of British Columbians reviewing this change in rules…. That is the issue that we have in front of us. What’s been set up here has been a playing field that is levelled in the favour of the NDP and the Green Party.

That should be the simple question that should be asked. Instead, what we’re going to have, as I understand it, is a series of choices between different forms of proportional representation. The agreement goes on to state: “The parties agree to both campaign actively in support of the agreed-upon form of proportional representation.” Again, it’s singular. It’s one agreed upon form.

It is clear from this agreement, I say, that this is a foregone conclusion. This is not an impartial exercise, as it was in 2005 and 2009. It’s one that’s clearly informed by the proportional representation platform of the Green Party and not the NDP.

[5:05 p.m.]

To be clear, as the MLA for Nanaimo commented…. This is, in my view, the party that earned 17 percent of the vote in the last election that is setting all of this up. In a way, this is a perfect illustration of what we can expect under proportional representation: a larger party being held hostage, not just by a smaller party but a much smaller party.

This bill is not designed to serve the interests of British Columbians. It’s the political deal that the NDP made to gain the support of the Green Party to form a minority coalition government.

The way of creating this referendum is a flip-flop from what the Premier said about his proposed referendum during the election. On May 1, six months ago, he said: “I was a fan of the citizens’ assembly that Mr. Campbell put in place.” The citizens’ assembly had consulted across the province, not just members in this House. So, too, did the Premier promise a simple yes-or-no question. In the same interview, when asked whether he would give British Columbians one system to vote on, the Premier said: “Yes, exactly.”

So I ask the members of this government and the Premier: what has changed so much in just the last six months? Where is his commitment to a better B.C.? Now, instead of a simple yes-or-no ballot, voters will have to choose between multiple PR options against the status quo. Voters who choose first-past-the-post will also have to choose between multiple PR systems for their second or third choices.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Well, we are too. This is the question that we’re concerned about.

In this House we are being…. It’s been suggested that there will be multiple choices for the PR system.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Well, I think that we need the clarity from the government as we go forward with this bill. The understanding is that there will be multiple options being proposed here, not just a simple choice. If the member opposite thinks there should be a clear choice, I would agree with him. That’s my point. So why is the government so intent on making this process, as we just demonstrated, as opaque, confusing and as self-serving as possible?

There are many different diverse areas of this province, each of which have unique considerations, and just as those regions have been given MLAs in this Legislature, they must also be given a voice in this referendum. If the NDP and Greens don’t feel it necessary to have those regions have a voice in the referendum that equals their voice in this chamber, it is obvious that they don’t respect their voices in this chamber.

There are members in this chamber on the government side who represent constituents from rural B.C. Those voices of their constituencies will be at risk with this referendum. They will be muted by the Lower Mainland and drowned out by the more densely populated areas of this province, despite their unique and varied circumstances. Every corner of this province must have a voice, and they won’t in this referendum.

When you look at First Nations and where they’re distributed across this province, roughly three-quarters of First Nations people in this province live outside the Lower Mainland. Their voices will also be muted in this referendum.

This shows a lack of respect for the public and the desperation to change for the sake of securing a shaky political alliance. It shouldn’t be this easy to change something as fundamentally important as our voting system. It speaks to a lack of accountability. A lack of local accountability is a hallmark of proportional representation. Proportional representation systems make it difficult for voters to hold their governments and local representatives accountable.

As shown in other parts of our world, some parties are always major forces in governing coalitions under proportional representation, despite having almost non-existing electoral performances. For example, in Germany, which was just mentioned here earlier, the Free Democratic Party has held the balance of power for 45 of 64 years. During that time, this party…. The average share of the vote was only 7 percent, never surpassing 12.5 percent. After the most recent election in September, they again held the balance of power.

[5:10 p.m.]

That’s not even the worst part. Often in a proportional representation system, representatives are selected from party lists rather than having local members. That means an MLA representing communities such as Quesnel, Penticton, Terrace or Duncan could live in downtown Vancouver with no sense of what life is in a small rural community like those and other parts of this province.

Instead, they’ll be selected by party executives and lined up with little sense of the communities they will represent. I don’t think a single British Columbian would tell you that having more party insiders in the Legislature will increase trust and confidence in this House. This is my concern.

This is the kind of situation like we see with the most recent election in New Zealand, which was also referenced here, where the government’s coalition agreement had to be ratified by an anonymous board of New Zealand First, a political party.

The local newspaper there had a headline that read “New Zealand election result ‘held hostage’ by anonymous board of minor party.” An excerpt from that article quotes the party leader requesting that the privacy of that board be respected, a move that left journalists scouring social media in an effort to piece together the identities of the men and women who were now charged with deciding the makeup of New Zealand’s next government.

The board is made up of a coalition of private citizens, including a number of people who stood for New Zealand First in their electorates or have long-standing affiliations with the party. Another quote from that article reads: “The next government won’t be decided by voters but by a faceless and secretive board.”

Just for the record, if the members in this House from the Green Party think this is a good idea, New Zealand First describes itself as a nationalist party that believes in severely restricting immigration, making it legal to put younger people in jail and longer prison sentences. It would be one thing for their elected members to be the balance of power. But an anonymous party board — that’s a concern.

This is the system that the NDP and the Greens will be advocating for — anonymous boards and appointed candidates. British Columbians have said twice now that they do not want proportional representation. If this third referendum fails, will we instead have another? What would the threshold be then? Would it be lowered to a third or even a quarter?

Or will the NDP finally cave and do as the Green Party would like from the very beginning, which is just force this proportional representation system on this province? This, of course, speaks to the fragile nature of this government, which would be dramatically exacerbated under this new form of proportional representation.

The record example of the instability of proportional representation governments comes from Belgium after the 2010 election. After that election, parties were unable to agree on a coalition. They went on for 589 days without a government — 589 days. While day-to-day government operations continued, major decisions — such as migration legislation, a response to the eurozone crisis and, really, any new legislation whatsoever at a federal level — were delayed for almost two years.

Almost 600 days without a government — B.C. can’t afford that. We can’t afford a system of government that would expose us to that kind of instability. They had, in Belgium, no legislation, no changes to laws and no elected officials responding to crises. How would we govern ourselves in this province if we had a similar situation? What would have happened in the recent wildfire season or with the floods in the spring?

Of course, there are other issues facing this province, as we’ve said in this House: the opioid crisis, the housing crisis. How would we deal with those issues if we couldn’t find ourselves forming a government within 600 days?

[5:15 p.m.]

Instability is not what we need as a province right now. There are too many challenges and opportunities that we as a province need to deal with. We need to build consensus in this House, using our first-past-the-post system and not dividing this House further into special and fringe parties representing narrow and divisive interests in our province.

Another example of the instability that this proportional representation system would bring is Spain, which went 314 days without a government and needed to have two elections before they were able to form a government. That’s almost a full year and two separate election campaigns. At the end of that process, that long process, the governing coalition still didn’t have enough support to elect a Prime Minister, but the other side abstained rather than force a third election.

I go through these examples because I think it’s important in this House that we understand what we’re bringing upon ourselves. The MLA from Nanaimo indicated earlier: “If this doesn’t work out, we’ll just correct it. We can correct it ten years from now.” We don’t have ten years. We don’t have 16 years. We need to do this now. We need to move forward as a province.

This is not the time for us to continue to enable the two parties on the other side of this aisle to tilt the field, to change our political process in a time where we need strong government. This is what we need in this province.

If you believe in that, then we don’t need this referendum. You were elected by this system that has worked so well in this province. Because we, as a province, are very different in the sense that this riding and these geographic ridings around this province are so different. They need a direct representative to represent them, because each of the communities around this province has specific needs that cannot be determined by Metro Vancouver.

I go on to say that the most critical example of all, of course, is in Italy. Since the Second World War, Italy has had as many Prime Ministers as Canada has in its entire history — 65 governments in 70 years. The average length of those governments is barely a year.

If we can’t find stable governments here in this province, we will have instability by way of election after election. If the member for Nanaimo thinks that we can fix this system again, after we’ve had a system of proportional representation, how do you think we’re going to get consensus on that? How would the consensus work in a House that’s divided, with special interest parties who are acting in their own self-interest? I don’t see it.

This is what we’re inviting on this province. This is the reason why this B.C. Liberal caucus on this side of the House is so concerned by this bill.

Germany is likely to go more than 100 days before forming government. There, the Alternative for Germany Party, a far-right party with strong fascist roots, will have 94 seats.

In the Netherlands, they went 208 days without forming a government — a four-party coalition government anchored by an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-immigration Christian Union Party. There’s a trend.

Interjections.

M. Lee: You might think it’s a joke, but it’s not a joke. These are the kinds of extreme parties that this province may be exposed to when you have a system that this referendum is proposing.

This is a trend. This is a trend around the world. These are two democracies much like our own, both with extremist right-wing parties being elected less than a year apart.

Israel has also struggled with extremist right-wing parties. Slovakia and Australia are also both facing similar surges…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Lee: …in far-right sentiment.

With those points, I will tell you that I’m opposed to this bill. Thank you for hearing me out.

D. Davies: I’d like to thank my colleague for the standing ovation.

I’d like to stand with my fellow northern and rural members to provide a bit of a perspective that might easily be lost as we discuss this electoral reform — or deform — bill that is before us today.

[5:20 p.m.]

For those of us that represent ridings that are huge geographically and very lightly populated, having a dedicated voice in this Legislature is absolutely critical. Peace River North is certainly one of those ridings. In fact, my riding, as I’ve mentioned in this House numerous times before, spreads over 161,000 square kilometres, larger than Ireland, Switzerland and Vancouver Island combined.

Our small population is spread out across the entire region, and it’s full of smaller rural communities. In fact, I was lucky to take a tour of my full riding this summer, from the southern tip to the far north. It took me approximately 17 hours over a couple of days to go just north to south in my riding. Near impossible — you have to fly into many of my communities — if I were to go west.

But it’s also, more importantly, a very long way from Victoria. So distant, I believe, in fact, that it would be quite easy to be simply overlooked, overlooking the needs of our smaller communities by only listening to the larger populations which are located in the Lower Mainland. But up until this, that doesn’t happen. It doesn’t happen because we have an elected representative, myself, whose sole job is to remind the government that we are out there and that we are just as important as everywhere else in this province.

Rural and northern constituents and constituencies do matter. It doesn’t matter if you’re in Fort St. John or in Metro Vancouver, we all enjoy the exact same rights, and we all have a voice in this place. And my job as an MLA is to ensure that the people in Peace River North get effective representation in this Legislature.

It’s also my job as an MLA, and every MLA in this House, to represent every person in my riding — not just the ones who voted for me, but everyone, even if they didn’t vote in the last election. That’s because my job is to set aside my own party affiliation and make sure that, whatever I do, I am serving the best interests of all of my constituents.

I mean that from the bottom of my heart. This is the compass — I’m sure that I speak for everybody in here — that guides us as elected representatives. If we don’t put people first in our ridings, I truly believe that we are not doing our job.

There’s another aspect of being an MLA, and that’s to be a lawmaker. It is our responsibility as elected representatives to examine all of the legislation that is presented to all of us in this House. We are responsible to ensure that the laws enacted during this session of the Legislature are in the best interests of all British Columbians. This includes the people of Peace River North, because I’m accountable to them.

So when I see a piece of legislation like the one that we are debating before us today, Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum Act, it is my job to give it a thorough examination and determine if it makes my constituents’ lives better or worse. After careful review of this bill, I have to concur with my fellow MLAs who represent northern and rural British Columbia and who have already commented on this bill. Each of them has already arrived at the same conclusion — that under proportional representation, we are at risk of how we’ll be represented in this place.

Without question, this legislation will fundamentally change the way our democratic system will happen and the way we elect our representatives. Take, for example, what the member for Skeena said. He also represents a remote part of British Columbia just as culturally diverse as Peace River North. The member for Skeena concluded that this bill on electoral reform is deeply flawed.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin also agrees. We all represent different parts of the province, each with its own unique communities but all with a common understanding: without a designated, specific representative to champion the rights of northern, rural and remote constituencies, we would essentially lose our voice in the Legislature.

[5:25 p.m.]

I believe that is what the Green Party and the NDP intend to do with this bill. They want to fundamentally change our democratic system of electing representatives — in fact, change our system that is looked upon from people around the world, governments around the world, as an incredible electoral system, an envy of electoral systems from around the world.

Now, before I start, I want to make it clear, though, that the B.C. Liberal Party is not opposed to electoral reform. We understand that there’s always room for improvement. In fact, as mentioned already here, we were the ones who launched not only one but two referendums in the past on proportional representation — one in 2005 and the other in 2009. But as we mentioned, we took a far different approach. We wanted to include British Columbians. We wanted to make sure that we had the voice of British Columbians before we moved forward, before we introduced legislation.

The B.C. Liberal Party believes that any changes to our democratic system should come from the people — and a decisive percentage of those people. I’ll look at this more, shortly.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We also believe electoral reform should be conducted by a neutral, independent body. We certainly don’t believe that the ruling government should be dictating this reform. It only generates public cynicism about our political process. For obvious reasons, any ruling government — in this case, the NDP and the Green Party coalition — would be far too tempted, I believe, to change the rules in their favour, which is precisely what this bill intends to do.

When the B.C. Liberals proposed electoral reform, we turned it over to the public. We created a neutral entity known as the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, which was overwhelmingly quite popular with both parties, I believe. The citizens’ assembly was at length from government so that everybody was protected from any political interference.

The citizens’ forum was composed of 161 citizens, men and women randomly selected from every single constituency in the province, including my riding of Peace River North. We also had members representing our Indigenous communities. The reason why the B.C. Liberal government did this was to ensure that the public had confidence in this system and confidence in this process, that no group or third party would have undue influence in shaping the future of our democratic system.

This is what exposes deep flaws in this bill, the whole approach of how the NDP and the Green Party are approaching this bill. A government should not be directly involved in the way that people vote. Unfortunately, that’s how things happen in tinpot dictatorships, when the government gets involved in how people vote.

Yet the NDP and the Green Party feel that they do have the right to design a new form of government behind closed doors, by an order of cabinet, and make these decisions about how this referendum will play out. And I say the words again: play out.

This is not electoral reform. I truly believe that this is a deliberate attempt to rig the next provincial election.

Interjections.

D. Davies: I’m not sure if that was giggling or agreeance across the way.

Before I begin to approach the topic of proportional representation, I want to point out another reason why this bill is so deeply flawed. There’s not one mention of the model or the kind of proportional representation that the government intends to impose on the people of British Columbia. This legislation only lays out a process to change the way people vote, but it doesn’t say what they’ll be voting on. That privilege is reserved exclusively by the NDP cabinet and the Green Party.

Cabinet will decide after the NDP and the Green Party have negotiated behind closed doors, and they have already set up taxpayer-funded entities in the Premier’s office to manage these negotiations. We’ve already heard this before. It’s called the confidence and supply agreement secretariat, and it only meets between the NDP and the Green Party. It’s all laid out in this prenuptial agreement signed this past May, this confidence and supply agreement.

[5:30 p.m.]

This document outlines the term of this love and marriage between the NDP and the Green Party. Under section 3 of this confidence and supply agreement, article 1, part B, of the political prenuptial, you can find out how the two parties plan to rewrite the way British Columbia is governed.

Part B is on proportional representation. I’ll quote directly from the document. A referendum on proportional representation will take place in the fall of 2018, concurrent with the next provincial election. The form of proportional representation provided in the referendum will be enacted for the next election. It sounds pretty straightforward, but the problem is that I believe the NDP was in such a rush to get the Green Party to the wedding altar that they failed to do all of their homework first.

Consequently, neither of the terms as we see outlined in part B of the prenuptial agreement can be honoured. In the first place, a referendum on proportional representation will not take place concurrent with the next municipal election — also, as the Premier has previously promised.

The government has to break this particular promise because, well, I believe they screwed up. The NDP and the Green Party negotiators failed to realize that the provincial voter list is quite different from the municipal voters list. In fact, it’s safe to say that most municipalities don’t have a voters list. I suppose it’s understandable that this “change in the whole way that we elect our government” thing is really more complicated than it looks.

But no worries. The NDP and the Green Party have got this. According to an October 4 press release, the government is going to “bring B.C.’s democratic institutions into the 21st century,” and they are going to do it through a mail-in ballot. You heard that correctly: bringing our electoral reform into a 21st-century atmosphere through mail-in a ballot. The government is taking action to modernize our democracy through snail mail.

Next fall the government is going to slip a ballot through your mailbox — or whatever you have at your home, maybe a slot in your door — along with all the other junk mail, the flyers, all those things that just stack up after a while. Finally, someone in your household…. Or maybe you direct your children to take that big pile out to the recycle. That sounds rather suspect. You’d be quite correct.

In fact…. This is quite funny. Just shortly ago, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General was bragging — just an hour ago, I believe — about modernizing how police issue tickets. He was going to say that we’re going to modernize technology and bring it into the 21st century by using on-line systems to write tickets and allow people to pay their tickets on line. Yet here we are, in an effort to change one of our most critical pieces of legislation, our electoral system, by using traditional postal service. Hmm. Crazy.

I don’t want to be taken out of context. Canada Post, our postal service, plays an important role. But it should not be the only means by which we are seeking out one of the most critical pieces of legislation that is being planned to be changed. Canada Post should not be the only way that we are getting hold of our citizens.

How is the government going to legitimatize plans to fundamentally change the way we elect people without a proper referendum — one that is overseen by elected officials to ensure that it is scrutinized, to ensure that it is done properly, with accountability? Well, I don’t see that at all in this bill. And according to the Minister of Finance, it’s actually too expensive to hold a referendum vote. Furthermore, what about British Columbians that don’t have a fixed address? There’s no mention of how this will be dealt with.

[5:35 p.m.]

On October 5, the Finance Minister appeared on Shaw television’s Voice of B.C. program. The minister declared: “We felt that there is a cost savings there” — that’s using Canada Post — “It’s accessible for everyone. There’ll still be some voting spots where people can go if they want to actually mark their ballot and leave it there. There’ll be a number of centres around the province, but a mail-in ballot gives the most accessibility, the most opportunity, and it saves money as well. It really is the best choice for British Columbia.”

So let me get this right. Electoral reform is the government’s number one priority, but it’s too expensive to actually hold a proper referendum. It’s troubling. The NDP and the Green Party want to fundamentally change the way that governments are elected, but we just don’t have enough money to do it really properly. Well, I guess there are better ways to spend the $2.7 billion surplus that the B.C. Liberal government handed them just a few months ago.

That leads us to the second part of this prenuptial agreement, again, known as the supply and confidence agreement. “The form of proportional representation approved in the referendum will be enacted in the next election.” Once again, that’s now in doubt. It all depends on the Green Party. Referring once again to that October 4 press release: “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 after July 1, 2021.”

Now, it sounds like a bit of mumbo-jumbo. Allow me to translate the best I can. So basically, if the government is defeated on a confidence motion before July 1, 2021, the whole deal is off. The marriage is over. I believe that the NDP has found a way to lead the Green Party around with a carrot. Just saying. Just saying. The Green Party has to quietly sit on their hands and prop up this government for the next, maybe, 4½ years, or they won’t get their shot at proportional representation. But we’ll see if this marriage lasts.

In the meantime, I’m going to return back to how poorly written this bill really is. The next topic we need to examine is the threshold. The NDP and the Green Party plan to actively campaign for proportional representation. They’re going to be spending tax dollars to make sure that this referendum passes. And what better way to make sure that you win a referendum than to drop the threshold to an absolute bare minimum 50 percent plus one?

That is a rather dangerous proposition, a fact we saw in the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty. The result was so close, with the no side winning by 50.58 percent. This close vote left a province and, indeed, our country deeply divided, to this day.

When a referendum is set at 50 percent plus one, there was always a danger of one side perceiving the results as illegitimate. That is why the B.C. Liberals, in our past referendums, set it at 60 percent, plus 50 percent of all ridings. This ensures, then, that the final result is considered decisive — therefore, legitimate.

I find it rather curious that the NDP and the Green Party both point often to made-in-Europe examples as to why we should adopt proportional representation. They aren’t pointing to a closer-to-home example, an example that happened in our own country just a couple years ago. I’m talking about the referendum on proportional representation in Prince Edward Island.

Not sure why we wouldn’t want to talk about a fellow province in our Confederation. I wonder if it’s because the Premier of this province and the leader of the Green Party are not necessarily prepared to face the music in the same way as the Premier of Prince Edward Island did during the referendum.

It’s interesting, because B.C. appears to be following a very similar course of action as Prince Edward Island did, in many aspects. P.E.I. decided to hold a referendum on proportional representation two years ago. And just like P.E.I., the B.C. government wants to propose a whole list of different options, rather than a simple yes-or-no question.

[5:40 p.m.]

The referendum will offer a bunch of different systems that voters will be expected to rank in order of preference. Sounds confusing? If the final product is anything like it was in P.E.I., the referendum question could sound like this: “Rank the following electoral systems in your order of preference, 1 through 5, with the first choice being the most preferred and the fifth choice your least preferred. You may choose as many or as few of the electoral system options as you want: (1) dual member proportional representation; (2) first-past-the-post” — the current system; “(3) first-past-the-post plus leaders; (4) mixed member proportional representation; and (5) preferential voting.”

We need to put every British Columbian through a PhD system on political science, I believe, just so we can sort all of this out. I’m sure that the average person is going to be able to differentiate, when this piece of mail comes through with all their flyers, the difference between MMP, DMP, STD…. Not standards — STVs. Generally, proportional voting in all. I think that wa’s a Freudian slip.

It’s just like learning the ABCs. It’s really quite simple, isn’t it? And you should see the ballot. I’ve looked at multiple ballots. You know, my eyes go crossed just when I look at this ballot. It is absolutely confusing.

I must confess that it isn’t that easy. Certainly, the average person is going to go about their life working and playing throughout this great province of ours. I think it would be a bit of a challenge to understand all these different options and rank them according to preference when they’re out working and playing and doing other things.

The people of Prince Edward Island also didn’t fully get into this whole thing either. You see, in the end, the Prince Edward Island referendum did pass, by 52 percent of the people, who voted in favour of mixed member proportional representation. But there was one little problem with the result. The Premier of Prince Edward Island had to reject the results because of exceptionally poor voter turnout.

Only 36 percent of the voters decided to participate in the referendum. And only one in five registered voters actually voted for change. Historically, you see, voters in Prince Edward Island turn out in about 80 percent in provincial elections. But for some reason, MMP failed to ignite the hearts and drive the people in droves to head out to the voting polls to vote for electoral change.

In fact, the residents of Prince Edward Island predominantly ignored the convoluted referendum, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. You see, Prince Edward Island did actually attempt to bring electoral reform into the 21st century. They let people use something called the Internet to vote, first of all. They could go on line. They could actually use the telephone to vote. And they even lowered it to 16- and 17-year-olds, because they would be eligible at the next provincial election. But not in B.C.

Remember what the Minister of Finance said on Shaw TV? I mentioned it a minute ago. “Snail mail is really the best option,” and: “It’s cheaper, too, in the 21st century.” But I don’t understand why the NDP and the Green Party have failed to mention all of this. I guess all of those stable countries like Spain and Rwanda and Greece have a much better system than we do. So without knowing what the NDP and the Green Party have in store for British Columbians — shhh, that’s a secret — I want to return to what proportional representation means to rural and northern B.C.

[5:45 p.m.]

If you do the math, it doesn’t take long to figure out that the population of Metro Vancouver — 2.5 million people — outnumbers the rest of British Columbia’s remaining population scattered throughout the province. In other words, people in the North, the Island, the Interior, the coast, Kootenays and Peace River North will have very little say in how this referendum rolls out.

Under proportional representation, the voting system, you get the proportional, but you don’t get the representation. I really believe that we are at risk of securing local representation if this moves forward. So if you’re unhappy with your government, it becomes almost impossible to change that. Proportional representation not only has the possible effect of blurring truly local representation; it makes it very hard for local voices to be heard in this place. That is why the B.C. Liberal Party is against this bill.

Let’s recap. Rather than turn electoral reform over to the people and establish a neutral organization like the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, the NDP and the Green Party want to cook up a scheme of their own and hide behind this cabinet secrecy to build and sell this referendum. Then they will ram it through this place using the minority of partners. And the Green Party, who really, really, really, really want this — really, really, really want this…. They want this more than anything. Someone mentioned here a day or two ago that the leader of the Green Party would log Stanley Park to get proportional representation. They really, really want this.

Secondly, by establishing a bare minimum threshold of 50-plus-one percent, the NDP and the Green Party want to plunge this province into a potential political crisis by setting the bar so low that it can be contested.

Third, the NDP and the Green Party are going to modernize our democracy using snail mail to get the word from the most British Columbians. P.E.I. let people vote on line, but the Minister of Finance says we can’t afford that. Furthermore, if the snail mail vote is conducted and most British Columbians place their ballot in the recycling box, there is no minimum threshold and no respect for voter participation.

Now, we know for a fact that a stand-alone mail-in ballot is not going to attract anywhere near the 60 percent of eligible voters who participated in the last provincial election. They already had to break their promises to hold the referendum in conjunction with the next round of municipal elections. If less than half the registered voters participate — say, 30 percent, based on the May results — and a bare minimum of 50-plus-one percent in favour of proportional representation is required, do you really think the support of 16 percent of the eligible voting public is really a legitimate push to change our electoral system, one of the most important pieces of legislation our province has? The Premier of P.E.I. did not think so.

Would the B.C. NDP and the Green Party think that is a legitimate result? Would they have the fortitude to admit defeat and ignore the results of this referendum if that was the case? To be honest, I think the NDP and the Greens are so determined to rig the next election that they will do anything. Before that happens, people should be aware that people are catching on. There are forces gathering in this province that feel pretty strongly about our current form of democracy — pretty strong.

If we look at Iceland…. We just look at examples around the world. Iceland is a great example. They have 63 seats represented by eight parties, and they’re constantly in this unknown, this upheaval, snap elections being called.

You know, Canadians fought in two World Wars to defend our right to vote, to defend our democracy. We have Remembrance Day coming up to honour those people that fought for our democracy. We fought in Korea. We fought in Afghanistan. Right now there are Canadian Forces serving in some of the most dangerous places on earth to defend democracy, to defend the freedom and our system of democracy.

This is something I don’t take lightly. This is something that I am going to be fighting for, fighting for the residents of B.C., fighting for my constituents. I will not be supporting this bill.

[5:50 p.m.]

A. Kang: I thought I’d come into the House and just chime in my two cents here.

Bill 6 is another important step to fixing our democracy. I would like to personally commend the Attorney General for introducing a comprehensive bill package that will fix all aspects of democracy bit by bit. We can see that this government is honouring its campaign promises, and we are starting off the session by taking this issue very seriously.

Before I continue my discussion of Bill 6, I would like to recognize the fact that we are working on the traditional territories of the Lekwungen-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. I speak with humility and utmost respect for our predecessors on the topic of electoral reform. The Attorney General has assured us that the discussions on reforming our electoral system will involve the First Nations people extensively.

I often warn against taking our democracy for granted. Our world is constantly changing, so are our values and beliefs. Regardless of how strong we have built our foundation of democracy, the foundation erodes and gets worn down. It is up to us to strengthen it.

Some may be concerned about the costs associated with Bill 6. But let me tell you, we cannot put a price on democracy. We should always be open to examining our democratic process, and British Columbians should have their say. We have heard for years that there may be a better way for our democratic process, and it’s time to consider these ideas. This is an issue that transcends partisanship and is greater than all of us in this chamber today.

Elections are not only a feature of democracy, but they are also the foundation. In a representative democracy like ours, the electoral process determines who gets to represent us in this chamber. We need people who truly reflect our values to speak on our behalf. It’s time for all British Columbians to have a say in the fundamental question of how we elect our MLAs.

Our province currently elects our members through the single member, first-past-the-post system. We have been taking this system for granted when, in reality, there are dozens of electoral systems out there. The first-past-the-post system asks a voter to choose a candidate on a ballot. The candidate who receives the most votes in the electoral district wins, even if the candidate does not receive the majority of the votes. While the first-past-the-post system dominates Canadian federal and provincial elections, proportional representation is actually the most widely used system in the world. There are variations to the proportional representation system, but generally speaking, the party’s share of legislative seats reflects its share of the popular vote.

Political scientists have studied the different electoral systems and compared them. There is no consensus on which system is superior to the other. It’s true. Every community is different, and how we want to elect our representatives is also different. That is why it is so important to let the people decide how we want our democracy to work. The Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act gives the power back to the people and asks them the most important question. “How do you want your democracy to work?” We’re also asking this question no later than November 2018.

Unlike the previous government, we are not favouring one system over another, which is why the threshold for change will be a simple majority of 50-percent-plus-one vote provincewide. Fifty-percent-plus-one is a majority of voters, and many other referenda on electoral reform have all used this threshold. Requiring the supermajority was just an elaborate way for the previous government to pick a winning outcome. This government does not play that game.

We genuinely want the people to decide. To make it easier for all British Columbians to participate in the process, the bill asks for the referendum to be conducted by mail-in ballot. The Chief Electoral Officer will oversee the process and guarantee a referendum that is just and fair.

This government will honour the results of the referendum by introducing legislation in time for the 2021 general election. Between now and the referendum, the government will engage the public and make sure that the people have some time to think about what voting system or systems should be on the ballot.

[5:55 p.m.]

I cannot stress enough about giving British Columbians enough time to provide their opinions and thoughts. I am comforted by the fact that the government will inform British Columbians through different channels, such as social media and other on-line platforms. This shows transparency, accountability and open communication.

Just like we do with all other legislation that this government is working on, we’re going to do this the right way. The Attorney General has assured us that the engagement process will include an educational component around the differences of electoral systems, followed by a request for feedback on the preference of electoral systems. Finally, British Columbians — the people, not the government — will decide what they want to see on the ballot.

When this government is saying that it is letting the people decide the future of our democracy, we mean it. During the debate period, the Attorney General will ensure neutrality of government as we ask British Columbians for the opinions on our electoral system. The Attorney General will act as an independent official and refrain from engaging in debate. He will also recuse himself from any cabinet or caucus discussion regarding the referendum.

Government staff will provide neutral and factual information so that British Columbians can participate in a clear and fair vote and decide the future of our democratic process. I believe that the Attorney General will facilitate the debate with honesty and integrity.

Political parties can play a part in the process too. As mentioned before, deciding which political system works best for us is a topic greater than all of us. Although parties in this chamber may have different opinions on this issue — and one particular party may be out of touch with the people sometimes — we must not forget that parties are coalitions of peoples’ interests. Parties consult the stakeholders and advocate for their stakeholders. I think political parties will play a rather significant role in the political engagement process. That’s the beauty of our democracy, and we are going to make it better with the people.

I am also confident that British Columbians will decide what electoral system suits us the best even without the political parties. British Columbians have a long history of being actively engaged in improving the electoral system. We all have the duty and responsibility to advance fairness and democratic principles, and together, we’ll modernize our democracy and give people the power to decide.

We want to hear from the people. We will promote active and healthy debate and discussion. To make this a truly democratic process, we will only construct the referendum ballot after this engagement period and after we have heard from everyone. Government staff will summarize the feedback and provide advice to the Attorney General. The report will include a recommendation of questions to be included in the 2018 referendum ballot. The Attorney General’s job is to articulate the will of the people, and this House will act on it.

The Chief Electoral Officer will conduct the referendum. To make sure all British Columbians have the opportunity to get their voice heard, the referendum will be conducted through a mail-in ballot, and this will give everyone some time to decide.

I am glad that Bill 6 recognizes that in a province as diverse as British Columbia, it is very likely that there are diverse opinions. So the referendum ballot would be able to accommodate more than one question. Our democracy should not be a dichotomy. Overall, it is important that Bill 6 emphasizes the flexibility of the ballot structure.

The goal is to also ensure an informed and fair vote. What truly makes this bill a piece of legislation to return the power to people is the fact that the results are binding. Regardless of what the people decide, the government will act. That is why I strongly encourage all British Columbians to participate in this engagement period by sending submissions to the Attorney General. Let your voices be heard. Decide on the future of our democracy.

[6:00 p.m.]

J. Johal: I rise today to speak to Bill 6, a bill that will have tremendous effects, not only on our democracy but on our very way of life. The changes to our political system that are being discussed here will have far-reaching consequences in every community, workplace and home across the province. This will have an effect on every single person in British Columbia.

If we take a look at jurisdictions around the world with proportional representation, we can see that. If you’re a refugee in Germany right now, you have to wonder whether the far-right Alternative for Germany — now the third-largest party in their parliament and a party that wants to stop all immigration of other nationalities to Germany — has it out for you.

If you’re in New Zealand, you might be worried about New Zealand First, which is now part of the governing coalition there. They campaigned on a platform characterized by strongly restrictive immigration policies, no doubt making some folks very nervous about their future.

If you’re part of the LGBT community in the Netherlands, you might worry about whether the Christian Union party, an anti-LGBT party that’s now part of the country’s four-party coalition government, will let you get married. Indeed, this is a big concern with proportional representation: that fringe parties with extreme ideals and policy proposals can gain representation. Another concern is around the stability of government and what that means in peoples’ lives.

Oftentimes, under proportional representation, coalition governments need to be formed, and that can take time, leaving things in limbo for varying amounts of time. Right now in Germany, they still don’t have a government after their 2017 vote, and they won’t have one until sometime in 2018. After the Netherlands 2017 election, it took 208 days before a government was formed. In Spain, in 2015, the people there went 314 days without a government. In Belgium, in 2010, it took 589 days for a government to be formed, more than a year and a half.

What happens when this type of delay occurs? Not very much, in fact. Sure, day-to-day operations proceed, but what about those big decisions government needs to make when it comes to big projects or an appropriate response to a major crisis? Oftentimes these key decisions are delayed and put off, to the detriment of the citizens that live there and to the detriment of the local economy. Think Site C. Think LNG. Think about other major infrastructure projects involved in energy or even larger big-picture projects that we’ve talked about in the past, like carbon tax.

To put that in perspective here, let’s imagine B.C. had no government in place in the midst of the devastating wildfire season we just had and that we are still dealing with today. Now imagine two wildfire seasons without a government in place — two seasons of life-changing losses for homeowners, for farmers, for ranchers and small business owners. Tell that to the people of the Cariboo if that’s acceptable — two seasons of no help and, I would suggest, many more with no hope.

That could have happened under a stalemate such as the one I just highlighted in Belgium in 2010. It’s not out of the question. It’s something we need to think about carefully as we consider changing something as important as our voting system. Here’s another example. Imagine voters having a new prime minister almost every year, as Italy has experienced, or there needing to be two elections in a single year, as Spain experienced two years ago.

These potential changes to our system could fundamentally change our quality of life in this province. Taxation, health care programs, education, infrastructure — all of these things that British Columbians care about could be radically changed by the backdoor politics, the ever-shifting instability that proportional representation brings to government, not only because of delays and legislative gridlock but also because of the potential for horse trading of platform promises amongst groups in the eventual coalition that is formed.

Despite all of these negative possibilities, the NDP have given it the least possible level of consultation, consideration and thought for it to pass. It is essentially astounding, given the extensive reviews they’ve ordered on virtually every other idea, program or project. In this case, they’re going to let the provincial cabinet draft the question. It will be done behind closed doors, without the public, by politicians who have every interest in seeing the measure pass.

That shows a definite lack of transparency, and the members opposite know it, but they don’t seem to care. The NDP and their junior partners, the Greens, know that they will ultimately benefit from a switch to proportional representation, and they will do anything they can to make it happen. They will change the rules to favour their desired outcome.

[6:05 p.m.]

One of their other questionable moves is lowering the referendum’s threshold to a bare majority of 50 percent plus one. That’s lowering the bar as far as it can go. Province columnist Mike Smyth notes:

“Metro contains more than half of the 4.6 million population of B.C., meaning Metro voters could tilt the referendum result. This regional imbalance is why the previous Liberal government required double supermajority in two earlier referendums on PR. In both those previous votes, the threshold for the referendum to pass was set at 60 percent overall plus at least half the votes in 60 percent of the province’s electoral districts.

“Now the NDP government is setting the bar far lower, with just an overall majority of votes required.”

As he’s pointed out, there is a real regional imbalance in this province, and the NDP are happy to leave it to Metro Vancouver to make this momentous decision on behalf of all British Columbia.

Now, I live in Metro Vancouver. I represent the riding of Richmond-Queensborough in Metro Vancouver. But I see the lack of fairness here that’s not being acknowledged by this government, and I think others will see it too.

When you take all these aspects of the bill together, when you look at the many ways this government is working to manipulate the outcome of this referendum, you have to shake your head and wonder who they are really doing this for. Is it really for the betterment of British Columbians, or is it for the betterment of the NDP and its Green partners?

Once again, I quote Province columnist Mike Smyth, this time from his recent appearance on CKNW’s Jon McComb Show. He too has taken a look at the totality of these proposed changes, and says: “That’s why I say they’re making it as easy as possible for this referendum to pass and for proportional representation to be brought into B.C., because it’s such a huge advantage to the NDP and the Green Party and a disadvantage to the Liberals.”

So there you have it. The media sees through it, and we on this side of the House see through it as well. It shouldn’t be this easy to change something that will seriously alter the fabric of our democracy and that will affect British Columbians across the province regardless of who they vote for.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We’ve gone through this exercise twice already here in B.C., once in 2005 and once in 2009. Both times, the independent and non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform defined the process and question. And each time, the assembly ensured that British Columbians from every corner of the province would be consulted.

I remember clearly the massive undertaking that was the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. They studied voting systems for 11 months, looking at how votes cast in provincial elections translate into seats in the Legislature — 11 months. What’s more, they considered the input of thousands of British Columbians through 50 public hearings and more than 1,600 written submissions. They produced a thorough final report and recommended a customized version of single transferrable vote, or STV, called BCSTV.

When the referendum happened in 2005, the level of voter approval needed was a minimum of 60 percent, with a simple majority in 48 of the 79 electoral districts. The referendum failed to meet that threshold.

Then we set a second referendum on BCSTV in conjunction with the provincial election in May of 2009. Public funding was made available to registered groups who provided information and educational materials about their provisions on BCSTV. Each group was given $435,000 to undertake public information campaigns, and a further $65,000 was provided later on in the process. The Attorney General’s office established a Referendum Information Office to provide objective information to voters about electoral systems.

For that referendum to be binding, the approval level had to be 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. That referendum was also defeated.

The reason I’ve laid out the details on these two previous referendums is because I want to highlight how the process was turned over to the people. It was in the hands of British Columbians. The process was free of political interference and manipulation. That’s in stark contrast to what’s been proposed now by this NDP government and its Green allies.

[6:10 p.m.]

This refers back to my earlier theme on what an impact this exercise and its outcome will have on the daily lives of British Columbians, because the way this government is going about it goes against some of the democratic principles that we all hold dear. Citizen participation is one of the most basic signposts of a democracy. It doesn’t just include people’s right to vote in elections. It also means they have the right to be informed and to debate issues.

When we look at this bill, we see that rather than asking British Columbians for their opinions, the NDP cabinet will determine the referendum question, likely with guidance from their Green partners. When they’re proposing to lower the threshold to improve their chances of success, with large urban centres dictating the results, we have to ask how this contributes positively to democracy, which is supposed to be the point of this whole exercise.

Participation builds a better democracy. The more voices, the better. But not according to the NDP and the Greens. They seem hell-bent on tinkering with the process to suit their future goals. I should also point out that in the process, they’re breaking some of their own promises, not that it’s anything new to this group.

Back in May, the now Premier promised British Columbians that any referendum question would be a yes-or-no question. At the time, he told Vancouver Sun reporter Rob Shaw: “You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no.” When Shaw clarified: “So you give them one system to vote on?” The Premier said: “Yeah, exactly.”

Now we see the commitment has been abandoned. Instead of a simple yes-or-no ballot for proportional representation, voters will have to choose between multiple PR options against the current first-past-the-post system, so add that to the growing list of this government’s broken promises.

They said taxpayer money wouldn’t subsidize political parties. Promise broken. They’re said ride-sharing would be in place before the end of 2017. Promise broken. They’re backtracking on $10-a-day daycare. Promise broken. The list goes on and on, and they’re doing it again with this bill. What kind of confidence can British Columbians have in a process that could overhaul our voting system when it’s coming from a government that is consistently going back on its word on a number of other issues? One truly has to wonder.

With that in mind, I know my colleagues and I will be reviewing and debating this bill very carefully in a bid to put British Columbians back at the heart of this important exercise that will impact every aspect of their lives.

N. Letnick: I’m here to take my place and debate Bill 6. It’s my privilege to stand here in this assembly as the representative of over 60,000 people who live in the Kelowna–Lake Country riding.

To begin my time discussing Bill 6, allow me to repeat part of the conversation between two well-known B.C. political commentators, Jon McComb and Mike Smyth. Jon said: “The NDP, unlike previous attempts to change our voting system, has set the bar pretty low. Basically, it’s 50 percent plus one to get this thing passed.” Mike Smyth said, in response: “That’s as low as you can go. You can’t go any lower. They have set the bar so low, it’s possible for this thing to pass and succeed — 50 percent plus one, a bare majority.”

If you go back to the two previous referendums that we had on proportional representation in this province, you needed a 60 percent result overall. Plus they had what they called a super majority, so at least half of the votes in 60 percent of all the ridings around B.C. had to vote yes for proportional representation in order for the referendum to pass. The reason the government did that was to prevent this regional imbalance that we’re talking about right now, so Metro Vancouver would not sway the results for the entire province.

That’s what they did then. This time, the NDP are not doing that. There’s no super majority. It’s simply 50 percent plus one. The bar is as low as it can possibly go. To me, he said: “I’m looking at this thing and saying, ‘Wow, this looks like they’re stacking the deck for this thing to pass. There’s going to a big fight over this.’”

[6:15 p.m.]

McComb finished by saying: “Is there any call for a minimum vote turnout? What’s that level going to be?” Smyth responded by saying: “Right now the government is saying there is no minimum turnout.” But it’s really interesting. If you take a look at a similar referendum that was held last year in Prince Edward Island, they had a similar vote, where the people were asked if they wanted to go to this voting system. Guess what. It passed by 52 percent of the vote. So just a bare majority, but the turnout was brutally low. Just 36 percent of the people in PEI bothered to vote, so the government looked at that, and they said: “You know, that’s just not enough. That is not a strong enough mandate from the citizens of this province to change our voting system. A 36 percent turnout is simply too low.” So they did not use the results of that referendum. They’re talking about having another one instead.

There is no indication from the government here in B.C. that they will ask for a minimum voter turnout to be required for this result to be official. He said: “I doubt very much they will bring one in. That’s why I say they are making it as easy as possible for the referendum to pass and for proportional representation to be brought in to B.C., because it’s such a huge advantage to the NDP and the Green Party.”

What an interesting conversation between two pundits that have been watching this place for way more years than I’ve been here, over the last eight-plus years. As I’ve said before this in this House, it’s something about being on this particular row that the words keep coming back, and that’s jiggery-pokery. That’s exactly what we’re seeing here. I don’t think a more appropriate use of that term….

I know Bill Routley would be here, and he’d be crying to the members, and really expelling and trying to get maybe another heart attack. We know. We saw him with his heart condition. I hope Bill has a nice long life. I just don’t have the same passion that Bill did when it comes to saying jiggery-pokery, but I’m sure he’s watching right now and saying: “Go, Norm, go.”

In the eight-plus years I’ve been here, we’ve had all kinds of legislation come through this House, and I would say the vast majority of the legislation was geared specifically to improving the lives of British Columbians. This particular piece, along with the other pieces we’ve seen, the cousins to this…. The one thing that it wants to achieve, I believe, is a continual hold on power by the NDP with their Green partners. I think the pundits have hit close to home with their conversations.

This is just one of many conversations that’s happening around British Columbia right now. As we approach the voting date, more people will wonder about the motives behind the referendum, which are clearly to satisfy a power deal between the NDP and the Green leaders, under a belief that PR will benefit them over other parties at the ballot box. I wouldn’t be so sure about that, but that’s a discussion for another time.

Time and time again, we’ve seen examples of policy changes that are instituted without any or adequate public consensus, just to get overturned by the people of a new government. You know, I point the finger right back at myself, as part of a government that, over the last eight years, sometimes didn’t follow proper process. I’d be the first to admit that.

Now we have a new government in place that is looking at potentially reversing some of those decisions. The process is just as important as the outcome if we want those outcomes to be sustained over time. This particular process — to summarize it into one word — stinks. It’s that simple. How to get things done is just as important as what is being done, and this particular method is not passing the test. It will not survive the test of time.

I was elected by the voters of Kelowna–Lake Country to represent them for the past eight years and, hopefully, for the next four, depending, of course, on what the government decides to do with its particular future. As such, I’m accountable to them first and foremost, to ensure that this province is the best it can be for them and for all British Columbians, now and for those yet to come — in particular, my granddaughter, Luna, who went trick-or-treating last night for the first time, at two years of age. The pictures are amazing. I’m just very happy for her. [Applause.]

One more thing we can all agree on in this House, another unanimous decision on the part of members from both sides of this Legislature.

[6:20 p.m.]

There’s no ambiguity in who their MLA is — the people of Kelowna–Lake Country, to whom I owe my allegiance and my thanks. Indeed, when I’ve been forced in the past to choose between my party and my constituents, my constituents saw that clarity expressed in a vote against a bill introduced by my own party in government. This unequivocal accountability to my constituents is one of the many benefits our current electoral system affords me. There’s no confusion possible — none whatsoever. There’s no secret evasion of mind capable in me and no blurring of the lines.

It was the Assistance to Shelter Act. It came in right about the time of the 2010 Olympics. The act was meant to — I think it had good motives — help people who were in very desperate conditions on the street find their way to shelter, especially when we had very cold weather.

The challenge for me and for people who I represented, which I found out when I went and talked to the homeless, was that I believed the act would not actually achieve its goals. The act would allow police officers to take people forcibly away from where they are, potentially on heated grates and cardboard boxes or wherever they are at the time in those cold weather incidents, and forcibly bring them to a shelter — not inside the shelter, just to the shelter.

After consulting with people in my riding, my conclusion was that it would actually end up being people running away from the shelter and going into places that were less hospitable for them than where they came from in the first place. Indeed, it would force or encourage more of them to go back into the woods and away from public view, so they would be in more jeopardy. Because of that, I voted against my party and my government. I did so as a member of this Legislature, voted on and elected by my local constituents.

I’m afraid that if we approve this bill and over time approve proportional representation, where we will probably see a list of candidates elected to this Legislature that have no relationship with their local constituents, I would see that ability eroded.

I also believe it is important when you go and present yourself to your constituents that you do so with a list of priorities that they’ve helped to develop and then can hold you accountable if you don’t deliver on those priorities. Now, I have my list of priorities here that I’d like to enter into the record one more time. Any time I have an opportunity to do so, I will take that opportunity because I think it’s important to repeat to my constituents those priorities that they sent me with, that shopping list that they sent me here to advocate for on their behalf.

Some of that happens in this chamber, but actually most of the work that gets done to achieve priorities happens in the hallways and in ministers’ offices. That’s why it’s so important to continue those good lines of communication amongst all members of this Legislature.

Some of the things that the other members from the Central Okanagan, in particular the member for Kelowna-Mission, and myself have been able to deliver over the last two elections are things like money for UBC Okanagan; money for Okanagan College; a $10 million expansion for tourism; a $9.4 million expansion for a tree fruit replant program, of course in concert with the other members from the Okanagan; $7 million for the third-largest but best tech hub in the province, the one located in the Okanagan, in Kelowna; job-creating projects; construction that’s currently underway and almost finished on six-laning Highway 97.

We’re going to have a beautiful highway all the way through Kelowna, and with the expansion of Highway 97 from Winfield to Oyama, we will see a lot faster speeds but more safe highway travel than we’ve ever seen before. That includes the money that we were able to get for concrete medians separating the lanes of traffic so people stop having head-on collisions between Kelowna and Vernon.

[6:25 p.m.]

We’ve been able to achieve, on behalf of the constituents, more money for handyDART; more service in traditional bus hours; $7.2 million to purchase the rail trail between Kelowna and Vernon, thanks to the insistence and support of my local constituents; and another $1.2 million, approximately, to help prepare the CN rail corridor for use.

We’ve seen millions of dollars for local water infrastructure programs and, of course, almost $1 billion in infrastructure investment in our hospitals in Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton. We’ve seen money go to develop the Foundry in the Central Okanagan, a new hub for youth and young adults with mental health and substance abuse challenges. We’ve seen a new integrated team approach to seniors health located at Cottonwoods Care Centre.

We’ve seen funds for a new all-season soccer dome in Rutland and trails, parks and bike paths in Kelowna and Lake Country and of course millions of dollars — like Newgate, NOW Canada, Pleasantvale Homes, Apple Valley homes phases 1, 2 and 3 — to help address the homeless problem in the Central Okanagan. Lastly, funding in 2016 for 205 new local licensed daycare spaces.

Now, those are some of the things of the past that we’ve been able to deliver. But the election we just held, the one where people actually went and marked their ballot as to whether or not they wanted me to represent them in this place — of which I got 60 percent of the vote — that election was based on not what happened before, but what I committed to do for them in the future. That’s what they voted for.

The way that happened was knocking on doors, attending functions, making sure that I made phone calls, being receptive for meetings in constituency or in coffee shops, going around the riding — many, many times, over and over again — ensuring that I heard the voices of my local constituents; and then from that input, from that experience, putting together a platform that I believe accurately reflected what my local constituents wanted me to advocate for.

That’s the advantage of the current system. It holds me to account. It holds my feet to the fire, so that should I run again in four years’ time, I will once again be judged by my local constituents as to what I was able to deliver or not deliver on their behalf.

Things they sent me to advocate for were the completion of the six-laning of Highway 97 and intersection improvement, especially at Sexsmith. That’s moving on. We have the completion of John Hindle Drive that they wanted me to make sure happened, and that’s also moving forward, thanks again to the past government and a continuation of this government’s acceptance of that construction project.

We have UBC Okanagan, wanting to become an aerospace tech hub in composites — expanding our economy not only locally, but across British Columbia, including job opportunities for the Central Okanagan. We’re going to have to work on that, have to deliver on that.

Work hard to grow the economy and help improve government programs — not by higher taxes and fees, as being already introduced by the government that’s in place now, but also making sure that we look for all efficiencies possible.

We want to continue to implement the nurse-in-practice program, which will help find doctors for over 3,000 people. I must commend the government, because when I ran, we talked about six nurses going into practice, and already we are at eight nurses that have been committed — two more than what we committed to. Again, I thank the Minister of Health for adding two more nurses to the nurse-in-practice program, and I believe we should commend the government for good work at the same time as pointing out the difficulties that they might find themselves in every now and then.

Work to reduce wait times on medically necessary procedures like hips and knees — the jury’s still out. We have four years to work on that. That’s a perennial problem that impacts all publicly funded health care systems. We’ve seen, over the last number of decades, that number go up and down, relative to how we’re doing to other provinces. We should always compare ourselves to like-minded jurisdictions like the other provinces. Right now we are falling a little behind. We need to step up our focus on making sure that the wait times on medically necessary procedures like hip and knees are reduced so that we can continue to provide excellent care to those people that count on us day in and day out.

Another thing that local representation has allowed me to commit to is continued support for Accelerate Okanagan so they can take full advantage of their new space in the Okanagan Centre for Innovation building in downtown Kelowna. I’m pleased to see that’s continuing, but want to see even more investment in that facility over the next four years.

[6:30 p.m.]

It was nice to see the Minister of Tech come and visit the location last week in Kelowna. I’m going to invite all ministers to continue to make their visits to Kelowna and Lake Country as much as they can to learn about what the Central Okanagan has to offer. It’s a great place. I’m sure we’d love to have your tax dollars pay for your travel costs to our area and have you maybe buy a little gift or two, particularly some farming memorabilia, as you pass through our local areas. Tourism can always use more ministers to come and visit. By all accounts, the last ministers that have come through have had a good time.

I would ask, if any ministers are coming through and they wish to invite the local MLAs, we’d be very pleased to attend your particular events and learn, as you are, what’s going on in the ridings. If there’s something new that obviously is happening, we would like to be there and support the government in advancing the needs for our local constituents in Kelowna–Lake Country, Kelowna-Mission — and hopefully, someday, when we have another MLA on the Kelowna West side as soon as this government decides to call an election.

By the way, I don’t know what they’re waiting for. It would be nice to have that local MLA representation under the current system of government, as soon as possible.

I’ve also been sent here on account to my local constituents to continue to expand and improve our local public transit service — I hope that will continue; I will be held to account for that — and also to see that a sizeable number of the promised new 13,000 additional child care spaces by 2020 actually get located in the Kelowna–Lake Country area, as well as serving the rest of the Central Okanagan.

The voters in my area have also asked me to ensure that the ownership of old Highway 97 — this is of particular attention to the Minister of Transportation — be moved from the province over to the district of Lake Country. That way they can create a world-class amenity. I’m glad to announce that that actually got signed off before the new government formed government, so we can cross that off the list as being delivered.

One that hasn’t been delivered yet — I canvassed this with the minister before, and so did the representatives from Lake Country, and received, I think, a hopeful response from the Minister of Transportation — is that we would work to fix the bottleneck at the Beaver Lake Road and Highway 97 intersection. That is, probably after the completion of the current projects, the highest priority for the district of Lake Country in my area. Again, I will be held to account, as to whether or not we were able to deliver that, after this current cycle is over.

One more thing that my local constituents and, I would believe, all British Columbians are extremely interested in is the increasing of resources and regulations to prevent invasive mussels from coming into British Columbia waters. It is extremely important. That is why the previous government, my government, increased the amount of funding for the attack on invasive mussels.

It’s extremely important, not only for tourism but also for the costs of government, that we ensure that these mussels don’t take hold in our provincial waters. Can you imagine coming to the lake near you, wherever it is in British Columbia, and having to walk on crushed mussels? You would have to walk with footwear instead of walking in bare feet. Not exactly conducive to attracting a lot of tourists to our area.

You’ve got that issue with tourism. You’ve got blocking of the pipes for our utilities. You’ve got blocking of pipes for agriculture. There are so many downsides for not picking up the ball on this one. That’s why the constituents of our area are going to hold me to account as to whether or not, as their locally represented MLA, we are able to continue to increase resources and regulations to defend against invasive mussels.

The last one I have here is to continue to work on increasing both rental and owner-occupied housing supply in our area, to reduce upward cost pressures. I’m sure that given the stated platform of the government and our pressure continuing, we will see more housing in our area.

[6:35 p.m.]

It’s absolutely clear that our current system affords the best way to hold MLAs to account. Indeed, short is the career of any MLA who forgets who he or she represents come the next election — or in the most serious cases, before the next election, under recall. The alternative systems being proposed, which include MLAs selected by political parties to represent regions and not its people, could lead to the unwanted MLAs chosen by their party being forced upon citizens in election after election.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Here’s a small sample of what I, as a local MLA accountable to my community, have had the privilege of being involved with over the last few months alone. I just give it as an example. I’m sure members from all sides of this House have had similar experiences serving their communities. I don’t put this out there as an example just for me; I put it out there as an example for all of us in how we engage in our local communities, being members elected by our local constituents.

Last Friday poppy sales began in Glenmore. I had the privilege of putting one of the first poppies on one of our volunteers and then going out and spending three hours at a local food store — actually, it was the Glenmore IGA — where I offered poppies to the general public.

Meeting residents in Lake Country to look over the flood damage and discuss remediation. When the floods hit we had a situation where the water came outside of the usual channels and flooded industrial areas, then went on to First Nations land and flooded their land and then ended up flooding a holiday park — a very important area in my riding with a lot of very active constituents. So over the last couple of months, I’ve been in discussions and have taken another trip to see the impact of the flooding and discuss what we could do in this particular case, with the remediation of the damage.

With that, what we found was that there’s an opportunity for provincial government, for local government, for private interests and First Nations to all get together to discuss possible remediation and prevention of this particular episode, should it happen in the future. As we all know, these flooding events seem to be happening more and more frequently.

Again, I live there. My constituents live there. No better way to represent them than to actually go to where these things are happening, listen to their concerns, roll up our sleeves and be able to adequately represent their needs in this Legislature, in this place — either in the House, by speaking to motions, to legislation, through estimates and grilling the ministers or outside of this particular chamber, dealing one-on-one in minister’s offices.

These are just examples of how our current system, I believe, is much stronger than the other systems that are being proposed, should this legislation pass.

Another example which I’m sure members of this House — in particular, members from the Cariboo, way more than I — are familiar with is what happens in emergency situations. I had two fires in my riding this summer, one in Lake Country and one up in Joe Rich.

In both times, I had the opportunity, sad as it was, to go and visit those places and see what happened — and in particular, in the case of the floods, filling up sandbags for people that I didn’t know, other than being my constituents, and in the case of the fires, being at the emergency operations centre and welcoming people who never got to their homes. They were desperate for information and very scared as to what would happen to their houses — and people looking for them and signing them up, just like we’ve all done.

I’m sure, for any of us that have been involved in these kinds of emergencies, it’s been an opportunity to once again reconnect with people who have their trust in me, as their MLA. As they trust in all of us as their MLA — people they know, people they voted for, people maybe that they didn’t vote for but whose task it is to represent them locally. Once we get elected our job is to support and represent all the people that are living in our constituencies, no matter who they voted for. That’s why our offices work that way as well.

[6:40 p.m.]

When you’re bagging sandbags for people who are in danger of getting their houses flooded or whether you’re filling out forms, whatever the way that we, as local MLAs, work with our neighbours, I firmly believe that the current system is much better to hold us to account and for us to be involved with our local communities than any of the other systems that are being proposed.

Another thing that’s happened in my life is the asking of the Minister of Education about two middle schools — middle schools in my particular riding. One is in Rutland, a great community, a community that is a whole community. It’s not a bedroom community for Kelowna. It’s an integral part of Kelowna, but it’s also a whole community, a community of stores and shops and offices and people and transportation networks. It’s a whole community. And this community deserves to have a proper, full, modern middle school. And we’ve been working on this for ages.

I see that the two-minute warning has come up, so what I will do at this point is to basically just say, because I have hardly gone past my 30 minutes of speech here…. Hopefully, at some point in the future, I’ll get to talk more about this subject. I know I’m going to talk about it in my community.

I’m going to be advocating to my community, should this legislation pass, that they look carefully at what’s being proposed, not only at the substance of it but also at the way in which it’s being brought in. The way in which it’s brought in is not right. It’s jiggery-pokery. I just want to say that if it gets passed, I will work hard to educate my constituents, who have put their trust in me, that this is not in their best interest, not in the best interest of British Columbia and not in the best interest of anybody in this House, now and into the future.

S. Cadieux: It’s my privilege today to speak on Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. It’s not a particularly enormous bill, but it’s a major bill. The measures it proposes will have a profound and long-lasting effect on the way in which we are governed. It will fundamentally affect the way our democracy functions. I do believe it’s important to regularly look at our system of government — our systems of government.

Our province and the world around us are constantly changing. And it’s important that we look inwards and make sure that we, too, are reflecting these changes. It’s important to engage British Columbians in this. And ensuring that they have a clear picture of how our system operates and that they are involved in any changes we are looking to make is important to me. But the problem with the bill before us is that British Columbians are largely cut out of the conversation.

While the changes this bill proposes will have significant and direct impacts on those residents — and I’ll get to that a little bit later — the legislation also is proposed in such a way that British Columbians don’t get much of a say in the process at all. While the government is musing about public consultations, there are no requirements for binding public consultations. There are no provisions for this House to have binding participation in what the question will be or how the rules will be set up. In fact, they’re being provided to us. Ultimately, all of the rules, the question and the means of counting ballots, will all be decided in the back room of an NDP cabinet.

That does not provide a semblance of impartiality or cross-partisanship that this coalition government has spoken so broadly of and prided themselves on and repeatedly chastised others about. It’s a lack of meaningful public involvement, and I don’t believe it was an oversight. In the last election, both the NDP and the Green parties made it very clear that they wanted electoral reform.

[6:45 p.m.]

Their confidence and supply agreement puts it in writing, and I’ll read it. “Both the B.C. New Democrat government and the B.C. Green caucus are committed to proportional representation…. The parties agree to both campaign actively in support of the agreed-upon form of proportional representation.”

Clearly, the governing alliance has already decided what that outcome should be, what the form of proportional representation should be. They have a vested interest in the outcome of the referendum and, with that, have no interest in a democratic process and no interest, really, in the referendum itself, because for all its biases, it, too, is a compromise.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head made his intentions very clear. In May of this year, after the election, he stated: “In our platform, we said we would introduce proportional representation, and if we were to have a referendum, it would be after the fact.” If that wasn’t quite clear enough, only days later he stated: “Our position had been that we would bring in proportional representation without a referendum, but we would be open to discussing a referendum afterwards.”

Now, I’m very unclear what the purpose of that would even be. If the member’s position is that we would bring in proportional representation without a referendum, what point would there be in having a referendum after the fact? It’s clear to me that the lack of public involvement was more than a simple oversight by the government, and I can’t help but wonder if it was a more strategic reason.

Looking at this bill, it looks like the government, too, has already made up its mind on proportional representation. Perhaps that’s something that we can thank the secretariat for. While the government has said that maintaining our current first-past-the-post system is, of course, an option in this referendum, the bill they’ve put forward allows for a ranked ballot where the voters would have the choice between multiple electoral systems.

By giving multiple proportional representation options and conducting the referendum by ranked ballot, there’s little chance of maintaining a first-past-the-post — unless, of course, it succeeds on the first ballot. This isn’t so much a statement about our current electoral system as it is the way of this government and the fact that they think they can choose to conduct this referendum in an undemocratic way.

Simply put, if voters rank a number of electoral options and those options include first-past-the-post as one option and more than one system of proportional representation as the other options, the numbers very quickly add up against the current system. That directly counters what the new Premier promised before the election when, in reference to the referendum on electoral reform, he told reporter Rob Shaw and, through that reporter, all of British Columbia: “You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no.”

We have heard this before in this House, but I think it’s worth repeating. When Mr. Shaw clarified that it meant that British Columbians would only vote on one choice of system, the Premier replied: “Yeah, exactly.” That’s not what we see here — in fact, quite the opposite.

But if that wasn’t enough, the government has also lowered the required threshold for the referendum to be binding to a bare majority of 50-plus-one percent, the lowest threshold possible. I find that concerning when we have a Referendum Act in place that’s perfectly acceptable under which to run a referendum such as this. It requires 60 percent of the votes in 60 percent of the ridings. That has been used before. It seems reasonable to me.

What’s most concerning is that with a 50-plus-one percent binding majority for a major change to our democratic system, the same people — the members of the NDP government and the Greens, that coalition — also are saying, essentially, that 50-plus-one percent of voters isn’t enough to represent a constituency.

Each one of us in this House were voted in, but they’re saying that having a majority of votes in a riding isn’t enough. In fact, you have to have a majority of votes in a riding and a majority of votes in the province, and then we’ll decide who gets to sit in those seats. I would say that is very unfair for a constituency of voters who go out and vote.

[6:50 p.m.]

Now, admittedly, most people probably vote for a party, but some people also vote for a person. I know that I have in the past. If that’s the case, how would I feel if the person I chose to vote for received the majority of votes in my community and then that didn’t land them in the Legislature? That, to me, isn’t representational.

Now, I realize that in other jurisdictions, proportional representational governments have been in place and are in place today. In fact, I have family in Holland, in the Netherlands. They have a proportional representation voting system, one particular form of that, and in many ways, it works. I’ve been talking to my family in Holland about their system and whether or not it has been working.

In fact, they are growing less fond of that system. It happens to be the only one people my age have ever known, but they are concerned when repeatedly they are returning governments that are many months to form because of coalitions needing to form between many parties. More and more there are parties of two people elected. It becomes more and more difficult for those coalitions to form and more and more difficult for good decisions to be made for the majority of the population.

Now, Mr. Speaker, noting the hour, I will reserve my place to continue my remarks when we reconvene.

S. Cadieux moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.