Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage of Bill 8. In the little chamber, Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

On section 2 (continued).

On the amendment.

L. Throness: Continuing our discussion about Bill 8, I have presented an amendment, and I would like now to speak to that amendment, make a few remarks.

I just want to remind the numerous viewers of the legislative TV channel and all those avid readers of Hansard that the government is amending the Lobbyists Registration Act, which it is calling Bill 8. We have, on this side, proposed an amendment to the amendments that the government is working on.

I want to explain, first, the government’s amendments. In general, the government wants to prohibit lobbying of government for two years for public office holders. The definition of “public office holders” or “former public office holders” includes former ministers and their staff and parliamentary secretaries and some senior public servants — wants to add those to the definition of “public office holder.”

[1:35 p.m.]

We in the opposition would like to broaden that category in order to add a few more categories of people to be captured under the definitions of the act. I want to read into the record the text of the proposed amendment that we have made.

We would amend section 2 by adding three subsections to that section — subsections (d), (e) and (f). And (d) reads: “any individual employed or otherwise contracted as a member of an incoming government’s transition team.” And (e) reads: “any individual formerly employed in the Confidence and Supply Agreement Secretariat, or (f) any former members of the Legislative Assembly, or any individual formerly employed in the former member’s office, who may have had access to inside government information or otherwise been informed of government business through the Confidence and Supply Agreement Secretariat.”

Then the amendment defines “transition team” as meaning “any individual identified by the Premier or a member of the Executive Council as having had the task to support and advise the Premier, a member of Executive Council, or a person employed in an Executive Council member’s office during the transition period leading up to and after the swearing in of the Premier and Executive Council.”

Now I’d like to speak to it. We want the Lobbyists Registration Act to be more transparent, not less than the government is proposing now. On that point, we might disagree, unless, of course, the government or the Green Party decides to agree with us that the law should be further amended. Of course, we hope that they will do that.

The reason that we’re amending it is to make sure that there’s an appropriate cooling-off period after a person ceases to be a public office holder, so that a person who has had a lot of influence on the government’s side, the government of the day, can’t begin to lobby the government right away after they leave office, using this special influence, the insider information and the contacts they have built up during their time in office.

This law will say that a cabinet minister, for example, who loses an election or who decides that he or she doesn’t want to be an MLA any more and resigns, won’t be able to register as a lobbyist right away to represent companies or groups to the government for a full two years after the minister leaves office.

There are categories of people who are not captured by the bill but who are, nonetheless, influential in government. We believe that the government has purposely left them out in order to protect its own favourites so that they will have the option of going on immediately after leaving office to have a lucrative career as a lobbyist. Allow me to give an example.

The Premier had a transition team who helped him make the transition from opposition to government this past summer. This is a perfectly legitimate and normal thing to do in this situation. Typically, a transition team is made up of, in this case, people deeply committed to the cause and program of the NDP, people who are well known in NDP circles, people who are already highly placed in the private or union or public sector.

Those people are deeply involved with all of the nitty-gritty mechanics of the transfer of power. They develop contacts with the Premier’s office and with the Premier himself — some of the most powerful people in the provincial government. They might help to select, for instance, the chief of staff and the head of the public service. They would have input into all sorts of decisions. They would have input into policy decisions too — what should be the short-term policy objectives of the new government and what should be done first or not done first. They would be instrumental and influential in setting up these kinds of roles.

Cabinet ministers have to be chosen, and a lot of thought has to go into that. Cabinet ministers are often considered according to gender and perhaps ethnicity. There needs to be geographic representation, and then you take into account the backgrounds, personalities, experience and ability of potential ministers. So cabinet-making is really a complicated function which requires a lot of thought and discussion and balancing. In the end, choices of cabinet ministers are made. There may have been interviews. There may have been discussions with cabinet ministers or people who know cabinet ministers — people who know them well.

Cabinet ministers may know or come to know who had influence in their appointment. The transition team member might even work with a cabinet minister, once appointed, in order to help to affect more transitional issues for the government. So a sense of obligation, over time, can develop, which leads to meetings and, possibly, to special favours.

That’s why we have the bill before us. It is designed to stop that kind of thing, but it won’t, in this case, because transition team members have been left out of the bill. There could be no more of an insider than a transition team member.

[1:40 p.m.]

Further, the Attorney General described the bill as having broad similarity with the federal law. He did that in the Times Colonist on September 23. He wanted to pattern the law after the Lobbying Act federally. Subsection 2(3) of that act says the following: “Any person identified by the Prime Minister as having had the task of providing support and advice to him or her during the transition period leading up to the swearing in of the Prime Minister and his or her ministry is subject to this Act….” So the federal law includes transition team members, and that’s very important.

I would further point out that this law was passed by the former Conservative government in Ottawa. The Conservatives there in Ottawa are far more transparent than the NDP here in B.C.

The minister said that he is patterning his law after the federal one, but he left out his own transition team. I would suggest to you that this was not an accident. This was a calculated move to protect members of the NDP transition team. We on this side of the House think that that’s wrong. We want to right that wrong by amending the bill to add them.

The next category in our amendment is that of former members of the Legislative Assembly with access to the confidence and supply secretariat, as well as former employees of their offices. They should be properly included under the definition of former public office holder, given their access to government officials and documents and consistent biweekly consultation meetings.

As we know, the confidence and supply secretariat is run out of the Ministry of Finance. Staff are appointed through order-in-council by cabinet. Per the Minister of Finance, the secretariat is in charge of facilitating consultations across government in all ministries.

The executive director of the secretariat, Donna Sanford, reports to the deputy minister of government communications and public engagement office, Evan Lloyd, who is a longtime NDP insider. Together they work in close proximity with the Premier’s staff and, indeed, all cabinet ministers. There is even a dispute resolution process that they can manage and that can involve any cabinet minister.

The confidence and supply agreement itself says the following: “Formal consultation will be managed between the Premier’s office and the B.C. Green caucus office. Regular meetings will also be established between the Premier and the B.C. Green Party leader.” You cannot get higher level or more insider than that.

Recently we received a freedom-of-information request that described the purpose of the confidence and supply agreement secretariat in this way: “To manage and coordinate consultation between government and the B.C. Green Party caucus and to provide secretariat function to the consultation committee. Areas of key focus for the secretariat include the broad outline of the government’s legislative agenda, legislation to be introduced in the House, major policy issues, broad budget parameters, events and policy changes with provincial or budgetary implications, and senior order-in-council appointments.”

All these categories are not low-level stuff. They are cabinet-level stuff. I sat, myself, on the legislative review committee of cabinet in the former government, and I had to swear an oath of secrecy. The confidence and supply secretariat has access to that exact kind of information as a matter of routine.

Yet neither the leader of the Green Party nor the other members of his party nor his employees nor the employees of the confidence and supply secretariat, who manage these meetings and develop all this insider access and insider information and special connections and relationships, will be prohibited from lobbying immediately after leaving employment. We think that this is a danger.

Now, the Green Party considers itself to be an idealistic group. If it is really as idealistic as it says it is, it, above all members of this House, should support these amendments to add themselves, as former public office holders, to the Lobbyists Registration Act. They must admit that they have access to insider information — at least as much as a parliamentary secretary would ever have and probably more like a cabinet minister would enjoy.

I want to quote the minister himself. He said: “This act is aimed specifically at people who have access to inside government information.” He said that in the Globe and Mail on October 3, yet we believe he has aimed poorly. The bill has missed the mark because it ignores some of the most privileged insiders in the government.

The targets of this bill, we believe, should not only include cabinet ministers and their staff, parliamentary secretaries and senior public servants, it should include the Premier’s transition team members, members of the Green Party and their staff, and employees of the confidence and supply secretariat.

I’ll simply close with this idea. The Green Party will also miss the mark if it does not vote for this amendment. It will show that they are not really interested in transparency at all. And how do we know that? Because they have tabled their own amendments to this bill. Neither the confidence and supply secretariat nor their employees nor Green members themselves — all of whom are obvious insiders, having access to information that cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries have — are included in their own amendments. For some reason, they left themselves out. We think that’s unfortunate.

I think a few of my colleagues will have their thoughts on the matter as well. So I will defer to them.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his intervention and his recommendations around the bill. I’ve now had a chance to review his proposed amendment, which was tabled about an hour ago, unfortunately — seeing it for the first time.

A couple of things stand out to me. I’ve heard a lot of remarkable things from the members on the other side of this House, including the member who moved the amendment. The most remarkable so far is the aspiration towards the level of transparency of the Harper administration. It’s an aspiration, for sure. I’m just not sure it’s speaking of missing targets. That is one that is conspicuous.

The member attempts to create the idea that the opposition, when they were in government, were very much interested in cracking down on these insiders who had all of this access to government and now they’re continuing that fight in the opposition trenches. Earlier in debate, the member asked me if there were any specific cases that I was aware of that led us to suggest a two-year prohibition on lobbying.

Well, I spent a little bit of time, and I managed to find some examples for the member. The member may remember a gentleman named Dimitri Pantazopoulos, who joined former Premier Christy Clark as principal secretary, April 2011 to February 2012. He was appointed ADM of intergovernmental relations, February 2012 to August 2012, and then he worked as the B.C. Liberal Party pollster in the 2013 campaign on unpaid leave of absence from his government job. Then he established the lobby group Maple Leaf Strategies in 2013, representing Uber.

The member may remember Mike McDonald, Christy Clark’s chief of staff in 2011. He managed the B.C. Liberal Party campaign in 2013 and joined Kirk and Co. in 2013 — a firm that incidentally received a substantial portion, if not a majority, of its business from the province.

A gentleman named Gabe Garfinkel joined the Premier’s office as Christy Clark’s EA in September 2011. He left Christy Clark’s office as the director of community and stakeholder relations and joined Fleischman Hilliard as VP in November 2013. And Matt Stickney, who worked as Minister of Education Peter Fassbender’s chief of staff until July 2014, joined Fleischman Hilliard as VP and then was contracted back, actually, from that firm to provide advice to the minister.

With all due respect to the member’s new-found excitement about prohibiting people from lobbying, what we’re doing is taking a significant step forward in terms of regulating activity that went unregulated for years under the previous administration.

Now, I note with regret that the member decided not to table his amendment. He decided not to bring it forward until about an hour ago. Fortunately, we had the lunch break to have a look at it. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have even had a chance to examine it. When we bring bills forward, what we do is a first reading. Members have a chance to look at it. We go through second reading debate. Members have a chance to debate it. Then we go through committee stage. It’s just difficult to get such little notice of this. I say that because there are a number of very conspicuous problems with the proposal the member has put forward.

For example, the proposal put forward attempts to prohibit individuals involved with the confidence and supply agreement secretariat from lobbying. I understand that’s the member’s point. A simple…. If the name of the organization changed, for example, under the member’s amendment, it would be completely defeated. It would be ineffective because he doesn’t target a category of employees. He targets a specific, named organization.

In addition, it doesn’t follow through to the other section, section 5, which runs through when the period of the person’s employment ends, for the purpose of the beginning of the two-year prohibition. So it doesn’t amend follow-on sections that it should.

In addition, section (f), for example — I’m just highlighting the biggest problems with the member’s proposal — includes administrative staff who are supporting MLAs, but the bill itself that’s in front of the House doesn’t include admin staff for cabinet ministers. So he’s created the strange situation where there’s a higher level of inclusiveness in MLA offices of administrative staff than there is in cabinet minister offices, which explicitly does not include administrative staff.

[1:50 p.m.]

In addition, he uses a strange term: “…may have had access to inside government information or otherwise been informed of the government business through the Confidence and Supply Agreement Secretariat.” Well, there’s no definition of “inside government information.” Arguably, every single person in government, including all the members on that side, has access to some level of inside government information. Being informed of government business through the confidence and supply agreement secretariat, just simply talking to somebody in the secretariat, would bring a member within this provision. It’s very hard for people to know whether or not they’re captured by this section.

I do this not to make any point other than I understand what the member is trying to do with the amendment. I encourage him to participate. The amendment may be successful. I imagine we’ll have a vote on it. I expect to hear from other members. It’s got some serious drafting problems. I hope it’s not successful on that basis.

If the member wishes to include members of the Third Party or backbench government MLAs or opposition MLAs or the confidence and supply agreement group or the transition team — which also, incidentally, doesn’t follow through to the other section — some significant amendments are going to be required to this. As it’s drafted, it will not be successful at achieving his intent.

I encourage the member, if it’s not successful — I hope it’s not successful, and I’ll be voting against it — to participate in the review that we’re going to be doing in 2018 of the act. He could make lots of arguments about including these various groups for many of the reasons that he put forward. It would have to happen in a better drafted way.

Also, I think he should probably explain to the House why he includes some MLAs and accuses the government of excluding others when he himself appears to have tried to exclude himself from the provisions of the act through his own amendment. I just note that as a conspicuous absence in this amendment in terms of what he’s putting forward.

I encourage the member to participate in the review. I think he’s got good arguments to make on different issues. It may well be that we decide, as a group working together, that MLAs should be included in this, for example, including opposition MLAs, Third Party MLAs and government backbench MLAs.

This is a significant step forward from where we were. I appreciate the member’s submissions. I disagree vehemently with the suggestion that that side of the House was working on this problem diligently — that they wanted to include more people but were just foiled by the government.

We are putting this forward as one step of a significant set of reforms banning union and corporate donations and limiting lobbying. We are cleaning house here in a jurisdiction that was listed as the wild west in the New York Times. We will continue to do that work. If the member has seen the light, I’m very glad of it. I hope he participates in round 2 in 2018.

The Chair: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast seeks the floor to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I wanted to take this moment to introduce a class that just arrived in the chamber. They are from James Bay Community School and are a bunch of grade 5s — 27 of them, apparently — and three helpers, including teacher Tricia Hinrichsen. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly. Thanks for being here. I’m sure the House will all welcome you as well.

Debate Continued

D. Barnett: I am pleased to rise on the amendment to Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act.

As I have stated previously, certainly my colleagues and I in the B.C. Liberal caucus support good governance and proper business practices for ex-office holders. This amendment would ensure those with perceived insider access to government, no matter their political allegiances, would be included under the definition of “former public office holder.” This will, ultimately, restrict former office holders from leveraging that access and subsequent influence through lobbying activities.

To restore public confidence in government, it is important that transition team members be included in the definition and prohibited from lobbying for two years. The purpose in making this distinction is a recognition that they are heavily involved in advising, organizing and setting up government and selecting executive council members. We fundamentally believe they should be captured by this legislation.

[1:55 p.m.]

Furthermore, with respect to the confidence and supply secretariat, the added subsections will ensure that former Members of the Legislative Assembly are properly included under the definition of “former public office holder.” In addition, former employees would be included because they would have had access to government officials, documents and consistent, biweekly consultation meetings.

We in the official opposition understand that the stated intent of this bill is to bring it in line with the federal legislation. This amendment does so by ensuring the transition team is included within the definition of “former public office holder.” That is why the spirit of this amendment follows the intent of this legislation.

The amendment ensures that any staff or elected officials who have had access to inside government information are unable to utilize that information for financial gain after leaving politics. This amendment would ensure that those with inside information or perceived inside access to government are included within the definition of a “former public office holder” and prohibited from lobbying for two years. It is my opinion that this is a reasonable period of time to ensure that one does not benefit inappropriately from the influence of former connections. It is worth mentioning, by comparison, that the federal act is a five-year period, which is an unreasonable length of time.

It is essential that the public has confidence in their system of government, and this includes the conduct of former elected officials and senior office holders. With respect to the lobbying industry, I would like to once again remind this House that it was a B.C. Liberal government that enacted the original Lobbyists Registration Act in 2001. It was further amended in 2010. We are, in fact, the authors of transparency in the lobbying industry. We want to promote public transparency and integrity in government. That is why the definition of “former public office holder” should include senior party executive members or staff members of the NDP transition team or former NDP staff.

At the federal level, the Conflict of Interest Act includes the Prime Minister’s transition team as public office holders. This bill fails to do so, despite the Attorney General saying that this bill has broad similarity with the federal act. That’s not good enough. The definition also excludes confidence and supply secretariat staff or secretariat committee members outside of cabinet. If it is the government’s true intention to restore public trust in their government, why is the NDP and Green Party coalition deliberately excluding their own people from the process?

There are good reasons why the NDP and the Green Party should be covered in this legislation. We need not look any further beyond the confidence and supply agreement signed by the NDP and Green Party. The government is expected to consult with the B.C. Green Party caucus on the broad outline of the government’s legislative program, legislation to be introduced in the House, major party policy issues, broad budget parameters, events, policy changes with provincial or budgetary implications.

The agreement further ensures the Green Party will be informed about the policy agenda of the government and provided with access to key documents and officials. If the Green Party is more than just an ordinary opposition party, if they are indeed that close to government, why would Green Party members and staff not be included?

With respect to the second part of the bill, prohibition, my colleagues and I in the Liberal Party believe a two-year cooling-off period is appropriate for people moving from political life to the private sector.

The Green Party should support these amendments, which would add them as former public office holders to the Lobbyists Registration Act. It is because they have access to insider information, at least as much as a parliamentary secretary would have, and possibly more.

Madame Speaker, I am proud that I come from the wild, wild west.

[2:00 p.m.]

J. Isaacs: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to the proposed amendment to section 2 of Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act. As I see it, the amendment serves to strengthen the core of the intent of what was already been outlined in the bill — that being to ensure that the public has confidence in the rules that govern those that try to influence government.

To better understand the intended scope of this legislation, I suggest we turn to the words of the Attorney General, who I feel has already rather succinctly described the intention of the bill when he stated the following to the Globe and Mail on October 3. He said: “The act is aimed specifically at people who have access to inside government information.”

It seems pretty straightforward. The act is specifically aimed at the people who have access to inside government information. Unfortunately, the bill has missed its target entirely because there are key groups that have been granted exemptions. There’s no question that these key groups do have access to inside government information. So I feel it imperative that we shine a light on this bill’s shortcomings so as to more comprehensively restrict those with perceived insider access to government that this bill, to this time, does not reference.

I think the crux of our objection to this bill comes down to its definition of “former public office holder.” It’s interesting to note, however, that in this bill, as it currently stands, the definition of former public office holder does not include senior party executive members or staff; members of the NDP transition team; members of the Legislative Assembly with access to the confidence and supply secretariat; nor former employees of that office.

How former senior party executive members and staff are not seen as having access and influence akin to that of former government members and staff is a mystery to me. Perhaps it is a mere oversight, but I would suggest that such roles would have insider access to government regardless of their political allegiance.

I also feel it’s important to see that the transition team members be included in the definition of former public office holder, as by practice, their roles are central to advising, organizing and selecting of executive council members that takes place when a new government is formed. Federally, members of the Prime Minister’s transition team are included in the lobbying prohibition outlined in the federal Lobbying Act, and we see no reason why this should be any different provincially.

Moreover, I also feel it important to ensure that former Members of the Legislative Assembly with access to the confidence and supply secretariat, as well as former employees of that office, be included in the definition in question. Given their access to government officials, documentation and biweekly consultation meetings, such roles associated with the secretariat are by their very nature privy to insider access to government.

As per the 2017 confidence and supply agreement struck between the B.C. Green and B.C. NDP caucuses, it states very clearly that the government has agreed to “provide access to key documents and officials.” Hence, seeing that it is through the confidence and supply agreement secretariat that this facilitation of insider access to government is administered, we see that it is inexcusable that they are not included in this bill.

It is my hope that these amendments gain the support of the House, and I hope that the arguments I’ve laid out for their inclusion are considered by this government and the Green Party caucus members moving forward.

[2:05 p.m.]

M. Hunt: I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill 8 that is before us. I want to begin by specifically quoting the minister on the purpose of the bill, because I think it’s very important that we understand that. He said: “The act is aimed specifically at people who have access to inside government information.”

Recognizing when he spoke those words, he was speaking in an interview with the press, so he didn’t necessarily have his legal mind on to say it all in legalese so that it could be put there. But at least that’s what’s attempted in this amendment, to try and take the essence of what the minister said and work with that.

Now, again, we recognize that the original bill was created in 2001. What’s the significance of 2001? It was the time that we had transition in government. Sometimes when you have that process of transition in government, you’ve got a new set of eyes looking at things. You’ve got a new set of people looking at it, and they come up with ideas that say: “Hey, what about this, what about that, what about the other thing.” The bill was amended in 2010 because, again, people were looking at it and said: “It’s deficient in areas. Let’s correct it. Let’s build on it.”

What the minister is putting forward here in talking about a two-year cooling-off period, I think, is appropriate, and especially after coming out of political life. Because let’s be honest with ourselves. When we’re in this House, no matter which side of the House we’re on — whether we’re the front benches or the back benches or the third row — we all are involved in the government processes. We all have access to information. We all are a part of, and we know who the people are. We know who the key players are. We learn to meet them, and we work at this.

I think it’s very important, as we look at this bill, that we look and see what’s missing. Again, this is an opportunity for us to look at the whole lobbyists registry and figure out what we want. The minister himself, in his talk about this bill earlier today, said it was an exercise of drawing a line in the sand. Quite frankly, I agree with him. I think that’s exactly what we see here. A line was drawn in the sand.

I think, by these amendments, we’re simply challenging that line and saying: “Hey, we think that line should be in a different place.” I think that’s what the process is here. I hope, through this exercise, that we actually end up with a better bill at the end of the day because we’ve all had the chance and opportunity to look at it.

Unfortunately, I know we get partisan sometimes in the House, and I’m going to be just as guilty of that as everybody else in the House. Such is life, okay? But when we look at it, we find some exclusions, that it only applies to former government officials, not to NDP officials or — not to exclude the Third Party — the Green Party officials as well. I wouldn’t want them to feel excluded from this.

When we look at NDP….

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Well, I’m trying to be. We’re trying to work on a bill to make it better, okay?

The Chair: Through the Chair.

M. Hunt: Through the Chair, Madame Chair. I apologize for that.

But what about former NDP MLAs? Well, actually, when we look at it and we look at introductions over the last number of weeks, we have had a parade of former NDP MLAs. Now, I’m not throwing aspersions on any one of them. Please don’t construe that to be that, that I’m saying they’re unlawful or bad lobbyists or whatever. I’m simply saying it’s reality. That is what happened here. As a result, when you see that happening, you’ve got to sit there and ask the question. You’ve got to think through the logical consequences of it.

I can take friends of mine who were former MLAs from the good city of Surrey. They’ve been here for years. They have been involved in the processes here. They have had the opportunity to take concerns from members of their constituency. They’ve gone to different staff. They know who’s in the ministry. They know these things. I’m sorry. They have “access to inside government information. “ I just think they do. And I think it’s a wise thing.

[2:10 p.m.]

By the way, that points the finger at me too. I believe I should be included in this legislation. I believe that when the day comes that either my constituents kick me out or I choose not to run again — because those are, basically, the only two alternatives — that in fact I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to get a job coming in here lobbying, even though I am on this side of the House.

So I’m including myself in this. I’m not trying to say: “Well, let’s cut the line in the sand so that you can miss me and get everybody else.” I don’t think that’s right. I think the reality is that it should be including all of us. That’s why I support the amendments that are here. When we look at it, I think there are three groups that are very obviously missed in this. One is, as far as I’m concerned, those of us that have been here in this House.

I notice in the definition that the minister has put forward, he includes parliamentary secretaries. Now, by the same token, I only have limited experience in that area. I was only a parliamentary secretary for one month, okay? I don’t have a lot of experience, so I can’t speak with great wisdom and experience on this, but in that one month, I can assure you that I was involved in conversations with the ministerial staff. Now, sure you can say, “There was a line between this, that and the other thing,” but I got to know who the people were. I had conversations with the people.

I think that’s what the public is looking at in this. So I go, “Hey, if it’s good for the parliamentary secretary, I think it’s good for every one of us that’s here” — in this legislation. So that’s retiring caucus members, all the rest of it.

As a matter of fact, when we look at the legislation across this country, since we’re trying to be like everybody else in what we’re doing, legislation has either been passed or is up for debate in Alberta; Saskatchewan; Manitoba; Ontario; Quebec; P.E.I. is currently going through their readings and process; Newfoundland; Nova Scotia; and New Brunswick. They all include some form of members of the provincial assembly in their definition of a public office holder. So why would we not do it? If all of the other provinces are doing this, why would we draw this line in the sand that says: “No, no, not me. Not me.” Somehow, I just don’t find that to be reasonable.

I think — we’ve already heard it said by those who spoke before me, but I’ll just repeat it for the sake of clarity and those who just tuned in on the television — members of transition teams…. We have that in the federal Conflict of Interest Act. That includes the Prime Minister’s transition team as public office holders. This bill fails to do that, despite it being…. I’ll make sure I try to get the right words. This bill has “broad similarity” to the federal act. If we’re going to be broadly similar, let’s be broadly similar. Let’s throw the transition team in there too.

Again, if we look at current experience, we know that those who were in the transition team, here in the province of British Columbia, were those who have very close connections to those who are, in fact, ministers today. They had those relationships. They know what’s going on. I just think that meets that definition, or at least my thought of “access to inside government information.” I think it qualifies.

Also, we’ve already heard mention about the confidence and supply secretariat. I realize the minister got up and spoke a few moments ago and said that that’s a named group and all this, so that shouldn’t be in the legislation. Well, at least for the sitting of this parliament, that is a recognized group. It’s a clearly definable, understandable group of people. I think that’s what the member was trying to do when the member from Chilliwack put this in — trying to say that it’s a clearly defined group.

By the same token, the minister has introduced legislation in this parliament making amendments. I don’t think we’ve had a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. We did have a corrections one, where we’re going and making little corrections that needed to be made. This is an obvious correction that can be made by future parliaments. But at this point in time, it’s a very clearly understood group. It’s a very easily recognized group. It’s a limited group.

[2:15 p.m.]

It also has a function, as has already been said, that is involved with the consultations between the members of the Green Party caucus and the government.

Actually, if my memory serves me correctly, I think this is somehow housed in the Finance Minister’s office — obviously, a senior member of this government cabinet. It’s talking about the broad outline of government legislation programs. It’s talking about the legislation that’s going to be introduced to the House.

Well, that sounds to me like “access to inside government information.” As a matter of fact, it’s so inside government that we don’t have access to it. That tells me that that secretariat is even getting more inside government information than we as members of the opposition get — maybe more than parliamentary secretaries get — dealing with major policy issues, dealing with broad budget parameters, and there’s a whole long list of it. You’ve heard other members speak to that.

I have real problems and real concerns with what’s before us, simply because the line in the sand has not, as far as I’m concerned, been drawn in the correct place. So I support these amendments. I think that all these three major groups are included in what should be public office holders. I would suggest that if the minister doesn’t like the particular wording that’s here, fine. Let him call a recess of this bill and work on getting the proper legalese for it, and bring it back here so that we can vote on it on a form that he wants.

To just say, “Well, the wording isn’t good so we’re going vote against it” — I think that really falls short of the concept of working together and making this parliament better and making the legislation better because of the exchanges that we have.

I do recognize that the minister has previously said that he’s opening up the opportunities for members of the House to bring their legislation and get it properly vetted and reviewed, and I accept that as a genuine offer. But I think here is a perfect example of where it can be done in a very simple, very easy way, to be able to sit there and say, “Hey, the principles are good. The principles make sense. Let’s take it off to the” — whatever we call those guys that do all that stuff. I can’t remember the name now.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Yeah, yeah. You know, the guys that are the real legalese guys. They’ve got all these technical terms and that sort of stuff, and it obviously isn’t me.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Yeah, obviously. No, absolutely true.

I just think it’s something that…. I think the essence of what is here needs to be supported. I support the essence of what is here. I have no problem if someone wants to clean up the language and make it in the proper legalese for a bill. But I think the intent is good, and I’m certainly supporting the intent of the amendment that’s before us.

G. Kyllo: I’m proud to rise today, on behalf of the hard-working people of Shuswap, to lend my support to the proposed amendment of section 2 of Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, brought forward by my friend and colleague the member for Chilliwack-Kent.

The government desires to prohibit former public office holders from lobbying government for a period of two years, including former ministers and their parliamentary secretaries and staff, as well as public office holders. Clearly, the intent of Bill 8 is to provide what one might refer to as a 24-month cooling-off period for those public office holders that may have had access to confidential government information and potentially forged influential relationships with senior staff within government. An example might be a former cabinet minister who chooses not to seek re-election, who would be prohibited from registering as a lobbyist and representing industry, trade or social organizations or companies for a period of two years.

The Attorney General, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, described the legislation: “The act is aimed specifically at people who have access to inside government information.” However, the Attorney General has, in my opinion, purposely neglected to include others who have had recent and ongoing access to inside government information — namely, the Premier’s confidence and supply secretariat and the Premier’s transition team.

Additionally, the transition team members are conspicuously absent from this bill. The Premier’s handpicked transition team — comprised of friends and committed members of the NDP cause, folks holding senior positions within union organizations — gained access to sensitive and highly confidential government information.

[2:20 p.m.]

Yet again, the Attorney General has specifically neglected to capture those individuals under Bill 8. I’ll again quote the Attorney General: “The act is aimed at people who have access to inside government information.” Does the Attorney General honestly feel that those handpicked friends of the NDP, who had fulsome access to confidential government information, participated in critical policy discussions and helped to inform the selection of cabinet, somehow should be exempt from Bill 8? I think not.

Hypocrisy certainly comes to mind. The minister’s stated goal was to ensure that former public officer holders cannot unfairly use their inside information and connections to influence government policy, yet he purposely has chosen to exclude the Premier’s transition team and the confidence and supply secretariat from Bill 8.

The amendment proposed by my friend and colleague the member for Chilliwack-Kent clearly intends to rectify the significant oversight of the Attorney General. I trust that the government, as well as members of the Green Party, will see their way clear to take a principled stance, to do the right and just thing and to vote, alongside me and members of the B.C. Liberal caucus, in support of the amendment of section 2, Bill 8.

A. Weaver: I have a couple of questions seeking clarification on the amendment. The first question is very specific to the amendment.

My first question, and the Chair will see the thread here, is to the Attorney General with respect to the secretariat. Are the employees of the secretariat government appointees, or are there civil servants in the secretariat?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised they’re appointed by OIC, in the same way as government communications or ministerial staff. So order-in-council appointments.

A. Weaver: Is it possible all the names that were mentioned earlier are not civil servants? They have been appointed. Donna Sanford, I understand, is a civil servant. Is she not a civil servant in the secretariat?

Hon. D. Eby: They’re appointed by OIC, but they are government staff. If that’s what the member is asking, yes.

A. Weaver: That’s where I’m going. The question I was going to have is: to what extent do formal civil servants…? Do they have to abide by any pre-existing lobbyist registration…? Is there a code of ethics or a code that civil servants must abide by after their service with the civil service has actually terminated? Perhaps they have gone into retirement, or they’ve moved elsewhere.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that members of the public service swear an oath and that the specific members of the secretariat are at the executive director level, at the highest. So they aren’t captured by the current public service agreement obligation around the one-year prohibition.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the Attorney General.

Also, there was quite a remarkable turn of events that occurred in this session. That was that the Attorney General allowed members of the opposition and the third party access to legislative drafters to propose amendments. My colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands will speak to this issue much more substantively and thoroughly shortly.

My question is relevant and germane to our actual conditions of discussing and contemplating support for this amendment. My question is posed directly to the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who did actually bring this amendment forward. Did he actually have this amendment go through the legislative drafters that we were granted access to in order to propose amendments, prior to their submission, that fit the legal definitions that were required and that were consistent with all other statutes that exist in British Columbia, or did he so choose not to have access to those legislative drafters?

[2:25 p.m.]

L. Throness: I did not choose to do that. I was told that I had two routes, and I chose the route that I chose. Certainly, the drafting language can be cleaned up after we pass the amendment. We would have that access, as the member noted, to drafters now or then.

A. Weaver: I will stop there. I will admit that I do have trouble passing an amendment and turning that into law if that amendment has not gone through legal counsel to ensure that that amendment would actually meet the terms required for it to be legally approved in British Columbia.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to all the members for their remarks.

A. Olsen: I’d like to address the amendment on behalf of myself and my colleagues. When this bill, Bill 8, was initially introduced, I was asked in the media about it. I said that it was a good start. It was a good start to amending the Lobbyists Registration Act that had holes in it that you could drive a bus through.

Some of the challenges. A lobbyists bill that only requires someone to note who they intend to lobby is a problem. That’s not actually being able to keep track of who they’re lobbying and what they’re lobbying them on or for how long they’re lobbying them. These are all things that I’ve brought up and suggested we needed to tighten up on.

In fact, I did take the opportunity to take the other route that the member for Chilliwack-Kent chose not to. That was to work with government, to meet with the folks at the lobbyists registry office, to talk to them about the various things that they’ve recommended in the past should be done in order to tighten up this legislation that did have these large gaps. In fact, the lobbyists industry themselves have requested and have asked for these changes to be made in order that there’s a level of fairness within the lobbying industry.

We spent quite a bit of time in our office working. I spent time working with my staff, going back and forth, to draft up amendments that were then put on the order paper so that the members in the opposition could see them. We took the time to have them properly drafted so that, at the time that we were going to be asked to vote on them, they were complete.

This is the work, the good work, that needs to be done in this place. I spent time speaking with the Attorney General about whether or not we were going to be able to bring these forward. Of course, there are some difficulties with them. We secured an agreement.

I think, in this case, where we’ve got an amendment that’s put in front of us a couple of hours before…. I seem to remember that this seems to be a practice. A piece of legislation or amendment gets dropped, and then when there are significant and substantive reasons why you wouldn’t support an amendment…. As the Attorney General pointed out, he had significant issues with the way it’s written. If that’s the way that the members in the opposition suggest we do business — agree to an amendment to make a bill and then go back and fix it later — to me, that is very challenging.

We need to have what we’re voting on in front of us. We need to have the ability to take a look at it, to be able to digest it and then to ensure that what we’re voting on is something that is actually going to be able to withstand the test of time. To the point that the Attorney General made, the fact of the matter is that if the point was to capture the members of the confidence and supply secretariat, then perhaps it would have been better to find a way to capture those people without using the name of the confidence and supply secretariat. With a very simple name change of the secretariat — confidence and supply secretariat 2 — those people then don’t fall into this legislation — which has to, by the way, withstand the test of time.

[2:30 p.m.]

It’s not just for this minority government that we are creating Lobbyists Registration Act amendments. It is for every government that comes after it. It’s for all of that. I think that what’s important here is that we take advantage of the opportunities that are in front of us. We have a commitment from the government that they are going to do a full review. This is a completely supportable suggestion that is being made by the members across to strengthen this legislation, to add definition to the legislation, to increase the people who are captured by this.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Those are good amendments. I suggested that to the member for Chilliwack-Kent. To do it in an ad hoc way, to drop it on this place and to suggest that what we should do is adopt a poorly written, “off the side of the desk” piece, when in fact, there was the legal…. To have other members suggest: “Oh, it’s just fine. I don’t know that legalese, so I’m not going to engage in it. It doesn’t matter anyway. It can be fixed later.” That’s very problematic.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. The member for Saanich North and the Islands has the floor.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest this is an opportunity. Put this to the review that’s going to happen. Put this through. Make sure that the people of the lobbyists registry office have a chance to look at this, have a chance to ensure that they get it right and to capture everybody that needs to be captured in it. This is not about not capturing people. The smirks and the smiles and all that — that’s fine. This is not about the conspiracy theories that we’ve seen in this. Rather than using this opportunity as a soapbox, let’s make this lobbyists registry act a great lobbyists registry act. Let’s put it into the process.

I don’t think that this legislation is done yet. I’ve said that publicly. So to sit here and listen and hear that there is actually this thing that…. We’re trying to hide. We’re trying to run. We’re trying to not get this right. That’s simply not the case. I’ve stood up in front of the media and publicly said: “This isn’t quite done yet.”

We’ve put forward amendments in a way that I think they should be put forward. This member put forward amendments in an ad hoc way, with language that is clearly problematic and that shouldn’t be supported, and I will not be supporting them.

L. Throness: I would just like to answer a few of the objections that have been raised. First of all, the minister insinuated that I wanted to exclude myself in not including MLAs in the amendment. I would remind him…. Perhaps he doesn’t know that I was parliamentary secretary up until a few months ago. Therefore, I would certainly be captured by the legislation, and we would be happy to be captured by the legislation.

The second thing that he said was that the name of the confidence and cabinet secretariat might change. My Green Party colleague said the same. Well, what if they changed the name of the parliamentary secretary as well? That, too, is in the act. What if they change the name of the executive council to executive committee one day? That might change as well. We know that the confidence and cabinet secretariat will be in place for at least four years, so it’s important to capture that.

The final thing I would say is that…. The Green member said that they are good amendments, yet he relies on a flaw in process in order to avoid them. I would just suggest that he might as well call a spade a spade and say, “I’m just trying to avoid the amendment,” and be clear with voters.

A. Weaver: I’d like to rise and support my colleague here, who has articulated that we actually find the contents of this amendment to be something we could support. However, we cannot support approving legislation that clearly is not appropriately written and that would not be consistent with the bill.

The members opposite did not take advantage of the legislative drafters that we were given access to.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: We used them. It’s remarkable that the Attorney General gave all members access to legislative drafters. He recognized that this isn’t done.

[2:35 p.m.]

Rather than actually take advantage of this, we see some really good ideas put forward by the member for Chilliwack-Kent and written in a form that we simply cannot support now because it’s not legal. If we were to pass this…. We would be doing a dereliction of duty in passing legislation that we know has not gone through the legislative drafters for this House.

I can’t fathom why the member for Chilliwack-Kent did not (1) come to us and tell us about this amendment prior to the order papers this afternoon and (2) use the legislative drafters that we were given access to. We could have supported this. We could have supported this, and we look forward to supporting this if they actually follow the process and bring it forward in the review.

I’m not even sure, with my colleagues…. Some of the amendments put forward by my colleagues are done legally, but I’m not sure how they will be ruled, whether they will be ruled in order or not. We’re okay with that, provided that the government is able to respect the wishes of the members here, and they’ve said in good faith that they are.

I realize there’s so much deep, ingrained cynicism in members opposite — that everything that is being done over here is some kind of Orwellian conspiracy theory for a quest for power and one-world governance. I get that. But really, for a second, stand back and think. What we really want here is good public policy.

We’re willing to work with members opposite. We’re willing to work with government. My colleague spent hundreds of hours with staff….

A. Olsen: Well, not hundreds.

A. Weaver: Tens of hours?

A. Olsen: Numbers of hours.

A. Weaver: My colleague didn’t, but the staff certainly spent that time. There would have been, I would say, hundreds of hours, if you collected, by our staff, who’ve been going to meetings, who’ve been putting this forward. I’ve got a lazy colleague here from Saanich North and the Islands. He probably just looked at the final version and went: “Yeah, okay.” No, I’m joking. Seriously, there was a lot of effort that went into this. We don’t know how it’s going to move forward, but we took advantage of the tools we were given.

I encourage the member for Chilliwack-Kent to not forget this. We support the intent of this. We support the intent. We agree with you that we shouldn’t be, if we had access to information, allowed to lobby. We agree. So bring it forward in the review process.

M. Bernier: I thought maybe the leader of the Green Party grew six inches, and then I realized he was standing on a soapbox. Hopefully, he realizes the joking nature of that comment. It wasn’t a personal attack by any means.

I do want to address something that was brought forward during this amendment debate. This is the fact that, as the minister and the members from the Third Party opposition are saying, we have an opportunity of the legislative drafters. I appreciate that. But he himself said that sometimes it can take hundreds of hours.

My question to the minister when I’m finished, then, will be: is government now willing to not bring forward any bills and not vote on any bills until the official opposition has had a chance to not only review every single bill but have access to the drafters on every single bill any time we have an amendment? Nothing will be voted on until all of those bills are done. I know he might want to go talk to his House Leader and the rest of government because that’s not always the way things happen.

There’s an opportunity to bring things to the House, as the member who brought the amendment forward did. That is something very valuable within the process that we have here within this Legislature to do. I appreciate the comments that it might not meet the legal legislative test.

I know through my time in this Legislature, and I know the minister and others…. We’ve gone through this exact process many, many times. There have been times when we’ve actually stood down on a bill so we can bring an amendment forward. We can make sure that the legal drafting team, the legislative drafters, can make it better, make it proper and make sure that it meets the test that the whole House can support.

When I hear that the members from the Green Party are actually supporting the intention of the amendment, my question then would be: would they be willing to also stand up and vote that we don’t vote on this bill at this time? We actually have an opportunity to change the intention, and we have a chance on this motion to amend it. I think the minister himself has even said that…. Some of the intentions he might like, maybe not, within the amendment, and it might not meet the legal framework. I accept that.

[2:40 p.m.]

Sometimes when we look at how fast the government might want to bring a bill forward and how quickly they might want to pass that bill to meet whatever objectives…. Some of the bills are on a tight timeline, and they want to do that. We won’t necessarily have the opportunity to always bring it forward to the legislative drafters if we, at the last minute, after reviewing it, because of the short timeline, come up with an amendment.

Again, this amendment is brought forward in good faith. This amendment is brought forward for good reason, and most people in this House sound like they’re actually agreeing with the intent. I appreciate the members from the Green Party and their position that they availed themselves, sometimes, of something maybe we didn’t in this circumstance. That doesn’t take away from the intent of the amendment to try to make the bill better. It actually worries me when I hear that they maybe appreciate and support the amendment but that they might vote against it just on principle — that maybe a policy to their liking wasn’t followed.

With that, I want to just leave it on the amendment and say that I support the amendment. I support the intent. I support the fact that we’re trying to work collectively in this House to fix an issue.

As the member from Surrey had mentioned, the line in the sand doesn’t have to be there. We can move it. The whole point of this House is to have debate, to have discussion, to make a bill better.

I know the minister, now, sat on this side of the House and quite a few times used this exact same argument of why we should be working together and why we should be making a bill better when an amendment comes forward. This is his opportunity now, as the minister of the Crown, to actually take his own advice to work with this House to try to make a bill better.

A. Olsen: I would like to provide some clarification. In no way was this debate that we’re having today about Bill 8 held up in any way to draft this amendment. We worked within the exact amount of time that we had — the exact same amount of time that the official opposition had.

There was no…. The meetings that we had with the members of the staff at the office of the registrar happened on the phone and in person. They happened in the time. We consulted with them. We asked them about the amendments that we had. All of these options were available to the members of the official opposition.

The fact of the matter is that I also needed to be convinced that there wasn’t anything from the office of the registrar. That work was done in advance, on ours. I think that there’s a considerable amount of work that we’ve done, that needed to be done, in order to bring this forward.

I have said publicly that this isn’t about limiting the number of people that should fall under this bill. The fact is that this piece of legislation that we’re amending has needed to be amended and strengthened for more than a decade. Yes, there’s been some tinkering around the edges. But for the most part, it’s been left wide open.

This government…. It was an initiative that came from our platform. The fact of the matter is that there is going to be a process. This is a great opportunity to put this to the process — exactly the same way as the two amendments that I’ve got, which are incredibly important, which were on the order papers a day in advance for everybody to see.

It was all there for everyone to see, for everyone to debate. But through conversation, we got a commitment — the same commitment that could be given to have this piece pushed to a review, have it considered, have it a part of the process and brought it in.

To me, I think that there is an important principle here that we do the good work in advance. So when it is brought forward here…. Sure, it might be done in good faith. But there’s a lot left to be desired about the amendment that we’re debating. Still, at this stage, it’s not supportable.

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of remarks coming out of members’ comments.

One member suggested — I don’t want to misstate what he said — that across Canada, there were similar provisions that the members were putting forward. Actually, we’re more exceptional in British Columbia by taking this step. The legislation that previously existed in B.C. — hopefully, if this bill passes to replace sections of it — was just to register. It wasn’t a prohibition. Many provinces in Canada have similar registration requirements without the prohibition.

[2:45 p.m.]

There are significantly fewer provinces that actually have prohibitions. I went through them earlier — Quebec, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. We would join them with this bill.

I noted that the member was celebrating former MLAs coming through here. I was glad to see Terry Lake. I saw Barry Penner the other day. Don McRae, I know, has been reaching out to folks. It is good to see former MLAs coming back to this place.

It does raise the question that the member does, rightly, about: should more MLAs be captured, and should members of their staff be captured by the legislation? I accept that that’s a good question to ask.

The challenge with the proposed amendment is it’s not clear from the amendment, subsection (f), whether or not, for example, opposition MLAs are captured. I might believe that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale may have had access to inside government information. He might believe that he didn’t have access, that there wasn’t even a possibility that he had access to inside government information.

It’s not clear to me from the section whether it was, in fact, the member’s intention that opposition MLAs be captured by this amendment. Similarly, the member says that, well, he would be captured because he is a former parliamentary secretary. There is a two-year horizon. This government’s going to be here for four, just over four years, so the member will be outside of that.

Theoretically, he could go, as an opposition MLA, and lobby once his term is done here and he is replaced by an NDP MLA. Just pointing it out. There are serious tracking problems.

The big problem with the suggestion of the members: “Why don’t you just put it on hold, and we’ll go and do this full process…?” We introduced the bill October 2. It was there. Everybody had the chance to bring suggestions forward. The members chose not to do that. That’s fine. That’s their prerogative and their strategy as opposition. I don’t say there’s anything wrong with that.

It just makes the suggestion that they bring forward now — that we put it on pause and take their suggestions and turn it into legislation, and so on, that will actually work. The big problem is that means the bill will not pass this session. It’s just the reality.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: I hear the member saying: “You can do it in a day.” I thought the members had been in government before. It moves a little more slowly than that, and there are other things that the drafters are working on.

This is an important first step. In my opening remarks in this very committee stage, I said to all of the members of this place: “This is a first step. We are doing a full review in 2018.”

I listed two provisions that we will be bringing in, in the fall of next year. If the member truly believes that opposition MLAs should be included in this process, in this prohibition, then let’s have that conversation. Let’s do that as part of the review.

I say “if the member truly believes” because…. I mean, I heard a couple of the members suggest that the government — well, frankly suggest that I — was a hypocrite for bringing this proposal forward. It would be insulting if it wasn’t amusing, given the rotating door of key advisers in the Premier’s office going in and out of lobbying firms: Dimitri Pantazopoulos, Michael McDonald, Gabe Garfinkel, Matt Stickney, Minister of Education.

Where was the outrage when this was happening? Where was the prohibition when these folks were in government? There was a registry. Absolutely, there was a registry. But the registry did not prevent the kind of activity that raised the concerns of the public.

I support us moving forward with this. I accept the member’s points that there’s lots more work to be done. I agree with them, which is exactly why we’re doing the review in 2018.

If this was the last time we were going to look at the lobbyists bill, maybe we would have that conversation. But in fact, I’m telling the members we have a full review process that’s going to be happening and another bill coming in the fall of 2018 where their suggestions can come forward.

So there’s lots of opportunity for that. With that, I close my remarks and hope we can vote on this.

M. Bernier: I just want to assure the minister that we appreciate, when this bill came forward, having this open discussion about not only making this specific bill better but making the situation of how lobbying works in the province of British Columbia….

I think he should have heard, which I’m sure he did by the comments from this side of the House, that we agree with the intent. We agree with some of the changes. In fact, that’s why we brought forward the exact things the minister is actually talking about, why the transition team and others need to be involved and included, why members of the Green Party or the third opposition and others need to be looked at.

Now, the minister knows, because we’ve done this in the past, at any time in this House — and this is to all members — you have the option to bring forward an amendment on anything, at any time, without notice.

[2:50 p.m.]

That is the standard of this House. We do have that ability, because at any time, somebody can have a thought, as they’re sitting here listening to a bill, as they’re hearing the discussion, that might tweak an idea. “Hey, I have something that I can do to make this bill better.”

You don’t have to give notice. Obviously, if you can, that’s preferred. But that doesn’t have to be the way it takes place. In fact, that’s not the way this House is set up.

Now, the minister also has the opportunity…. I hope we have support from the House for this and from the members opposite in the Third Party, in the Green Party, as well. We actually have done this in the past when we’ve had a good discussion, when the majority of people think that it’s right that there’s an opportunity to make the bill better. I’ve heard the minister and I’ve heard every party and pretty well every member in this House say: “We can make this bill better.”

My recommendation to the minister is actually to do what we’ve done in the past when we’ve heard comments like this — to stand down this section. We do not have to vote on this section. We can actually stand down and move on to the next section, No. 3. Stand down on No. 2. Give the minister time to look at the amendment.

He can actually take this amendment. He can clean it up to his liking. He can actually have legislative drafters, the legal team, review it. He can bring the amendment back as his own, as we have done in the past when we’ve heard an amendment on the floor that didn’t meet the legal test but the intent was there. The intent was what we all wanted to accomplish and all want to achieve.

My recommendation, with all due respect to the House and to the minister, is to stand down on section 2. Move forward to section 3, and give him time to fix this situation.

The Chair: Members, we have a proposed amendment to Bill 8, proposed by the member for Chilliwack-Kent. It’s in front of the House. We have to take a vote on it.

Division has been called.

[2:55 p.m.]

Members, this is an amendment proposed by the member for Chilliwack-Kent on Bill 8, section 2.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[3:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Before we vote on section 2 and pass, to move to section 3, I just wanted to remind the minister again, and all members of the House, that we have the opportunity to stand down on section 2 since the amendment did not pass.

Again, the offer still stands to the minister to send that amendment back to his ministry to the legislative review committee to change that. He can bring it back as his own. Of course, the will of the House would hopefully be that since everybody has agreed that this amendment, actually, in principle, is the right approach to go. We’re hoping that the minister will do the right thing — stand down section 2 and move to 3.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

L. Throness: I just have a couple more questions on this section. I would note, first of all, that this section gives a period of two years. Just for interest’s sake, why is it not a period of 24 months, which would be consistent with the Member’s Conflict of Interest Act?

Hon. D. Eby: Somewhere, there’s a drafter who just sat bolt upright in fear that there was an inconsistency between two years and 24 months. I think the member will remember the minor corrections act that we put through that added a dash to in-patient or removed a dash from in-patient.

In terms of the functioning of the legislation, there is no difference between two years and 24 months, as a technical matter for the member. But I take his point. I haven’t looked myself. It might be an inconsistency that we’ll be going back and correcting. I would take it, given our drafters, that this is the current style for time, in that if there’s a bill to be corrected, it’s probably the older one.

L. Throness: One final question. I’m wondering how the government chose two years for the lobbying prohibition when the lobbyists registrar herself — at the time, Elizabeth Denham — submitted a report in 2013 called Lobbying in B.C: Recommendations for Changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act. She recommended a ban of one year.

This is what she said in her report: “In making a recommendation on this point, I recognize the need to balance the public benefit of having well-informed policy-makers contribute to the policy process and the goal of fair access to influence government decision-making for all citizens.”

We don’t want undue influence, but neither do we want to deprive good people of a good career while their knowledge is still relevant. What issue did the minister take with her recommendation? Why did he not take the advice of the foremost expert in the province on lobbyists registry?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member will be aware that since that time a number of significant events have taken place, including the federal prohibition, which is a five-year prohibition, which we thought went a little bit too far in terms of British Columbia’s priorities right now.

He will have heard the list of individuals — Mr. Pantazopoulos, Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Stickney — who passed through the revolving doors of senior government positions into lobbyist firms and in some cases back again, which raised the concern of the public that something needed to be done about this and to send a strong message.

We feel that two years strikes an important balance between allowing people to engage in this very specific activity, reflecting the concern of the public around this issue, reflecting the access to information that people in these positions have and the interests of lobbying firms in retaining individuals. For these reasons we felt that two years struck an appropriate balance.

Sections 5 to 10 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 3:06 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:10 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Bill 8, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

(continued)

J. Tegart: I appreciate the opportunity to continue my remarks on Bill 6 — 2017: Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. I’d like to recap my concerns that I outlined in my remarks last week.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

One, in order for this process to move forward, it must be seen as impartial, non-political and non-partisan. Two, the process must ensure regional representation is reflected. Three, the threshold for this change must reflect the importance of the decision on the electoral process. Four, the question on the ballot must be straightforward and easily understood. And five, taking the wisdom from my colleague across the aisle, will I be able to explain this system to my grandmother in two minutes or less?

Representation is integral to our democracy, and I believe in that wholeheartedly. British Columbians deserve strong leadership from members who knows their respective communities and can advocate for them on their behalf. I don’t believe the way this bill seeks to institute a new electoral system is the best way forward for the province that British Columbians want.

This bill will 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. While I don’t stand against the idea of a referendum and allowing the exercise of direct democracy in action, the bill as it stands allows for our democratic system to be changed through a simple majority of 50 percent plus one.

I have to say I’ve served on a great many boards, a great many societies, some that had a huge impact on the community and the region as a whole, and never once have I seen the constitution changed by a 50-percent-plus-one vote. It was always a two-thirds majority.

This seems a little reckless for such a major change in our democracy. The threshold to pass this referendum requires less of a majority than the last two referendums. Additionally, this referendum doesn’t take into account the regional disparities and interests that exist. Instead, it allows for the possibility of a large population area, such as the Metro area, to dictate the future of our electoral system for the rest of the province.

There is also no minimum voter turnout in this bill. This would enable a simple majority of a small minority of our population to make fundamental changes to our voting system. But make no mistake: this has far-reaching effects on our democracy as a whole.

[3:15 p.m.]

I can tell you that this side of the House does not just say that from a position of attempting to maintain status quo or the feeling that we would lose seats. In fact, with our current system, there is a precedent of a party gaining more of the popular vote and fewer seats in this Legislature. In 1996, the B.C. Liberals gained 41.82 percent of the popular vote, while the NDP gained only 39.45 percent. However, the NDP gained 39 seats, with the B.C. Liberals seating just 33 — a 2 percent deficit in the popular vote but a six-seat gap in their favour in the House.

This just shows that we may even gain from having the proposed reform, so this is not coming from a position of self-interest. It is coming from a desire to preserve our democracy and maintain a stable and efficient institution. I am not sure that I can say the same about those on the other side of the House.

Voters in the province must have confidence and an understanding of their voting system. So 589 days, 208 days, 314 days, four months. What do these numbers have in common? They are how long it took multiple European coalition governments to form after their election dates under a proportional representation system.

These delays have major implications for people who rely on a stable government to provide them with vital services. A quick, seamless transfer of power is crucial to so many residents in our province. However, in 2010, it took Belgium’s government 589 days, nearly two years, to form a six-party coalition government that lasted as long as it took to negotiate it.

Can British Columbians afford two years of delays to arrange a government that may not last a full term? How many investments in our province will we lose in the two years of wavering and backroom negotiations in order to form government? How many public servants will be lost due to precariousness and constant insecurity?

On top of the delay to form a government, what happens next is just as bad. Holding people and parties ransom through PR generates the need for perpetual confidence and supply agreements that, as we have witnessed, can cause instability. Residents will be in a lose-lose situation. Representatives that are elected to represent constituents would instead be subject to coalition demands where no one truly gets what they voted for, just more gridlock — not to mention more frequent non-confidence votes and, subsequently, more elections.

The government will claim that this gives more representation to a broader section of our province. As I said earlier, I believe in representation. I would not be an MLA without believing that representation for my constituents and their interests is integral. It is my priority. It is the basis of the system of governance. But we need to debate whether this type of increased representation and boundless political parties are always an inherently great thing.

[3:20 p.m.]

Across Europe, we’re seeing exponential increases in far-right extremist parties within states that have proportional representation, and we are not immune to this wave of extremism. This year alone we have seen alt-right recruitment posters in Richmond and rallies protesting Islam and immigrant posters in Vancouver. We can only hope that our democracy is not so fragile as to regress into the sort of debates that have started to come out of those parliaments. Personally, I’d rather not get to that point.

We are also witnessing some very odd concoctions of coalitions across those countries, where shaky minority governments hold the balance of power and the lives of citizens are left in limbo and subject to behind-closed-door political dealings. Evidently, this does happen under our current system but much less frequently, and much fewer parties enter the fray to make their unique demands.

We must remember that no other Canadian province has switched to PR — for a reason. And our federal government declined to bring in a referendum for this same electoral system because it would lead to what the Prime Minister called an augmentation of extremist voices that are not in the best interests of Canada. But the federal government did run on a platform to bring in a referendum. And they didn’t.

The B.C. NDP also ran on this platform plank. To their credit, they may be doing so if this bill passes. However, in May of this year, the Premier did claim that his referendum would be a simple yes-no question. During the campaign this year, the Premier said explicitly to reporter Rob Shaw: “You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no” on one system to vote on. This bill opens the door for limitless possibilities on how government can phrase and stack the deck towards their preferred reform.

Instead of a yes-or-no question on one system of reform that will be debated exhaustively throughout the lead-up in the media and the government and opposition, voters may have to look through a catalogue of electoral reforms of the government’s choosing, of which only one will be backed with the full support of the government and their coalition. Then voters will be asked to make a decision.

We know that each of these potential reforms will not get the same weight as the one favoured by the government. But if this bill passes, our caucus will be working hard to inform the public of exactly what they will be voting for, what it means for them and what it means for our democracy moving forward.

So what happened between May and now? Could it be that another party has held the Premier captive?

I do know that the electoral reform system that the government favours would pave the way for parties to continuously break campaign promises. In fact, it’s inherent in the system. It favours populist waves that give parties the ability to campaign on whatever they want, to gain a few seats and to throw the platform out the window in order to form government. Where is the accountability in this system?

Our government officials are supposed to serve the people of British Columbia, not the whims of fringe parties and whatever is politically expedient that day. This May, I was voted in to represent the people of Fraser-Nicola, to whom I am accountable. My election campaign was based on the values that myself and my party champion, and they don’t become obsolete or irrelevant once voted in.

[3:25 p.m.]

Also inherent in this system is the disproportional power that smaller parties or independents gain by entering into agreements with a larger party or a broader coalition in desperate need of their confidence votes. In this sense, this electoral system’s name proves to be a misnomer that, in fact, gives disproportional representation to smaller political entities. It gives an advantage to parties with fewer seats to hold power imbalances and make demands that are not in the best interest of the entire province.

While I can be persuaded to support a potential referendum, it would need to contain qualifiers that this bill does not have. Certain thresholds are needed to give the whole of the province a voice in this important matter.

As it stands, the Metro area alone can push B.C. beyond the sole threshold contained in this bill of 50-percent-plus-one majority. It does not ensure that a certain percentage of the voting-age population needs to exercise their vote, and it can be manipulated through the question posed, the type of vote and the full backing of the government that people turn to for clarity.

For these reasons and the others aforementioned, I cannot support the bill as it is. Though I do agree with many on the other side, who have debated that representation is a good thing, none of us would be here if we didn’t. But I am worried how this reform will alter our democracy and shift it towards a system that is distorted, disproportionate and in a constant yet unstable state of disarray. I worry that this may give undue influence to fringe political groups, and the party could fall victim to the populist impulses of the day.

I think that for those of us who are very interested in politics and who follow politics around the world, our concern about what is happening to the south of us is very real. I have never seen some of the actions, never believed I would see some of the actions, that I’ve seen on the news, be it fake or real — some of the incidents of hatred and divisiveness. I have a great deal of concern that we not set ourselves up for anything that cultivates that sort of behaviour.

I worry that the representation that the government strives to give constituents will be expunged after each election process in order to camouflage into a minority coalition government.

I would be the first one to tell you that marriage is a wonderful thing. Partnerships are wonderful things. Compromise is a wonderful thing. But there is a time when you put your name forward, you stand by your principles, and you don’t give those up for a compromise that will not get you where you want to be and where the people who voted for you want their party to be.

I worry that after the outcome of a heavily favoured PR referendum, B.C. citizens will be on the hook for future delays in forming government. We only have to look around the world to see what that does. It will be unsustainable, condemning residents to wait for backroom deals to materialize. It puts life on hold for those that need government to be there, and it hinders the progress and financial prospects of our province.

[3:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

When we talk about representation, and we talk about how to involve the public more in our political system, I always share a story with anyone who’s thinking about running for politics. I’ve been in representation to my community for many, many years. I served 17 years on school board, and I ran for school board after a very, very emotional issue happened in our school. Being chairman of the board, you were the person who wore it. So that day, on election day, you always get everyone you know to come out. You call neighbours, friends, everyone. We all know that that’s how you represent.

Well, election day came, and that evening the count happened, and guess what. It was a tie. It was a tie, and in order to split the tie, the electoral officer flipped a coin, and we lost the flip. Later on that evening, I was having an event at my home — supposed to be a celebratory event; should have been, and still was — when my older brother knocked on the door. I looked at him, and I said: “Did you vote today?” He looked at me and said: “What difference does one vote make?” So I’m telling you: every vote counts.

When we’re talking about representation, and when we hear people say with that cynical voice, “What difference does a vote make,” I ask you to share my story. I’m not the only one who has that kind of story.

We know the importance of making that personal connection with people. People in my riding know who I am. When I go to the post office, when I go to an event, when I walk down the street, even though my riding is very, very large, over the four years of representation, people know who I am. They feel a connection, and so do I. That connection is so critically important if we want to engage people in the political process.

I’m saying to those of you across the aisle: if we are going to do a referendum on proportional representation, please — please — consider making it non-political. Consider making it non-partisan. I don’t want us to put our voters through a process that is so tainted that we can’t see any credibility in it.

We have asked our citizens twice before about referendum and about proportional representation. If we are going to go to the citizens for a third time, I would suggest to you that there are some basic principles that need to be looked at in order for that to be credible. That is that it be non-political, that it be non-partisan and that it reflect regional representation. For that reason, I ask for your support in thinking of those principles, and I, at this time, cannot support the bill as written.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to get an opportunity to stand and speak to the Electoral Reform Referendum Act. This is a piece of legislation that I’m excited about. It’s a piece of legislation that I support and a piece of legislation that I think will move forward the political and electoral system in British Columbia.

[3:35 p.m.]

Essentially, what this legislation does is enable and direct the province to have a provincewide referendum that will be held in the fall of 2018, where the subject of whether or not to change our voting system in British Columbia is decided. The question essentially will be to move from the current first-past-the-post system to a form of proportional representation. The act also provides for the referendum to be conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer through a mail-in ballot. It sets the threshold for that at 50 percent plus one provincewide in order to be successful. If a new voting system is approved, the government will be required to introduce legislation to implement the new system in time for a general election to happen post July 1, 2021.

Why is this important? We’ve made a commitment…. Well, maybe just to step back. The previous speaker.... I very much appreciated her comments, the member for Fraser-Nicola. At one point in her comments, she spoke about the situation we see south of us, south of the border. We know there’s a lot of attention paid to the uncertainty we see south of the border, and there’s a lot of political commentary about the President of the United States and where he lands.

What we know…. The system, I think, that we see down there and the concern that’s being raised and the concern that the member for Fraser-Nicola raised is about how the circumstances in the United States currently really go back to some of the problems we need to address. The problem down there is the enormous influence of money. Money dominates politics in the United States at every level.

The other thing that we know has happened in the United States is…. Almost without exception, you’ve seen both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party at different times use legislative tools to gerrymander boundaries. They do that in the United States, and we have seen that. That’s been the challenge we’ve seen in the United States, and those are the challenges that we need to overcome. That’s exactly what we are doing with legislation here. We have introduced the legislation that will end big money in politics in British Columbia and will end the pay to play that the B.C. Liberals engaged in for 16 years.

The other thing that we will see, if we adopt this, is…. I believe that we will see an end to the situation where you have parties — and it’s true for both of the parties that have governed in this province — that have 100 percent of the power with 43 or 44 percent of the vote. We have seen seven elections in this province, going back to ’91, and only once did a party get 50 percent of the vote. In every one of those other elections, until today, this recent election, we’ve had a party — on two occasions, the NDP, and the other occasions, the B.C. Liberals — who had 100 percent of the control without having a majority of the votes, without having a majority of support.

Here we have a change where, for the first time — other than the one 2001 aberration — we have a government supported by a third party that in fact has a majority, that garnered a majority of the votes and, I would argue, a much more stable, receptive and responsible government than we have seen in 16 years, without doubt.

I understand the anxiety of the other side.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: I understand the anxiety of the other side. We have, in the B.C. Liberals, a party that, at least for the last, probably, eight years, has dismissed the issue of good government and policy. It’s been about hanging on to power. None of that was more true than in their last term.

I’ll give Ms. Watts, who’s a leadership candidate…. I’ve certainly heard it from other Liberal leadership candidates, who say the number one priority…. Is it education? No. Is it health care? No. Is it climate change? No. Is it poverty? No. Is it the economy? No. The number one priority is: don’t allow a system where we can’t hang on to power. That’s all that matters.

[3:40 p.m.]

I suspect, for the Liberal Party, the situation probably is more desperate than that. We have a situation with the Liberal Party where I suspect that there are many members on that side who believe…. And it may be true. I guess time will tell, depending how the referendum goes and what the people of British Columbia decide, whether that party has any future under proportional representation or whether, within months after a successful referendum, we will all of a sudden have a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party sitting on that side.

I suspect that that’s what we’ll see. That’s the reality. The opposition to this isn’t about what’s good for British Columbia. It isn’t about people actually having a legislature that looks like how they voted. None of that matters….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. S. Simpson: None of that matters to anybody on that side. All that matters is: “Can we find a way to bamboozle the people of British Columbia and get power back any way at all?” That’s all that matters. That’s the problem that the B.C. Liberals have, and it really isn’t about any of this other highfalutin stuff that we keep hearing about.

The reason I think this this is important…. I’ve been through lots of first-past-the-posts. I’ve been elected four times on a first-past-the-post system. I was engaged in politics before that. My party has been the beneficiary of a system where you get government without having a majority of the votes, and that’s just the way this system works.

The more that I learn about politics as we move forward…. We always hear that we need to do things differently. We hear that people want to see things done different. We hear that people ask why politicians act the way that they act in this place, in the House of Commons. I think it has something to do with people being frustrated that they, in fact, don’t feel they’re represented.

The member for Fraser-Nicola made a good point when she said that people are anxious to know that every vote counts. In that case, she was talking about that rare but not totally uncommon situation where one vote wins an election and somebody you know forgets to vote. I think she told the story about a family member. And there was a member here, I believe — I think it might have been Frank Calder — who lost an election because he and his wife didn’t get out to vote for him. He lost the election by a vote. That kind of one or two votes — there’s no doubt that matters.

What really matters with every vote counting is that people are skeptical, if not cynical, about a current system where your vote doesn’t count. Too often it doesn’t count.

In my constituency, where I’m privileged to have a pretty good majority, I know people who would go out and vote for other parties. They don’t vote at all because they say: “You’re going to win anyway. So my vote for the Green Party or the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party…. I didn’t go out to vote because I knew you were going to win anyway. I don’t support you, but I support the other man, the other woman, the other party.”

Well, we put this system in place, and they are encouraged to get out to vote, because depending on the system that we adopt, at some point in the counting, that vote is going to be allocated to the party that they believe best represents their values and their interests. It’s going to be there, and it’s going to represent the composition of this Legislature.

The Legislature is going to look like what the people in British Columbia voted for. It’s going to make up that composition. Will politics have to change in this House? You bet they will.

I’ve heard all the criticism about the CASA agreement and about how parties work together here. It’s this remarkable comment by people in the official opposition — that somehow the ability of two political parties, who do not always agree here, to work together and find ways to collaborate in the best interests of British Columbians is somehow a bad thing, that it’s somehow a weakness. It’s not a bad thing, and it’s not a weakness.

[3:45 p.m.]

If this referendum passes, if the people of British Columbia choose to embrace the referendum and we move forward to elect a system, I suspect that what we will see is many more governments — a majority of governments where one party with 43 or 44 percent of the vote doesn’t get to make every decision. That party needs to reach out. It needs to engage the Legislature. It needs to find common ground. It needs to find common cause — something that happens very rarely here and, I believe, probably underlies what lots of people say about the British Columbia Legislature and about the harsh partisanship of this place. If we can bring that down a notch or two, it’s probably good for all of us.

We will not do that with this system that we currently have. The only reason there’s anything different here is because — and it may have been by accident; it may have been for any reason whatever — we have a minority system in this particular Legislature. The good thing about this minority system right now is that it obliges….

The people of British Columbia are going to have the opportunity to watch what happens here, to watch the relationship between the NDP and the Green Party, to determine whether there’s a level of collaboration there that they think is a positive thing for British Columbia. They’ll make that judgment, and they’ll make that decision when they go to vote next fall on this. We’ll see how that works.

That puts the obligation on us to make the relationship and the collaborative effort work. That becomes the challenge moving forward. But I do believe that if we really want to have politics that I think is increasingly reflecting the views of British Columbians, then we want to have a political system where we are obliged to come into this place — whatever party we come from and wherever we’re elected from, whether it is from a constituency or from a list — and be able to work together in ways that we have not done very well, certainly for the 12 or 13 years that I’ve been here.

It has always been an us-and-them. It’s always been a gotcha moment. That’s what it is. What we need to do, I believe, is make that change and take that change.

I’m happy to vote for the legislation. I will be happy to vote yes in the referendum, when I get the opportunity to do that.

If I’ve learned something in 12½ years, it’s that we can do better in the way that we work together. There are lots of smart people on both sides of this Legislature. There are lots and lots of people who came to this place for the right reasons. While we may not agree on the path that we take to the success that we’re looking for, I believe we are committed to that success. We may not agree on how to get there.

I think the failure of this place is that it has institutionalized a structure that doesn’t encourage or, in some cases, almost allow us to come together and collaborate in ways that I think are in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. We need to figure out how to do that better.

I believe that a proportional system is not only more democratic in that it reflects the Legislature; it will reflect the vote of the province. It will reflect what it looks like. If you get 40 percent of the vote, you’re going to get 40 percent of the seats. There you go. What it means….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Simpson: The member across the way talked about appointed members. There are a large number of constituencies in the province where some people would say, because of the first-past-the-post system, that if you succeed in getting a Liberal nomination or getting an NDP nomination, you almost become the appointed member, because you’re going to win the election.

Interjection.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Simpson: It’s getting a little closer to Langley.

The reality is that people will vote for the party of their choice. What they get to do is vote for the party of their choice and know that party, their representation, is going to reflect the people who voted for them. People get to vote for that party and their candidates. They’ll see a list, I’m sure.

We’ll get there. It’s going to be a great debate over the coming months on this. They’re going to have a new leader — it really doesn’t matter which of the candidates for the Liberal party becomes the new leader — who will be preoccupied with trying to hang on to the survival of their party and be out campaigning against this referendum. You will have people on this side who, I believe, will be saying it’s time for change. It’s going to be very interesting to see where the people of British Columbia come down.

We heard the member for Fraser-Nicola, whose comments I enjoyed, talked about the last two. That was a bit of a saw-off, to tell you the truth. I mean, the bar that was put there…. What was it? Sixty percent plus two-thirds of the constituencies, I think, was the bar. It missed by a couple of percent, but clearly, a majority of people in British Columbia thought it was a good idea.

The second time it didn’t receive a majority of the vote of British Columbians. It failed because it didn’t have that support.

We’ve kind of had that vote go both ways. We’re going to get an opportunity now to try it one more time, and I think that it’s going to be great for British Columbia.

If, in fact, the Liberal Party is concerned about that…. I’m sure that you’re going to have to produce the list. You can say, and we can say…. I suspect that voters will look at this and say: “Based on our percentage of the vote, proportionally, here are the people who will be chosen or be elected.” That’s quite a common occurrence. People can look at the list and say: “Do all those people come from Vancouver? No. There’s a Kelowna and a Kamloops and a Prince George and a Quesnel.” They can say all of that.

I’m excited about this. I think this, like taking big money out, is a fundamental change that has been too long coming in this province. I think it’s a change that will up the game of everybody in this House, that will make us more representative. Its parties will make us more accountable to the people of British Columbia and will force us to work with each other to find solutions people want. That’s exciting. That’s good for British Columbia.

This will pass, and I’m very hopeful the referendum will pass. I look forward to seeing the Conservative and the Liberal Party sitting in the opposition benches shortly after that vote.

M. Stilwell: I rise in the House today to speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to provide some perspective and comment on Bill 6. It continues, of course, to be a great honour for me to represent the people of Parksville-Qualicum, and I want to ensure that the constituents understand the implications and the risks that will unfold in this process.

I’m glad to see that so many of my colleagues on this side of the House are standing up to speak to this, because this bill carries some serious changes for the democratic foundations of our province. This bill has the potential to completely change the social fabric of our democracy here in British Columbia. Bill 6 is of profound importance, as it attempts to make wholesale changes to our voting system and the way that we pick our elected representatives.

What’s concerning is how this bill is being put forward. It probably won’t come to anyone’s surprise, or to the members opposite, that I will not be supporting the proposed legislation. You see, one of my primary concerns is that we end up changing our system based on the support of a small minority of voters. If we’re going to even consider — and I say if; this has an option…. Not that I think it needs to be changed, but if we’re going to consider changing the system, the bar needs to be set high.

[3:55 p.m.]

At least half of all eligible votes in the province need to support changing the system, not to mention that it needs to be supported by all regions lest the rural areas risk having this imposed upon them, decided by Metro Vancouver voters. This is the core of my concerns and opposition to this legislation. It is really the disenfranchisement of rural communities in B.C. — the possibility that our election process could be fundamentally altered by the voting populace of Metro Vancouver.

It’s critical that our voting system provides fair, equal, equitable representation for every region of this vast province. The way this bill is set up does the exact opposite. The process itself, conjured up by the NDP and their junior partners, is to support some kind of arrangement intended to keep their marriage together. You know, my father has always told me that marriage is about compromise. That’s the secret to a good marriage. And what is happening here is the ultimate compromise. The Greens are willing to sacrifice just about anything to push through PR.

Another problem with this bill is that British Columbians don’t even know what they’ll be voting for, which, as an MLA, makes my job very difficult. I can’t even explain it to my constituents, and I like to think I’m a relatively intelligent person. What I do know from talking to my constituents is that they don’t want a system where they have no clue what kind of government they’d be getting, where policy will be decided in backroom meetings.

Proportional representation systems vary widely. The people of British Columbia could end up with a system where they’re not voting for people. They’re not even voting for policies. They’re voting for a party name. And then it’s up to that party to negotiate policy.

We’re actually already seeing this in action in many ways with the Green Party, a party that had the support of only 16 percent of the popular vote in May and is now influencing and dictating policy for British Columbians.

This is not the first time that we have seen this come across as a topic while introducing proportional representation in British Columbia. It’s actually the third time. Only this time, with the passing of this bill, there is no public, no partisan input on how the referendum question will be posed, which, of course, naturally raises concerns for me.

Now, here’s something else that’s concerning as well. Back in May, the now Premier promised British Columbians that any referendum question would be a yes-or-no question. When discussing electoral reform with the Vancouver Sun reporter Rob Shaw, the Premier stated, when asked by Rob Shaw: “You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no.” When Shaw asked, point-blank, “So you’re going to give them one system to vote on,” the Premier’s response was: “Yeah, exactly.”

Now we see this commitment has been abandoned, just like several other promises of this formed government. 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 we can add that to the growing list of broken promises by this government.

I guess, like the junior partner from Oak Bay–Gordon Head says, promises don’t matter. I hope he remembers his own words when his current relationship goes off the rails and he finds himself wondering what just happened.

What I was assuming, and I think what many other British Columbians were assuming, is that an electoral reform ballot would simply say: “Do you support proportional representation, or do you support first-past-the-post?” But instead, the question that British Columbians will see on their mail-in ballot is going to be determined by the NDP cabinet behind closed doors.

The way I see it, the proportional representation referendum is the carrot that the NDP held in front of the Green Party in order to get their cooperation.

[4:00 p.m.]

Until that referendum occurs, it seems the Greens are willing to make compromises that would have previously been unheard of, to sacrifice their core principles — all for the sake of preserving their tenuous political alliance. I think my friend and colleague from Chilliwack said it well when he said that if the NDP brought forward an announcement that they were going to log all of Stanley Park, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head would support that right now, at least until the referendum.

To recap, under our current…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Stilwell: …first-past-the-post system, each voter gets one vote and chooses one candidate to represent his or her constituency. The candidate who wins with the most votes is the one who is declared elected. Thus, each first-past-the-post constituency has one MLA who is personally accountable to their voters in their respective constituencies. And yes, everyone’s vote is counted.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that our democratic institutions should remain static and not to debate the subject. It’s why the B.C. Liberals have already held two referendums on proportional representation — once in 2005 and again in 2009.

This referendum will actually be the third referendum on proportional representation in 13 years. Prior to the 2005 referendum, the process was handed over to the public with the creation of a 161-member panel on electoral reform. The B.C. citizens’ assembly was created in an effort to determine what kinds of improvements were needed and how the referendum question would be posed.

British Columbians from all over the province were consulted. The process was universally lauded for its independence, its impartiality. From the extensive consultation, the citizens’ assembly recommended a referendum on the single transferrable vote model of proportional representation, and a yes-or-no ballot question was put out to British Columbians.

After being put to a vote in 2005 and ultimately failing to meet that threshold requirement, the question was again posed in 2009. The government was responsible for promoting public awareness and understanding of the two electoral systems. Accordingly, public funds were given and provided to both supporters and detractors of each system. Each group had equal access to $500,000 in public funding for a public information campaign.

While the referendum was quite close the first time around, the second time around, STV suffered wholesale defeat. Only 39 percent voted in favour of the proposed reform.

What we can take away from the past two referendums is that after lengthy, rigorous and expensive public engagement, where it was confirmed by British Columbians that they don’t want proportional representation, what we see now is that the report from the independent citizens’ assembly is gone. Instead, the Greens and the NDP say that government will ultimately determine the outcome after they hold non-binding public consultations on a new system of proportional representation.

[4:05 p.m.]

Being the sport lover that I am, being the athlete that I am, I’ve been thinking of ways that I can use sport as a way to demonstrate what this bill is about. I hope the House will indulge me for a few minutes. Let’s take the great game of Canadian hockey as an example. Over the course of time, the game and the way that the game is played have evolved. It has undergone significant changes. Revolutionary ideas like helmets, visors and better protective equipment have made the game safer for players and more entertaining for fans.

Players like Bobby Orr changed the way the game was played. Who would have thought that a defenceman would lead the league in points or win a scoring title? Wayne Gretzky changed the way that the game was played by making the ice behind the net his office and setting scoring record after scoring record.

More recently other changes to the way the game has been played have been introduced. The elimination of the two-line pass rule made the long-used defensive trap approach to the game obsolete. It sped up the tempo of the game and the pace of the game, making it more interesting and more entertaining. Regular-season tie games were made a thing of the past with the four-on-four overtime period, followed by a shootout to determine a winner. Fans love the excitement of overtime and the penalty shootout. It has often been called the most exciting play in hockey.

Now, I am in no way suggesting that what we do here provides the same kind of entertainment. But on occasion, we’ve been known to have some healthy banter and throw a few jabs. My point is that through all of the changes that have been made to the game, the way the players are chosen has not changed. The way the game, professionally, is played has remained fairly constant. Players are scouted for years. They’re ranked, and then they’re drafted every spring. It’s worth noting that the most enduring changes to the game haven’t come through the way players have been chosen to play the game but through actual changes to the rules and the way that the game is played.

The member for Nanaimo said that our current system contributes to low voter turnout. I argue that it’s not the way we elect our officials but perhaps other changes that need to be made. So while I would agree with many British Columbians who are eager to see significant changes within our political system, I’m convinced that the answer to the desire to see transformation within this political realm isn’t necessarily found in electoral reform but perhaps in parliamentary reform, in the same way that hockey has evolved to become a better game by changing its rules, rather than the way players are selected.

It seems to me that it makes more sense to seriously consider how we change our parliamentary processes, rather than giving ourselves to making wholesale changes to an electoral system that has served our democracy well for hundreds of years.

What if, instead of changing the way we choose people, we were brave enough to change the way things happened here? What if we dared to give private members more autonomy and freedom to speak their minds and bring their ideas to the broader discussion? What if it was okay to disagree with the party on an issue and still retain the favour of the leader and the caucus? Well, that already exists on this side of the House, but imagine if the NDP embraced this concept. Think of what could be accomplished.

What if we were able to move….

Interjections.

M. Stilwell: Hey, free votes are over here, not over there.

What if we were able to move away from predictable speeches based on talking points to actual, intelligent debate, where we exchanged ideas and perspectives until we actually found a solution that benefits the majority of British Columbians, rather than just share a particular ideology?

What if members were able to move to free votes on bills that were outside of those deemed as confidence motions? What if we were able to find a way to give ourselves back to representative democracy, where the bulk of our time was given to broad-based consultation with constituents instead of a select group of stakeholders, and we were able to vote, knowing that even though our vote may be contrary to our ideology, we were in fact representing our people?

[4:10 p.m.]

I believe that these changes could reinvigorate democracy and, as a result, bring greater engagement among the grass roots. Our constituents could see us as actual representatives for their ideas and their values and not simply people who go off to a job that they don’t really appreciate or understand.

Parliamentary reform systems around the world show us just how difficult it becomes for voters to hold their governments and their local representatives accountable. In some PR systems, representatives are either partially or entirely selected from party lists, rather than the local constituencies. In this case, an MLA could be representing the entire province without knowing what it’s like to live in the vast majority of communities within it. Under certain systems of PR, voters may not even know which representatives they’re voting for, as this is decided instead by party executives.

Proportional representation systems don’t even always depend on elected officials. After the most recent election in New Zealand, the government’s coalition agreement had to be ratified by the executive of New Zealand First, a political party with not only an appointed board but an anonymous board as well. The Guardian newspaper had a headline on the topic which read: “New Zealand Election Result ‘Held Hostage’ by Anonymous Board of a Minor Party.”

There are numerous other examples as well. In 2010, Belgium went 589 days before government was formed with a six-party coalition government — 11 parties total in parliament. Then, the government barely lasted as long as the deadlock did — a mere two years. Belgium introduced reforms after that, changing the senate to be unelected and giving three of their regions constitutional autonomy from the federal government. So I guess the answer is that if the electoral system doesn’t work, just make it so, so that less regions are represented in parliament.

The Netherlands had a similar problem earlier this year, where the 13 parties represented in their parliament went 208 days before the government was formed — a four-party coalition government which includes the Christian Union party, an anti-LGBT and anti-abortion party.

Spain in 2015 went 314 days — or almost a year — without a government. No government was formed after their first election, so they held a new election six months later. Eventually, the 12 parties in parliament came to an agreement, but only because most of the parties abstained from the vote rather than force another election.

Italy is another example. From 1946 to 2016, they’ve had as many Prime Ministers since World War II as Canada’s entire history — 65 governments in 70 years with two separate proportional representation systems since 1993. Currently 28 parties are forming six separate alliances with an average length of government of just over a year.

Then we have New Zealand, which the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head thinks we should emulate on housing when he talked about the coalition agreement that was signed there. Of course, he only mentioned two of the three members of that agreement, neglecting to mention that the hyper-nationalist, far-right, anti-immigration New Zealand First party will be part of it. But maybe he ran out of Twitter characters. You know, that should be fixed now that Twitter allows us a few extra characters, so maybe he wants to retweet about it.

[4:15 p.m.]

New Zealand First held up that agreement as well, while their anonymous, unelected party executive approved it. The Guardian newspaper had the headline which read: “New Zealand Election Result ‘Held Hostage’ by Anonymous Board of a Minority Party.” That’s what we see across liberal democracies in Europe.

I can only imagine what would happen here. What if we ended up with an anti-Muslim party like Alternative for Germany that was deciding social policy in British Columbia or a party that wished to ban most or all immigration to British Columbia? What if the Health Minister, who is making decisions on health care and health care resources for LGBT patients, was the member of the anti-transgender party?

Proportional representation can create many of these situations. Parties that hold the balance of power in many coalitions are extreme parties from political fringes.

What about separatists? In Spain, we see now what the separatist parties can do. Imagine if a separatist party was part of a governing coalition here in British Columbia. It’s possible. What if the party that wished to separate from Canada in order to gain jurisdiction over natural resource projects, such as the popular topics of Kinder Morgan and the Trans Mountain Pipeline…? What if the separatist Vancouver Island Party, which is already existing under our current system, had the true presence or even kingmaker status in our Legislature?

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. They make it difficult for voters to hold their governments and representatives directly accountable and make it difficult for voters to understand the electoral administration and the complexity of the system. It results in fragmentation of the party system.

I have to say first-past-the-post provides a clear choice between main political parties. It provides greater stability. It promotes strong linkages between constituents and their representatives, and the popular independents can be elected without a political party. It’s simple, and it’s easier to understand.

Well, it’s possible — I say possible — that I could be persuaded to support a referendum. I would need it to contain qualifiers that this bill simply does not have. It needs to have the appropriate thresholds to give different parts of the province a voice. It needs to be set up in a way that protects the regional and the rural interests. This legislation does not do that. As I said earlier, Vancouver alone can push B.C. beyond the sole threshold contained in this bill at 50-percent-plus-one majority.

For these reasons and others that 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 where power is disproportionate and is in a constant and unstable state of disarray. I worry that it will give undue influence to those fringe political parties and political roots and that the province will fall victim to the populist impulses of the day.

I worry that the representation that we, as elected officials, give constituents directly in our ridings could be severely compromised if we adopt a system of PR that includes a pool of candidates that aren’t even tied to the local ridings. Those representatives wouldn’t be accountable to a specific set of constituents. It’s a prospect that’s made even more troubling by the potential for political wrangling and compromise under minority and coalition governments.

[4:20 p.m.]

Finally, I worry that in the outcome of this referendum, one designed to heavily favour PR from the outset, the citizens of British Columbia will be on the hook for future delays and inefficiencies in forming government. It’s neither stable nor sustainable to have citizens of the province waiting for backroom deals and coalitions to materialize, all while important decisions hang in limbo.

I am grateful for the time to be able to share my thoughts. I simply feel that this legislation is too complicated. It will not produce better results. It will be centred around backroom deals. And it’s certainly not in the best interest of British Columbians.

British Columbians want to have confidence in their voting system. The lives of the citizens of British Columbia don’t want to be left in that limbo because of minority governments. We need to know that the people who are voting for their elected officials can have that connection and that confidence, that they have the representation that they want, that their voices will be heard, that they have those relationships built with their local MLA.

Because of all these reasons that I’ve mentioned, I simply cannot and will not be supporting this bill as it’s written.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

A. Weaver: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege with respect to inappropriate comments made by the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

Debate Continued

J. Rice: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, which will allow British Columbians to vote on a fundamental tenet of our democracy, how MLAs are elected.

Although the first-past-the-post system, in which government is formed by the party with the most representatives elected in individual electoral districts, is the most widely used in Canada, proportional reputation is the most widely used system in the world. It refers to any method of voting where a political party’s share of the seats in the Legislature represents its share of the popular vote in all electoral districts.

Adoption of a proportional representation system would mean that British Columbia never again has a situation like we had in 2001, where a party gets just over 50 percent of the vote yet occupies 98 percent of the seats in this Legislature.

People in this province and around the country have said time and again that they are tired of the current first-past-the-post system, which does not adequately represent them in this House. This is why we have decided to let a simple majority of British Columbians decide whether or not we pursue electoral reform.

This is an exciting time in our province. I am certain that the proposed referendum and accompanying legislation is going to lead to the development of a more fair and robust democracy in British Columbia. For too long, the acrimonious nature of our partisan political system has drowned out the voices of everyday British Columbians who feel their government does not adequately represent their needs.

The political theatre and partisanship fostered through the winner-takes-all nature of our current system unquestionably affects the way parties govern. On the other hand, governments with proportional representation are by their very nature more collaborative, as one party rarely has the type of broad range support needed to form a majority government. This has the potential to lead to more diversity and less partisanship in our political system.

I, for one, believe that the government should be comprised of a diversity of people and ideas in order to reflect the many and varied people who help build and sustain this province. It is perhaps not surprising that the B.C. Liberals are opposed to this bill. During the time in government, even though they represented less than half the voters in this province, they refused to cooperate with opposition parties.

[4:25 p.m.]

This act will not legislate a change. It will instead enable a provincewide referendum to determine the best way forward. The results of this referendum are binding and will allow a simple majority of citizens to decide whether or not to adopt proportional representation. If they vote in favour of electoral reform, we take steps to implement whatever system is chosen in time for the next election in 2021. If the people of this province vote down these changes, then we will not move forward.

Throughout this process, our government has committed to extensive engagement with British Columbians in order to allow them to have a say in the selection of the question or questions about electoral reform that will appear on the ballot. We will also welcome submissions and input from political parties during the engagement process and encourage the official opposition and the Third Party to consult with their stakeholders, to advertise and campaign on the system that they want to see enacted.

The members opposite have spoken at great length about the implications of such a dramatic change in our electoral system. But during their time in government, the B.C. Liberal Party tried to make changes to the system numerous times, because they know that our current system is not working for all of the people in this province.

I come from a rural riding, and I want to make sure that my constituents are well represented in this House. I am cognizant of the implications of proportional representation in my geographically large riding with a comparatively small population. But after 16 years of one party with a bare majority of the votes in this province having all the power in this House, I know there needs to be change in our system. And there are many options to better represent the diversity and unique characteristics of this vast province.

I encourage all the members of this House to support this bill and let the people of the province decide what type of electoral system they want to see in this province. I believe that with all of the engagement we’re planning and the way the referendum is structured, this bill will be a really positive step in the development of our democracy. I encourage all members of this House to vote in favour of Bill 6.

D. Ashton: It’s a privilege for me to rise and represent the people of Penticton, a place I’ve been able and fortunate enough to call home for all my life, a place that in Salish, the First Peoples of the valley, actually means “a place to call home forever.” I can tell you that it’s an incredible place to be from — although B.C. is an incredibly diverse and wonderful province with many places that many people call home that are probably as fine as what the Penticton area is.

The riding that I represent, and the citizens — and I always like to say “citizens,” not “constituents” — have for a long time voted for a seat that I happen to hold in this House. But they have voted the opposite way, and they have voted for members in the current government at this point in time. One thing that I am very cognizant of, and that I always take to heart, is that I conduct my legislative responsibilities with all the citizens forefront.

At the end of the day, I am accountable to only the citizens that I represent. I know that very well, and it’s for those reasons that I cannot vote for a bill that paves the way for a system that undermines the representation that all the members in this House currently provide, turning the representation into a role that is largely unaccountable. Representation is, of course, essential to democracy. I, first and wholeheartedly, believe that. I’m sure everybody in this House thinks that.

However, the representation that this bill seeks to implement is actually, in my opinion, quite a slippery slope. It creates a system that can fall victim to the trends of the day. You’ve heard many of my peers here over the last few days talk about that. One only needs to take a look at polling on the issues that affect many across this province.

We can see that underneath the system of proportional representations, these views can become law. I don’t need to look any further than Quebec, a wonderful province in an incredible country where, at this point in time, there are four parties in parliament and five independent seats, and where we saw a ban on certain religious clothing for women. Can you imagine that? Can we imagine something like that happening in British Columbia?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: No.

D. Ashton: Well, I can’t either, and I hope, to the member from Victoria, that it doesn’t happen, ever.

Interjection.

D. Ashton: Have you seen what’s happening in Germany right now, Member? Have you seen what’s happening in Quebec?

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

D. Ashton: I’m sorry, Madame Chair. I’ll put it through yourself, and I do apologize, but I just asked the member to take a little bit more of a view than New Zealand and about what transpires around the world. He’s heard from many of my peers about the trials and tribulations that many of these governments are going through right now with proportional representation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

There are variances of opinions in this House, and I think that’s incredibly important, but what I really, really think is important is that it’s the people’s opinion that needs to be heard. I think it’s really important that we, as legislators in this incredible province, make sure that we give the people of the province of British Columbia that opportunity and we give it to them in a fair and equitable way, where every one of their voices can be heard, not just the majority of a population that lives in the southwest corner of British Columbia.

We found, coming back to what I mentioned happened in Quebec, an Angus Reid poll that found that 69 percent of British Columbians would support a ban such as I just mentioned on what transpired in Quebec — a ban that I pray has a constitutional challenge to it in the courts of this land. I envision, under proportional representation, legislation like this could become more common. I really do not hope that that happens.

Instead of maintaining a system that fosters progression for our province and the people of British Columbia, we end up with a system of U-turns and impulsivity, something that has been shown that takes place under proportional representation, which will inevitably lead to bogging our province down in the courts, wasting money in defending legislation that rubs against our constitutional rights but, just as importantly, doesn’t allow governments to form.

There are examples all around the world of what transpires when governments are unable to perform to the way that they are elected, and they have to do, as some have said, backroom deals or front-end deals to try and get something through. I really don’t think that’s the way that this province wants to go.

The populist tide that, unfortunately, we’re seeing…. The member from Victoria mentioned this about the United States, but it’s happening in Europe at this point in time. Is that something that we want to see in British Columbia? Not this individual.

As an entity of Europe has increasingly been inclined to swing to the right and, unfortunately, sometimes the far right, it is often a proportional representation system where the farthest-right groups gain a foothold in parliaments. Germany has been mentioned. The neo-Nazi group of Germany, Alternative for Germany, AfD, has gained over 90 seats in their House of Representatives. To me, that’s 90 seats too many for with any party that sympathizes with the ideology of Nazism and anti-Semitism. I only mentioned those two, but unfortunately, there are more.

The other side can say how unlikely this is to happen, which we just heard a member say. They say it will never see it happen here, but we’ve seen alternate right-wing posters in Richmond and a rally held in Vancouver, an area that is going to decide if proportional representation should come into this province.

I really want to remind this House that Germany, a country that has dealt sincerely and reconciled with its past, teaches students and the young — actually, teaching all people — never, never again. They’ve said this for decades. Never, ever again. But look what happened under proportional representation — 90 seats to a neo-Nazi party; 90 seats in government.

In Holland, another charismatic orange-toned, bleached-blonde nationalist has revived the so-called Party for Freedom to parliamentary gains. This party is vehemently anti-Islam and white supremacist. The leader of the party was even found guilty of inciting discrimination against Dutch Moroccans in the Netherlands. Is that something that we would like to see in this incredible province that we all call home?

[4:35 p.m.]

We’ve seen this all across the continent, in Hungary, Slovakia, Chechnya, Austria, Poland, Sweden and the Golden Dawn Party in Greece. This trend continues throughout much of Europe where proportional representation gives fringe extremists a foothold, and once in parliament, it seems to only perpetuate. This is especially relevant in a system that some, unfortunately, are looking to create in this province.

With the implementation of all of the government’s plans to mold our democracy to their liking, we may see two seats in the House that will soon be recognized as an official party. We do see two seats, at this point in time, with all of the perks that come with it. Those two seats could be held by a disruptive group, a disruptive group of individuals. This will be for perpetuity, if the government gets its way — and it’s unfortunate — by the public funding of their future elections and the party status funding to a two-seated party.

I’m really hopeful that calmer heads will prevail in this and will take a look at this. I’m going to say right now that I am not opposed to a referendum on proportional representation whatsoever. I’m not. But let’s just make sure it’s fair. Let’s make sure that the question that’s being asked of the people is the question that all sides of this House can agree on, a question that ensures that it’s the direction that this province wants to go.

I’m really, really concerned at opportunities — I’ve mentioned the far right a few times — that can be presented under proportional representation to let others into this House that have alternative measures in their mind.

However, if the ’90s are any indication of the path that the government plans to take us, I’m really not hopeful that this will be changed. I just need to be upfront. I’ve heard this numerous times, especially since this past summer, about: 16 years, 16 years, 16 years. First-past-the-post put a party in for 16 years, and first-past-the-post removed a party after ten years. It removed the party for a reason. I’ve always been a fan of really being able to represent not only the people that I do in this House but that I have in the past under a municipal government and underneath a regional government.

I’m the first person to say that in my opinion, if we are going to have a proportional representation vote, that vote is a fair vote and not 50 plus one and not for a certain percentage — a low, low percentage — of the populace that lives in this incredible province, but also contains a question that is a yes-or-no question or a simple question that all can understand.

I also hope — and I hope this because I live in an area outside of the Lower Mainland — that the opportunity is presented to all of the people of British Columbia to hold and to represent themselves in this vote and to ensure that that vote is not weighted but that vote is taken into consideration for every individual that can vote in this province — every individual from all of the four corners. We’d only have to hope that our democracy that is quite well-represented in this House, no matter what party is in government, is not going to be that fragile to allow that to happen, where all of the people’s voices in British Columbia are not allowed to be heard.

I’m really, really worried about proportional representation when it comes to the system of delays. We have heard this about opportunities that some take to ensure that government isn’t in place. One of my peers had mentioned Belgium. I had the incredible opportunity, when I was younger, to work overseas for a consortium. We were based in England, but we worked in Belgium, we worked in Spain, and we worked in Italy.

You have heard of some of the things that have happened under proportional representation. I won’t mention the numbers again, but we have heard them on numerous occasions. I don’t want to say it verbatim, but it has not worked to perform good and legitimate governments. When it fails, we have to go back to the electorate, and I really, really don’t think that that’s something that the people of this province want to have on a continual basis — having to go to the election polls all the time.

The amount of time to negotiate coalitions or confidence and supply agreements involving proportional representation states, provinces or countries can prolong government, is what I just mentioned.

[4:40 p.m.]

I don’t want to see a government stall. People that we all represent want to see government work efficiently. They want to see it address their needs. They want to see what the current government has been saying: “We represent all of the people.” I would really like to hold them to that, especially in this voting.

Other states, as I’ve mentioned — and I won’t mention the countries — around the world that have proportional representation have really had issues with it. And as I’ve said, again, people cannot afford that, especially today. Today, with technology in place and how time seems to fly by and how people are demanding more and more of their governments, people cannot afford to wait while governments try to decide amongst themselves what the best deal would be to keep them or their peers in an office or inside a government so that they can control or govern over a country.

Today we have been warned by our credit-rating companies that our credit ratings may decrease. As a fiscal conservative and a person that has had the incredible opportunity to work not only in municipal government and regional government but also in provincial government, I know how important these ratings are. The current Minister of Finance — I don’t envy her one bit trying to balance all the requests that are going to be coming from the Finance Committee, all the requests of not only the government but of all the individuals that are in this House and, specifically, the requests of the citizens of British Columbia. She has a very, very tough job.

Imagine a situation where insecurity runs rampant. It happens, unfortunately, under proportional representation. These warnings that have been brought forward by the credit companies that help rate this province with a triple-A rating, which I know everybody in this House is pleased to have, won’t be warnings anymore. When we lose that credit rating — and if I remember correctly, during my tenure in Finance, it dropped to a double-A-plus — it will cost this province about $500 million a year in interest to offshore entities or to large institutional banks. That is really not something that we need.

We do not need instability and we do not need insecurity in this province. What we need is government to work correctly. We need government to work for all the people of British Columbia, and we need government to ensure that we are fiscally and financially sound and that we have those principles in mind as we try and do our best for every citizen.

I know, personally, how markets react to instability, including post election. So why would we handcuff ourselves to an opportunity — i.e., proportional representation — that consistently has been shown to produce instability and the chance of snap elections occurring on a more and more frequent basis? Our province relies on public services that are in constant need of updating, depending on the geographic and demographic changes and new data. If a government cannot form for hundreds of days, what happens to those programs?

What happens to a government for everybody when there isn’t a government in place — not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, but in some places in the world up to two years? For those that work in government — those incredibly hard-working public servants that work ungodly hours for everybody in this province — what happens to them? What happens to the public service sector? I just don’t see the point of trying to push something on to somebody — i.e., a province — that has an opportunity of maybe coming in successfully but then manifesting itself into something else.

As I’ve said and I’ll say again, I really think this is shaky ground. I do not wish that on the people of this province — or to have them have to endure something like that.

To the three members of the Green Party, my hat is off to you. I haven’t said this because I haven’t had the opportunity, but I’m going to say it now. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the Green Party chose to go and acquire — and I’m being frank — collective governance with any party in this House. If I was a leader of the Green Party, I’d be sitting over there with my other two members and be the de facto ruler of this province. If you want to see somebody have to work together, whether it’s the government or whether it’s the official opposition through an individual and the charismatic leader of the Green Party…. There was a real opportunity for this province. I just don’t understand it.

[4:45 p.m.]

But you know what we have to be as, British Columbians? We’ve seen it, and we’ve heard it, actually. We heard it yesterday. We heard it about the BCUC. We heard some cries of dismay from the leader of the Green Party about what should have happened and what didn’t happen. If that represents some of the backdoor dealings that make election promises obsolete or irrelevant, that’s something that I sure don’t want to see in the future.

In my own campaign in Penticton, and not only this campaign — I’ve been successful here in this House for two campaigns provincially — but my whole life, I ran on the values and the policies that I believe in, something that my parents instilled in me and something that I’ve done my best to instil in my children.

I think and I hope that my constituents voted for me based on those same things that I hold so dearly to my heart. I can tell you, and I think most people know, they did not become irrelevant once I ended up here in Victoria. It’s because I take their input so seriously, the citizens that I represent in the area that I come from. That’s why I’m against this piece of legislation as it’s being proposed at this point in time.

I’ve heard, not from numerous, numerous individuals and the people from where I live…. But I’ve heard from some very concerned citizens, and they’ve all said to me: “Well, I hope the question is a fair and equitable question and a clear question, not a convoluted attempt to ensure that a process takes place to manipulate a government’s opportunity in the future.”

I really, really hope that the members opposite in government hear loud and clear from not only the people that I represent but the people of this entire province to say this question has to be clear, has to be decisive, and it cannot be manipulative.

Penticton and the Okanagan region residents have voted in favour of candidates by a large measure, and I say that for both sides of the House. In the 1990s, we were represented by the current government in the area that I live in. I know they feel that the representation in their riding should be sufficient, and I know they feel that the representation in their riding needs to represent their views.

In the way I look at it, if we had seats that were proportional to the amount of the popular vote received, which members, myself included, wouldn’t have a seat in this House? I, personally, love the job. I love working with every member in this House. I love working with the staff that keep this Legislature going. And I really like working with the people that actually have the boots on the ground, the people that get things done in this province — the public service sector.

It doesn’t matter to me if I’m not here next time, whatsoever. But I know they want to have a person that they can look to and that they can contact and that they actually know, not somebody that’s appointed from a party or from a group of individuals that put somebody forth that has no contact or no earthly grounding measures to an area that they’re now representing.

I’m curious as to which ridings will get the short end of the stick and lose their local MLAs and instead gain that preapproved person from inside a party that has to pick that individual. Sometimes I worry about that.

As I’ve said, how are the people of Penticton, the Peachland that I’m so fortunate to represent, going to consider an individual, possibly from somewhere else, to represent their ideals? That can happen.

With this bill’s proposal, campaign platforms instead can be used to entice voters and later be reneged on when the negotiations begin. You can say one thing and end up having something else given to you through the government that is elected because they’ve had to compromise or coalesce or conspire because of other individuals to help them form a government.

To me, what kind of representation is this? To me, that’s not accountable. It won’t be accountable to the citizens that represent the current 87 ridings.

[4:50 p.m.]

Coalitions, as we know and we’ve seen…. Any coalition has its ups and downs. But boy, when you’re dealing with the people of British Columbia and you’re dealing with a government and you’re dealing with the challenges that this province has, not only now but what we’ve heard we’re going to have into the future, it’s very easy and very quickly easy to betray platform promises just so that something can be formed between one, two, three or four parties — whatever it takes.

Proportional representation, to me, is actually a misnomer. It gives disproportionate power to the kingmakers that may only hold two or three seats in the House. Again, I relate back to a gentleman that I have a lot of respect for. That’s the leader of the Green Party. I scratch my head on why he took the route that he took. I’m not specifically talking about how he took it regarding the government, how he took it for the people that helped get his party three seats in this House and helped give his party a lot clearer number of votes throughout many, many of the ridings that are represented in this House.

Speaking of promises that have come forward by elected officials or governments, I cannot help but quote the Premier. The Premier says you’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no on this issue — yes or no. I sure hope the Premier — and I say this wholeheartedly — follows through on this promise and makes sure this ballot and this question are going to be fair. They are going to be simple, they are going to be based on what is actually going to happen in the future, and they are going to ensure that everybody in this province has the opportunity to vote.

The favoured system of proportional representation will currently, as has been said, have the full backing of government, and we hope that the voters will be given the full understanding of each system that is being laid out on the ballot. I know our caucus is doing our job to ensure that the constituents — to me, citizens — are informed of the pros and cons of each system. What we heard before was that there was money available to all members in this House, no matter what party they represent, to go to the citizens that they represent and ensure that those citizens understand fully the pros and the cons of proportional representation.

A referendum, to me, is good in a lot of ways. It’s a good way to facilitate a political process. As I’ve said before, I’m not opposed to the referendum that is coming forth, but I am opposed to a referendum, with rank, that has imbalances for some in this province and where there is no regional threshold. And I take a look. There’s an awful lot that happens outside of the Lower Mainland of this wonderful province, especially in areas that I represent and the young lady to my immediate left represents.

There are an awful lot of people, I think, in my opinion, in the Lower Mainland that do not realize how important rural British Columbia is to this entire province. I know that when the party that I’m fortunate enough to represent at this point in time proposed an electoral referendum, approval was needed across the entire province. So one area could not dictate to others something that is so fundamental in our democracy.

Fifty percent of the votes had to come from 51 percent of the 85 ridings at that time. This allowed the people of the Peace region, Vancouver, the Okanagan, the Thompson, the Kootenays, the east, the northeast and the northwest — of all the many ridings in this province — to have their voices heard. Unfortunately, if this bill passes, all it takes is the city of Vancouver and the immediate surrounding area to change the entire voting system in this province.

This referendum is also being allowed to go ahead on a 50-plus-one percent, the absolute bare minimum. This is a radical change from how our government works. I posted on an on-line site. It’s very interesting that in the government that is in power at this point in time, it takes 66.3 percent in their own party to get any resolutions through from a convention that they just had in beautiful downtown Victoria.

[4:55 p.m.]

Why are they only going to 50 percent plus one for something that can change the whole way this province has known its government to be? This is a really radical change that will affect not only this government but governments in the future. It should be handled and it should be brought forward on something a lot more than a 50-plus-one percent majority to catalyze it.

As I’m getting close, hon. Speaker, you, yourself, and the people on the opposite side of this House…. I know we all have an incredible allegiance and alliance to the people that we represent no matter what party. I see that on a continual basis. I would just hope that as we go forward with this…. I really, really hope that all of us in this House, especially government, will listen to the concerns. As I’ve heard on numerous occasions, they want to work together. They want to be different. I’ve actually seen that they are being different and trying in a lot of ways.

I really, really hope that they will listen to some of the concerns that are brought forward by not only me, by not only the people on this side of the House but, especially, that will be brought forward by the citizens that we all represent. I really hope that they do listen to those folks and that when they do bring forward this referendum question, it’s a fair and an equitable question, it’s a simple question, a yes or a no, and it also goes forward so that every person in this province has an opportunity for their voice to be heard.

Hon. Speaker, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to step forward. I appreciate, actually, the members of the government at this point in time for listening to not only myself but to what this side of the House has had to say. Thank you.

Please, everybody, have a nice week off. I know we’re all busy in our constituencies. Please don’t forget, and I know we don’t in this House, how important Remembrance Day is to this country.

C. Oakes: I rise to speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. It truly is a privilege to rise in this House to speak to this important bill and to represent the people of Cariboo North.

During the entire debate about electoral reform, I haven’t heard the term “representative democracy” mentioned very much by government members. I find this very curious because virtually every modern western democracy is founded on some form of a representative democratic model. It’s not a complicated system. In fact, most people understand what it means. Quite simply, a representative democracy is a system of government where the people elect a representative to a Legislative Assembly to pass laws on their behalf.

Representative democracies go far beyond a campaign of ideas — to electorals, marking a ballot — to what truly distinguishes ourselves from other forms of government, that being the relationship that is developed between the electorate and the elected. This relationship, once elected, is far outreaching in a representative democracy. This relationship goes beyond partisan lines and goes to the true sense of the good fortune we have in our democratic principles here in Canada.

This is a relationship that requires constant work. It requires effort in listening and understanding. It is a relationship that is built on ensuring there is the ability to work through difficult issues. It is a relationship that is built on compassion and support for one another. It is a relationship built on accountability.

[5:00 p.m.]

As MLAs, we know that the most rewarding, and often the most difficult, part of the job and the responsibility is the very important ongoing work in the constituency. Ask any retired MLA what they feel is the most impactful part of their job, and it is working, on a regular basis, closely with the constituencies that they represent. An election campaign is an important part of the democratic process, but there is no doubt that the work and support of our constituents are often remembered long after the MLAs retire.

I live in the riding of the legendary Alex Fraser. Alex Fraser’s legacy has been passed on to many generations. There are stories of the impact that he has made on our region and our province. He played an important part in this Legislature, absolutely, and most indeed at an incredible and interesting time of political change, no different, in many ways, to what we are experiencing in this House today. I can travel throughout my riding, and generations later I meet and hear the incredible stories of that mighty MLA, Alex Fraser, and the impact that he has made. It is my hope as an MLA that those shoes, in some small way, I have the ability to fill.

This idea of democratic representation is a concept that most people can relate to because it is exactly the current system that we have in British Columbia. For example, the people in my riding elected me to represent Cariboo North. This is a very large constituency. Cariboo North is precisely 38,579 square kilometres. Geographically speaking, it is larger than the entire Vancouver Island. In fact, I went on line to list some square kilometres of some other jurisdictions. Vancouver Island, of course, is 31,285 square kilometres. Metro Vancouver is 2,882 square kilometres. We go to the Netherlands, 41,543 square kilometres; Germany, 357,021 square kilometres; and Belgium, 30,510 square kilometres.

I mention that because, again, when you look at the fact that…. As a riding, we are just short of being the size of Switzerland. We have a large land mass with a small population spread over almost 39,000 square kilometres in the Interior, northern — often called wilderness — rural British Columbia. The average age is 44, and it is culturally diverse. We have First Nations, newcomers to Canada, and families like mine who have lived there a very long time.

I’m elected to represent them all and not just the people that voted for me. When it comes to helping a senior get important support or helping someone with health care or through the Ministry of Children and Families, there is no partisan line. In fact, my riding has been represented by the NDP, it has been represented by Liberals, and it has been represented by independents. And I would say that the first-past-the-post system has worked well in our riding.

The people in Cariboo North know who represents them here at the Legislature. It doesn’t matter if you are from Quesnel, from Nazko, Wells or Horsefly. The people all know they have an MLA who is directly responsible to their region. And the legislation that we have before us seeks to change all of that.

Before I touch on the subject of proportional representation, I want to put it on record that the B.C. Liberal Party is not opposed to electoral reform. We are a party that has held not just one but two referendums, in 2005 and 2009, on electoral reform.

[5:05 p.m.]

We took a much different approach than what the NDP and the Green Party are attempting to do. We in the B.C. Liberal Party believe that electoral reform should come from the people, and that is exactly why we created the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. Earlier we heard from the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who did not give, in my opinion, the necessary support or recognition of the 160 men and women who worked tirelessly, through the Citizens’ Assembly, educating, travelling and working on our behalf.

The B.C. Liberals wanted to ensure a process that was transparent and arm’s-length from government and completely free from political interference. We also wanted a process that represented the population of British Columbia. To ensure geographic balance, the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was composed of 161 members…. Obviously, I need to correct my earlier statement. To ensure gender equality, one man and one woman was randomly selected from each electoral district in the province. I can say that the members selected in my electoral district did a fantastic job. To ensure that First Nations were fully represented, the assembly also included two Aboriginal members.

In this manner, British Columbians could take comfort in the fact that any proposed electoral reform did not come from a government source. Electoral reform should be a democratic process, not a partisan exercise. To encourage the best possible voter turnout, the B.C. Liberals held the referendum in 2005 and 2009 in conjunction with a provincial election. We did that because when it comes to electoral reform, changing the way we elect governments is a very serious matter.

The federal government recently found this out the hard way. Their first mistake was to try and turn the process over to politicians. Rather than turn electoral reform over to a citizens’ assembly, they attempted to use the committee process, consisting of Members of Parliament. In fact, the mandate of the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform is a lesson on how not to conduct electoral reform.

It was originally comprised of MPs from all of the different parties reflecting standings in the House of Commons — six from the governing party, three from the official opposition and one from each of the smaller parties, comprising the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party. That’s when the process started going sideways.

Politicians love to argue — we all know that here in the House — because they’re defending their own party’s interests. In the case of the federal government’s experience, immediately the MPs couldn’t agree on the composition of their own committee. The lesson here is that when you start off the process of electoral reform on a partisan basis, it is doomed for failure. In other words, democratic reform is too important to be left to the politicians. Democratic reform should be left to the people, not the political parties, which simply represent their own interests.

If this is beginning to sound eerily like the process the NDP and the Green Party is currently proposing, then you would be correct. But let’s return for a moment to the federal experience. The House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform proposed two things. The first would replace its traditional system of voting in federal elections from a single-member-plurality model, widely known as the first-past-the-post model, to a proportional system of representation, where seats in the House of Commons would be allocated according to the proportion of votes each party received.

Second, the committee recommended that the idea be put to a national referendum. But what the committee quickly discovered is that there wasn’t the groundswell of support for proportional representation.

[5:10 p.m.]

Town hall meetings went unattended. Public outreach seemed to only interest a small but highly motivated minority that seemed to drive the process. In the end, the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform produced a report on December 26 that was quickly dismissed by the Prime Minister. People in Ottawa suddenly realized that Canada is, in fact, a big country — too big to be divided into smaller regional parties that proportional representation would encourage.

In the federal context, big cities with dense populations would dominate rural Canada under proportional representation. In other words, you get lots of proportional but very little representation for less-populated parts of the country. I’d like to take a moment to talk about some of the research I did on what some of these scholars have concluded after this process of: “Should we change how we vote?” It was conceived by the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada last summer. As observers alarmingly noted, there was a crescendo of voices in favour of pro-PR reform.

There were several professors that were engaged in this process from all across Canada. Together, they produced 17 short essays. Sixteen of these essays contained in the smart collection debunk the notions that proportional representation or any other scheme will actually deliver better democracy or better, more representative House of Commons — government. They make the point that the Canadian system has proven to be remarkably robust in dealing with the various shocks over the past 150 years and warn that advocates for other systems would have to prove in some detail why a system that has worked effectively should be abandoned.

It is easy to debunk the idea that a PR system would deliver better governance in Canada. Studies by noted scholars have demonstrated that voters in proportional systems are no happier with how they elect their legislatures than they are with first-past-the-post systems. People are not pleased to see governments depend on a political coalition that inter-rely on small parties to stay in power. They do not like the idea when these coalitions are formed by agreements hatched in the dark.

What is all the more remarkable is that people who voted for parties that are left out of governing coalitions are even less satisfied. In other words, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that Canadian democracy would be improved by the adoption of some system of proportional representation. The same would happen in British Columbia.

Let’s look at something called mixed-member proportional representation. I have heard members from the other side of the House discuss how this would be a way of representation that they support. This is kind of a hybrid mix where voters vote for a single-seat representative and one for a political party.

In the B.C. context, it has been suggested that we wipe out the current 87 electoral districts in our province and replace them instead with the much larger federal constituencies. That would reduce the number of constituency-based seats to 42, most of which are attached to the highly populated Lower Mainland and southern coast. When you look at the much larger ridings that would represent rural and northern British Columbia, we are looking at seven seats outside the Lower Mainland and southern coasts, starting with the constituency of Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo.

[5:15 p.m.]

If you look at the two most northern federal ridings in British Columbia, they roughly occupy half of the land mass of our province. For example, our federal riding in Cariboo–Prince George represents a riding of 83,193 square kilometres. Or how about the federal riding of Prince George–Peace River–Northern Rockies? It measures 243,276 square kilometres. That is roughly the size of the United Kingdom.

When we look at other jurisdictions that have PR, I think it’s important to note — again, in the context of what I have stated in the size — that the Netherlands has 41,543 square kilometres; Germany has 357,021 square kilometres; Belgium, 30,510 square kilometres; Switzerland, 41,285 square kilometres. Even New Zealand, at 268,021 square kilometres, does not equal the size of what is going to be proposed in mixed-member proportional representation.

How can one MLA realistically represent constituents that in most other parts of the world are countries? And with just one representative under mixed-member proportional representation, that would be the region’s only voice in this provincial Legislature.

Hon. Speaker, both you and I currently are elected as a single-seat representative in the Legislature. And I’m pretty sure that at 38,579 square kilometres, my riding in Cariboo North is a little bit larger than yours. As I mentioned earlier, my riding is larger than the entire Vancouver Island.

I would like to take a moment, if I may, to describe to this House what it is like to be a rural MLA. I have to be as familiar with the local issues in Quesnel as I am with smaller communities like Likely or Horsefly.

The most rewarding part of being an MLA is when you get to help individual constituents. I recently had the opportunity to listen to several of our departing MLAs on the Voice of B.C. I heard both Vicki Huntington and Gordie Hogg talk about their time as MLAs. They shared with the program and they shared with people in British Columbia that what they will remember the most about their time as MLAs is the work that they had the opportunity to do on behalf of their constituents.

Whether it’s someone looking for help for their elderly parent to someone looking for help with their hydro bill, you can’t always get to yes, but everyone expects their MLA to fight for their issues. And in rural B.C., fight we do.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the experience I had in ensuring that education was top of mind in government, and I fought for rural schools. As we were going through the process and the consultations, I fast heard that even in rural ridings, there is sometimes a lack of knowledge of what it means between a municipality and some of the much smaller areas in our ridings.

You see, I know what it means to go to a rural school, because I went to a rural school. I know what it’s like to get on a bus and to travel for over an hour to make sure that you have the ability to go to school. I can tell you, as someone being in kindergarten or grade 1, we would often fall asleep. Thank goodness we had such a fantastic bus driver, who would always wake us up and make sure that we got off at the right stop.

But as I was going through that fight as an MLA of why rural schools matter, I would hear comments, even from residents within our municipality, of: “Why do people live so far out?” Why do people live in rural British Columbia?

[5:20 p.m.]

Having grown up in a farming community of Moose Heights, where my family has generations of ranches and knows the critical importance of our farming communities, we know that if we are going to seriously tackle food security in the province of British Columbia, if we’re going to protect the next generation of farmers, farmers need access to education and they need access to schools.

I reminded the people who said, “Well, why do people live so far out in these rural communities…?” I reminded them: how often do you see 100 head of cattle in a downtown municipality? How do you imagine livestock can be managed without the enormous acreages that are required to support producers? That is why, when we come to this House as rural MLAs, often our experience is a little different.

I’d like to take a moment to offer to members of the House what it meant to our constituents during this past summer of wildfires. The day that Williams Lake was evacuated I was working at the evacuation line outside of Kersley to make sure that family members were able to get back to their loved ones and to make sure that people knew safe routes.

I got home about midnight. At one in the morning, I received a frantic call from a constituent that their 92-year-old parent did not evacuate. It was a difficult call, but it’s the type of call that we receive as rural MLAs. People know that they can call us 24-7, and we are there to help. We were able to make sure that the elderly parent was looked after, and we were able to get in touch with the proper officials to make sure that he was looked after.

I also reflect on the ranching community during this past summer. As we’ve heard, many ranching members, families, stayed to protect their homes, and they stayed to protect their livestock. For many of us — well, for all of us — in the ranching community, livestock, our animals, are our family. We would protect them as much as we would protect family members, and we take that responsibility incredibly seriously.

It was local MLAs in the Cariboo, the Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Fraser-Nicola Valley, when difficulties were happening, when we knew that ranchers had decided not to leave, who would create phone trees. We would create phone trees, and we would know individual ranchers who had decided to stay on their properties so that we could update them as the fires changed.

We did this for the placer sector as well. Every morning, we would get up and look at where the activity of the fires was. Because we were local MLAs, because we had the ability and the privilege to have represented the areas — for many of us, we grew up in the areas — we knew where the side roads were. We knew where people were working. Often this was critically important, because many of the incident command teams that came forward were either from out of province or out of country. Having a local MLA that would be able to provide support to other individuals of where our constituents lived and what was happening in these communities was critically important.

Now, as local MLAs, we know how important it is to make sure that these fire stands receive permits so that we can make sure that we keep business — small business, family-supporting jobs — open. I raise this because, as I’m sure that my colleagues on both sides of this House will have probably noted from September, our experience is vastly different in rural British Columbia. So my constituents are concerned. My constituents think of who they would call if a tragedy happens or a crisis happens in a community.

My question is this. Under the mixed-member proportional representation, I would like some members of the NDP or the Green Party to explain to me how local issues would find a voice in this Legislature.

[5:25 p.m.]

This House would be divided by two types of MLAs: those representing single-seat constituencies and those who would owe their allegiance to the party. If we wipe out the small provincial electoral districts, numbering 87 seats, and replace them with much larger federal electoral districts, that would leave us with a house divided.

Forty-two seats would be a single-seat constituency, and the remaining 45 would be allocated to political parties. Of the 42-seat constituency single seats, only seven would represent northern and rural British Columbia.

Can the NDP and the Green Party explain how just seven northern and rural MLAs are going to provide a voice for literally dozens of small, remote communities that occupy half the land mass of British Columbia?

Subtract those seven rural and northern MLAs from 42 single-seat MLAs, and they’re already outnumbered by the remaining 35 MLAs from the Lower Mainland and the south coast. That’s a ratio of 5 to 1. Now add in the MLAs elected by political parties under mixed-member proportional representation — 45, to be precise — and we’re now looking at 80 MLAs versus the seven who represent northern and rural constituencies. Now that ratio is 11 to 1. That may be proportional, but I would hardly call that representative. In fact, I would go as far to call it distortional representation.

Earlier I talked about Vicki Huntington, a retired MLA. We may not have always agreed on things in this House, but I have incredible respect for her, and I hope that she is doing very well. How are independent MLAs like Vicki going to get elected? Here’s a woman that managed to get elected in Delta South against candidates supported by political parties.

Vicki Huntington was more than a just a one-hit wonder. This woman made history in British Columbia by being the first independent MLA to get re-elected for a second term. Under mixed-member proportional representation, that would not be possible. Under mixed-member proportional, only political parties select their own candidates. So how would we see women, how would we see minorities, how would we see independents have the ability to run and represent their communities?

Hon. G. Chow: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to rise in this House and speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

During the recent election campaign, I had the opportunity to speak to many British Columbians in my riding who were disillusioned about the current process of electing MLAs. They were disillusioned especially over the past 16 years. They were not sure if their voices were being adequately heard or represented in this Legislature, and that’s unacceptable.

This new government is changing the way we do things to regain public trust, in part, by giving British Columbians a say in the fundamental question of how we elect our MLAs. For some context, since 1928, we have been electing MLAs under a system where there has only been one general election when a single party received more than 50 percent of the vote. That means that since 1928, parties regularly received less than 50 percent of the popular vote but more than 50 percent of the decision-making power.

[5:30 p.m.]

This new government has introduced Bill 6, calling for a referendum on electoral reform no later than November 2018 to give British Columbians a chance to make a decision on whether to change the current first-past-the-post system. If 50 percent plus one of British Columbians decide this province needs proportional representation, our government will follow through by introducing legislation in time for the 2021 provincial general election.

The detail of the referendum, of course, is important. Firstly, there must be active, healthy debate and unbiased information on both our current voting system and systems of proportional representation to ensure British Columbians are able to make informed decisions at the ballot box. This would take the form of an engagement period this fall to help citizens to decide which voting system or systems should be on the ballot. Following the engagement period, a referendum would take place in the fall of 2018, to be conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer through a mail-in ballot.

Let me also emphasize the great importance of a system whereby non-partisan government staff provide neutral and factual information to British Columbians throughout this engagement period. It is imperative that people in this province are given the opportunity to make a fully informed decision about whether to keep our first-past-the-post system, where the candidate that receives the most votes wins, or to change to a proportional system, the most widely used system in the world, where a political party’s share of the seats in the Legislature represents its share of the popular vote.

We’ll have an ample engagement period in which the Attorney General will take input from British Columbians, stakeholders and experts on the selection of the question or questions, which will result in a summary of feedback that would give advice to the Attorney General in forming the question.

The process, in addition to a comprehensive effort to inform British Columbians of the choice in front of them, is essential to achieving this government’s commitment to work for a better B.C. for all British Columbians. I’m proud that this referendum put forward by our government is designed with the best interest of the people of this province in mind.

Unlike the previous government, who decided that a super-majority of 60 percent was needed to pass the referendum — essentially making it to fail — our government will require a minimum of 50 percent plus one of British Columbians to vote yes, which is consistent with Prince Edward Island’s most recent referendum on proportional representation and New Zealand’s referendum in 1993 and 2011.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Incidentally, I had the privilege of meeting with the New Zealand High Commissioner to Canada. B.C. and New Zealand are both trade-dependent economies with similarly sized populations, about 4½ million, and GDPs of about $200 billion. We had a good discussion on the proportional representation that New Zealand has had for the past 20 years. By and large, my impression is that it has served New Zealand really well.

Our government is committed to serving British Columbians. We will ensure that after adequate consultation, British Columbians will also have an adequate amount of time to fill out and mail in their ballots. We will not be presumptive about what British Columbians want for their electoral system, as some members on the other side of the House have done based on the past two referenda.

[5:35 p.m.]

Regardless of what British Columbians decide, the referendum would be binding. Should at least 50 percent plus one British Columbians vote yes, the government would be bound to move forward with proportional representation. However, if that threshold is not met, the government is equally bound by the choice of British Columbians, which is not to move forward with changing our electoral system to proportional representation.

As you can see, it’s really a decision for British Columbians to make. It’s not something that this government has any preconceived notion of what the people want. That’s our commitment to the people in this province.

I’m not sure why members from across the way are in such great opposition to this bill. This bill, just as I said before, very simply proposes that we engage with people on the significant question of how our MLAs in this House are to be elected. A question, or questions, has not yet been written. A system, or systems, of proportional representation to be put on the ballot has not yet been chosen.

Essentially, what I’m hearing is that the members from the official opposition are afraid that they will never win a majority government under proportional representation. I don’t think that would be the case. I think all parties — good members who come forward to serve their community — will have a chance to get re-elected or elected under this system as well.

We should have an electoral system that best allows for British Columbians’ voices to be represented and heard in this House, not the interests of the B.C. Liberals or any other political parties. We’re here to serve the people of this beautiful province and to represent its diversity. That’s why we’re letting the majority of voters determine whether they want to bring in a more fair, democratic system.

This is why I will be supporting this bill. I am supporting it because it’s an opportunity for all British Columbians to vote on the future and how they want to be represented.

E. Foster: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. It is my privilege to rise and speak to this bill because I have great concerns about where this bill would take our province.

Look at my riding, just as an example. I represent a fairly large area — lakes, mountains. It’s probably one of the few places in the province where in the spring you can go downhill skiing in the morning and play golf in the afternoon and then go water-skiing. It’s a very diverse community.

During the last Electoral Boundaries Commission’s work a couple years ago, the first pass they made through and the recommendation they made on their map was to change my riding by taking an area in the north end of greater Vernon and moving it over into the Shuswap riding. The people in that area were very upset about that. I bring this up — and it is relevant to this bill — because they identified with living in Vernon. Their kids went to school in Vernon, they worked in Vernon, and they shopped in Vernon. They did not want to have to go to Salmon Arm to meet with their MLA.

If you look at what proportional representation does, in a province the size of British Columbia, the vast areas…. Again, I look at my riding, and we would have one elected person possibly for the Okanagan and then a bunch of appointed people. The people that elect us — all of us, everyone in this House — don’t do that to have someone in an office somewhere or a committee somewhere appoint their representation. It’s extremely important that the people that get voted for get to sit.

[5:40 p.m.]

What the members on the opposite side of the House are proposing is not something as simple or straightforward as turning a light on or off. What they are proposing would begin a very complex and systematic change to the way that democracy is enacted in our province, one that will likely be very costly to British Columbians not only in terms of the process that will be required in order to conduct the change, but it will likely continually cost them in terms of life quality, legislative slowdown and government instability.

Bringing a proportional representation system into British Columbia will alter the way government is formed and will strip away the system that we have had in place for over 100 years. Generally, a fundamental change means that there needs to be a widespread discontent of the current way we are doing things or that the new system brings about a change whose benefits would totally overweigh maintaining any current system.

If we look at this objectively, what is the purpose of reforming democracy in our province? Surely members on that side of the House know full well the implications and political consequences of bringing in a proportional representation, or PR, system.

Our province has already been through this twice. Now in a third attempt, the NDP want to draft the question themselves without an independent third party, and they want to institute an incredibly low threshold of 50 percent plus one for this referendum to pass.

Mr. Speaker, if you go to any club — any Rotary club, any Lions club, any association that deals with things in your community — in order to change the constitution, they have to have at least a two-thirds majority — in some cases, 70 percent. Even the government’s own party required a two-thirds vote at the convention — to go every second year for a convention rather than have it every year. In their own party, they required a two-thirds vote. I mean, I assume the reason that they wanted to go to two years was so they wouldn’t have to face their members every year, but I don’t know if that’s really the case.

For a policy that is of this level of importance, it stands to reason that we should be raising our expectations rather than lowering them, which is the exact opposite of what is happening here.

We live in a consumer culture, where one knee-jerk reaction is often to throw out anything that is broken or old, rather than fix it. It is wasteful at times, irresponsible and overly reliant on the idea that everything new is inherently better. Unfortunately, some have taken this approach and applied it to our political system, which is undoubtedly old — yes. But it’s not anywhere near broken.

The members of the opposite side of the House would have us believe that our electoral system needs to be modernized. I would argue that creating a change of this scale to our democratic system should only happen if the system itself is broken.

Some good indications that the government is broken or non-functional would likely be slow to turnaround when it comes to responding to crises, not serving in the best interest of the people it is entrusted to take care of and not changing fast enough to properly represent the people who elected them.

In regard to the last point, if we look back at the history of political parties in British Columbia, we can see that government has changed hands six times since 1975. In an even shorter time frame, we’ve had nine Premiers since the 1990s. Over an average lifetime, a British Columbian can expect to see nine governments come and go within their lifetime — meaning that the governments in British Columbia are certainly not permanent fixtures.

Looking at the trend of governments in our province, there is more or less an ebb and flow as people’s values change. People change the way that they vote, and a new government that represents those changes is elected. This is a stark contrast from countries whose leading representatives have much longer terms — like Russia, who has only had two Presidents since the fall of the USSR, or Cambodia, whose Prime Minister has been in place for 32 years.

If the members on the other side want to make the case that governments in British Columbia just aren’t moving fast enough, how fast do they want governments to change? Do they want a change of government every two years, like under Italy’s PR system? For the past 70 years, Italy’s government has changed hands almost every 21 months. The constant turnover has resulted in 65 governments. How can government create consistent policy when there is a revolving door of new governments? The simple answer is: you can’t.

[5:45 p.m.]

The members of the opposite side try to make the case that this is somehow positive — that PR will help create a more stable government. Maybe they’re a little wilfully ignorant. That’s kind of crude.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission recently used New Zealand as an example of a stable government formed under a PR system, as did the member who spoke just before me. However, he failed to mention that the stability came at a cost.

The party that tipped the balance for this new government in New Zealand was the NZ First party, New Zealand First party, an extremely nationalistic party with an anonymous board of directors at its head. Now I’m not here to knock the views of the New Zealand First party, or the New Zealand government, for that matter, even if I don’t agree with some of their policies. The point that I’m trying to make here is that in order to get PR to the point where it is stable, sometimes questionable concessions need to be made.

The PR system often provides avenues for far-leaning political parties to have a place in government. I bring you what’s going on in Germany right now, where the party that got the most seats but not near a majority, has got to make a deal with, well, the Nazi Party. They have another name, but they’re anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage, and without a deal with them, they’re going to have another election.

When you leave the door open for more fringe parties to join government, especially when the bar has been lowered to the point where a party only needs two seats to be considered an official party, British Columbia has been put in a prime position to be flooded by political parties. Adding more potentially uncohesive parties to government paralyzes its ability to do anything, then easily result in frequent or unnecessary elections.

Take Spain, for example, who tried to accommodate 12 parties in their 2015 election. After exhausting their allotted time to form government, no coalition was able to sway the balance, and the country had to call a second election. The country went nearly a full year without a government, leading to an eventual re-election, which cost the state nearly €380 million, or $574 million Canadian.

PR heightens the unnecessary risk of having multiple elections, and this is a cost that B.C. taxpayers shouldn’t have to bear. There wasn’t only mass destabilization in Spain and Italy. Belgium hit a legislative gridlock when the country went for nearly 600 days without a government in 2010 and 2011, leading to huge delays in legislation surrounding the eurozone crisis as well as migration.

Some of the members take a lighter approach to PR and have accused members of this side of the House of fearmongering. In her response, which had several kumbaya moments, the member for Cowichan Valley stated that PR will require parties to learn to work together.

Interjections.

E. Foster: Mr. Speaker, I’m being heckled here. I can be heckled, I suppose, yeah.

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that the Chair from committees…. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn debate and reserve my right to speak again.

E. Foster moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on November 20.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.