Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 6. In Committee A, I call the estimates for the Office of the Premier.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

(continued)

[L. Reid in the chair.]

T. Shypitka: I’m just going to sum up what I was talking about yesterday on proportional representation. In brief, I read an article from an NDP strategist from the Tyee publication. I’m sure members on the other side have full subscriptions too.

I spoke about numerous examples of how PR simply does not work around the world right now. We are currently seeing it in Germany, New Zealand and the Netherlands, among other countries as well. We see how it gives great opportunity to fringe parties that simply don’t get that same opportunity with our current system, and there’s a good reason for that.

I’ve broken it all down to simple key points in order for those that support PR to seriously reconsider their decision and remind those same MLAs on both sides of the House that your first duty is to look after your constituents first and tow the party line second.

This is a game-changing vote that will affect the very foundation of our constitution. So it needs a rethink here. I’ve got three points.

One, if we’re going to have another conversation around electoral reform in this province, it needs to be driven by the public first, not elected officials who have vested interest in the system. I think we’ve seen that through the supply and confidence agreement between the Greens and the NDP — that this is exactly what is going on right now.

Two, it needs to feature meaningful review, not just non-binding consultations. We’ve seen this government right now review everything to death except for the very essence of what our constitution stands for, and it’s a little troubling to me.

Three, it needs to have checks and balances ensuring regional support from different parts of our very diverse province are represented. I don’t think anybody on either side can argue how diverse and great this province actually really is.

The process that we see proposed in this bill does none of that. In short, the benefits of first-past-the-post, the current system we have right now, are quite simple. I’ve broken it down to five points.

One, it’s a very easy system to understand, and ballots can be easily counted and processed.

Two, first-past-the-post, our current system, is an electoral method that provides the best governance. It trades fairness in representation for more responsible government. Its tendency to produce majority rule allows the government to pursue a consistent strategy for its term in office and to make decisions that may be both correct and unpopular.

Three, it ensures regional representation. This is the key to our diverse province. Who can argue with that?

[11:00 a.m.]

Four, other systems give small parties the balance of power and influence disproportionate to their votes. We’re seeing that right now as an example.

Five, allowing people into parliament who did not finish first in their district is filling parliament full of fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth choices who no one really wanted but didn’t really object to either. It basically allows one-issue parties to drive a single message, which could be good, but most likely could be very, very dark.

We’re seeing those exact things happening in New Zealand right now, where the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister are part of an extreme-right party that hasn’t won a riding since 2005. It’s absolutely mind-boggling.

For these reasons, I cannot support this bill as it stands. I implore my colleagues on both sides of the floor, and those who are voting British Columbians, to do the exact same.

Deputy Speaker: Recognize the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. [Applause.]

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that resounding applause. My buddy over there. Cheers.

I’d like to take this opportunity to express the honour and privilege I feel every time I rise in this House. It is indeed something very special to stand here representing the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke who are not only hard-working rural British Columbians but British Columbians who deeply value the democratic system that we have here in Canada and British Columbia, a democratic system that has served us well for the past 150 years.

Our democratic system of government is a proven system of governance that provides citizens with the most possible personal freedoms and the most personal opportunity — opportunity to create prosperity and a good life for their families. It is the most stable form of government on this planet.

Our democracy empowers us to choose the religion that is most meaningful to us. It empowers us with the freedom to choose our own spouse, our own careers. It is a system that enables us to seek the education that we want. We have the freedom to watch movies. We have the freedom to choose and listen to any kind of music that we want. Madame Speaker, could you possibly imagine a world without country music? I can’t. We are free to read any book without fear of judgment or reprisal.

Ours is a system that guarantees our mobility and our right to assemble. We are a mosaic of peoples with a constitution that protects us against assault and infringement. We are people who have exactly the same rights to go into politics and influence society as anybody else.

To that, I am a very proud father of two incredibly intelligent and beautiful daughters and a grandfather of two amazing granddaughters. I understand how blessed we are here in this country and in this province to know that they, as women, have the same constitutional rights and opportunities as any man. The women in my life, in this country and in this province know that their father, their brother, their cousins, their uncle or their husbands have no right to rule over them. My daughters and all women in this country and this province have the same rights and freedoms as anyone at any time.

As such, and as British Columbians, as Canadians, we are all equal before the law. We have the freedom to live without fear of authorities. As British Columbians and Canadians, each of us has the innate desire for freedom and security. People move to this country and to this province from all over the world to experience what we are so blessed to have — an opportunity and freedom, both of which I believe are worth fighting for. Therefore, democracy is not only important; it is vital. We deserve to live in a democracy that works, and we have been blessed with one for the last 150 years.

The key value that drives our system is freedom, but we always have to remember that freedom never comes free, nor should it ever be taken for granted. Life and freedom are never easy, and democracy is not perfect. We must never forget those who gave their lives so that we could protect and ultimately benefit from the democratic system that has served us and continues to serve us well.

[11:05 a.m.]

Above all, in a democracy, every citizen, regardless of interests and politics, holds office. Every one of us is in a position of responsibility. In the final analysis, the kind of government that we will get depends on how we fulfil those responsibilities.

We, the people, are the boss. We will get the political system, be it good or be it bad, that we demand and deserve. To do anything contrary would be to disrespect the ultimate sacrifice that has been made by so many Canadians, by so many British Columbians, so that we would never lose this freedom.

I stand today in acceptance of my responsibilities as an elected member of this Legislature — for the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke and for all British Columbians to speak against this bill, which I believe is a direct affront on the freedom in our democratic system that so many people have fought and died for.

You know, my mom and dad taught my brother and myself many things growing up, teachings that provided the foundations of who we are today as men. A couple of these teachings come to mind right now. I recall my dad on a golf course with his two boys, telling us: “Always stay true to your values.” He told us that in this life, you can compromise on many things — and you should — but never on your fundamental values, because if you do, you will get lost in a world that can be very confusing.

Above all, he taught us to stand for what we believe in with conviction and resolve. Putting these teachings into political terms means that good citizenship and defending democracy means living up to the ideals and values that have and continue to make this province such an amazing place to live.

With this in mind, we must reject the NDP-Green notion of proportional representation and reject it with an iron will. Bill 6, in essence, proposes to change the actual fabric of our democratic system, endangering the future of our grandchildren and their children. Bill 6 is nothing more than a backhanded attempt of the NDP-Greens to hijack the political system to meet their own needs, not to serve the needs of British Columbians, especially not rural British Columbians.

The NDP are an interesting bunch, no matter what political level you find them on. They’re a crew that makes things up on the run and that through their actions in this House are clear they are not interested in real answers to clear questions.

What is clear is that their proposed 50-percent-plus-one platform for a ranked ballot…. Well, let’s just say that’s about as clear as mud. It will not come as a shock to this House to know that Bill 6 in itself is another broken NDP promise. The member for Langford–Juan de Fuca…

An Hon. Member: The Premier.

D. Clovechok: …the accidental Premier, promised British Columbians that any referendum question on PR would simply be a yes or no.

Well, that member seems to have the inability to keep his word on anything. As a matter of fact, and I quote from that member for Langford–Juan de Fuca when asked: “‘You are going to have 50 percent say yes or no.’ And you will give them one system to vote on?” His answer? “Yeah, exactly.” Well, not so exactly.

Instead, the NDP will be stacking the deck against first-past-the-post. Voters will be choosing from multiple proportional representation systems. In a ranked ballot form, this means that a combination of PR options will outrate and outweigh first-past-the-post. The PR options they offer are a direct assault on the current system that we have in place, a system that has served this country well for the last 150 years. First-past-the-post is not favourable under a ranked ballot vote.

Voters who choose first-past-the-post as their first choice will have to choose between multiple PR systems for their second and third choices. If their first-past-the-post doesn’t win on the first ballot, then a victory is unlikely. Voters are being denied the ability to make a clear decision by this government.

[11:10 a.m.]

Again, let me remind all that — no surprise here — the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca has broken his promise yet again. But we should not have to accept broken promises or botched processes when it comes to lowering the bar for electoral reform.

If the members of this House don’t believe this process will be botched, I need only to point your attention to the fact that this referendum will be orchestrated behind closed doors by this minority government. Imagine that — a decision behind closed doors to create an electoral system that will lead to more decisions behind more closed doors that will potentially lead to the demise of our democratic process. And they want us to believe that they have a transparent government — again, as transparent as mud.

Surely, this must be a dream come true for the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Their partnership enables the Leader of the Greens to make his continued promises that are irrelevant, to his heart’s content. So why in the name of all that is good should British Columbians expect the NDP to pull an about-face and give them a clear yes-or-no question to vote on?

Again, the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca, has broken his promise on ride-sharing, 2017. He’s broken his promise on $10-a-day daycare. Now he’s begging the federal government to bail him out. Broken promise, seriously. He has broken his promise on the $400 renters rebate. The broken promises continue to pile up with this government. The member for Langford–Juan de Fuca obviously does not understand, along with a few others in this House, that there is absolutely no honour in men who cannot honour their word — another teaching from my dad.

His bromance partner from Oak Bay–Gordon Head is no better. I quote from the Canadian Press, May 18, ’17: “Our position has been that we would bring in proportional representation without a referendum,” but we would be open to discussing a referendum afterwards. From Global News, May 10, ’17, from that member: “In our platform, we said we would introduce proportional representation, and if we were to have a referendum, it would be after” that. Say one thing; do another — from both sides. Broken promises on both sides. There is no greater fraud in politics than a promise not kept.

These haphazardly broken promises are what is driving this accidental government in their desperate and self-deserving quest to hold on to power through Bill 6. Imagine, if you can, a government where the often-changing whims of the smallest party can change the lives of millions overnight. Well, that’s exactly what we have in this NDP-Green supply agreement. Again, the small Green tail continues to wag the bloated orange dog. Can you say “tyranny of the majority”? That’s exactly what PR under Bill 6 represents.

This begs the question: is PR what the NDP actually wants? Or is it just a way to placate their new Green masters? In my humble opinion, it is the latter. In this NDP proposed system of endless minority governments, how can any voter expect them to follow through as they go from backroom deal to backroom deal? They are in denial, as they refuse to look at the benchmarks from other countries across this globe that have received a big F on proportional representation.

I’d like to talk a little bit about some of those benchmarks because we actually look to benchmarks. In Belgium, PR gives voters nothing more than instability. It took 589 days for voters to get a government, from 2010 to 2011, after parties were unable to agree on a coalition. It took six parties almost two years to form a coalition that only lasted one year.

[11:15 a.m.]

Italy has had as many Prime Ministers since the end of World War II as Canada has had in its entire history. There are 28 parties forming six separate alliances, and, if you form government, you have an average of 21 months to watch your friends and partners force you to break your promises. Sound promising and democratic? I don’t think so.

In Israel, in relation to proportional representation, one of their former national security advisers spoke to the effectiveness of PR. “Under PR, designing policy in Israel is like writing poetry while standing on a ball.” Sound promising? I don’t think so.

In Germany, the Free Democratic Party has held the balance of power for the last 45 years, since 1949. As a matter of fact, Germany’s political wheels just completely fell off last week. They’re looking at another election. Doesn’t work in Germany.

PR in B.C.? Well, you might as well give the professor from Oak Bay–Gordon Head permanent tenure at the cabinet table. As much as we know that the same member would like to play kingmaker forever, this does not result in stable government. And it won’t help British Columbians. Speaking of kingmakers, it would seem that we have another aspiring kingmaker from Maple Ridge–Mission.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Clovechok: The member for Maple Ridge–Mission mentioned in his speech: “In New Zealand, PR seems to have created a more balanced and diverse parliament without, I might add, the proliferation of extreme parties as fearmongers” — referring to us — “on the other side of this House seem to suggest, and it can be seen” — this is, of course, the member for Maple Ridge–Mission speaking about PR in New Zealand — “as an example of how a new system of proportional representation could work in British Columbia.”

This is an interesting perspective, given that the kingmaker of this new government in New Zealand was the New Zealand First party, an extremely nationalist party with an anonymous board of directors at its helm. One of the first acts of this New Zealand–backed labour government — big surprise — was to ban foreign home ownership. Sound familiar?

I don’t understand, frankly, how the member for Maple Ridge–Mission can confuse fearmongering with protecting British Columbians from xenophobic nationalists. As a matter of fact, and for the kingmakers across the aisle, PR actually empowers the extreme far right. It’s not my doing.

As a matter of fact, in a recent article by Bill Tieleman in the Tyee, he writes…. This is the Tyee, the NDP newsletter. “Adopting a PR system potentially opens the door of this Legislature to far-right-wing politicians and their abhorrent views.” He also — and correctly, I might add — states: “The results of PR systems boosting the far right can be seen in several recent European elections.”

Let’s look at two examples Mr. Tieleman cites, under PR extreme right-wing parties where they flourish today. The Freedom Party in Austria that was “once led by a former Nazi functionary and SS officer….” Well, they hold seats in that government today. The Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, led by an extremist who launched his campaign by denouncing “Moroccan scum who make the streets unsafe” — they hold seats in that government.

[11:20 a.m.]

Mr. Tieleman also cites Prof. Pippa Norris from Harvard University who says:”Radical right parties benefit from PR in terms of their share of seats, which is what matters, after all, for the power, for the legitimacy, for the status and the resources that flow with elected office.” Norris, in her research, also found that “radical right-wing parties were more than twice successful in gaining seats under PR as under the majority electoral process.” Her words, not mine.

There’s no question that there is an active rise, an active movement, of extreme right-wing factions across this planet. We know that as a fact today. All you have to do is look to the south.

Make no mistake. Those same factions are here in British Columbia. Yet there is absolutely no reference to the risks and the downsides of a PR system coming from the NDP or the Greens. I’m not sure why they’re hiding these facts from British Columbians.

The NDP-Green PR pipedream does not outline for British Columbians the extreme downside of the realities of PR, which is egregiously neglectful towards the people of B.C. and the future of our province.

Yes, in addition, you only need to look at our recent history to see how far the members from across this aisle have lowered the bar. On two previous occasions, British Columbians said no to electoral reform. Each referendum — quite recently, in 2005 and 2009 — had the requirements for getting a majority vote, 60 percent of the ridings and 60 percent of the total vote.

Does what British Columbians have already stated in those two referendums not that long ago…? Does what they had to say then mean nothing to these people now? If it does, it doesn’t show in their bill.

This referendum actually gives us a preview of what kind of representation we can expect because the unending desperation — and I use that word desperation — for the Green Party leader to have proportional representation is imminently manifest in the crafting of this bill.

This bill, if successful, will fundamentally set the stage that will alter the state of our democracy. For us on this side of the House, that dog does not hunt.

Let’s take a look at what this bill ignores, except to deliver PR to the doorstep of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. They have ignored the Referendum Act. They have ignored the requirement for regional representation. They have ignored the past use of non-partisan citizens’ assembly, an institution that has been used to wide acclaim in the previous referenda. They have ignored the fact that instability comes with PR, will drive investment out of British Columbia at a rate comparable to the rate that they themselves as a party have done and continue to do.

The reality is that the NDP aren’t interested in incorporating a full spectrum of views in B.C. when it comes to changing the way we vote. Rather, they are driven by appeasement, the appeasement of the Greens at all costs in order for them to keep their supply agreement intact and cling to the minority reins of power.

We must ensure that a voting system like PR is not skewed in the favour of those who live in our concentrated urban centres. Their numbers alone must never determine the electoral future of British Columbia.

More than ever, we know that a great variety of geographical perspectives in our province exist and require input in our politics. We are a province separated by an ocean, separated by state, separated by rivers. Shoot, where I live, we are six mountain ranges and a ferry ride away from this House. We are vast.

We are a province with views that differ from region to region. There is a uniqueness to British Columbia that we just can never allow to be removed from our politics — a diverse geography and a diversity of people, symbiotically connected to each other.

[11:25 a.m.]

However, this bill reinforces, for rural British Columbians especially, that as far as this government is concerned, there is no hope for us beyond Hope, both geographically and literally. But there should be hope, for all British Columbians. It is my goal and the goal of my colleagues to fight for this hope, to fight with the power of determination. We know that if you fight with determination, it makes people unstoppable.

Let’s take a minute to consider some of the politicians that have arisen through first-past-the-post. The members across the aisle need only consider the rise of Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan. Tommy Douglas had to challenge the existing leader of the day as an outsider — something he was largely capable of because he had a foothold as an elected member of the federal Parliament.

Do the members opposite think Tommy Douglas would have risen to the leadership of the Saskatchewan CCF party under a PR system? Would he have been able to make the jump without a local foothold?

How can we expect individuals like Tommy Douglas, who are capable of connecting to local communities, to rise to prominence when they are entirely dependent on being selected off of a party list? This, of course, is what happens with a PR system. Parties have to keep a list of candidates and put the cut-off line somewhere, based on their percentage of vote.

Would Tommy Douglas have made the cut under PR? As an outsider under the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, highly unlikely. I wonder where the members opposite think they would fall on their party’s list? Do the members opposite think that they are No. 5, No. 15, No. 40, No. 1? It would be awfully tense to find yourself sitting on the threshold of being chosen to the Legislature by your party’s leader.

I wonder if the NDP baker’s dozen of a few years ago would have stayed at the top of the party list for long. I guess we just will never know, but I’m betting they wouldn’t have.

One thing is for sure: we have seen local leaders earn the trust of their communities for first-past-the-post. We’ve also seen those communities revoke the trust they have placed in their elected representatives when needed. Under first-past-the-post, local leaders have risen to prominence, and they have been held accountable at a local level.

I don’t find it shocking that the NDP and Greens want to turn this system of accountability over to their backroom boardroom, where members are bumped up and down party slates. First-past-the-post shows us that accountability can and should happen on the doors of constituents.

Instead, this government wants to walk away from those doorsteps, wants to walk away from those communities and walk away from the voters of British Columbia. This government wants to walk away from rural B.C. by omitting their representation in this referendum. The government wants to lead British Columbia down a road of backroom deals and broken promises.

This government wants to fundamentally alter the fabric of our democracy, a system that was paid for with blood of our countrymen and -women. And how? By engineering a referendum without any meaningful consultation. I say shame.

We must treat this issue with the respect and the gravity that it deserves. A change of this magnitude should not be this easy, and those who promote it should, frankly, have more respect for British Columbians and more respect for Canadians that gave their lives so that we could enjoy the freedoms that we have earned here today.

Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, and arguably, the architect of our great nation, was also an optimist. He said: “When fortune empties her chamber pot on your head, smile and say we’re going to have a summer shower.” He was telling us to be optimistic. Well, there’s no optimism in Bill 6. In this bill is yet another projectile that is spewing out of the NDP-Green chamber pot and onto the heads of British Columbians.

[11:30 a.m.]

Bill 6 is far from a summer shower and represents nothing less than a political monsoon that will destroy this province. I can tell you that myself, my colleagues and, most importantly, British Columbians are not smiling.

The defeat of Bill 6 is a hill British Columbians are willing to die on. I can tell you, and I can tell you this with certainty: when it comes to rural British Columbia and comes to where I live and comes to this battle ahead of us, we’re locked and loaded.

R. Sultan: I welcome this opportunity to comment on Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

Several changes to our electoral system are proposed in this bill. One of them alters the way we choose members of this Legislature. If it becomes law, we will take steps to discard our first-past-the-post system and replace it with proportional representation. How we choose our political leadership — whether through cronyism, at the point of a gun or through some democratic process — is pretty fundamental, so Bill 6 strikes at the heart of our political life and our society.

When first elected, I was told I would find in this Legislature a cross-section of all British Columbians, representing virtually every point of view, so it has turned out to be. But there are always some who believe they’ve been left out, persons who feel disenfranchised, since their particular views don’t get the attention they so obviously deserve.

In our system, if a politician feels strongly that his or her particular view has not received sufficient attention, you can fight it out in caucus or in the media or even start your own political party. These are the hallmarks of a healthy democracy.

What is not so healthy is when such persons try to rig the voting system to suppress those they don’t agree with and to almost guarantee that their own voice will be identifiable as virtually a private brand in the Legislature.

The idea that every point of view in our society deserves a voice in the Legislature sounds very noble and very democratic. Indeed, every point of view, however extreme, should be considered. But how many thousands and thousands of perspectives could one enumerate among our population on matters scientific, social, economic and cultural, not to mention religious or philosophical, before one would realize that, practically speaking, each of them cannot expect to have their own specialized seat in parliament — as opposed to being represented by someone else having more general instincts, to be sensitive to their concerns but also be dedicated to serving the common good.

Nevertheless, such noble sentiments — that each and every one of us deserves our unique voice — have driven the adoption of systems of proportional representation throughout the world. They are not unusual, and we seriously consider that option from time to time here in British Columbia. But they are not without their serious flaws.

Within the memory of some in this chamber, there were two prior referenda on proportional representation, in 2005 and 2009, under the leadership of Premier Gordon Campbell. These projects considered how we elect MLAs.

[11:35 a.m.]

They were grounded upon an elaborate citizens’ assembly consultation process, which took years and millions of dollars to design and implement. They engaged thousands of people across the province. I must say the contrast between that very elaborate and broadly based project, on the one hand, and the narrow — what I would view it as hasty casualness — and “Don’t worry about it; we’ll look after all the details for you” spirit which we see in evidence today and as represented in Bill 6 is, frankly, to me, disquieting.

The earlier examination of the pluses and minuses of proportional representation was driven by an election promise of our own B.C. Liberal Party in the ’01 election. Such was public anger against the NDP government of the day that that election, my first, resulted in a very lopsided 77-to-2 landslide in our favour. That’s what you might call sending a message. But it caused even the most partisan of us to wonder whether this was really a healthy governance outcome.

I might say it also illustrated that a party of two hard-working women, Jenny and Joy, could hold an entire government to account for four years. They did very well at that assignment.

So a citizens’ assembly was activated, culminating in a recommendation for proportional representation and a subsequent testing of public support in 2005. When that first referendum failed to achieve the stipulated 60 percent threshold, there was a second referendum, in 2009.

A key point deserving attention today is that the design and development process was provincewide and removed from the hands of elected politicians — key point. Reading between the lines, you might say it was acknowledged that politicians…. Each of us have our own selfish axe to grind, and we are not to be totally trusted.

So the process involved a random selection of citizen volunteers not directly engaged in politics, equally balanced among each of the political ridings across the province, whether represented in government or not, and equally balanced between men and women.

This citizens’ assembly held public hearings, listened to the experts, expended much time and treasure, and ultimately came up with a new voting system to be submitted to the people for approval. The first attempt yielded narrow public support. The second — a decisive judgment against changing how we elect MLAs. First-past-the-post, or FPP, as it is known, continued as in the past.

Why politicians should simply stay out of electoral redesign is obvious when we see what is happening today — a government which did not even receive the most votes in the last election, pretending to have a lock on impartiality on matters of great partiality, proposing a three-pack of clever legislation designed to further its own interests, creating laws discriminating in favour of itself and maximizing its own probability of success.

Political science historians will note the stunning contrast between today and the philosophy of 2005 and ’09.

Today we face legislative uncertainty. We’re asked to approve a set of statutes of which Bill 6 is but one open-ended, rather loosely defined component. The particular type of proportional representation system to be proposed — and there are many to choose from — is undefined. On that issue, it is simply: “Trust us.”

Perhaps with that criticism in mind, I notice the government is now going to patch together some sort of a public consultation process. But at the end of the day, the particular flavour to be presented won’t be chosen by citizens. It’ll be chosen by cabinet — the big decisions made behind closed doors.

The ballot question which emerges will be submitted to the uncertain performance of a struggling Canada Post, which specializes in delivering to me my neighbour’s mail and will be conditional on a pitifully low hurdle rate of 50 percent plus one.

[11:40 a.m.]

Bill 6 assumes there will be several options, with a winner chosen by a ranked ballot, with the losers, second choices, being redistributed, and so on.

If there’s only one FPP option and more than one proportional representation option on the ballot, you can do the arithmetic. Practically speaking, you might say the fix is in — FPP is out. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, the previous speaker, has already pointed out how this contradicts an assurance given to the Vancouver Province last May by the current Premier.

It will be multiple choice. As Keith Baldrey, a journalist of some note in these precincts, has already pointed out, with multiple choice, the chance that FPP gets 50 percent plus one is remote. Sorry, FPP, you got your chance at bat, but you struck out.

So we’re left with our own private speculations as to where cabinet will go next in choosing among many proportional representation alternatives. I believe, however — putting on my forecaster hat — I can make a reasonable prediction of the system they will choose.

Ordinarily, one might suppose executive council would sort through many options, listen to all the experts, do everything, kind of, the citizens’ assembly did on a broader basis, but I don’t really think they’ll be burdened with all that fuss and bother. I think executive council will simply be asked to rubber-stamp a particular model that’s already been decided.

Why would I think that? Well, partly, it’s natural to find that the tough, complex and strategic decisions confronting this government — in fact, confronting any government — are highly centralized in the Premier’s office. Who’s staffing the Premier’s office? Do any of these officials have any particular leanings when it comes to the voting process? Well, as a matter of fact, I think they do.

The city of Vancouver, in recent history, has been described as governed by a combination of our former NDP colleague Mayor Robertson, of unmatched personal charm, backed up by the muscular discipline of a colleague recently elevated to the apex of power in our British Columbia government as chief of staff to the Premier. So it’d be perfectly natural, in my view, that this person would have a very significant voice when it comes to recommending a proportional representation system to executive council.

Has this chief of staff been associated with any favoured proportional voting scheme in the past? Certainly, if we go back a few years. It’s a purely personal speculation on my part, but it’s my experience that people don’t change much over time. I bump into classmates from 50 years ago, and they’re still passing judgment on society — unchanged prejudices — as they did when I first met them. I’m willing to bet that the viewpoints of our chief of staff were shaped years ago and haven’t changed much over time.

For example, in earlier life, the chief of staff advocated for the net fishing industry, and fish farms be damned. This would be consistent with the government’s condemnation of fish farmers today, no doubt sanctioned by the corner office.

In an earlier life, he was also a newspaper editor — the journal of a political party which was advocating for some big, some might say radical, changes in how we are governed as a matter of class struggle. Would those views survive until today? Well, I believe, chances are, they would.

So I suggest to this Legislature that we can gain insights about the likely leanings on proportional representation within this government by reading the very articulate, well-composed, pull-no-punches submission of the Communist Party of Canada to the special parliamentary committee on electoral reform on October 8, 2016 — about 12 months ago.

[11:45 a.m.]

This submission, reprinted in the People’s Voice — of which the chief of staff was formerly the editor; years ago, I grant — proudly describes itself as the voice of a registered political party with 95 years of fighting for peace, democracy and socialism and significantly, it points out, the very first political party in Canada to call for proportional representation.

This party Brief to the Special Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform maintains that: “Any discussion about electoral reform should build from the principle of making every vote count.” Ah, making every vote count. I’ve heard that expression before, and I’m sure that I will hear it again and again.

The party brief goes on further to describe itself as being: “A strong champion of electoral reform and replacing first-past-the-post (FPP) with mixed-member proportional (MMP) representation without threshold limits.”

The brief goes on to describe MMP with great clarity. I admired the sheer elegance of the prose. Skipping over some of the paragraphs:

“Despite misinformation campaigns, the mixed-member proportional voting system is very clear, involving one ballot with two votes. With one vote, a local Member of Parliament is elected, and with the second vote, the people select a party. The Member of Parliament can be with the party you vote for or not. Local MPs would be elected in exactly the same way as they are now. The second vote would go toward electing a Member of Parliament from a party list.

“Today the realities are self-evident that the FPP winner-take-all system is undemocratic, entrenching the big business parties. A vast and costly electoral machine is required to win ridings.

“Our party has maintained long-standing and strong support for MMP because it’s a much-needed, significant reform to the voting system. MMP would help break the stranglehold of the giant corporations over politics. It would help counter the trend to squeeze progressive small parties off the electoral platform altogether.

“The peoples of Canada have waged prolonged campaigns to enlarge democracy in this country. Historically, this has included revolutionary struggles to win representative assemblies. Later battles to expand the franchise have fought against class oppression as well as colonialism, racism, sexism, ageism and other structural inequalities.

“The campaign for proportional representation is all part of the struggle, led by groups like Movement pour une démocratie nouvelle and Fair Vote Canada with support from their allies in labour and the people’s movements, the Communist Party, the Green Party, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québecois, Québec solidaire and others.

“By making the composition of the party list a political concern, MMP could also help to elect more Indigenous candidates, people from racialized groups, women and trans persons. It will also contribute to the break up of the dominance of the big parties by fostering coalitions which are susceptible to public opinion and mass pressure.”

Hmm, mass pressure. Does this mean a little bit of mob intimidation is part of the package?

So what will be the consequences of electing MLAs in accordance with this particular model of proportional representation? Well, political scientists and astute journalists have made the following points, and many of these points have been made by previous speakers on this bill.

It can give extreme parties a foothold in Parliament, and the Weimar Republic and the Bundestag are examples.

The big-tent political model fragments. As the brief I previously cited points out, proportional representation will: “Contribute to the break up of the dominance of the big parties.” Vaughn Palmer has tweeted: “Great moments in proportional representation. Iceland election, 200K voters, eight parties, 63 seats.”

Negotiating backroom deals replaces public debate. Taxpayer-funded secretariats may be appointed to broker ongoing deals far from prying media eyes.

[11:50 a.m.]

Hostage-taking can occur. When the leading party cannot form a majority without bending to the will of minority interests on issues contrary to its own election platform, core principles fly out the window.

Accountability suffers. Coalitions fuzzify who’s actually in charge.

Some parties develop nine lives, even when shifting political ties, rendering them zombies whose only important support is to the taxpayer. Think Parti Québécois in Ottawa.

In it’s most likely application, each provincial riding would double in size, and half of all MLAs would be appointed by a party and not necessarily have any connection with the local region. Perhaps the most dubious consequence of the MMP model would be to delegate MLA selection to political parties. Lists would be put forward by each party. Party bosses would choose the MLAs, not citizens. The link between community and representative is cut in half.

In response to the possibility of party choice replacing citizen choice, the incredulous member for Skeena asked, in these chambers, a couple of days ago: “Do we live in Russia?”

Finally, will public cynicism be reduced as advertised? Well, I’d say not likely.

UVic political scientist Dennis Pilon wrote in the June-September 2010 Canadian Political Science Review that the results of the ’05 and ’09 referenda suggested that elite manipulation of the process and changing levels of partisan insecurity between the two votes were more influential in producing different outcomes than any thoughtful public reaction to the options.

It’s hard for me to conceive how any system of candidate choice based upon party rather than citizen can be considered democratic. The inner machinery of any party, and I speak from personal experience, is seldom transparent. Party lists would be assembled inside the club based on party service, unthinking loyalty, the trading of future favours, friendships, and so on. The slogan, “Every vote counts” — remember hearing that one? — becomes in the real world: “Every party counts.” Parties get excited, no wonder, over the possibility of MMP. Lips are smacking.

In closing, let’s look at PR in action. These various examples from around the world have been belaboured by many of my colleagues, but let me return, again, to Germany. At this moment, Germany is without a government. Some might say that without Chancellor Merkel, it is the western world itself which right now is leaderless.

Six parties are represented in the Bundestag, representing between 40 percent and 9 percent of the popular vote. The leader of the FDP Party said four days ago, as he walked out declaring, “I’m out of here,” that while he knew he “could not steer the course of the entire republic with just 11 percent of the vote, the parties around the table had ‘no shared vision.’” And four weeks of talks had left them with — get this — “inconsistencies, unanswered questions and conflicts.” I said to myself: “Sounds just like a caucus meeting.”

This is inherent in the democratic process, but he found it intolerable. It was impossible. He couldn’t live with it. He walked out. Psychologists have a term for individuals who are extremely self-absorbed and self-centred and for whom “compromise” is a dirty word. “You other folks be damned. It’s my opinion which is right. Do it my way, or I’m picking up my baseball, and I’m going home.” Welcome to proportional representation.

[11:55 a.m.]

I could go on and on, but I see the clock is approaching noon. I would just like to wind up by saying the present election system is not without its flaws. Certainly, proportional representation has worked reasonably well in many other parts of the world. The B.C. Liberal Party itself openly espoused this option years ago, so we should not be dismissive of this as a legitimate option for how we choose MLAs.

I think there are variations on the theme which I, frankly, find intolerable. Any suggestion that we would revert to that particular brand of MMP where parties rather than citizens make decisions about who will become MLAs is totally unacceptable to the democratic history and traditions of British Columbia.

Noting the hour, I would move adjournment of the debate.

R. Sultan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.