Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call committee stage on Bill 15. In Committee A, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Tourism.

Committee of the Whole House

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

Point of Order
(Chair’s Ruling)

The Chair: Before we proceed further, Members, on a point of order made by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I would raise the point regarding the provision of notice for amendments. The Chair would like to read the ruling on that. There are some corrections that we had to make.

I refer members to Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fourth edition, page 218, which reads: “Amendments may be proposed in the committee without previous notice having been given.” Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia does also note that the better practice, especially with lengthy amendments, is to give notice. However, notice is not required.

The Table and the Chair are available to review amendments from the floor of the House and to determine their admissibility as required. I should note that the Chair cannot rule on an amendment until it has been moved. It has been the long-standing practice in British Columbia that members have been permitted to move and speak to their amendment prior to the Chair ruling. Amendments may be ruled out of order on the basis of form; content, if they are beyond the scope of the bill; or if they impose a charge if in the hands of a private member.

For a list of admissible amendments, I refer members to pages 218 and 219 of Parliamentary Practice.

Debate Continued

BILL 15 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
CAMPAIGN FINANCING
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

On the amendment to section 14 (continued).

M. Hunt: As I was speaking, I just want to sort of go back in the onion if I can, leading into a question that I have for the minister. The act that we’re proposing to amend is an act that is proposing to amend the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. The minister and I both served on the committee that came forward with recommendations that ultimately became the legislation. The whole focus of that was on creating a level playing field.

Now, the focus at that time was on election expenses. The minister herself, as we were in that committee working on this and listening to delegations, was very attuned to the argument that was being made by some to address the whole issue of election funding. If my memory serves me correctly, a number of times she raised the issue — at least, she did to me personally. Whether she did it in the committee as a whole, she did to me personally. She raised this issue that we’re dealing with in the generality now — the whole issue of election funding and, again, from the perspective of the goal being to create a level playing field.

Now we have this proposal before us, which the minister has brought forward and which lines up with her thoughts from — what was that? — three or four years ago. How time flies when you’re having fun. It’s somewhere in the order of about three years ago. She has now brought forward this legislation. This amendment is before us. And I believe that the intent of the minister is to deal with the issue of the undue influence that money has in elections, the argument being that the more money that gets involved, the more influence that that’s going to have upon elections, upon the candidates and, ultimately, upon the elected officials.

My question to the minister, first of all here, is: where does the minister address the issue, in this amendment, of self-financed campaigns?

[1:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister, we are on section 14.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you. I understand we’re on the amendment.

The Chair: The amendment as proposed by the member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, it’s not my amendment, so I’m not going to speak to it. I don’t support it. It’s not an appropriate amendment. But I will say that where we look at a level playing field, which is a value that we have in this government…. It’s that all contributors are treated the same. All contributions are capped right across the board because that, really, at the end of the day, is a level playing field.

However, we have heard certain concerns, particularly from smaller communities, around the self-finance piece. I do recognize that in some communities, you might have a whole number of people who put their name forward. But they’re a small community, and how a community can then support all the different candidates can be a challenge. So there’s certainly some recognition. And the appropriate place to address that is in the regulation.

I want to remind the member who is asking the question that when we did sit on that committee together, we heard varied responses and varied concerns. We consistently heard about contribution limits. I’m sure that the member can well appreciate the challenge to balance large, medium and small communities under one piece of legislation.

We really do need to recognize that a regulation is a place to address this, especially given that we’re going into an election in October 2018 where we, for the first time ever, have managed the Wild West of local government campaigns, both with expense limits and now contribution limits.

It is wise to take a look to see how those play out, making sure that it really is, in fact, a level playing field, that it really does hit the mark that I believe everyone in this House is trying to achieve, which is to make them fair and accessible for everyone. Having a regulation will allow us to more readily adapt and adopt and tweak whatever we need to tweak so that it works well for everyone.

M. Hunt: This is where I start to have the problem. We have an act that says one thing, and then we can create regulations which are not accountable to this House. There’s no debate in this House. It is simply a regulation that comes out of somewhere in the bureaucracy and suddenly shows up and goes: “Oh my, isn’t there a regulation on that?”

I want to show what the problem is and make it very clear. As the minister just said, there are varying sized communities. In fact, in the original legislation that she is intending to amend by this act, what we have are communities that have less than 10,000 people living in them. A councillor or trustee running is limited to $5,000 as their total expense. For communities over 10,000, we have a sliding scale that starts at $7,500 and goes up from there.

Now, the interesting thing is that self-financing is not addressed. The principle the minister is saying — which she just finished repeating, and I thank her for just repeating it…. Her issue is that everyone should have the same maximum.

Well, that’s an interesting thought. Now what we’re saying is that the undue influence of money affects the person who is the candidate, who actually has the money anyhow. So now we’re getting into the thought processes inside the mind of the candidate, which I find, really, an interesting one. I really don’t want to go there, because I don’t have a degree in psychology, but I would think that undue influence of my own money on me isn’t an issue. It’s my money.

What we’re doing is putting an unfair limit on those who are self-financing by saying, “You’re only allowed $1,200,” and that’s why the amendment is before us. I quite agree with the minister. I don’t particularly agree with the amendment that’s before us. But by the same token, at least it’s making an attempt to address an issue that the minister has failed to address in this legislation.

[1:45 p.m.]

I don’t understand how putting a spending limit on self-financing campaigns either creates a level playing field or reduces the influence of money on elections. I believe what it does is put an undue restraint upon the individual who is trying to be focused on the election and not be influenced by money. I would think that these are the people the minister would want to be supporting rather than, in fact, handicapping.

Actually, if we look at this, what we’re saying here is that a candidate must solicit funds in order to be competitive, even in a small community. The limit is $5,000, and we’re saying the most you can fund yourself is $1,200. So now we’re basically saying: “You don’t have a hope of winning the election. You don’t have a hope of getting your message out, because we have fixed it. We’ve stacked the deck against you.” So surely, the most independent candidate is the one who is self-financed.

Now, we have a member in this House who has a very long history in local government. Of course, the minister is well familiar with this individual, and that is the member for Abbotsford-Mission. I forget how many years. It’s somewhere up in the 30s of years that he has served in either Matsqui or Abbotsford as an alderman, councillor — that same position. That member never took any donations. Now, that’s his political history. That’s who and what he is. I would, in fact, say that that is good, and that is laudable, because that individual has kept himself away from the influence of money.

The reality is that now the minister is, in fact, handicapping that. I don’t know who’s lobbied for this. I don’t know who the minister has consulted with. In fact, I would suggest that maybe the minister hasn’t consulted with anyone on this, who is dealing in the self-financing thing, but I do know that the UBCM has flagged this as an issue, with this legislation. But they can’t talk to me because they’re under a confidentiality agreement. They can’t talk to me about it. That’s fair enough, but I know that they at least flagged it, because that was from the executive themselves.

There’s another little thing that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and I used to do, back those three years ago. We used to go into the statistics. The two of us would have our computers there, and when a delegation came to talk to us about their situation, we’d go back into their disclosure forms. We’d see what happened in it and this sort of stuff. What I did for the minister…. She’s most likely been far too busy with all the constraints of office to do this. I went through the three by-elections of this past year.

In the three by-elections, there are three different-sized communities. One of them was Creston, which is a population of 5,300, so well under the 10,000 limit, and therefore, the maximum spending they could have was $5,000. Interestingly enough, there were five candidates. Two of the candidates spent zero. Two of the candidates were self-financing. Of those two candidates who were…. So only one of the five candidates actually accepted donations, and of the two who were self-financing, one of them, in fact, went over what is now the minister’s new limit for those who are self-financing. That’s Creston — only 5,300 people.

Then Lake Country had a by-election — approximately 13,000 people in Lake Country, and here we had four candidates running for the position. Only one self-financed, and one spent no money at all. That’s half of them taken care of. The one person who was self-financing, yes, exceeded the limit the minister had. None of these, of course, exceeded the expense limits they had. They were all within that, but they exceeded this limit of self-financing of $1,250.

Then I take you to Nanaimo, which was the largest community that had a by-election. I believe it’s approximately 80,000 or 90,000 people in Nanaimo — something like that. There were 13 candidates that ran. Of the 13 candidates, there were three who were self-funding and two who spent absolutely nothing.

[1:50 p.m.]

As far as election spending of $1,200, there were six of the 13 — that’s just about half of those who ran — that spent more than $1,200. Now, interestingly enough, one of them happened to spend $17,500, so considerably larger than what I consider this act’s unintended consequence by putting this restriction at $1,200.

In fact, of the 13 candidates who ran, nine of them were over $1,200. If you take out the two that spent absolutely nothing, that only has two people that spent under the $1,200. I think that there’s a real problem with this legislation. I think it’s a very startling problem that’s within this legislation. I would suggest that the minister, in fact, pull it and work on it for the next week and come back next week with an amendment that in fact addresses this. But I don’t hold any hope out for that.

As a result, I will have to support this amendment, because I think this amendment at least starts to try and address what I consider a massive problem in the midst of this legislation.

Hon. S. Robinson: We have a gallery full of young people, and I thought I would just take a moment to explain to them what we’re doing here and respond to the member opposite. We’re discussing a piece of legislation here that bans big money from local elections and making sure that we have a bill here that will make sure that it’s a level playing field. So for anyone who wants to run for mayor or council or school board, everyone has to play by the same rules.

The member opposite was certainly trying to make a case for those who…. Those who want to self-finance should have a bigger limit than what we’re proposing. My concern around that, of course, is that those who have more money are given an advantage over those who have less money.

In my world and in the things that I value in democracy, it shouldn’t matter how big your pocketbook is. Anyone should be able to put their name forward in order to participate in this House or in our city halls. That’s what we’re debating right now. I am not comfortable with the amendment.

I just want to let the member opposite know that we’ve certainly heard the issue that he’s raising. What I indicated, and what I’ll continue to indicate, is that we understand the intent of the proposed amendment. We understand it. There is an opportunity to address that intent of giving candidates a bit more room in contributing to their own campaigns through a regulation.

I want to remind the member opposite that, again, we are heading into new territory, where we have, for the first time ever, expense limits. The member opposite heard over and over again when we were doing that work that we should also be looking at contribution limits. To look at just one side of it wasn’t sufficient.

I will say that that should have been done three years ago. It wasn’t, because members opposite refused to address that. When we were on that side, when were in opposition, we asked for that capacity, and we were denied. Because in order to address fairness and accessibility to elections, you need to deal with both sides of it, and that’s what this legislation is doing.

The next election is in October, and we have acted quickly to ensure that it’s a fair and accessible election. I also just want to say that when it comes to this regulation that we’re proposing, we need to remember that we’re moving into uncharted territories. We haven’t done this before — and making sure that we have a regulation that will address the very issue that is being proposed, that we can also fine-tune it after October 2018.

As the member opposite just said, he went in to do research. He went in to look at the data. Well we don’t have data on this, and we will have after October 2018. It’s important that we have that flexibility. A regulation provides that flexibility, and that’s exactly what we’re going to be doing with the legislation.

J. Rustad: A couple of quick questions to the minister, and then I need to make a few comments. I want to be clear in my mind — the bill and the issue we’re debating.

When we’re talking about campaign expenses, do they include things like air travel or meals, other types of things that would normally be part of campaigns? Provincially, of course, if I’m travelling when I’m campaigning, I need to account for those types of expenditures as part of campaigning.

[1:55 p.m.]

I just want to be sure, in terms of local governments, that that is part of what’s included in this cap of how much an individual can contribute to their campaign.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to let the member know that what we’re talking about in this piece of legislation is the contribution limits. The expense limits come on the other side of LECFA, which has already been brought forward by the previous government.

J. Rustad: Let me just be clear on this. So self-financing a contribution to your campaign, there’s an expense…. If you ring up $5,000 worth of expenses and you’re covering that with your own money, is that not considered to be what you would be contributing here in terms of self-financing?

Hon. S. Robinson: If you’re going to have, regardless of how you use it, a $5,000 budget for your campaign, you have to have $5,000 to cover that. From a self-financing perspective, you have $1,200 as your contribution, and the rest needs to come from other sources.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that. This legislation, and I say this in the most respectful way, is a very urban perspective of how elections are run.

I was a school trustee in school district 57. The distance from Prince George to Valemount is almost 300 kilometres. The distance from Prince George to Mackenzie is almost 200 kilometres. One trip to both of those areas is 1,000 kilometres. In a four-week campaign, it is unrealistic to think that as you’re campaigning, you wouldn’t be out there travelling those kinds of distances on a weekly basis. That means there is no possible way you could even go and visit the areas that you would want to represent without having to go over your limit simply on travel expense alone, in terms of self-financing and wanting to cover.

It is unrealistic to think that the limits that are being put on here could reflect a rural or even a regional district election where you have to cover very large areas of the province when you’re travelling around within those electoral areas.

The expenses…. I self-financed two campaigns, one in 2001 and one in 2002, when I ran for school trustee, and my expenses were well over the current limit. That was 16 years ago, when I ran in those elections. Expenses have gone up since then. Even at 50 cents a kilometre, the vehicle expense alone would not be able to be covered by an individual, which means you’re forcing an individual to have go out and actually raise money. You’re forcing them to have to go out and find donations to be able to actually function under the donation limits.

I just want to confirm again. I’ve got a little bit more that I want to add to this, but I want to confirm again with the minister: if these expenses have to be covered within the campaign budget and they have to be covered through donations, is the minister honestly saying that the only way a candidate could run in an election is to be able to raise funds, to be able to go out and ask for donations?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I’ll remind the young people who are here as well as all members of the House that the expense limits are new as well for our province, which were passed three years ago. I’ll read into the record, and hopefully this will answer the member’s questions:

“There are exclusions from election proceedings period expenses. Candidate personal expenses are considered travel to, within or from the jurisdiction in which the candidate is running for office; lodging, meals and other incidentals related to travelling; child or family care, if the candidate is usually responsible for the care; expenses related to a disability of the candidate, including the costs related to anyone required to assist the candidate to perform functions necessary for the election. All personal expenses must be reasonable. Clothing, haircuts and photographs are not personal expenses.”

J. Rustad: Just to be clear, what you’re saying, though, is travel, such as I have just mentioned, would be considered a personal expense and would not have to be covered under a campaign budget. Okay, thank you. The minister is nodding her head, so I’m assuming that is correct.

[2:00 p.m.]

It still leaves the issue…. When you think about a school district trustee trying to run and cover an area that has Valemount, Mackenzie, McBride, as well as many smaller points all in between, Prince George, etc…. If you want to run a campaign and have any kind of signage, if you want to have any simple type of advertising, and you want to be able to do this personally, it makes it virtually impossible to do that, to be able to get out to cover that large an area simply on self-financing.

The minister is suggesting this is a trial run. We’re going into an election. If there are issues, they could be adjusted, or could potentially be adjusted, through regulation. What I’m suggesting is…. The amendment that’s put forward, quite frankly, I think, needs to go higher than what it is for personal expenses to cover off those sorts of things. But it is an attempt to try to be more reflective of the type of issues that are faced around the province.

If the amendment is not something that the minister can support, would she consider standing down this section and reviewing what those requirements are in rural areas and in the areas for trustees in regional districts particularly — so that there is an opportunity to perhaps change or reflect those sorts of conditions as part of what this bill would be — to make certainty for the people in rural B.C.?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important to remind the member opposite that when this was first brought to the floor, it was a $5,000 limit and then, within ten minutes, changed to a $2,400 limit. Clearly, even members on the other side haven’t landed clearly on what to do.

That’s another example of why we need to put it in regulation around what it means from a self-finance perspective to allow that flexibility. We have to have the flexibility to do that. That’s what regulation is for. When the member was sitting on this side, that was what regulation was for. I know that he knows that full well, and that’s our intent. We have certainly heard some of the concerns, so we are fully prepared to address that in regulation.

Now, the spirit and the intent that we’re hearing from the other side of the House is exactly what we’re prepared to do in regulation. But again, the principle underlying this, all of this, is about making sure that it’s fair and equitable right across the board. Balancing all of those things is exactly what we’re talking about doing here.

Putting in regulation as self-financing, looking at the numbers, certainly, that the members opposite have suggested, was the direction where we’re headed as well. I think that that would work, and the regulation would fit within this legislation that’s here before us.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the minister recognizing the fact there are some issues here and considering things in regulation. But the problem is that once it’s in legislation, there is no guarantee that anything will get resolved or done in regulation. As you know, as a member of the executive council, there’s a process that goes through in terms of doing that. That may or may not get done or may not get resolved. But it certainly doesn’t happen with any kind of scrutiny.

Now, the $2,400 limit that’s has been put in, in terms of the amendment, is an attempt to try to redress some of these issues. Like I say, personally, I think it doesn’t go far enough. But I support it, because at least it’s better than what’s in there in terms of the $1,200 limit for self-financing.

Once again, it’s a message to the rural areas of this province, to the people that have to travel, the people that have to cover large areas — not just the travel expenses, but also for advertising and other components, because you’re in different markets.

I’ll give you the example. In my riding, it’s not an issue of advertising in a newspaper if you want to run an ad. I have to run it in four newspapers to cover the area, which means it’s four times the cost just to try to get one ad out into an area that covers that sort of area. Same with radio. I don’t have one radio station that would go across the whole area. If I want to do an ad, I have to do it on several radio stations to be able to get the kind of coverage across my area.

Once again, I do not believe the limits reflect those challenges or issues within the rural areas of the province and, in particular, from the people that would like to be able to stay completely neutral and self-finance their campaigns going forward, running because they’re trying to do what they think is the right thing to do for people, whether it’s in local government or whether it’s in regional district or school district politics.

I would ask respectfully that the minister consider these issues around rural B.C., the issues that I’ve raised here. Accept the amendment or, if not accepting the amendment, stand down the section and allow for an opportunity for some input and some review of those kinds of structures within the rural area to be able to allow people to finance their campaigns appropriately and not be disadvantaged by legislation like this.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, I just want to remind the member that legislation does not provide sufficient flexibility to make any needed adjustments coming out of the experience of 2018. For example, if there’s a by-election within the first six months after the election, we won’t be able to adjust accordingly, based on what we’ve learned. So really, these things that need to be adapted, based on learning, need to be incorporated in the regulation. That’s the direction we’re taking. That’s the commitment I’m making.

We’ve certainly heard from rural British Columbians. I’ve heard it through the UBCM and others and recognize that there are specific challenges. But again, I want to point out that finding the right balance, finding the right number to land on is…. It’s just like happened here earlier this week. We got one number, and then the number changed. If you have it in legislation, the member well knows how difficult it is to get legislation back into this House in order to deal with things that we learn on the ground. Regulation is the best place to address that.

J. Rustad: I’ll wrap up with one last comment with regards to that. There’s a rationale as to why it went from $5,000 to $2,400. That was to try to garner the support so that we’d at least get something that would be more reasonable for those folks that wanted to do this.

I will end with one last component, which is: if there’s such a desire to change, think about or reflect that in regulation, why would it not be in the legislation? Why would the room not be put in the legislation right from the beginning? If needed to be, a simple amendment, if required, is something that goes in a misc bill. Misc bills go through and cover dozens and dozens of pieces of legislation. It doesn’t require any significant amount of time in legislation to go through and be passed, as I’m sure the minister is well aware.

In addition, like I say, I understand the intent to what the minister is suggesting with regards to regulation, but it really is the legislation that sets the signal. If the number is too high, it could always, also, be adjusted or more restricted through regulation as well. It’s why I ask the minister to consider, once again, the amendment. If not, stand down, and have this conversation, and allow it to be adjusted with the time remaining here in the fall sitting.

L. Throness: I want to continue this discussion of fairness and equity by standing up for my rural areas in my riding. I have the Fraser Valley regional district in my riding, which is over 13,000 square kilometres. It’s very large. There are probably about eight rural areas in my riding. I want to give the minister a couple of examples, and then I want to ask a question about a unique circumstance in my riding.

In the village of Harrison Hot Springs, which is an incorporated village, there are probably 1,200 electors. There was a by-election a few years ago, and there were 13 candidates for that by-election. You wonder how they are all going to troll all of their friends in the community to finance their campaigns. On one hand, it’s practically impossible to be noticed without running a fairly aggressive campaign when you have so many running. On the other hand, it’s practically impossible to raise those kinds of funds, given the number of candidates. So, practically speaking, people had to finance their own campaigns, and they should be able to finance their own campaigns.

On the other hand, there are very small communities, for instance, an electoral area. I know the minister is a city person, so maybe she doesn’t have the experience in a very small community. But in a very small community, there are local reputations. They’re very close-knit. They know everybody when they say hi in the street. It might be embarrassing for a candidate to go begging around for money from his or her friends.

This could cause a chill. People just wouldn’t bother running. They would say: “Why should I bother? The pay is minimal. It’s a lot of work and hassle. Why should I go to all that trouble if I have go begging around the community for a few bucks?”

I would point out to the minister that many school trustees around the province in smaller communities are already acclaimed. So I think this kind of a limit on personal expenditures will cause a chill for those who might want to run. That’s not good for democracy in rural B.C.

My question applies to Cultus Lake Park Board, which is in my riding and which is a unique circumstance. It was created by an act called the Cultus Lake Park Act of 1932. I’m wondering if they would be involved or covered by this legislation, because there could be a unique circumstance. They’re about the size of Harrison Hot Springs. If they’re not covered by this act, they could spend $20,000 on their local campaign, and the folks across the river at Harrison Hot Springs would only be able to spend $1,200 on their self-funded campaigns.

[2:10 p.m.]

My question is: would Cultus Lake Park Board and the commissioners therein be involved or covered by this act?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, the Cultus Lake Park Act is an unusual piece. It is covered already in the existing legislation. They’re covered by this legislation.

I do want to provide a couple of comments around…. In a community of 1,200, and the maximum self-contribution is $1,200 — although we are looking to address that in regulation to increase that — that’s $1 a person. That’s a significant amount of money that in my community you wouldn’t actually have.

The member does raise this idea that there are a number of acclamations and that everybody knows everybody. So it invites the question around expenses and how to compete. But the underlying principle is that everybody who puts their name forward — everybody — is playing by the same rules. Everybody has the same rules. And that’s what I think is really important here.

It’s not about those who have a bigger pocketbook. Those who can write a $5,000 cheque to themselves for their campaign don’t have an advantage. We’ve landed on the $1,200. Under regulation, we’re looking at increasing that because we do recognize the challenges that happen when you’re trying to compete from a fundraising perspective. We recognize that that’s a challenge.

In regulation, we want to add that. We believe that should be sufficient. But if it’s not sufficient, if it becomes a challenge or maybe no one takes advantage of it, then we have the opportunity to address that in the regulation. Putting it in the legislation is not the best place to put it.

L. Throness: I’ll simply point out to the minister in response that yes, everybody is playing by the same rules, but they are in vastly different situations. In a practical way, I can see theoretically why the minister would apply the same to everybody in the province, but because of their different situations it makes it unfair and inequitable.

The minister’s desire is to be fair and equitable. She is actually accomplishing the opposite. It seems to me that a regulation would not be able to contradict the act. If the act says $1,200 as a personal limit, how could the regulation say more than that? Could the minister explain that? And why would she not think it appropriate to give the option to a rural politician of having a more reasonable amount to self-fund?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member that the act actually does have the provision that allows us to do exactly that. And I want to point out that while we have heard a variety of issues and views related to self-funded campaigns, most of those are anecdotal. We’ve heard a number of them, and that’s fair enough, but we need data. We need real data, and the election in 2018 will give us that data. Then we’ll be able to adjust accordingly.

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions for the minister as we discuss this amendment further. My first question is that two days ago, when the minister was responding to — I forget — one of the members, he or she mentioned that she saw some constitutional issues or challenges with the amendment as put forward. I was wondering if she might articulate those to us.

Hon. S. Robinson: I wanted to let the member know that we were concerned about some potential issues. I’ve had a chance to get some legal counsel on this. Some of the concerns include the effect of the amendment as drafted is different than what we understand the amendment to be.

Based on legal review, the effect of this amendment is that once a candidate makes a contribution of any amount to their own campaign, then the contribution limit for that candidate’s campaign is $2,400, regardless of who is making the contribution to that candidate. This rule does not limit the $2,400 to an amount that a candidate could provide to their own campaign. It means that any individual can provide up to $2,400 to the candidate’s campaign. So it misses the mark there.

There are also some potential legal questions that have been identified. A significant question is whether it would be justifiable and fair that candidates in the same communities are receiving different treatment on an arbitrary basis. For example, an unendorsed candidate who contributes money to their own campaign has a higher contribution limit of $2,400 while other unendorsed candidates who do not contribute to their campaign have a contribution of $1,200. Because of this question, legal advice would be required.

[2:15 p.m.]

Another question is whether this amendment could be viewed as limiting speech in elections by prohibiting candidates from receiving contributions in certain circumstances. There’s also lack of clarity. For example, what would a candidate do if they ended up spending $1,200 but also received campaign contributions? Would they be required to return the contributions? The proposed amendment also does not identify the consequences of contravening this rule.

The provision really doesn’t fit within the legislative framework. It amends section 30.01, but it does not account for necessary consequential amendments for other sections — or for elections after the 2018 general local elections, if that was the intention. For these reasons alone, we can’t support the amendment.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for her response there.

I’d like to see if I can understand where we are today. Two days ago we had the motion brought forward by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, a motion which initially had something to the tune of $5,000 as a potential for a self-funded campaign.

We discussed this. Obviously, there were some communication issues as to what was being debated when, and we saw this motion, literally, as we were sitting here, and had to work on the fly. There were some discussions — and with great respect and thanks, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: South Thompson — I do apologize. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson. It is true that they tend to sing as one voice. North and South Thompson clearly support each other, and it’s good to see that in the Legislature.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: As my friend from Saanich North and the Islands says: “The Loops.” The Loopsians are very supportive here.

Coming back, then. It was modified to reflect what we were hearing here — that we didn’t know where the number was coming from. We agreed that $2,400 was a number that seemed a little more reasonable. We had some support here. Not everyone in our caucus, but we felt that there was a lot of support emerging into the spirit and concept of this.

We then had a day break and had some time to reflect upon the amendment that was brought forward to us, as the minister was out of town, in Vancouver with the housing announcement, with the Prime Minister, so was unable to attend committee stage at that time.

After some reflection, then, we’re now back to a position where we have the amendment on the floor. The amendment is to allow self-funded campaigns to $2,400. Or at least that’s the intent of the amendment. And I’m grateful for the clarification that the minister has, in terms of some of the issues with the amendment as written and what interpretations could be.

My final question on this, before I decide the direction I’d like to take in terms of my vote. My understanding is the minister has formally committed to introduce regulation that captures the spirit of the intent, because she, too, has heard — like our caucus has, and members opposite had — some concern about the ability of people in, particularly, rural areas, small regions, to self-fund their campaign and not be put at a disadvantage.

A lovely example of this was mentioned by the member for Abbotsford-Mission, who somehow was being used as an example to actually argue against limiting donations, when he’s the most beautiful example of actually supporting limiting donations, because in his case, he never funded his campaigns.

My final point then is: is it correct that the minister has committed to introduce such regulations that have captured the spirit of the discussion so that the 2018 local government elections will be subject to some regulation — which will allow for increased funding by yourself to your own campaign — and that we recognize that after that election, everything will be looked at, and there will be some reflection, using the data to move forward, as we revise legislation or regulations in the months and years ahead?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question. Certainly, I’ve heard from UBCM, and I’ve heard from candidates, and we’ve certainly heard in this House about the self-funding piece, particularly for smaller communities.

I think it’s really important, and what I indicated is that we do understand where members of this House are going and what it is they’re seeking. In taking this approach, I think it’s important that we do make sure that regulation fits within the legal framework of the legislation and that we avoid the legal question marks that were raised by the amendment proposed by the member opposite.

[2:20 p.m.]

Taking all things into consideration, we need to make sure that a regulation…. It needs to fit the importance of monitoring the 2018 local elections to gather information about the nature and extent of self-funded campaigns not just on the contribution side but on the expense side. This is the first time we’re doing that. I know that the members down the way really appreciate having good data, so it’ll be the first time that we’ll actually have this data, which will allow us to reflect on all of these components for local elections.

With all of that in mind, my intention would be to recommend a regulation that provides for candidates to make an additional campaign contribution of up to $1,200 in 2018 to their own campaign, with that being in addition to the regular contribution limit of $1,200, bringing the total in those circumstances to $2,400 for 2018. It provides for some equivalent authority for candidates endorsed by an elector organization, while ensuring that the total additional amount that is provided to an elector organization’s campaign through its endorsed candidates could not be more than $1,200 — again, for a total of $2,400 in 2018 in those circumstances.

What this will do, hon. Member, is it will allow us to adjust to what we’ve been hearing, and it will allow us to do a number of things afterwards, to take a look at all the data to make sure that it’s hitting the mark. If it’s not hitting the mark, if that needs to be increased because we get feedback that that wasn’t quite enough, we can readily do that. Or if we learn that that was too much, then we can scale that back.

The other thing it does — and I think it’s really important — is it allows to us be nimble. Government is not very nimble, generally speaking. So having it in regulation, should there be a by-election and we need to act appropriately and quickly, we can do that. I want to assure the member down the way that that is my intention.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the detailed response, and thank you to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who has brought this issue to this debate here. I am seeing here an agreement coming across party lines on this very important issue. Again, thank you to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, and thank you to the minister for responding in such an informative way.

[2:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, we’re taking a vote on the amendment proposed by the opposition on section 14 of Bill 15.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[2:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

J. Rustad: I’m wondering about section 14, just in broad terms. Has the minister asked for a legal opinion in terms of the constitutional obligations — whether or not it is actually in conflict with the constitutional rights of an individual to express themselves?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the minister that we have taken all the steps that we needed from legal counsel on this.

J. Rustad: Unless the minister is willing to table it, I’m curious as to the advice that legal counsel has given with regards to this section and whether, specifically, it was looked at in terms of its impact, or potential impact, of the constitution to this section.

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, we followed all legal advice given by legal counsel.

J. Rustad: Just as a closing comment with regards to this, I’d be quite curious to see how this will stand up to a constitutional challenge. This is limiting an individual’s right to be able to express themselves, which is enshrined in the constitution. This limits an individual’s ability to be able to do that through what is in this bill. I’m sure the justice ministry looked at it, but I am fairly certain, at some point, this piece of legislation will receive that legal challenge.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind the member opposite that there are contribution limits in many provinces right across this nation of ours. Our legal counsel advises us that we’re certainly okay on this.

J. Rustad: Contribution limits are one thing. The ability for an individual to be able to self-finance is a different issue, and that’s what I believe there is a potential legal argument to be made — limiting a person’s ability to be able to provide their expressions of interest with regards to an election as a candidate.

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said earlier, we’re prepared to address the self-financing question in regulation.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

[2:35 p.m.]

T. Stone: I think the main line of questioning that I wanted to ask the minister on this section…. If I understand correctly, section 17 “prohibits an organization or an individual, other than an eligible individual, from making a sponsorship contribution.” I believe it also “prohibits an organization or an individual from making sponsorship contributions indirectly.”

Why are there no contribution limits for third-party sponsors actually contemplated within this piece of legislation? That is certainly a significant feature of the government’s approach to the provincial campaign finance legislation that is before this House. I’m wondering if the minister could please comment as to why it doesn’t figure at all in this proposed piece of legislation.

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a good question, and I want to acknowledge that. With the fast-approaching 2018 local elections, we just felt it would not be feasible to develop carefully balanced rules that would satisfy both the need for limits and protection of freedom of expression. I also think that the election…. The part of what we have in the existing legislation is that there are some very significant, tight rules around expense limits for third-party sponsors.

I’m going by memory. We’re just looking for the specific details. If I recall, if you’re in a community under 10,000, I want to say it’s $750 that is the most you can spend as a third party, and if you’re in a larger community, it’s 5 percent of the mayoral expense limit. The expense limit is going to keep the spending really limited.

Sorry. In a community that has a population of less than 15,000 people, the directed advertising limit is $750, and in a community that has a population of 15,000 people or more, the directed advertising limit will generally be 5 percent of the mayoral candidate. It really sort of tightens up what the spending is.

After the 2018 election, when we have this data around contribution limits and expense limits, we’ll be in a better position, and we’ll have the time to do the proper consultation to see if we need to address contribution limits for third-party sponsors.

T. Stone: I certainly appreciate the minister’s sense of goodwill on this. I think we all agree that there’s a heck of a lot more work that needs to be done moving forward that will flow from the intent of this particular piece of legislation. I would suggest that having strict limits on the contributions side of things is one thing. But not having provided, to this point, some limits on the spending side of the equation, I think, is a glaring omission.

I just want to again ask the minister directly. Is it not the concern of the minister that third-party organizations out there…? Albeit that they are limited in the direct contributions that they can make, with no limits on how much they can actually raise for themselves, does the minister not worry at all that these third-party organizations may just find other creative ways to influence the political process? This legislation will not place any limits on the amounts that those third-party organizations can raise.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I do think it’s really important to acknowledge that there are very significant differences in the nature of third-party sponsors at the local level and the provincial level. We’ve done some preliminary analysis. Most sponsored advertising in local elections is relatively low in value. For the 2014 local elections, around half of the sponsored third-party advertising was for less than $500. It’s a very, very low value.

This is the very first election. The 2018 election is the first time that there will be disclosure requirements for contributions. We don’t have a whole lot of data, and we need to make an informed decision. I do recognize that that’s a piece of work that we need to do going forward. I want to remind the members that expense limits…. The 2018 general local election will be the first time that we have expense limits, and it will limit how much advertising a third-party sponsor can do.

We’ll have more information going forward, and it’s work that we’re committed to doing after the 2018 local elections.

T. Stone: I would submit that the statistics that the minister references on this point, provincewide, would be skewed in the sense that…. When you’re talking about a small to mid-sized community, of course the quantum of everything is less. The amount that is spent by third-party organizations on advertising and polling and surveys and those kinds of things is significantly less than what you’re going to see in the larger centres.

It is really the larger centres that, I think, have a number of us in the opposition and other stakeholders who have reached out to us concerned — particularly in Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby and Richmond, the large urban centres. Yes, the bill that we passed, our former government passed, in 2014, did provide for very strict election spending limits for third parties. It’s not being followed here with this legislation that actually limits the contributions of what they can spend on third-party efforts, which I’m sure the minister would acknowledge has, even in an indirect way, the potential to influence the outcome of elections, particularly in the large urban centres.

Again, if there is to be no inclusion of such provisions in this piece of legislation, could the minister speak to what the plan would be moving forward — aside from just waiting until the 2018 election comes and goes and we see what happens? There’s a whole year between now and then. Surely, that presents an opportunity to take a look at this issue and to do some work on it. I’m wondering if the minister could speak to what she might have in mind or what she might be thinking in terms of some analysis and some work that I would assume is probably already underway within the ministry.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, if the member opposite was really concerned, then we would have had contribution limits three years ago when we actually did this work. Really, this is quite an undertaking to do. If there were really concerns about contribution limits, we would have had this legislation as part of the entire LECFA piece that was done three years ago.

I want to provide and read into the record the amounts that we’re talking about, given the strict expense limits for third party…. I think that will provide us with some context. Given the current legislation under LECFA, in terms of what a third-party advertiser expense limit is in Vancouver, it’s just over $10,000. In Surrey, it’s just under $10,000. In Prince George, it’s just over $2,000. In Kamloops, the third-party advertiser expense limit is just shy of $3,000. In Kelowna, it’s about $3,700 or $3,800.

The expense limit will help, I think, significantly manage any influence that the member may have. However, we’re going to monitor it very closely. I want to remind the member that this is the very first time we have expense limits like this, and it’s the first time we’re going to have contribution limits. This is work that we’re starting to undertake and monitor to make sure that we have fair and accessible elections right across the province.

[2:45 p.m.]

T. Stone: This will be my final point on this section. I think the piece that we are certainly concerned about, and that we’re hearing from a number of stakeholders, is the fact that this legislation — unlike the provincial legislation, which is also before this House and, I think, passed third reading yesterday — does not provide any contribution limits for third-party organizations.

It’s not the traditional advertising per se that one thinks of that has the potential to significantly influence the outcome of an election. It’s all of the other kinds of efforts and supports that third parties provide. I think of polling. I think of surveys. I think of canvassing. I think of all kinds of effort that is often difficult to put a quantifiable value on. But inadvertently, it can — well, very directly, actually — influence the outcome of an election.

You have a third-party organization that goes out there and does their own surveys or does their own door-knocking and then shares that information, in some form, with a candidate or an elector organization of their choice. There’s no quantification of that whatsoever, in terms of the value that that provides.

I think our concern is with there not being any contribution limits strictly spelled out in this legislation. It leaves it wide open for these third-party organizations to subvert the process and to influence the outcome of elections by providing this in-kind support — if I can reference polling, surveys and door-knocking as examples of that — without any limits on those kinds of contributions being made.

This is dealt with in the provincial legislation. There was a framework there. We appreciate that the provincial framework is a bit different than the local framework, and there are some differences. But surely, third-party influence on elections — whether it’s done at the municipal level, the provincial level, the federal level — is pretty much all the same stuff. Again, we’re talking about polling and door-knocking and canvassing and those kinds of things. We have grave concerns that this concept of contribution limits is not dealt with in this legislation.

I’ll give the minister one more opportunity on this section to perhaps just address the concern that we’re raising here and to maybe give us a bit more of a detailed sense as to what the path forward looks like in her mind, in terms of really addressing these concerns on a go-forward basis.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind the member that when we’re talking about third parties, third-party advertising…. Third parties need to be independent. They can’t gather data and feed it to a particular candidate. Then they’re working for the candidate, and that’s a completely different frame. A third party might be issues related, for example. The work that they are doing might be issue related and not doing work for a candidate.

When we talk about advertising in elections, it’s a form of political expression. It means that any limits on that expression, such as through contribution limits for third-party sponsors, would need to have some considerable complex legal issues. In order to make sure that we aren’t limiting expression, we need to make sure that we’re doing our due diligence.

I want to also remind the member that in the Election Act, a contribution limit applies to advertisers in relation to the entire provincial election. In local elections, a multitude of separate elections are being held simultaneously across the province.

There’s significant work that needs to be done, in consultation, in order to understand how to effectively apply contributions to third-party sponsors who may be advertising in a number of different elections across the province. It’s far more complicated than what you see in a provincial election.

M. Bernier: I know the minister has this experience not only now as a minister but as a local government official. Surely, she must be aware of the fact that third parties could be anything from a not-for-profit society to a union to a professional organization who, actually, can go out there, gather information and share that information with a candidate or an electoral organization of their choice, as the member before me, the critic, was saying. That’s the concern we’re trying to raise here.

[2:50 p.m.]

Is the minister willing to, then, acknowledge on the record that no union is considered a third party? Not to pick on one organization but as an example, ICBA, a union, the Rotary club — anybody who goes out and attains information that is not categorically being recognized through Elections B.C. But that is, in essence, third-party information that could benefit a candidate. I’m kind of curious on the minister’s position there. It’s not addressed within this bill to curb that or hinder it.

Hon. S. Robinson: In order to be considered a third-party sponsor, you have to be independent of any candidate. Elections B.C. is really clear on that.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I know Elections B.C. is really clear about that. The problem is that I don’t see this bill being very clear about that. The reason why I say that…. Will the minister acknowledge…? Is she saying that at no time in the past, in any of the larger communities that have electoral organizations, that a third party of any sort, if they’re gathering information…?

I know she’s saying that they have be independent of the candidate. Absolutely. But the minister knows well that in local government elections, sometimes people will take a paid leave from work. They will go out and actually canvass and door-knock and then share that information they’ve gathered with a candidate. In essence, that is third-party work, because it’s not being covered by the candidates.

I see the minister saying it’s an electoral contribution, but how is that being categorized, then, and how is the minister, in this bill, capturing that, unless it’s self-disclosed? What is stopping a group from going out and doing a survey? What’s stopping a group from gathering 50,000 names of people that they know are like-minded and then just sharing that with an electoral organization to help them do their polling and their data?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, the legislation is very clear that what the member is describing is an election contribution. It’s an in-kind contribution. It needs to be defined, and it needs to be listed as such. A third-party sponsor is something that’s very different. The question we’re being asked in this section is about third-party sponsor, which is very different than in-kind contribution.

A. Olsen: I wanted to point out that in the time that this bill was put on the papers and we’re debating in committee today, there has been considerable…. The Third Party has received a considerable amount of concern raised by those in local government about this piece.

I understand the complexity of it, and I understand that it’s going to take some time. But I also want to acknowledge the fact that the members of the official opposition raise very important points that need to be dealt with. I do want to draw back to the fact that there is going to need to be some time to ensure that we can put in place a framework that addresses this.

I am prepared, and I believe my colleagues are prepared, to give that time. But it does need to be stated on the record that we have heard…. I do have a question here for further in the bill. We are hearing from folks that this is a part that needs to be dealt with.

I hear the minister has stated the complexity of it. I just wanted to insert at this point, as well, that we’re also hearing from folks the concern around donations to third parties.

Hon. S. Robinson: We are hearing concerns as well, so we are committed to monitoring. Again, I want to remind the House that when it comes to third-party sponsors, they are going to be, for the first time ever, subject to very strict expense limits. They, too, need to register, and they need to declare. This is about making sure that everyone declares what is going on.

For a community that has a population of less than 15,000 people, the direct advertising limit is $750. In a community that has a population of more than 15,000 people, the limit is 5 percent of the mayoral candidate expense limit in that corresponding election. In Prince George, that’s $2,200 and change. That’s their expense limit.

Again, there are some strict limits about what can be spent, but we recognize that it’s important to closely monitor. This is going to be the very first election in this province where we actually have expense limits and contribution limits. So there is some real important data for us to gather going forward.

[2:55 p.m.]

T. Stone: I think the point we’re trying to make from the opposition side here — and happy to be joined by the member for Saanich North and the Islands as well — is that we have heard much from all sides in this Legislature in recent weeks and months on the need for campaign finance reform at the provincial level as well as at the local level. We’re proud of the fact that it was our government that brought in the expense limit side of things in local government in 2014.

The minister rightly points out that contribution limits weren’t provided for in that piece. There was an additional consultation exercise that took some time. Having spoken to the UBCM, having spoken to a number of local governments, as I know the minister has as well, I am being told that the framework is really there. It should be there. The feedback has been provided.

I guess the piece we’re concerned about is it seems like there’s a missed opportunity here in the context of this piece of legislation not providing for contribution limits with respect to local elections, and it makes one wonder why. We understand the official response around the complexities of drafting this legislation, and so forth. But if there was ever a time to have moved forward in actually pulling together a framework for contribution limits at the local level, it would be a year before the next local election, recognizing that on four-year terms, the election after that won’t be held for four years hence.

There’s an opportunity to get this right. To simply say to members of the opposition that there are tight expense limits — we know that. We brought the expense limits in. We get that.

What we’re trying to address here is the undue influence that third-party organizations, whether they be unions, whether they be business organizations, have on the political process when it comes to in-kind — well, not even in-kind donations; when it comes activities that are not disclosed that involve knocking on doors, that involve canvassing, that involve doing surveys and sharing that information discreetly with candidates and elector organizations. That is what happens today. We see nothing in this piece of legislation that would curb that or would put any controls around that, because there are no contribution limits provided for here.

In the absence of those contribution limits being provided for today and any immediate willingness on the part of the government to move forward with contribution limits, again, could the minister please provide us with what that road map looks like — if it will be dealt with in regulation, if it will be dealt with in the spring session of the Legislature next year? Let’s get on with it. The municipal elections for 2018 are next November.

Interjection.

T. Stone: October, sorry. Thank you, Minister.

There still would be time to deal with this if we were to deal with it in the spring of 2018, in the Legislature.

Could the minister address that and just give us a sense of what that road map looks like?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I would have thought that this work might have been done, but his government really was not interested in looking at contribution limits — for their own reasons, perhaps. There hadn’t, actually, been significant work done on contribution limits, which I think, historically, should have happened three years ago when we were looking at the expense limits in the first place. That would have provided ample time to do due diligence and proper consultation around third-party sponsors.

What the member is asking for or commenting on is actually not third-party sponsors. We haven’t changed any definitions in this legislation. We’re working with the definitions that have been in this legislation for some time now. For third-party sponsors, and that means people and organizations that are independent, there are some very significant election spending limits that I think are good. I think they’re pretty tight.

[3:00 p.m.]

How that affects contribution limits…. We believe, at this point, that it should help manage any undue influence. We recognize that we don’t have that data because there have never been expense limits in local elections — nothing. It has always been a Wild West. We believe that it should help curtail some of those concerns.

The member’s examples that he was providing were actually not third-party, independent sponsor concerns. Those are what we might call in-kind contributions. All those need to be listed and declared and put in disclosure as part of campaign contributions. Our expectation is that everyone will follow the guidelines as they’re laid out.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

T. Stone: Just wondering if the minister could provide a bit of detail as to exactly what this section is trying to do. My understanding is that section 19 repeals the section that says that a third-party sponsor must not accept a contribution to which the proper recordkeeping has not been done or one the sponsor believes violates the act.

Again, just wondering exactly what that means, particularly in the context of proper recordkeeping. How does this act provide for managing or monitoring what is good recordkeeping and what is not good recordkeeping?

Hon. S. Robinson: The purpose of section 19 is it moves the content of the existing section 35(1) to a new section 34.02 and repeals section 35(1).

Sections 19 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

T. Stone: Just wondering if the minister could please describe how this section would actually provide for the powers that cabinet would have to change the legislation by regulation.

Hon. S. Robinson: This section provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the authority to make regulations in relation to campaign contribution limits and related matters, such as prescribing the elections to which contribution limits apply; prescribing campaign contribution limits as a flat rate or according to the population of the community; prescribing regulations to address issues associated with candidates running in multiple elections or elector organizations endorsing candidates in multiple elections; addressing transitional issues associated with implementing new rules — for example, if a different campaign contribution limit is contemplated.

It also provides that regulations that set out contribution limits must be made on the recommendation of both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Education, which is consistent with the approach of setting expense limits. It ensures the necessary authority and flexibility to enact regulations contemplated throughout the proposed legislation in relation to contribution limits and related matters.

T. Stone: I would say this to the minister. Certainly, as a former minister, I got asked the question often by not necessarily the minister but her colleagues, depending on the piece of legislation that was before this House. It often went something like this, “Why is there such broad authority for cabinet to make fundamental changes to the spirit and the intent of this piece of legislation and to do so through simple regulation?” — as opposed to hard-coding in the legislation those core provisions, which we’re here debating in the House.

[3:05 p.m.]

Essentially, the entire essence of the debate that we’ve had over a couple days now on this particular piece of legislation really doesn’t matter, because at the end of the day, this section authorizes cabinet, through order-in-council to fundamentally alter the core provisions of this piece of legislation.

I’d like the minister to indicate whether or not she shares that view, in practical terms, as to what this section enables government to do and if she thinks that that is appropriate, considering the content that we are discussing here in this piece of legislation.

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important, particularly for this piece of legislation, that we have some flexibility here, that the legislation provides us with the framework, with the rules. I know the member will appreciate this, that we all come from very different kinds of communities — so making sure that we have the ability to adjust and adapt as we learn new things, particularly given that 2018 is a brand-new dawning of an era for local elections, where we’re bringing in expense limits.

I also want to let the member know that this was very important to the UBCM. They really wanted to make sure that there was some flexibility, and this section makes sure that we have that.

Sections 28 and 29 approved.

On section 30.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to section 30 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 30, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Transition – definitions

30 (1) In this Part:

“election amendments” means the following, as applicable:

(a) the amendments made by Part 1 [Local Elections Campaign Financing Act Amendments] of this Act;

(b) the amendments to the Local Elections Campaign Financing Expense Limit Regulation made by a regulation effective the day after the date this Act receives First Reading in the Legislative AssemblyOctober 31, 2017;

“former Act”, means the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act as it read immediately before repeal, replacement or amendment by the applicable provision of the election amendments;

“former provision” means either of the following:

(a) a provision of the former Act;

(b) a provision of the Local Elections Campaign Financing Expense Limit Regulation as it read immediately before repeal, replacement or amendment by the applicable provision of the election amendmentsformer regulation;

“former regulation” means the Local Elections Campaign Financing Expense Limit Regulation as it read immediately before repeal, replacement or amendment by the applicable provision of the election amendments;

“new Act” means the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act as it reads immediately after amendment or enactment by the applicable provision of the election amendments;

“new provision” means either of the following:

(a) a provision of the new Act;

(b) a provision of the Local Elections Campaign Financing Expense Limit Regulation, as it reads the day after the date this Act receives First Reading in the Legislative Assemblyon October 31, 2017.

(2) The following definitions apply to this Part, as necessary to give effect to the meaning of a former provision or a new provision, as applicable:

(a) the definitions in the former Act;

(b) the definitions in the new Act;

(c) the definitions in the Local Elections Campaign Financing Expense Limit Regulation as it read immediately before repeal, replacement or amendment by the applicable provision of the election amendments.

(2) The definitions in the former Act and in the former regulation apply to the extent necessary to give effect to

(a) a word or expression used in this Part but not defined in this Part,

(b) a former provision referred to in this Part, or

(c) any part of a provision of this Part that refers to a thing occurring or a circumstance existing before

(i) the date the applicable section of this Part comes into force, or

(ii) the 2018 general local election.

(3) The definitions in the new Act and in the Local Elections Campaign Financing Expense Limit Regulation, as it reads on October 31, 2017, apply to the extent necessary to give effect to

(a) a word or expression used in this Part but not defined in this Part,

(b) a new provision referred to in this Part, or

(c) any part of a provision of this Part that refers to a thing occurring or a circumstance existing on or after the date the applicable section of this Part comes into force.]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: The amendments to section 30 are technical changes needed to ensure that the transitional provisions work as intended and to provide clarity for interpreting the transitional provisions. That means specifying the actual effective date of the new provisions as October 31, 2017. That also means ensuring that definitions from both the current act and regulation and the newly amended act and regulation apply to the transitional provisions as needed.

T. Stone: Just again, I want to really clarify that the spirit and the intent of these amendments to section 30 are purely to fix drafting errors and to make the legislation consistent with the related regulation. My reading of these amendments is that they don’t appear to, in any substantive way, change the intent or the function of the legislation. They’re more just to fix some drafting errors.

Could the minister just confirm that I’m correct in my understanding?

Hon. S. Robinson: It is technical. The definitions are necessary for the proper interpretation of the transitional provisions of the bill and to ensure that the policy does work as intended.

Amendment approved.

Section 30 as amended approved.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

On section 33.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to section 33 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 33, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Transition – regulations

33 (1) For the purpose of making the amendments referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of “election amendments” in section 30 (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations retroactive to the day after the date this Act receives First Reading in the Legislative Assembly October 31, 2017.]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a technical amendment to make it clear for local election participants and the public when the amendments to the regulation that accompanies LECFA will apply, and that is as of October 31, 2017.

Amendment approved.

On section 33 as amended.

T. Stone: On section 33, my question would be this. Again, this is a section that contemplates the potential for retroactive regulations. I’m just wondering if the minister could share with the House what regulatory changes the minister might be contemplating with respect to the introduction of this bill. What regulatory changes would be retroactive under this particular section?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question, because this is always very fascinating. We need to make sure that the effective application of all new rules established by these amendments all work together. It’ll be the legislation and the regulation all meshed together so that we have a properly functioning policy.

[3:10 p.m.]

T. Stone: Just to confirm, then, the minister has no plans, or there are no plans of government, at this point, to bring forward any regulations in a retroactive manner that would be significant in any policy manner or that would have a significant impact on the spirit or the intent of this legislation.

Hon. S. Robinson: If I think I understand what the member is getting at, these are all consequential. It’s all about fitting together. There’s nothing else beyond what we have talked about in this House.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

On section 37.

T. Stone: Section 37 essentially allows for the use of contributions received before this act comes into force to be used in the next election. This is a very different approach to the same section in the provincial campaign finance reform legislation.

I’m wondering if the minister could explain to this House why, while on the provincial campaign finance side there are very, very strict limits that have been imposed in the use of funds raised under a previous set of rules, whereby now, on the local government campaign finance front, funds that have been raised…. Some would say that, particularly, certain elector organizations have raised a lot of money under the old set of rules — or the current set, until this bill comes into force — and will be able to spend that money, albeit within the constraints of the spending limits.

Why do this section and this piece of legislation not provide for the same approach in terms of restricting the use of funds raised to this point by candidates or elector organizations, which has certainly been the policy approach of the government when it comes to provincial campaign finance reform?

Hon. S. Robinson: First, I think it’s important to recognize that there are over 250 different elections in the province that will be taking place in October. That’s a very significant number of different elections. So while we’ve looked at the framework set out provincially, we also recognize that it’s also very different. There is well over a thousand — 3,300 — candidates that will be participating. So it creates some sort of logistical challenges.

We also recognize that, for the first time ever in local elections, there are going to be expense limits, which previously have never existed. So it is quite a different beast. And with local elections just around the corner, we’re responding to the requests of local governments and the people they represent and taking the opportunity to level the playing field now.

I would have preferred that this had been done originally, when we were considering expense limits, because that’s really when this work should have happened. We’re doing it now, because British Columbians wanted contribution limits. We’re also recognizing that we needed to take into consideration balancing fairness for local election participants. So for this reason, we haven’t required that they…. We’re permitting the use of existing contributions.

T. Stone: While I acknowledge that there are 3,300 candidates around the province, or whatever the number was that the member threw out there, for the last local elections — that’s true — there are very few school board candidates or municipal candidates, regional district candidates that have been out there amassing war chests for the next election. I think that most members of this House would have to agree with that assertion.

[3:15 p.m.]

On the other hand, there are a number of elector organizations in a very small number of municipalities, largely centered in the Lower Mainland, organizations that have been out there amassing huge war chests for this forthcoming election.

The government saw fit, for reasons known to them, to put very strict rules in place that largely forbid the expenditure of dollars that were raised in good faith, that were raised lawfully, that were raised for provincial elections, based on a set of rules that existed at that time, yet they seem to be once again opting to hide behind this sense of: “Well, the work hasn’t been done yet, and we need to see how it goes.”

Why has the government not taken similar action on this particular issue when they managed to find the time, engage the drafters, do everything that needed to be done to bring legislation in front of this House that deals with exactly this same issue in a very different way at the provincial level?

Hon. S. Robinson: While the framework is the same, the implementation is different, because once again, we’re talking about 250 different elections. Provincially, we’re talking about one election. We’re also talking about…. This work should have been done three years ago, and it wasn’t. So having only 11 months to bring everyone up to speed on some new rules is certainly going to be a challenge in and of itself with 3,300 candidates expected, because that’s what we’ve seen over the last number of elections. We’re talking about thousands of individuals, getting them up to speed, making sure they understand the rules.

This is a transition to a whole bunch of new things that are brand-new for local elections. And we want to make sure that we are addressing, also in a very pragmatic way, on how to move forward. This is a step in moving in that direction.

I also want to point out that, provincially, it’s a four-year gap before the next election, and in local elections it’s 11 months. So making sure that we can bring everyone on side and making sure that everybody knows new rules is a significant undertaking. Our staff are doing that. UBCM is doing that. Elections B.C. is doing that. But it’s a significant undertaking. Making sure that people understand what the rules are is really important, and we just don’t, frankly, have enough time to do all the things that need to be done. If this had been done three years ago, we might be in a different place.

T. Stone: Well, again, the minister and the government managed to find the time to do all the work that needed to be done to provide for this provision in the provincial campaign finance reform legislation that was brought before this House. The provincial election provides for hundreds of people seeking office around the province, so whether you’re talking hundreds or whether you’re talking 3,300, the issue is exactly the same. One would think that, if nothing else, on principle, the government would be applying the same approach to their local government campaign finance reform on this issue, as they would be on the provincial side of the equation.

I’m wondering if the minister has engaged with any of the electoral organizations in question. If she could tell me who those electoral organizations are, if she’s talked with any of them about this particular issue, if she received any feedback from electoral organizations who were either advocating for the ability to spend the money that they’ve already raised or who thought that it would be a good idea to bring in limits that would restrict the use of those funds. Which electoral organizations has the minister reached out to and had these conversations with about this particular piece of the legislation?

Hon. S. Robinson: The people that I’ve been speaking with about this have been the B.C. school trustees, Elections B.C. and the UBCM, making sure that they all understood and that they had an opportunity to provide some feedback about where we were going with this legislation and so that it made sense to them. There was certainly some understanding that not requiring people to give back contributions was an important piece of those discussions.

[3:20 p.m.]

T. Stone: I think all of us would expect…. Those are a number of the key stakeholders. But my question to the minister was: which elector organizations has she spoken to in the context of this legislation, and what was the feedback that she received?

Hon. S. Robinson: I haven’t spoken to any elector organizations about this at all.

T. Stone: Does the minister then feel, having not spoken to any of the elector organizations with respect to whether or not they can spend money that has been raised to this point, that that reflects a good public policy development? This is a fundamental difference from their approach on the provincial side. So I would like the minister to explain: why hasn’t she spoken to any elector organizations about this particular provision of the legislation?

Hon. S. Robinson: The elector organizations are treated just like any other group. We did all of our consultations through the UBCM, which is the proper place to be doing this consultation.

T. Stone: Is the minister aware of how much fundraising elector organizations anywhere in the Lower Mainland, or elsewhere in the province, have actually engaged in up to this particular point, in anticipation of the 2018 municipal elections?

Hon. S. Robinson: With the disclosure requirements, elector organizations, individuals or anyone who is running will be required to disclose where their contributions came from, regardless of when they received those contributions. So the public will be able to see exactly where those contributions came from.

T. Stone: I think the issue that we have with this is…. It’s not the disclosure that we’re concerned about. Of course we know it’ll be disclosed. It’s actually that they’re going to be able to use it.

If you adopt the same principles that the minister and her government employed on the provincial side…. Suddenly, money that was raised lawfully, based on a set of rules that existed at that time, was money that cannot be touched for the purposes of provincial election campaigns. It is perplexing as to why the government would not be applying the same principled approach to the dollars that have been raised up to this point, whether by elector organizations or candidates.

We would suggest that this actually has the effect of significantly disadvantaging independent candidates and folks that might run on slates that are loosely affiliated. They might share some common views on a few things but don’t have the financial wherewithal that an elector organization might have because they’ve amassed a huge war chest in preparation of the 2018 local elections.

Furthermore, one would surmise — very cynically, potentially — that the government may not be acting on this because the municipal election is a year away and there are very strong relationships between her government and a particular elector organization in Vancouver. I’m wondering if the minister could comment on whether or not she feels that independent candidates, those that are not affiliated with any of these large elector organizations in the Lower Mainland, are at a disadvantage for the 2018 local elections based on the fact that she and her government are going to allow, through this legislation, the elector organizations, which have amassed huge war chests up to this point, to actually expend those funds.

Again, it’s a very different approach from the very strict limits that, coincidentally, her government has brought in as part of their provincial campaign finance reform.

Hon. S. Robinson: I will read from this legislation that we treat candidates and elector organizations the same: “a candidate or elector organization may use a campaign contribution for campaign use in relation to the 2018 general local election if the campaign contribution was (i) received before the date this section comes into force, and (ii) made by an individual or organization.”

[3:25 p.m.]

We’re really obligated to treat them the same. Whether you’re an elector organization or an individual, you are treated equally. That was really important going forward.

Again, while there was certainly a framework that was shared…. The electorate told us they wanted to get big money out of their democracy. That’s what we said we would do, and that’s what we’re doing with this legislation, because that’s really important to British Columbians. How to do it is different between different kinds of elections. The provincial structures are very different from local elections.

We just spent a considerable amount of time talking about small communities and making sure that people are treated equally. This is about fairness and making sure that we have that level playing field.

T. Stone: Well, for the minister to suggest that this bill entirely accomplishes the task of getting big money out of municipal election campaigns…. This is an area where the bill fails that. There have been huge amounts of dollars raised by elector organizations in the Lower Mainland, a lot of it from corporate and union contributions. Huge amounts.

I would like the minister to explain how she believes that getting big money out of municipal election campaigns could possibly be reflected in an omission in the legislation which actually provides for huge amounts of dollars raised from corporate funds and union funds to this point to be okay to spend.

Her government took a very different approach to this on the provincial side. It carved out the time, lined up the drafters, made the policy decisions, had the political conversations — did everything to bring that provincial campaign finance reform legislation into this House. Yet when it comes to the municipal piece, this is a glaring omission that….

Granted, it bans union and corporate donations. The minister says it provides candidates and elector organizations, everyone, equally with respect to expense limits. We get all that. The point is that there are elector organizations in the Lower Mainland that have amassed huge war chests with corporate and union contributions. The minister knows it, yet this legislation does not prevent those funds from being expended in an election campaign.

How is that removing the influence of corporations and unions from the municipal political process in the Lower Mainland?

Hon. S. Robinson: I don’t know who has what money. I believe the NPA, also, in all likelihood, has a significant war chest. I have no idea. I would imagine that people have been doing what they have always been doing, because three years ago the previous government had the opportunity to address this and refused.

So here we are, less than a year away, doing the best we can, with the situation that we’re in, to make sure that going forward, we address a glaring omission that the previous government made. We are creating this transition with just 11 months before the next election, to make sure that we have a new dawn, a new era, that addresses the very issue that the previous government neglected to do.

T. Stone: The rules are changing. We get it that. The rules have also changed on the provincial side. We get that, and we support that. I know it’s probably the case for most members of this House, in terms of the next provincial election campaign…. A lot of members in this House had, to this point, raised dollars towards their next election campaign and raised those dollars as per the rules that existed at that time and did so very lawfully and in good faith, with businesses and union donations and individual donations and so forth. Yet the government saw fit to change the campaign finance reform rules on this point by making the new rules retroactive — forever, forevermore.

The government sees no issue in doing that whatsoever. Fair enough. We understand that those are the new rules moving forward, and everyone has to adapt. I’m not hearing an explanation as to why that same approach was not employed with respect to the local campaign finance reform legislation in front of the House.

[3:30 p.m.]

There are electoral organizations that have amassed huge war chests from corporate and union donations. They will be able to expend those dollars, which, I would argue, especially in the context of the new framework moving forward, will place many other candidates at a significant disadvantage.

Again to the minister: why not get big money completely out of local government elections for the 2018 election by applying a retroactivity to the funds that were raised by candidates and elector organizations to this point?

Hon. S. Robinson: This was a timing issue, given that we are so close to the next local elections. We also wanted to make sure that we had the opportunity to educate people about these changes, and this was a decision based on timing.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

T. Stone: Thank you, Minister. Could I then ask if the minister has folks in her ministry actually working on this now? Is there a process that will unfold with respect to stakeholder engagement, including with elector organizations, that will be looking at this very question moving forward?

Is this something that the minister is prepared to try and address, perhaps through a legislative amendment in the spring session of the Legislature next year, that would truly remove big money from local elections in time for the next local election in October of 2018?

Hon. S. Robinson: There’s considerable investment in the ministry, the UBCM and Elections B.C. in terms of educating people about the new rules. The new rules come into effect for October 31, 2017.

Sections 37 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to section 40 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 40, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Transition – disclosure requirements for contributor class

(2) Despite the election amendments, a disclosure statement for a candidate, elector organization and third party sponsor in relation to the 2018 general local election must include the following information for each previous contributionrespecting previous contributions as if a former provision respecting the inclusion of information in the disclosure statement applied:

(a) the total value of each contribution the contributions in each contributor class, other than the anonymous contributor class;

(b) if applicable, the total value of campaign contributions received through fundraising functions and the total number of contributors that made those contributions.;

(c) for each contribution made to a candidate or elector organization by a significant contributor,

(i) the information referred to in section 29 (1) (a) to (d) of the former Act, other than the mailing address of an individual, and

(ii) any applicable information referred to in section 29 (1) (e) of the former Act and section 17 of the former regulation, other than the mailing address of an individual;

(d) for each contribution made to a third party sponsor by a significant contributor,

(i) the information referred to in section 36 (1) (a) to (d) of the former Act, other than the mailing address of an individual, and

(ii) any applicable information referred to in section 36 (1) (e) of the former Act and section 22 of the former regulation, other than the mailing address of an individual.]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: The amendments to the section are technical changes to ensure clarity about how contributions received before the new rules take effect are required to be disclosed, making it very clear that existing disclosure requirements continue to apply to contributions received before the proposed new rules take effect.

Amendment approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

Section 41 approved.

On section 42.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to section 42 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 42, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Commencement

42 The provisions of this Act referred to in column 1 of the following table come into force as set out in column 2 of the table:

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: This technical amendment clarifies the date that the rules contained in this bill will take effect, namely October 31, 2017.

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:33 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:35 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 15 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
CAMPAIGN FINANCING
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

The Chair: Mr. Speaker, the committee on Bill 15 reports the bill complete with amendments.

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

Hon. S. Robinson: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 15, Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
CAMPAIGN FINANCING
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Bill 15, Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 6.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum Act, 2018.

I’ve always paid attention to current events. Even as a little kid, current events certainly were interesting to me. Watching the news — I’m dating myself — you might recall listening to Walter Cronkite and wondering what was going on. My parents always talked at the dinner table. More specifically, my dad talked a lot. All the kids and all the family were encouraged to be part of that conversation, and I was certainly always interested.

I suspect that that is a common history in this House — in many ways, a common entry into how we all began our journey into this chamber. We had an engaged family, perhaps. We paid attention to what was happening in politics. All that leads to being involved. After all, as an old Pemberton farmer once told me, the world is in fact run by those who show up.

I became involved in the late ’90s in the Pemberton Valley dyking district. Back in those days, we had a flooding situation that was unresolved and, as many in this House well recognize, that issue remains, substantially, still the situation. In fact, to divert a little bit, over the last few days — with these rain-on-snow events, significant rainfall events and the impact of climate change — I’ve been very much paying attention to what’s been happening in Pemberton. Especially in the Mount Currie area, rain-on-snow events can be a very, very concerning time. But I digress.

In terms of my involvement with the Pemberton Valley dyking district, it was a trustee position, my first elected public office, almost press-ganged into service. This happens in small communities — one of those issues where there is a risk both in showing up or in not showing up. In this case, it was one of those showing-up situations.

In 2003, when the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was formed, and discussion of proportional representation was on the table, I was very much interested. I participated and debated, both internally and externally. I would have very much liked to have been part of that citizens’ assembly — unfortunately, without luck. However, this was the beginning of a formal process to discuss and recommend the merits of electoral reform — a piece which is very much missing today. There seems little to no process. But what happened in 2003 was amazing, and I’d like to take a little bit of time to describe some of that process.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now, in order to get it right, I’ll be quoting on and off from what I think we all recognize as the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia. Bear with me and know that I am cribbing a little bit here.

The citizens’ assembly was delegated to investigate changes to the provincial electoral system. The assembly was composed of randomly selected citizens, two from each of the province’s 79 electoral districts — one man and one woman — plus two Aboriginal members and a chair, for a total of 161 members. Assembly members were selected by civic lottery to ensure a gender balance and fair representation by age group and geographical distribution of the population — all, I think it’s fair to say, a very good start.

In 2004, the assembly went through a 12-week learning phase involving presentations by experts, group discussions and access to a range of source materials. Work included a review of different electoral systems in usage around the world and their various effects on the political process. In other words, they spent some time getting educated and knowledgable on what I think we all recognize is a very complex subject, a laudable approach. It’s unfortunate that none of this is going to happen this time.

This was followed by a public consultation phase that could best be described, in this case, in the current situation, as superficial in the extreme, because this is a process in a bit of a black box, and a built-to-suit box at that. Anyway, the assembly held over 50 public hearings and received a total of 1,603 submissions.

Then, in a rather transparent form, unlike the current process, members then deliberated over which electoral system to recommend, emphasizing three values deemed most important — fairness of representation, local representation and voter choice — clearly, not the values that are being debated today. I’m hard pressed to imagine that there are honourable values at the heart of this discussion. The values that dominate here seem to be self-interest, with a bit of a sleight of hand in that the end evidently justifies the means, and these means are pretty contemptuous.

A separate final report on the work of the assembly was submitted to the Legislature by the Special Committee on the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in February of 2005 right here in this Legislature. No chance of that happening this time or of us ever really understanding how this is going to work. The best we can do in terms of getting a glimpse of the decision-making process is that in several decades, some of the cabinet documents might be released. It’s a wonder we don’t feel particularly confident of the process. One has to ask: what have they got to hide?

Anyway, for a citizens’ coalition to get this point, though, seemed to me a thoughtful, balanced and representative process. I respected it, so I felt informed. I came away thinking, “PR, hmm. Hey, what’s not to like,” and with a great slogan: “Make every vote count.” Even if I didn’t understand how those votes were counted in an STV…. I don’t know. Did I really need to know?

The referendum of 2005 was held in conjunction with the provincial election, and in that referendum, I voted for STV, as did many others. In 2005, 97 percent of the ridings and 57 percent of the population voted in favour, but because the threshold was 60 percent popular support and that threshold wasn’t met, the results weren’t binding on government.

Clearly, there was an interest, a real public interest, and government decided to put it back to referendum in conjunction with the 2009 general election. To be binding, similar to 2005, the referendum required 60 percent overall approval and 50 percent approval in at least 60 percent of the province’s electoral districts, which reflects the diversity and the nature of British Columbia. Unlike today, where it’s 50 percent plus one, and Vancouver can take it all. It’s hard not to just shake your head at that process.

[3:45 p.m.]

Addressing concerns that were expressed in the first referendum campaign, voters were able in the second to consult a map — what a concept — of proposed electoral boundaries under the BCSTV system, and advocacy groups were given some public funding to campaign for and against the system.

Now, in the years between 2005 and 2009, I had become a mayor. I became the mayor of Pemberton and, as well, a municipal representative on the Squamish-Lillooet regional district board — which, interestingly, is a jurisdiction, in fact a version of my current riding of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Similar, anyway.

The point is that my understanding, in that intervening time, and appreciation of the impacts of proportional representation had in fact changed. I realized I needed my provincial and my federal representative to have accountability. I needed a designated representative, someone who is connected directly to my community of interest.

I needed to know who would be the best choice as a representative of the interests of Pemberton or the interests of the Sea to Sky. Who understands and is connected to our issues? Who is most engaged? Who will best bring our interests to Victoria or to Ottawa?

Over time, the system had worked, as it stands, for better or worse, but we were assured that the local interest was represented because we knew who to call to account. We had our MLA. The regional representative was identifiable. If there was an important local issue, we knew who to call. I knew who my MLA was, and she knew me. She knew if she didn’t get the job done, there was a direct line of accountability.

My thinking had shifted over that time. Making every vote count with STV had become less important to me than ensuring that I had an elected representative I knew was mine and was accountable to the people who live in my community.

Under proportional representation, in whatever form may manifest itself over time — which we have no idea, because there is no process — supporters of proportional representation will say: “Hey, it’s great. You have plenty of choices.” In the case of PR, if the proposal is like anything in the past or what we’re likely to see, in our case, we’ll have five MLAs. A likely scenario would be West Vancouver–Sea to Sky combined with North Vancouver–Seymour, North Vancouver–Lonsdale, West Vancouver–Capilano and, added for good measure, Powell River–Sunshine Coast, or some kind of version of that. Alas, none would be accountable to the community.

The riding would no longer be 13,000 square kilometres and 20 different communities of various sizes who know who their MLA is, who know who is responsible to work on all of their behalf and who they can call to account if the job doesn’t get done. Instead, we’ll have a riding with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people; dozens and dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of communities of interest; over 40,000 or 50,000 square kilometres, which may even be dwarfed in certain situations. You look up north, and we could see a riding that consisted of half the province. A constituent will have to shop their issue around.

An election will have dozens and dozens and dozens of candidates, who will likely focus on areas of population density. Communicating with voters in an urban area is a much different scenario and a much easier scenario. When you’re looking at 33 feet door to door versus 3,300 or 33,000 feet between properties, it makes quite a different experience.

[3:50 p.m.]

How would these people, these potential candidates or MLAs, begin to understand the incredible complexity and nuance of such diversity? It’s just not realistic. In our case, the five MLAs elected, if they are not all from urban centres, that result would be a miracle. There is no doubt in my mind that the population centre of the North Shore will elect the successful candidates, and the rest of the riding will, for all intents and purposes, become irrelevant. This just doesn’t work.

By the time of the second referendum in 2009, people had had time to reflect. Throughout the province, they began to more clearly understand the reality of what was being proposed, and I include myself in that. I certainly had a different perspective. I just couldn’t see how 15,000 people, between Pemberton and Whistler, out of 250,000 people in a riding, would play a big part in anyone’s campaign. It just defied logic. I began to appreciate and understand the importance and the interest of the local need. I better understood what was at stake for areas outside of urban British Columbia, as did many others.

The outcome in 2009 was that the provincial voters defeated the proposed changes with only 39 percent in support. I believe that a realization of the reality of the proposed ridings and the alienation of community was seen as a step in the wrong direction and had huge and unintended consequences. People had made a second but, more importantly, a more informed decision.

You can probably tell — I don’t think it will be a surprise — that I can’t in all good conscience support the proposed changes outlined in Bill 6. Please don’t get me wrong. It’s not that I couldn’t see my way to changes in the system, but I insist on a public process that is well understood by an informed citizenry, and this is not that. What is being proposed in Bill 6 is, simply stated, cynical political manipulation.

Within the STV debate and the citizens’ assembly, there was a transparent process. We knew how we were going to get to a decision point — with a public process, with safeguards and thresholds, with understanding and reflecting the interests of the whole province, beginning with the selection process for the citizens’ assembly, with a riding threshold and a series of considered options.

Today all that is out the door, tossed like trash. Today it is the manipulation of political power, no reflection on the whole provincial interest. How the government members from outside Metro Vancouver can continue to mindlessly support this travesty is, frankly, hard to fathom.

The Attorney General was quite clear in his presentation on this bill. This is enabling legislation. In other words, it enables the government through order-in-council to make up the rules. That’s exactly what it does. They can make up the rules. They can decide the parameters. They can fix the issue as far as they are concerned, behind closed doors, in a secret cabinet cabal. It is cynical beyond belief.

This is a government that has put everything into a study, a consultation, a fact-finding mission. But the one issue that is fundamental to our democracy, the issue that will overturn over 100 years of democratic process, is going to be decided behind closed doors in secret. Everything else is put to consultation, but not electoral reform. It is fantastical in its hubris.

Compare this to the 2003 electoral reform process. Really, there is little to compare, because you will not find any process here. This is political calculation. It is disgraceful in its blatant calculation and disregard for process. This calculated manipulation of the fundamentals of the electoral system is built on the sanctimony of this government and the avaricious Third Party partner and is ugly in its hypocritical holiness. Maybe all that time in opposition did that to this gang of intrigue. Whatever it is, it is not a pretty sight.

The rhetoric from government is that opposition deserves to be disregarded. “After all,” the NDP say, “you deserve everything you get, because 60 percent of the people voted against you.” Well, guess what. The NDP should look in the mirror and understand that 60 percent of the people voted against them, and they should pay attention to that.

Their attitude is pure hubris, overstated and inflated, full of pride, a bullying and belligerent attitude, which for the public should be an unsettling place for government to be coming from.

[3:55 p.m.]

This is the government that claimed to be fresh, had a new mandate, a mandate do things differently. How many times have we heard that? Well, over the last few months, less and less, as they realized that what’s new is better described as sanctimony.

I’ve heard the members of the government and the Third Party get to their feet and pontificate on a new era, on how they were elected to do it differently. Then they proceed to spend ten minutes drooling vitriol on the floor on this side of the House, blissful of their ignorance and the irony and the disingenuous nature of the comments. Disingenuous is what it is, and a facade of virtue. It’s a bit much, to paraphrase the Minister of Finance, a bit much.

An example that comes to mind that rankles me and continues to rankle me was that government was fresh. It was in the first month or two after the swearing in of executive council. An All Chiefs meeting was taking place.

This is a meeting of First Nations leaders from around the province held in Vancouver, an event that Premier Christy Clark and the B.C. Liberals started in 2014. An All Chiefs Gathering was to allow direct discussion among key decision-makers and give aboriginal leaders and provincial cabinet ministers an opportunity for face-to-face discussions.

Well, I wanted to attend. I have many First Nations communities in my riding and felt that this was a valuable opportunity to build relationships with those First Nations and cabinet members in the same way that UBCM is an important opportunity to work with local government elected officials and cabinet members. But in 2014, I was informed that the meeting was only open to cabinet and chiefs. And that’s the way it was, cabinet and chiefs. I can’t say I liked it, but that’s the way it was.

Well, there is a new way now. The new way of doing things is quite different indeed. The invitation to the All Chiefs meeting was extended to the First Nations, obviously; the cabinet; oh, and the Green caucus; oh, and the government caucus. Who wasn’t invited? The opposition.

Yes, this is a new way of governing. Invite everyone but exclude the opposition caucus. Yeah, that’s a new way of doing business, and it certainly speaks volumes. It demonstrates that this government is disingenuous. It says one thing and does another. It is self-serving, and it is hypocritical.

This group of insiders wants us to trust them to make the most fundamental and profound change to the fabric of our democracy in living memory. They want us to leave it to a backroom deal without public process to serve their own interests. Unbelievable.

There is no citizens’ coalition. There is no transparent process. There’s a threshold that ignores the vast majority of British Columbia, that puts all the power into Metro Vancouver. It is a secret backroom deal that will destroy regional representation and marginalize the bulk of British Columbia.

There was a map that was circulating a while back. Represented on that map of B.C., it depicts what was proposed: a little blotch of colour around Metro Vancouver, 1 percent of the land base or so. That 1 percent, to some degree, doesn’t perhaps understand or appreciate the issues and concerns of the vast and remaining 99 percent of the landscape. But they’re the ones who are going to be making the decision. Truly, what is proposed is more than concerning. It is outrageous.

For me, this approach is astounding, for a government that seems to be so keen on study and consultation, where ride-sourcing has been banished for years to consultantville, where Site C continues to be under review, where recreational marijuana implementation and B.C. cannabis regulation engagement is taking place, where the Massey Tunnel has gone into unfathomable cancellation obfuscation, where ICBC has entered into an NDP review black hole, where the housing crisis is evidently being worked on and consulted on and where child care consultations are proceeding or are purported to be proceeding.

[4:00 p.m.]

Well, these are important issues that the government claims, and rightly so, that they want to get right. I agree. We do need to get it right. But to implement a fundamental change to our most basic institution, to be manipulated in a backroom in a black box without observable process…. A cynic would rightly say it’s the politics of the Greens and the NDP, whose interests are held paramount.

We all understand that this is the unfortunate imperative of the coalition. I do appreciate the merit of a reconsideration of our electoral system, especially in urban settings. My concerns arise from how we are proposing to get there. The approach is severely flawed.

What is proposed is simply self-serving, yet momentous in its impact on the people of British Columbia. This is about maintaining the GreenDP power-sharing arrangement in perpetuity. We must get beyond this crass power grab.

I urge private members on the government side to sit up and pay attention and represent the people of the ridings and of the province. Put in place a consultative process that sees the light of day. Get rid of the secret backroom manipulation that is out of the disinfectant of light and inspection — a process that feels corrupt.

Government private members, please support your communities, and put in place an electoral reform process, so we can be confident as the public that what is being proposed is fair to all British Columbians. The regional representation and accountability are real and remain a foundation of elected representation.

Look at the citizens’ assembly for inspiration. Shine a light on the process. It’s far too important to do in secret, in the dark, in suspect circumstances with opaque motives.

In all good conscience, I cannot support this bill. And I plead with members opposite to put a more critical lens on your support. Understand the legacy. Know that something this important must not just be done right, but must be seen to be done right. And on both counts, this bill fails.

S. Sullivan: I’m happy to speak to this bill on proportional representation. I’m not going to dwell so much on the merits of the system, except to emphasize why we need to be cautious about going down this path.

I want to share some thoughts on good process. I’ve been looking through different papers and books on good procedures for making constitutional changes. It seems like the gold standard is a book by Christopher Zurn on democratic constitutional change — assessing institutional possibilities.

He argues that “democratic forms of constitutional change embody six distinct ideals.” These are really the gold standard. They are “operationalizability, structural independence, democratic co-authorship, political equality, inclusive sensitivity and reasons-responsiveness. And that we should strive to reach all of these ideals. These really “gauge the normative worth of different mechanisms for carrying out change.”

This paper focuses on the importance of constitutional change and how different it is from regular decisions that we might make in this chamber. So the ideal that we want to strive for is a “deliberative democratic constitutionalism.” It stresses two commitments: the commitment to “democratic processes of constitutional development, adoption and ongoing transformation and to deliberative, interpretive democratic procedures.”

[4:05 p.m.]

This framework is really made to help guide bodies like ours into making the best decisions and coming up with the best processes for the decisions. So the ideal that we want to strive for is deliberative democratic constitutionalism.

The basic idea is that political arrangements are legitimate to the extent to which they achieve a normative concept. For the purposes that we’re speaking about here, there are a number of points that we should take into consideration. “First, constitutional democracy is the preferred form of political arrangement. Second, democratic procedures must be constitutionally secured. That is, they must be more secured against being changed by political actors than the first-order policies those actors decide upon through using these procedures.”

This body, this chamber, will make decisions on many issues, and there are many safeguards that have been put in place to make sure that that’s not easily done. That has to go through proper process. But those are the first-order issues that we deal with.

There is a second-order decision that we make. That is how we make those decisions, how we actually make those first-order decisions. They must be more difficult. There is a higher standard that we have to achieve when we strive to reach those.

There is another main principle that we should look at, which is:

“The constitutionalized procedures must themselves be alterable through democratic means. Fourth, both the ordinary democratic procedures, which are constitutionally secured, and the procedures for democratic alteration of the constitution must be systematically linked to and dependent upon inclusive and diverse public spheres of debate and deliberation that foster wide participation across multiple sites and result in high-quality processes of knowledge and opinion.”

Looking at what is going on here in Bill 6 and comparing it to the gold standard of how to make democratic changes in your constitution, clearly, there are some real issues that we have to look at. The “political arrangements should be democratic…in order to be legitimate,” but we need to consider what that actually means. The political arrangements must somehow allow those persons subject to the laws “to understand themselves simultaneously as co-authors of those laws.”

This idea is, certainly, “clearly articulated in Rousseau’s conception of freedom as autonomy. In order to be both free and under laws, one must, in some sense, be the author of those laws one is subject to. But if individuals are to live with others with the same laws applying to all, then individuals can only be free to the extent which they can understand themselves as giving themselves their own laws in a collective process.” Certainly, “this is a demanding ideal,” but it is something we should strive for, especially when we are deliberating on the way we make decisions in a body like this.

[4:10 p.m.]

One of the ideals that we need to strive for is proceduralism. This is one of the solutions to this idea of how we can be co-authors of constitutional change. It needs common rules. It would simply be for all subjects to already agree on all matters relevant to the political decisions in order for these to be legitimate.

“Given, then, the circumstances of politics as we know them, the need for collective decisions and persistent reasonable disagreement on matters of political substance, and given our commitment to democratic co-authorship as a key criterion of legitimacy, there is little hope that citizens’ substantive agreement with the outcomes of political processes could be a reliable source for the legitimacy of the political arrangements.”

“In short, a substantialist understanding of democratic legitimacy” simply seems difficult to achieve. “One that gauges the moral worthiness of the outcomes of democratic processes.... Citizens of contemporary pluralistic societies simply can’t be expected to agree on these kinds of standards.”

“In the face of reasonable but persistent disagreement, where we nevertheless need to make collective decisions…. The procedures of democratic co-legislation then hold out the promise for citizens to be able to understand themselves” — both as authors and as people who are governed by laws.

The issue of coming up with a proper procedure that is democratically legitimate, as we need to put a stress on having good procedures…. I suggest that what we’re dealing with in this situation does not meet the gold standards that are recommended here by one of the foremost authorities on constitutional change.

“This criterion is best met in a formal distinction between fundamental and ordinary law.” This idea that what we do here is ordinary law, but there is something even higher, a higher order than that, which is fundamental law, and securing that distinction through making fundamental law more difficult to change than ordinary law. “Revisability entails that even constitutional essentials should not be impossible to change in the future.”

There’s a critical importance for a well-structured democratic procedure to change fundamental law. Interestingly:

“Majority rule just as majority rule is not particularly attractive. To see this, consider the problem of the loser in such a democracy. Why should the fact that certain private interests are shared by less than half of the electorate put one under an obligation to serve the interests of the majority? Pure majoritarian decisions are intended to merely aggregate private interests, provide insufficiently compelling reasons for citizens to trust the outcomes of those procedures.”

Professor Zurn especially deals with the issue of direct democratic constitutional change, and all arrangements in direct constitutional change have to go through a procedure that is more difficult than regular, ordinary law.

I’m just going to skip through a few pieces that aren’t necessary to this discussion.

“Making constitutional provisions very hard to change, even making some impossible to change in the form of hard entrenchments, would seem to protect against future agency problems, where office holders attempt to change political procedures in order to capture the political system and remain in power.”

[4:15 p.m.]

The gold standard of constitutional change would make sure that constitutional changes are difficult to change and “protect against future agency problems where officeholders attempt to change political procedures in order to capture the political system and remain in power.” I suggest that the arrangement that has been made, which has led to this bill, does seem to have in it this very problem: capturing the political system to remain in power.

“Constitutional amendment procedures might then be set to require a very high bar to enactment.” This book makes reference to the United States and Australian constitutions, where there is a very high bar indeed to making constitutional changes. In the hard entrenchments of senatorial representation in the U.S. or certain fundamental individual rights in German basic law.... All of these are situations where you’re changing the very way that you make decisions and require a much higher bar, a much higher standard.

We can see difficulties in recent examples of constitutional change. The South African constitution in 1996 does make one part more difficult to change than all the other parts. We see, even with the 66 percent requirement, the 75 percent requirement….

We’ll see that even in our own legislation here, we have made it necessary for non-profit organizations that operate in the province of British Columbia to have higher super majorities in order to change the constitution.

You will see that with non-profit groups, corporations and other agencies, and that range is anywhere from 66 percent to 75 percent. That is what this Legislature requires of other agencies, non-profit groups and groups that function under our watch. So if we are requiring non-profit groups and other public agencies and private agencies to have a 66 percent or a 75 percent, how can we, in our own deliberations, require just a 50 percent plus one?

We know that the holders of this power are emphatically supposed to be the entirety of the citizenry, in democratic theory. One of the standards that Professor Zurn recommends is that we get as close as possible to the entirety of the citizenry — everybody who is affected. We should have everyone’s participation.

Right now, the way this is set up, there is no sort of bottom limit to what will make it impossible for a change. Say only 20, 30 or 40 percent of the citizens vote on this constitutional change. Certainly, in the view of Professor Zurn, this is not at all acceptable in a proper process of constitutional change.

“Even if that constitution is carried out conscientiously and benevolently, it is still a paternalistic institutionalization of power for constitutional change. This worry about judicial paternalism, with respect to fundamental constitutional procedures, is the real basis of the democratic complaint against these kinds of changes.”

There are a “number of counter-majoritarian procedures which are fully consistent with political equality” — and none of them can be found in the current bill.

[4:20 p.m.]

Another important thing is the inclusive sensitivity — the fact that everyone should be made to feel included in this type of constitutional change. We see a great concern that has been expressed by many regional MLAs and citizens who believe that they are being left out of this system. This change can be made with 50 percent plus one. There’s no requirement to have a certain number of regions included.

Certainly, Professor Zurn warns against this. The importance of making constitutional legislation more difficult to change than ordinary law lends support to the hypothesis concerning this structural independence.

“The difference in amending mechanisms with veto players is significant. In particular, such a difference speaks to the inclusive sensitivity of the mechanism. The presence of veto players ensures that amendments are acceptable to a broad diversity of constituencies with distinct interests, ideological positions, opinions, values and perspectives. The arrangements for changing the fundamental procedures of politics and law-making ought to structurally incorporate sureties that the full diversity of affected persons and interests will be accounted for.

“Hence the difficulty-increasing procedures for amendments are not just about increasing difficulty, even as this is important for maintaining structural independence. Many of those procedures are better understood as broadening the usual pool of information available for, and the sphere of influencers of, constitutional legislation beyond the current party regime and beyond the usual way in which representation is structured across a legislature and the executive. Ratification in the sub-units, for instance, should enable a different set of political representatives to have their specific concerns taken into account.”

Here Professor Zurn endorses the idea of certain veto players. In this case, British Columbia has very diverse regions, with very different approaches and understandings of the way that constitutions have changed. The idea that certain regions should have veto power is endorsed and is entirely seen as a way to ensure that certain political agents do not try to capture the political system for themselves but, instead, that changes are made that are to the benefit of all.

The concern about the degree to which a broad spectrum of the citizenry have real, effective input into the content of these changes, as opposed to a “simple power of after-the-fact veto or endorsement of that which has already been authored by others, speaks to a central difference between the way political equality is conceived between aggregative and deliberative conceptions of democracy.”

“In particular, while aggregative conceptions emphasize the equal voting power of each in a process of aggregating over the population’s simple endorsements or rejections, deliberative conceptions put more emphasis on the equal access all have to the processes of reason collection and evaluation that lead up to and ensue in the design of a particular proposal.”

[4:25 p.m.]

Well, the process that we have here for this constitutional change doesn’t consider this at all. There is nothing to do with aggregating or deliberating and having citizens involved in this. This is completely left out of this bill. As far as I can see, we are not even coming close to the gold standard of constitutional change.

It recommends…. Constituent assemblies, independently constructed bodies with a specific mandate to inform these constitutional amendments, promise to improve reasons-responsiveness over the constitutional drafting process. There are three features which would seem to promote this responsiveness.

“Because constituent assemblies are specifically designed to consider only issues of constitutional change, their deliberative processes are likely to be better focused on constitutionally relevant reasons. Because the elected members are not the same as the elected legislators and because they do not stand for re-election to the assembly, their deliberations are less likely to be systematically distorted by the incentives of ordinary electoral and party politics.”

This gold standard recommends that we guard against deliberations that are “distorted by the incentives of ordinary electoral and party politics.” Now, if anything can be said to be distorted by the incentives of ordinary electoral and party politics, it has to be this bill.

Another concern is “because the assembly is almost always elected through procedures that ensure a wide representation of different segments of the populace, they are likely to be more sensitive to a broader diversity of reasons, interests and opinions than is a legislature controlled by political party elites.” This speaks very directly to some of the concerns that I have here.

There is no constituent assembly that has been tasked with coming up with a recommendation. There is no wide representation of different segments of the population. There is no sensitivity to these broader diversity of reasons, interests and opinions. In fact, it is in the control of a legislature being controlled by political party elites. Everything that they recommend in this book is being completely ignored or sidetracked.

There are many examples in history of poor constitutional change. I do worry that this constitutional change will end up in the textbooks of political scientists who will then have to give an example of British Columbia and how we managed our constitutional change. I believe that we will be judged by posterity and by the academics who try to convince legislatures to use good processes in developing their constitutional changes.

[4:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

So the six evaluative criteria: operationalizability; structural independence, to make sure that the people who are actually making these changes and authoring them are different from the people who have to operate within them; democratic co-authorship, the fact that not only should this be authored by legislators but that there should be a sense that they’re authored also by the citizens; that there should be political equality and an inclusive sensitivity; that there should be a way to ensure that people from different regions feel an ownership and feel they’ve been treated properly in any kind of legislative or constitutional change is absolutely essential.

I believe Professor Zurn has laid out the most important things for us to consider. Operationalizability is a necessary criterion for any amendment procedure. Democratic co-authorship is more or less important than political equality and reasoned responsiveness. And the questions of normative priority and balance, across different criteria, need to take into consideration the institutional trade-offs between the reasoned responsiveness and democratic authorship.

We need to also take into consideration the disruptiveness of constitutional transitions in general. Processes of constitutional change not only frequently arise out of societal and political ferment and conflict, but the processes themselves can add significantly to instability and turmoil, with real possibilities of political violence and repression, which has been seen in some of the examples they have referred to here.

The six normative criteria offer a protection that will ensure that all people feel that they have been properly treated in developing these constitutional changes.

Now, I have no problem in considering electoral change. I actually was very intrigued by the effort that was made by the B.C. Liberal Party in the past….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Bernier: It’s indeed a privilege to rise to speak to Bill 6 and, more importantly, to speak to not only the flaws but the whole intent of Bill 6 and why, obviously, we on this side of the House are speaking against it.

Let me start by saying how much of a privilege it is to be the MLA for Peace River South. I’m in my second term there, won through the democratic process of an election, where people in the riding had an opportunity to put their name on the ballot for the people in the riding to have a choice on who they would want to represent them locally.

I think that choice is what’s really important from a local perspective, because at the end of the day, it’s all about accountability. It’s about having that voice here in Victoria, but it’s also having that person that can be back in the riding, accountable to the riding — somebody who is not only known by the people in the area but one that knows the area, one that can actually represent the issues of the riding because they know the issues of the riding.

One of the big things, when you look at the democratic process that we have right now in a first-past-the-post system, is it allows people to have their opinion heard. It allows anybody to put their opinion forward. It allows anyone to have their name on the ballot. More importantly, it allows that local representation and that local voice.

Again, when you look at this bill that we have in front of us…. I’ll talk a little bit later about the very specific flaws in it. With proportional representation, as laid out here — or anywhere, for that matter — you have the opportunity now to lose that local voice, that person who you can actually talk to in your riding because they’re from that riding.

[4:35 p.m.]

There would actually be an opportunity under this bill for Peace River South right now to no longer be Peace River South. You might have the entire north represented by one or a few people that aren’t even elected by people in that area. In fact, this bill allows for parties in a backroom to decide who the MLA might be.

In fact, we could have somebody born and raised and living here in Victoria not even elected but being the MLA appointed by the party for my region — maybe never even been to the region, probably doesn’t even know anybody in my riding. That’s what this bill could set up.

It truly will be changing the democratic process we have and the fabric of democracy. What really surprises me is the fact that members in government are standing up and arguing that they themselves shouldn’t be representing their riding — that they themselves figure that their riding can be represented better by somebody else in the province, not even them.

The members in government are saying that it might be okay to have a backroom deal of who’s actually going to be representing somebody in an area. Now, I can see why they would do that, because it was a backroom deal that actually started by putting this bill forward to begin with. I could probably truthfully say and argue that if there wasn’t a coalition group right now…. Even though they don’t like using that word, it truly is that, where you have Greens and the NDP working together right now. If that wasn’t the case, we probably would not be talking about this at all.

The only reason that I see this coming forward is because they are being forced by the Green Party, if they wanted to be in and stay in government, to bring this forward. I would argue that most people, even in the NDP, if they were true to themselves, if they were true to their constituents on what this is actually going to bring about…. They, too, themselves wouldn’t have brought this forward. They would be speaking against it, and they would be voting against it.

It’s really unfortunate we’re in this position now where it feels like this bill might pass, when it’s truly going to hurt the fabric of democracy of what we have here in our province. I don’t know…. Actually, I do know. There is no other place in North America that has an electoral system like this that’s being proposed here in British Columbia.

In fact, there’s only one English-speaking country in the world that I know of that actually has a proportional representative system. Everywhere else actually runs a first-past-the-post system. The only one I can think of is New Zealand, and we all know the problems that New Zealand, even themselves, is addressing and recognizing with their proportional representative system. You actually have fringe parties — I would even say extremist parties — which ran on platforms of anti-immigration, racism platforms. Because of the way the proportional representative system is set up, it allows them a voice in the legislature to actually bring in those kinds of comments.

It astounds me that we even have to have this discussion and this debate, especially the way that it’s being presented by the now government. If we think back on…. I know that people say: “Well, we brought it forward before, and we had two other referendums on the process in the province in the past.” I’m trying to remember; I think it was in 2005 and 2009 that we did that.

What is fundamentally different this time is that during those referendums, we actually spent time as a government by putting together the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, which actually went out and consulted and discussed what the options might be, what the ballot might look like, in order to even have a decision before it even went to the ballot. It was on the ballot truly representative of what the people of British Columbia were willing to come out and vote for. They had a say.

[4:40 p.m.]

More importantly, you look at this bill here now, and it’s completely changing that fabric of how that vote will actually be determined — the outcome of that vote. It is going to be a 50 percent plus one, but of mail-in ballots. Now, in the bill itself, it even talks about the fact that the referendum has to be respecting of the entire system conducted throughout all of British Columbia. Well, that would be great if it also said that all of British Columbia would actually have a fair say in the outcome of the vote. But the way the bill is written, the way the NDP and Green Party have put this together and put it forward, it actually is not going to allow for that fair representation — like we did in 2005 and in 2009.

The whole thought around this is….

Interjections.

M. Bernier: It’s unfortunate when I hear members from the Green laughing. This is no laughing matter. They’re the ones that are willing to ruin the democracy that we have here in British Columbia by putting this….

I appreciate that they finally came into the House because I was getting bored by not being heckled. So I appreciate the fact….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Thank you. I appreciate the member behind me bringing it up. They’re the ones that said we need to stop heckling in the House. It’s interesting. The member likes to be the loudest.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Do as I say, not as I do. It’s hypocrisy again here in this House with the Green Party.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Bernier: I feel that I’m heckling myself now, hon. Chair, on this issue.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: It is actually an improvement. Most of the heckles that come from the other side are meaningless and, actually, are never to the point.

The whole point, though, with this bill, again, is trying to make things better for the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Actually, what I’m trying to demonstrate — again, to the members of the Green Party, who continue to heckle and yack over there — is the fact that we’re trying to make a point that this is flawed. It is fundamentally flawed — what they have convinced the NDP to put forward just so they could be in power.

This is actually really interesting. If the Green Party truly, truly wants to make sure that this is passed fairly, then maybe they should do what was done every other time. Before this bill is passed, maybe they should be putting it to a citizens’ assembly again. But no, they won’t do that. They’re going to go into a back room and decide how those votes are going to look. They’re going to go into a back room and decide….

Nowhere in this bill does it even say what the questions will be. In fact, in this bill, it says the questions on the ballot will be determined later by cabinet, so we don’t even know what we’re voting on, other than the fact that we’re going to be going away from a system that is tried and true in North America. In fact, you look at every other jurisdiction, every other government that has looked at, discussed or contemplated bringing in proportional representation in North America, and none of them has either passed or followed through with it.

In fact, if you look at Prince Edward Island…. I know the members opposite earlier in their comments were touting how great Prince Edward Island was because they went to a referendum. Well, I hope they also stand up and recognize the fact that the Premier in Prince Edward Island, who I want to acknowledge, realized that when they did a very extensive voting system — phoning, mail-in, really advertising that referendum — even then, they received, I believe, 52 percent. That’s what it passed by. But only 36 percent, if I remember, of the people actually voted.

The Premier, to their credit, in Prince Edward Island…. Even though the members opposite try to say: “There’s a perfect example….” Well, if it is a perfect example, hopefully they’ll do the same thing and recognize that it wasn’t fair, that it shouldn’t have been done and that in fact, in Prince Edward Island, they actually did not have enough people, according to them, to have a fair representation of what that vote looked like and did not follow through with having a binding referendum.

The real interesting point, though, is the fact that…. I talked to the people in my riding, and they understand that with me being elected, with me being the voice here, with me being the one that’s accountable to them, we have a system where, at the end of the day — and we’ve seen it in this House — people are not re-elected because the people in their riding said, “You are no longer the majority speaking for me. The people have decided that they want somebody else,” whether it’s a new person, a new party, a new voice, a new vision. That is how we’re set up. That is how the province is set up, and that is what has been working for absolutely years.

[4:45 p.m.]

What’s really unfortunate, again, is when there was a discussion by the Premier that said we would go through a proportional representation vote in here. He was very, very clear that this would be simplistic for the people of British Columbia. They would have a yes or a no — very straightforward. “Do you want to continue on with the first-past-the-post system, or would you like to look at some form of proportional representation?”

Once again, when the rubber hits the road, when a decision needs to be made, we backtrack on that promise. And now we actually don’t even know, other than the fact that the bill itself actually says it might be a multitude of questions. It’s going to be a multitude, and that means that we have no idea how they’re going to formulate it in the back room, I assume, to get the outcome that they choose. That is not fair to the people of British Columbia.

Now, they say they’re going to be going out and consulting, but in that, when they say “consulting,” they also did not add that they’re going to be listening and possibly changing, because the decision in the votes is already going to be taking place. They’re actually not consulting. They’re going to be going out and telling British Columbians that this is how it’s going to work.

You have no say. You don’t have a citizens’ assembly this time that will be able to have input. You won’t get to have feedback into how your democratic voting system in the province of British Columbia works. That is thrown out the window. It’s been decided now by two groups that got together, and they’ve changed how this system is going to work in the province of British Columbia.

Again, the fundamentals of this. If we’re going to go to a referendum…. I do not see why, when we’ve already done it twice and both times it did not pass. If the members want to do it a third time and they want to have a citizens’ assembly, if they actually want to go to that…. The member talked about….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The leader of the Green Party.... I know he likes to hear his voice all the time, so he’ll just keep heckling for no reason, even though I have the floor and I’m sure he can speak at some later date if he so chooses. But the point, again, is that if he’s truly trying to make the system better, then maybe he should be allowing everyone in the province an equal voice in this. In fact, they’re not getting that.

He could probably stand up and admit that the people in my riding — there’s no point in them even voting. Why? Because with a 50-percent-plus-one system of mail-in ballots, who’s going to be doing that? It could be, actually, just the people in a couple of jurisdictions.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I’m sorry to see that he’s stuttering over there. I’ll call for medical assistance for him in a few minutes.

The whole point is that when you have small jurisdictions in rural British Columbia, at least when we went through this last time, we allowed rural jurisdictions to have a say. We allowed their vote. If they were not in favour of changing the system, their voices were heard. Their voices were counted, and the system would only be changed if we actually had support from all of British Columbians.

In fact, this is a perfect example of where we could go backwards, where you have two or three people in one small part of the province that are trying to run the entire province with no knowledge of the area that they’re actually trying to help govern over. This completely takes away accountability.

If you’re going to have…. Well, I can tell you, the people in my riding would be 100 percent against having the B.C. Liberal Party appoint somebody to be their MLA if that’s how it would turn out for our riding under the proportional system. They would far rather know who that person is and make a decision whether they wanted them elected or not. That decision is taken away. That decision, though, is fundamental to our democratic system, and again, it just surprises me that we would even be having this discussion yet again.

We have a system that allows anyone, any party, any party created, any individual that wants to put their name on the ballot…. They can do that. We have that opportunity, that flexibility. In fact, we’ve seen in the last election, where we had two independents, albeit one self-identified as part of a party but was the only one elected…. Our system allows for that to happen now, and it allowed for them an opportunity to speak in this House, to vote in this House and to be part of the discussion as we try to move forward bills.

The issue, though, with going to the system that’s being proposed…. No one needs to look much further than the jurisdictions and countries that, actually, the members in government are trying to tout as a success right now around the world.

[4:50 p.m.]

I look at one country, for instance. You look at Italy, which runs on a proportional representative system. Since 2013, so in a mere four years, not much different than when we had our last election here in British Columbia not that long ago…. In Italy, under their system, they’ve had 533 times where MLAs have crossed the floor in order to try to form a majority government.

In fact, when I was doing the research on this, there were some members that changed ten parties in order to try to get and stay in government. So you have people that have completely gone against the platform. There’s no point of having a platform anymore. There are people who have gone completely against their promises during an election. Well, we’ve all heard from the Green Party that promises are irrelevant anyway now, specifically when you’re looking at the NDP and what they’ve put forward. It’s one issue I’ll agree with them there on.

The whole point is…. What is the purpose, then, during an election, of actually standing up and saying: “This is who I am, this is what I stand for, these are my values, this is how I will represent you, and this is how I will be your voice”? All of that can be thrown out the window under this new system, because it’s all irrelevant. Once you get in here, whether you’re elected or appointed or however the system will be….

I say “however it will be” because nobody has been able to give us a clear answer yet of what they’re trying to accomplish here, other than to try to, I would say, manipulate the system in order to go away from what we have now, which is a fair, democratic process.

What it does now is…. Those people will be in the House, and they will be completely at the whim of power, and that’s all it will be. It will not matter anymore what you’re trying to accomplish to make lives better in your riding, to help the people with whatever issues and concerns that they have, because you won’t be able to accomplish that. You’ll be a name. You’ll be a bum in the seat here in the Legislature, and that’s about it.

When it comes right down to it, when you look at the other areas in the world that have tried — I would say very unsuccessfully — to continue on with the proportional representation system, they spend more time in the backroom, more time negotiating behind closed doors, rather than doing what they should be doing, which is working in the Legislature, having good debate and discussion, I would argue, like we are doing right now, and making sure that bills are actually being brought forward, voted on and passed.

We have a system right now that’s allowing the Green Party and their three members to work with the NDP to prop them up. I would say that actually, the system is proof that it works, albeit I’m not happy with the outcome, considering that we won more seats. But the way that the democratic system, first-past-the-post, in the province of British Columbia and Canada happens, we have a minority government. A minority government is doing what the minority government needs to do, and it works.

So for them to argue that we need to change the system to make it work is actually counterproductive to what they’re trying to prove to the public right now, in working with everyone. We don’t actually need to change the system in order to achieve those goals.

I look at a country like Japan. I’m, of course, going off memory. When I read through all of the different systems around the world, and there are quite a few of them, I looked at Japan, who recently had an election. They had almost 24 parties on the ballot, and you get to actually have a ranked system.

I talked to people that I know from Japan, and it turns into: nobody knows who they’re voting for. Nobody knows the platform. You walk in and put a bunch of Xs on a box. It’s kind of like — in actually looking at it, it’s almost like this — instead of having pencils in the ballot box, they should have bingo dabbers. That’s basically what you’re doing, just kind of looking at a bunch of boxes, throwing a bunch of circles, not even knowing what you’re doing and actually knowing that you’re not going to win at the end of the day, because nobody is going to get in that you want. Even if they do, you don’t know who they are.

It’s going to be setting up a system here in British Columbia that I fear not only changes our democratic process but changes it to the point where the people of British Columbia, after one election, will have no understanding of what’s happening anymore.

[4:55 p.m.]

The way the system is being set up, the people in my riding, the people in the Interior, and I would even say the people in large cities will lose that autonomy. They’ll lose that voice. The people representing them are losing that accountability.

You look at Germany right now. I throw that out there because, ironically, we had members of the NDP government stand up and tout the proportional representation of Germany, that there’s a perfect example of something that works. Well, wouldn’t you know it. A couple of days after they stood up in the House and talked about how great Germany is, Germany collapses. Their government collapses. They weren’t able to negotiate. They weren’t able to come to an agreement of who was going to support who in order to be able to have a majority government to move things forward.

We’ve got countries in the world that now are at a standstill, Germany now being one of them. You’ve got countries in the world that can’t make decisions. You have countries in the world that are not able to move their economies forward the way they want, to make decisions to help families like they want, because more time is being spent by people trying to decide: who do we even have to make those decisions? Who do we even have that is willing to sacrifice their morals, sacrifice their promises, in order to maybe get on with somebody else in order to figure out how to magically come up with that number to now move forward to try to make decisions?

Again, the biggest challenge with that is that there’s no accountability — not only to the province, to the ridings, to the people. There’s then no accountability in this House. Italy is a perfect example of that, as I mentioned earlier — of people 533 times in four years crossing the floor. As soon as they’re not happy with somebody that they said they would support, they switch to another party. They try to get their way there. As soon as they don’t get their way, they move again. Then government is at a standstill.

I know that if we did our due diligence, if we went out and actually explained this properly — not go out and tell people in British Columbia, like the NDP want to do, but explain what we’re trying to do with this bill — it wouldn’t pass.

My fear is that they’re going to be putting this together…. We’ve already heard, as I mentioned, that the Premier has reneged on his promise of a yes or no. So we know now that they’re going to be trying to figure out, if their ultimate goal is to pass this: how do we put the mechanics in place to write this referendum so that we know it will pass? We’ve already seen that with the 50 percent plus one. We’ve already seen that with the mail-in. We’ve already seen that they’re not going to allow for regional support or regional opportunity. These, again, are weaknesses not only in the bill; it’s the weaknesses of even bringing this forward to begin with.

When I was reading through the bill…. Again, the only way that people will get to decide on changing our electoral system will be conducted through a mail-in ballot of distribution. So I’m kind of curious on how they plan on following through. What are the legal challenges going to be for somebody that says: “I never received anything, because I live in small-town, rural British Columbia, where I don’t have mail access. I have a post office box number, and it wasn’t in there”?

Is the government going to stand up now and be willing to say that if anybody in the province didn’t get a chance to vote because of a flaw, the referendum will be null and void? I doubt it. Are the members opposite, the NDP government — hopefully — willing to recognize that not only the 50 percent plus one…? Are they going to take out of this bill the binding portion and allow flexibility, at least for decision-making based on the actual outcome of who votes, how many vote and where they’re from?

I’m hoping — and I know they won’t do this — that they would actually take the time to look at the geographical representation that will come in from the votes when they’re cast. That’s going to be really be important. If it shows that 100 percent of the people — just throwing a number — outside of Vancouver are against proportional representation…. We know that 80 percent of the people live down in the greater Vancouver area and the Lower Mainland, but if 100 percent of the people outside of there vote against that, the way this system is set up, it didn’t matter that they voted.

[5:00 p.m.]

Their vote counts for zero, if more than that vote in one jurisdiction in the Lower Mainland. This is completely unfair to a democratic system that we’re trying to have here in the province of British Columbia and, again, one that has worked.

Another question I have. Through the system, the way it looks like the government is putting this forward…. If it is in the bill, I didn’t see it. Where is recall legislation? How’s that going to change? If all of a sudden somebody in northern British Columbia who’s from Victoria, Surrey, Vancouver — name a place — has been appointed by a party to be representing and they’re not doing their job, they’re not representing well, how do we recall that person? There’s no chance now, I understand, under this legislation.

I assume the government is also going to be taking a good look at all of the other legislation that allows for the democratic process within the House and through elections. What they haven’t said is that all those are going to have to be changed. Electoral boundaries are going to be changed. I don’t hear them talking about that. I’m sure if they go out there and remind people in northern B.C. that “Guess what; right now you’ve got eight ridings,” well, you might only have one. Because if we’re going to go to a population-based system….

A lot of work was done in the past. Elections B.C. has that autonomy every eight years to review the maps, to review the systems. I assume this is another example of government telling an independent body what to do — which, of course, as we all know, with the history in this House, anytime they thought that was taking place…. Of course, no government, no minister would ever tell an independent body what to do. We’ve heard that loud and clear in this House, whether it’s true or not.

It sounds like, again, in this system, they’re trying to do that. When you look at the fact that they’re trying to have this now for the next election, without even the time to actually have that discussion….

I see my time is, unfortunately, running out. I would like to….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I know that the member for Saanich North and the Islands did not mean to applaud the fact that my time was running out. He thought I was finished and was applauding my exemplary job of speaking for the last half-hour, and I appreciate him for doing that.

I’m actually glad that he’s paying attention for my final comments, because I’m hoping he goes back to his riding and says he’s willing to vote for a bill that actually might mean the fact that he will no longer represent them, that in fact he will be part of a party that’s not only changing the system, but one that’s actually going to be changing the democratic fabric and making it harder for people in B.C. to actually have a voice on who their MLA or who their representative will be.

Hopefully, they see the light and this bill does not pass.

J. Rustad: I’ll start off with a fun little quote. “When the gods want to punish us, they answer our prayers.” That was from Oscar Wilde. I often wonder about that in terms of be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it.

We are debating today Bill 6, the proportional representation referendum. I have to say that when I first read this bill, I was curious but nervous, and as I started looking into it in far more detail, that nervousness turned to a bit of anger, frustration and a lot of fear. It’s unfortunate, because I don’t think democracy should be that. Winston Churchill said, and I’ll paraphrase this, that democracy is the worst form of government, but it’s better than any tried to date.

The reality is that democracy is not perfect. It goes along; it has bumps; it has challenges; it has issues. But democracy has developed over the years, and particularly the democracy in Canada. When you look at the system we have, it has led to some pretty remarkable results.

The stability that we have had across this country, the ability for our country to be the envy of the world…. Many places around the world look at Canada and consider it to be the solution in search of a problem. That’s the way I look at this piece of legislation. We have the solution in British Columbia. We’ve had stable governments. We’ve had governments from the NDP. We’ve had government from the Socreds. We’ve had governments from the Liberals. We’ve had governments from Conservatives.

[5:05 p.m.]

You go back over time and look, and it has had relatively stable governments. So what have the results of that been? That stable government has delivered strong economic performance. It has delivered very high standards of living. The quality of living in this province is among the highest in the world. Strong environmental standards, strong labour standards, strong labour protections. So what is the problem we’re trying to solve here? What is this bill actually trying to fix?

You have to excuse me for coming to the conclusion that it’s really designed for one thing and one thing only, and that’s to change who has the decision-making authority to a small fringe group, because that’s what proportional representation does.

You look around the world. You look at the countries that have gone the route of proportional representation. What you can see is that it started off with a few parties, and it kept splitting apart and splitting apart to the point now where most of the democracies that have proportional representation are very lucky to get more than 35 percent for a party that ultimately forms government in some form of coalition. What you do see is a proliferation of small parties and small interest groups getting things put forward that, quite frankly, the vast majority has no interest in.

In the last election, 84 percent of the people did not want to see the Greens as government. That’s fine. For the Green Party, that was the highest outcome they’ve had. But there’s a component that obviously wants to see some Green agenda in the government component. Yet the Green Party, arguably, has the power. I had to laugh when the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke called it the green tail wagging the bloated orange dog.

I thought it was very appropriate, because you’re sitting in a situation where, whether it’s the NDP or the B.C. Liberals, supported by significant amounts of people in the province, both have to be dictated by the minority group that is sitting in the Legislature. How is that right? How does that fix the problem that we have in this province? Quite frankly, we don’t have problems in this province.

Yes, the NDP may argue that we were in power for 16 years, so that’s a problem. Okay, well, I get it. They’re bitter about not winning elections. Regardless of that, we as B.C. Liberals might argue that we’re bitter because we’re sitting in opposition now, but that’s democracy, and it’s a democracy that works. What, once again, is the problem we’re trying to fix?

I have to go back and think about my riding. I want to take a moment to thank my wife. Obviously, you spend a lot of time away from family. You spend a lot of time down in Victoria and doing other duties as MLAs. My wife is very supportive. I always want to say, “I love you, Kim, and thank you for that ongoing support,” as I know that all members in this House are appreciative of their family support. That’s one of the sacrifices you make when you go into politics.

I’m also very, very thankful…. I want to mention my constituent assistants, Nadine and Lory. They do tremendous work on behalf of the constituents of my riding, helping to solve problems, bringing issues that come forward to me, working through how we can resolve it and hopefully being able to find a way to get to yes on all of these issues.

How does that now work under a new form of government, under proportional representation? For a riding like mine, there wouldn’t be an MLA. It would be part…. Depending on the system, if it’s a pure PR system, it would be just simply from lists. You would never get somebody, likely, from small communities like Burns Lake, Vanderhoof, Fraser Lake, Fort St. James, Houston or Granisle, and certainly not from the regional area that I come from. I just live out in one of the areas in between Prince George and Vanderhoof.

How does somebody from there even get to be a representative, and if you do get to be a representative, do you have an office? How does that work? If you don’t have a constituency, why would you have a constituency office? Where would people go to actually try to solve problems in our political system? There isn’t a solution for that.

[5:10 p.m.]

Maybe you’ve got some offices that would be set up, that would be used in major centres like Prince George or Terrace or Fort St. John, but what about the small communities? How does that work in terms of that voice? Do we just tell everybody: “Well, you better go on line”? I’ve got news for you: about 20 percent of the people in my riding have a challenge to be on line. What are you saying to them with democracy and how things work?

I’ll tell you why these things make a difference in a riding like mine. We all get involved in politics with a variety of things. We’re involved with major projects, whether that’s road improvements or hospitals or schools or all kinds of things. If you’re fortunate enough to have an opportunity to be in cabinet, you have responsibilities across the whole province.

The reality is, as an MLA — and I’m pretty sure everybody here will agree — the most satisfying moments of being an MLA are solving a problem for an individual, whether it’s an elderly lady that’s got a problem with her telephone bill and needs somebody to be able to advocate on her behalf or whether it’s a grandmother that wants to adopt her grandchild and she’s frustrated because she can’t get through the system. The system is set up, and she’s fighting it and she’s going through it, but she comes to the MLA’s office and says: “Help. I’ve got nowhere else to go. I can’t get this solved.”

You work on the case. You’re passionate about it, and you try to bring it forward. After a period of time, you solve it. She comes in. She’s got tears, and she says: “Thank you. I’m now able to adopt my grandson.”

That is what an MLA’s job does when they have a constituency that they’re responsible for, when they have that direct contact with people and they are responsive to it. If they do a good job, they get re-elected. If they don’t do a good job, people start looking for somebody else to elect.

None of that matters under proportional representation, because even under a system of mixed-member, the ridings are so large that you don’t have that personal contact, not to mention you’ve got a group that has no responsibility whatsoever versus a group that has some sort of responsibilities.

Under a straight PR system, it becomes almost impossible. You call up somebody that’s off in a different town and maybe ask for them to pay attention to it, but they’ve got tens or hundreds of thousands of people to respond to. The chances of them being able to pay a lot of attention becomes very remote.

You see the difference, as well, when you think about a riding like mine, which is one of the most rural ridings in the province. We don’t have the same level of services that you do in urban areas. You go to a place like Surrey. You’ve got ten MLAs in Surrey. If people don’t like the answer from one, they go to another MLA. They shop around, and everybody fights for things. Everybody shows up for all of the events and things.

I tell you, in a community like Fraser Lake, you go and show up for an event they’re holding at the arena and they’re genuinely thrilled to have you there at their community because you’re actually the one who is responsible — that you’re accountable and that they can trust to try to bring forward their issues.

You won’t always be able to get to yes, but that’s there. But in large urban areas, it doesn’t exist. Under PR, you take that away from rural areas. You’re actually punishing rural communities and the people that live in rural B.C. through that type of a government.

I go back to what I said: what is the problem we’re solving? We’re creating problems. We are not solving problems through the implementation of this bill.

To start with, I talked about Churchill and democracy is the worst of all systems. I remember back when I was back in politics for the first referendum in 2005 and the second referendum in 2009. I think about the amount of work that went into that to actually bring forward a proposed change.

Notification went out to thousands and thousands and thousands of people around the province to create a citizens’ assembly and boil it down to 161 people that then went through, in excruciating detail, all of the electoral systems they had across the world.

One of the key pieces that they said was, and I quote this from the report on page 3: “We believe local representation must be a fundamental objective of any British Columbia electoral system.”

[5:15 p.m.]

Nowhere in the world has a citizens’ assembly like this been put together. Nowhere in the world has that kind of detail and scrutiny been applied to an electoral system to bring forward whether or not there should be changes to the electoral system.

That was one of the key pieces: local representation, the ability to be accountable directly to your constituents as an MLA. Under proportional representation, that doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist under mixed-member in the vast, large rural areas. Talk to some of our federal colleagues that have the massive ridings, and talk to them about how many times they get an opportunity to be able to be in a community and help solve directly or get involved in solving a constituent issue.

I remember another case. These are things that I’m proud of in terms of being able to do for my constituents. I had a case of another elderly couple with a child who’s got mobility issues, and they needed a new wheelchair. They couldn’t afford to be able to get the type of wheelchair that was required. They were working through the system. They were trying to figure out how to solve this problem, how to get in and do this, and they couldn’t do it.

They came to my office once again, and they said: “Help.” So you work through the problem and solve it for them. You know, I’ve got a picture in my office today of myself with that young lady — not so young, I guess; she’s in her 40s now — the grandparents’ daughter, with that new wheelchair. The smile on her face just makes all of the sacrifices that you do in politics worthwhile. It’s because you’re able to solve a local problem and help a local individual.

One of the members opposite — when I was heckling, back the other week when the conversation was going on with this bill — said: “You’re so angry.” Yeah, I am angry about it, because I fight hard for my constituents. They deserve proper representation. They deserve to have a representative that can be accountable to them. That goes away under forms of PR and, pretty much, under all forms of PR. It almost goes away entirely.

I have to chuckle a little bit because back in 1991, when the Socreds got turfed out, there was a huge movement across the province: “Toss the bums out.” There was a lot of backlash because of various policies. In 2001, the exact same thing happened: “Throw the bums out.” Why? It’s because they didn’t like the way government was going and how it was treating the people in the province of British Columbia.

I quote from a report here that was out just a short time ago. It talked about proportional representation, and it says: “To ‘throw the bums out’ is almost impossible with proportional representation.” It is almost impossible. “In the 50 years after 1945 in 103 elections in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland, the majority governing party was only thrown from office six times.”

How is that accountable? It’s hard to imagine — for all those years under proportional representation — that people, the constituents and the people of an area, didn’t come to the conclusion that the bums needed to be thrown out. It’s unfortunate, because that’s the system we’re talking about. That’s what we’re talking about trying to implement.

I think about other countries, and I’ll get to a few more of these examples in a bit, but in Germany since 1945, it has basically been one party governing — period. We’ve had a few majorities, a couple of majorities. Most of them have been minorities. Most of them are coalitions. It’s been one party.

Since 1922 in Ireland, it has been one party, with the exception, I think, of two elections. One party has governed — sometimes a majority, most of the time with a minority. Things got so bad, actually, in Ireland in the electoral system, people were like: “This is crazy. We’ve had so many elections in a row. We’ve got to get rid of this electoral system.” But they set a threshold, and they set a threshold for a reason, so that it wouldn’t just change on a 50 percent plus one. In both those elections, both of those referendums fell just short of getting rid of proportional representation. They were stuck with it, and they had to live with it.

It’s unfortunate when you think about it, but I guess that’s democracy. As Churchill says, it’s not exactly perfect.

[5:20 p.m.]

I think, as you go along and you look at the various systems that we have, there’s a reason why in Canada there are rules in place for very special circumstances. Canada is not Belgium. It’s not the Netherlands. And by the way, Belgium and the Netherlands combined is about the size of my riding. It’s not Germany. We don’t have uniform populations. Most of the population lives right along the 49th parallel, but we have very large, vast areas that are critical to our economy, that are critical to the fabric of what Canada is. So rules were put in place so that those areas would be able to be treated special, so that they would have a voice and that they would be treated fairly and that their voice could be heard in a democracy.

The proposal that quite frankly is being brought forward is to throw all of that away. What is the problem we’re solving? The only answer can be that it’s a grasp for power by the groups that are in power, because it is certainly not to improve democracy for the people in the province of British Columbia.

One of the other things about this bill that is quite galling is…. You go back and look at the report from the citizens’ assembly, the 100-and-some-odd pages. You look at the consultation that they went into. They had thousands of submissions and 50 public hearings. They listened to thousands upon thousands of people. They were out extensively, websites, for years, doing the research and bringing all of this information forward and deciding what form to put forward, how to do the question to make sure it was there and fair.

What have we got here? We’ve got a bill that’s going to go through some process, I guess, of consultation to figure out what the question is going to be. What is that going to come to a result in?

Just think. After all that work, for years, of the citizens’ assembly, after going through engagement, after the 2001 election, when everybody was upset because 57 percent of the vote ended up being 77 out of 79 seats in the province…. “This has to be broken, and we’ve got to fix it.” Yet after all of that, 61 percent of British Columbians did not feel they were informed about the voting system that was put forward, the form of proportional representation, and only 15 percent could even name the voting system that was going to be on the ballot question.

I’m quoting from an article from Vancouver, April 30, 2005. It says: “The awareness of the proposed system is not high. We have a situation where only 15 percent of British Columbia can identify the name of the proposed system, and over 60 percent feel either not informed or not at all informed.” That was after an extensive process. We’re talking about holding a referendum by ballot next fall, and we haven’t even got a clue what’s going to be on the question, let alone what the ramifications of that will be.

I can’t understand why a government would want to do something like this — something this important, this fundamental to our democracy — in such a rushed way. I mean, it speaks to incompetence. You’re talking about changing an electoral system that has produced one of the best countries in the world, that people think of as being the solution to problems that are prolific across the globe. And we’re going to try to mess this up with some new democratic system in a short, rushed period, simply to appease a group of people that got 16 percent of the vote in the province of British Columbia? It’s quite remarkable when you see how that goes.

Fortunately, through all of that and the previous attempts on changing, they were both voted down. One of them came very close to the threshold of 60 percent, and the other one only achieved just over 39 percent in the referendum. That’s why the threshold is so important. This is not a simple decision. I mean, even the New Democratic Party, in their recent AGM, wanting to change their constitution, required a two-thirds majority to change the constitution — two-thirds majority to change a simple party constitution. But 50 percent plus one is enough to change the voting system in the province of British Columbia forever. Wow, now that is hypocrisy.

[5:25 p.m.]

Going back to talking a little bit about my riding. I mentioned my riding and its size: 73,800 square kilometres. That’s the size of my riding. Now, how big is that? That just sounds like a big number. That’s 2.2 times the size of Vancouver Island. I think there are around 13 MLAs on Vancouver Island. It’s close to the size of Belgium and the Netherlands combined.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: My colleague from Prince George–Valemount is Belgian, so I get her pain. We’ll compare the size of ridings here in the future, I suppose.

You look at that, and you think: “Okay. So here are a whole bunch of countries around the world that have proportional representation.”

I find it interesting that there are 83 nations in the world that have proportional representation that are smaller than my riding. That’s pretty remarkable when you think about talking about taking away the representative for my area, when all these other nations would have multiples of representatives. And, yes, it’s a sparsely populated area, but it’s an important area. It’s got a dozen sawmills, a number of mines, agriculture, tourism, hunting and fishing. It is a remarkable area of the province.

If you were to go to, let’s say, Oak Bay–Gordon Head or Saanich North and the Islands and say, “No, you don’t get a representative,” I can tell you what the constituents would say there. You can probably say what the members in the House would say if that was going to be what’s being proposed. That’s what’s being proposed under proportional representation.

I find it interesting, when you look at the various countries around the world that have proportional representation and the types of rules that they put in place. Staying on the STV, the one that was on the referendum, Malta has STV in place, and it has been such a problem for them. They actually had an election in Malta where the party that received more than 50 percent of the vote didn’t actually form government, just the way the votes chunked up under STV.

You got 50 percent, and you didn’t form government. It’s pretty remarkable, in terms of that. So they figured: “Hey, this is a problem. We’ve got to solve this problem.” What did they do? They gerrymandered the future election results to allow a number of bonus seats for the party that won the most seats in the election so that they would form government. Well, it works for them — a small little island state. However, that doesn’t speak well for proportional representation, when it needs to be gerrymandered in order to form a functional government and have people somewhat happy with what’s going on.

Other jurisdictions, like Italy, have tried to get rid of their proportional representation. They could never get to an agreement. Why? Once it’s in place, you get these small fringe parties, like the Green Party and others, that refuse to give up the opportunity of power.

The member for Saanich North and the Islands chuckles when I call him a fringe party, but I tell you what. If you were called the Pirate Party, as one party is in Europe that received close to the same number of votes as you did, I’m sure you would be thinking of it as a fringe party.

Or how about the Italian party of radicals? A fringe party. These are parties that haven’t got a possibility of forming a majority. Maybe a decade or 20 years or 50 years from now they will. Maybe they’ll mature enough to be in that state. But at this point, it’s clear that they’re not ready to be a government in the province of British Columbia.

You look at Austria, as an example. Austria has proportional representation and does it by party list. They have the parties that put forward their lists. They elect. These people get pulled off the list. I’m not sure how they create it from the list. It’s probably through some insider deals and all of that kind of stuff. And they have a threshold of 4 percent to be able to actually win a seat in the legislature.

In Austria, guess what. The anti-immigration Freedom Party won seats. Austria is also becoming Europe’s largest debt nightmare — a quote from the Telegraph. Why? They can’t make decisions. The government is divided. They’ve got all these small parties. They always have to do these backroom deals, like was done between the NDP and the Green Party here in British Columbia. These deals ultimately lead to the inability for parties to be able to govern and to make tough choices sometimes, and those choices have to be made.

[5:30 p.m.]

In the Czech Republic, the PR system is, once again, a party list with a 5 percent threshold, and it takes two days for a second vote to determine who actually leads the country.

Ireland, as I mentioned, is fortunate. They managed to figure out how to try to get some things together and may get to a balanced budget in 2018. For the first time in 12 years, they’ve actually been able to get to a balanced budget. Good on Ireland. Let’s hope the economy is able to carry on.

Most of the other countries I look at all have party lists. Norway has a two-tier party system, with a 4 percent threshold. You go down and look at some of the other ones. The Netherlands, for example — PR once again. A party list with that. Their debt-to-GDP is around 62½ percent. And you wonder. Where is all of that leading? Where will this go, down the road, as we start to see places like Italy, Greece or Spain and some of these other jurisdictions…?

Spain is a great example, of course, now that…. Is it…? I can never remember.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Catalonia. Thank you for that clarification from the member from Kelowna.

You look at them. They’re split. They want to split off from the democracy. Why? Because government has had challenges. They have not been able to make the tough decisions. They’ve racked up the debt, and they say: “Hey, you know what? We don’t want to be part of that. We want to move away from that because we don’t feel that is fair for us.”

Madame Speaker, I see the green light here. I just wanted to let you know that I am the designated speaker for this bill.

Groans, I know, coming from the other side of the House. That’s okay. You only have to endure me for another hour and a half or so, in terms of speaking.

As I say, when you look at these, it’s so hard for them to make decisions. For example, Belgium is also, once again, a party list. Most of these proportional representations are party lists. A 5 percent threshold. Their deficit average is minus 2.1 percent GDP since 1995. That is 22 years of deficits, with the exception of only one or two years. Their debt-to-GDP is at 106 percent. Is that sustainable? Is that the model we think British Columbia should have?

Instead of being able to celebrate balanced budgets and triple-A credit ratings and instead of being able to celebrate being able to afford services, you’re in a situation where you’re trying to figure out how not to go bankrupt. These are the decisions. When you look at all the countries with PR, they all have one thing in common. They all have financial challenges, for the most part.

When you go down…. I spent a little bit of time talking about Israel, as an example. Israel has a threshold of 3.25 percent in order for a party to get elected. This speaks to an earlier bill, of course, that we have passed in this Legislature to allow only two members to form a party. During that debate, I mentioned this, but it’s worth repeating as part of the debate on Bill 6.

British Columbia didn’t have a party system prior to 1903. There’s a reason why they changed it. It’s because you have too many individuals all trying to jockey for power and trying to cut deals, whether they’re in government or in opposition, and you’d have elections every few years. Nothing could get done. It was stagnant. It was a challenge.

They changed it to a party system. From then on, there have been a host of parties that have vied for power in the province of British Columbia, vied to govern this province. When you look at that, that has created the stability that we enjoy. That’s created the quality of life, the improvements in the standards of labour and our living standards. It’s quite remarkable, actually. That, of course, combined with our blessing of resources.

Back to Israel. You look at that as a particular country and its form of government. There are eight parties in Israel with under 15 percent of the vote — eight parties — and only two are over. So you think about that. You think: “Well, okay. Everybody gets a voice and a component in here.”

[5:35 p.m.]

Well, I want to read a report that was written in the Guardian newspaper some time ago. It talks about PR. It says, as Israelis have found to their cost for many years: “Israel is dogged by a perpetually hung parliament thanks to PR, which has regularly hampered leaders’ attempts to push through controversial policies.” In other words, as a former national security writer said: “Designing policy in Israel is like writing poetry while standing on a ball.” You can imagine how frustrating that electoral process is.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Going on further, it says:

“Israel’s electoral system allocates parliamentary seats to each party in proportion to their share of the overall vote. Rather than voting for an individual member, people cast ballots for their preferred party,” which, in turn, selects seats.

“Successive governments have paid dearly for forming coalitions with radical minority partners, especially when it comes to the perennial problems associated with the Palestinian conflict. Instead of Israelis having faith in one party to see out its full tenure without having the rug pulled out from beneath its feet, reality has meant a constant battle between warring coalition members, often leading to mid-term collapse of governments and early elections.”

The article goes on to say: “Too many cooks routinely spoil the broth, especially when many of them hail from the extremist, fundamentalist end of the political spectrum. Any slight movement perceived….” This is particularly with regards to the anti-settler. The sabre-rattling goes, and it threatens “to topple the coalition, which has a paralyzing effect on any Prime Minister seeking to take a more concessionary path.”

When you look it through, at the things it says…. There’s one other thing, in particular, here that is very disturbing about Israel and the components. This article goes on to say: “As well as the overarching Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel’s internal politics are similarly afflicted by the disproportionate amount of power wielded by smaller parties. Ultra-orthodox parties use horse-trading to siphon off a significant part of the national budget in order to fund their supporters’ unproductive lifestyles.”

It goes on to say:

“The unswerving loyalty of ultra-orthodox voters to certain political parties is repaid by their elected officials digging in their heels, time and time again, whenever there are calls to reduce the overgenerous funding of the religious sector.

“Against such a backdrop, it is unsurprising that so little tangible progress is made in Israel, whether in relation to the Palestinians or to highly charged domestic reforms. Major ministerial posts are filled by top MPs of various parties, lists, rather than from one party alone. Consequently, there is little unity when it comes to major decision-making.”

Boy, that sounds great. We’ve got to get ourselves some of that here in British Columbia. I mean, seriously. These are the challenges that we face in politics under proportional representation. It is a real problem.

The article goes on to say: “But as Israelis know all too well, a knee-jerk rush to embrace unadulterated proportional representation can result in an equally fraught and fractious system.”

You look at that example, and you think: “Okay. Maybe that’s just an extreme. Maybe that’s just one radical example.” But when you look at all the countries with proportional representation, it’s remarkable how similar a story they have. Yes, some of them are far more functional, obviously, than what’s going on in Israel.

Take Italy, for example. The member who spoke just before me, the member for Peace River South, talked about Italy and 533 times, over the last four years, of people crossing the floor, trying to form governments, trying to get things done. The corruption, the challenges and the issues that are in there are just unsurmountable. Will PR lead to that in British Columbia? Initially, no. But where does it go in the long term? It comes back to that question. What is the problem we are trying to fix here by bringing this in?

When I look at some of the other countries in Europe and the political systems they’re implementing…. As I mentioned — or maybe I didn’t mention — in Belgium, five parties under 15 percent with only one party winning over 20 percent.

[5:40 p.m.]

How do you put together a government like that, that is sustainable and actually works? How do you make decisions? How do you do things that can actually help things go forward?

Twelve parties in the Netherlands under 15 percent — 12 parties under 15 percent, with one party winning 21.3 percent. So that party with 21.3 percent is now the party responsible for trying to form a government.

Parties that call for a racism registry. A racism registry — can you imagine that? Openly calling for that type of thing, because PR allows for that kind of radical perspective. Parties opposed to universal suffrage and want only male heads of the house to vote. Really? Great, yeah. I guess PR can allow for that to come forward too. I mean, that’s just craziness.

You’ve got a 50-plus party focused on pensioners’ issues. It sounds like they have everybody’s interest in mind. In the Netherlands, they’ve got a party for the animals. They actually elect MLAs — or MPs, whichever terminology it is — for a party for the animals. Okay. Those are interesting forms of democracy. I’m not quite sure how that solves issues or problems that we’re facing here in British Columbia, but that’s proportional representation for you.

They have the socialist party, of course, which I’m sure the members opposite that are currently in government are much applauding — the Communist Party of the Netherlands, Marxist-Leninist. You’ve got the GreenLeft Party, which contains the Political Party of Radicals. Wow. The Netherlands sounds like a very interesting place politically in terms of what proportional representation has brought for them.

You look at it, and you think: “Wow. Okay, what is it we’re trying to say here to the people of British Columbia?” These are the examples of proportional representation in other countries. Is that what we want here? Is that why this government is rushing headlong into a referendum without proper engagement, without consultation, without actually making sure that people are fully aware of what the consequences of all this could potentially be?

Moving on, of course, from those, in Denmark there are six parties under 15 percent and three parties over. Hey, they’re doing pretty good. In Germany, four parties under 15 percent, with only two over. And of course, the third-largest party in Germany, 12.6 percent, has the same sort of ultra-right tendencies. But that’s key, as I mentioned earlier — only one governing party, basically, since 1949.

In Italy, it’s almost too many parties to even mention — nine major parties, 28 minor parties with at least 1 percent of the vote. Since World War II, no party has received a majority, always coalitions. I mentioned before the Italian radical party, the Pensioners Party — so many single-issue parties. You see, that’s what proportional representation does.

You think about the New Democratic Party here in the Legislature, and they’re a coalition. They like to think they’re all united, but they’re a coalition. They’ve got the green environmental side. They’ve got the socialist side. They’ve got the labour side. They’ve got the moderate side. Many, many people have found home under their tent.

Similarly, the B.C. Liberal Party is a coalition as well. We’ve got the Conservatives. We’ve got Liberals. We’ve got Reformers. We’ve got components that have come in and been part of a party. We deal with all of these issues internally in terms of how we try to bring forward a platform, how we bring forward what our party stands for, our values, and people are part of that. If they didn’t like that, they’d go off and form other parties, like we’ve seen, and they run in elections.

Ultimately, by having this as part of the party system that we have today under the first-past-the-post system, it allows all of these issues to come together to be able to bring forward a platform that is moderate, that is reasonable, that people vote for and that people expect governments to implement, just like the New Democratic Party does in terms of how they bring things forward.

Yet under proportional representation, to quote the leader of the Green Party, platforms don’t matter. All that matters is the backroom deal. You don’t have to keep promises. They don’t matter. It’s all about the coalition, the agreement — the supply management agreement, or whatever it is they call the thing. You just shake your head, and you think: “Wow. Okay.”

[5:45 p.m.]

If I went to my constituents and I said: “I’m going to promise to pave the roads in gold, and we’re going to have a hospital on every corner and a dozen new schools….” I mean, first of all, they’d all laugh at me, I think, because they’d realize it would be unrealistic. But after being elected, to go to them and say, “Just kidding. We made a deal at the back here with a number of other parties, and because of that, none of our promises we can keep, or they’re all going to need to be modified.”

I’ll tell you what. The people in my riding of Nechako Lakes would look at that and say: “Are you kidding me? Why would you come and tell me you’re doing anything, then? Why do I trust anything that you say you’re going to do?”

We’ve had question period in here for the last number of months, and we’ve been continually pointing out the broken promises of the current government. Why? Well, a number of reasons:(a) they made promises they obviously can’t keep, and (b) because of the coalition and the components not being able to move forward, because the 16 percent green tail is wagging the orange dog. It seems to be the way it goes.

I look at Germany, and of course, lots has been said by some of my colleagues about Germany and the recent challenges they’ve had. In their last election, they had four parties under 15 percent with two over, and as I mentioned, the third-largest party had only 12.6 percent. Now they’re in a situation where they’re trying to form a government. The party that has been basically the one party that has governed in Germany since 1949 is trying desperately to be able to hold a coalition together, and they can’t.

They’re going to face, probably, another election in the coming days. They might be able to govern for a period of time as a minority government. Maybe they can trade off and make some deals and make some promises to parties to hold onto power — promises, obviously, that wouldn’t have been in their platforms when they ran, But hey, you know what? I guess that’s democracy.

The challenge there, of course, is that Germany is probably, out of all of the European countries, one of the beacons. They’ve got a strong economy. They’ve got very good productivity. They’ve got a good lifestyle, for the most part, in Germany. So people look at it and say: “Hey, that’s a pretty good thing.” Yet the governing party enjoys 30, 35 percent of the vote.

I don’t know about you guys, but my perspective on democracy is that you should be trying to get closer to the 50 percent mark, not have things split up. Or in the one case I said, the party with the most votes had only 21 percent of the vote.

As I mentioned, in Ireland, they tried to get rid of the proportional representation system twice. They were unable to do it.

Iceland is an interesting lesson in proportional representation. They have six parties under 15 percent of the vote and one party with 16.9 percent of the vote. Those eight parties are splitting 63 seats, including what everybody thought going into the election would be the party that would actually form government, which is the Pirate Party. They have what they call pirate politics. I don’t know. Sounds pretty radical to me. Sounds like a fringe party from my perspective, but that seems to be where they’re going with politics there.

I know that it is Thursday, and we’ve all got places that we want to go. I do have a lot more that I want to say, but I recognize that people want to get going right now. Quite frankly, it’s clear from the other side that they’re really not listening to me, so I move adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has moved adjournment of the debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, are you proposing adjournment of the debate?

J. Rustad: Sorry. I moved adjournment of the House.

[5:50 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is adjournment of the House.

Motion negatived.

J. Rustad: I reserve my right to continue and move adjournment of the debate.

J. Rustad moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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: This House stands adjourned until Monday, November 27 at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.