Orders of the Day

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

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

(continued)

J. Rustad: I’m pleased to continue my comments with regards to Bill 6. I want to go back to an initial comment I made at the beginning of my last comments last Thursday, which started off with a quote from Oscar Wilde: “When the gods want to punish us, they answer our prayers.”

When you think about PR, when you think about what it’s going to do for this province….

Interjection.

[2:30 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Yes, as the Health Minister says, it does apply to an awful lot. Yes. Be careful what you wish for.

Anyway, when I think back to the conversation and where we were at on proportional representation, I was talking about the cases to: what is the problem we’re trying to solve? Why are we doing this?

I want to start by reading an article that was printed in the Globe and Mail on March 22 of 2016, which talked about it.

“Electoral reform in Canada tends to be propagated under the pretence of making parliament more ‘representative.’ What reformers really want is more representation of ‘their’ views. Proportional representation, or PR, holds out not only the spectre of greater representation of the left, more seats, but greater diversity of representation on the left, more political parties. Reformers seemingly forget that expanded depth and breadth on the left forebodes the same potential on the right.”

It’s worth noting at this point that I think there are some 29 parties registered in British Columbia already. So when you think about where proportional representation is going to lead, what is the long-term result of this? What exactly is it we’re trying to produce from this? This article from the Globe and Mail goes on and says — this was, once again, back on March 22, 2016:

“Over the weekend, we got yet another reminder of the ugly underbelly of democracy, this time in Germany. The electorate in three of Germany’s 16 states went to the polls, two in the former West, one in the former East. A new party with no previous parliamentary representation garnered 15.1 percent in one of them, 12.6 in the other, and an astonishing 24.2 in the third.

“In its rhetoric, the Alternative für Deutschland, or AFD, has much in common with Trump: simple answers to a host of complex problems — disestablishmentarian, anti-immigration, anti-globalization — Islamophobic and a platform long on grievances and short on details.”

Talking about that comment about Islamophobic, just last Monday we had a debate in this Legislature, a member’s statement about the challenge of this. Yet PR is what allows that to actually take form and, potentially, elect candidates in a Legislature, as it has in many countries in Europe. One of the members that is currently not in his seat and doing some heckling — which would be great if we could perhaps contain it — from the members opposite should pay very close attention to the fact that in Europe there are a number of parties now with representatives in governments that have that as one of their political outcomes: Islamophobia.

It’s similar when I think about that platform, which is long on grievances, short on details.

“It’s similar in tone, although not necessarily in degree of ideological extremism, to the Front National in France…the Vlaams Blok in Belgium, to the Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands, a past governing coalition party, the Law and Justice in Poland, the Fidesz in Hungary, the True Finns, the U.K. Independence Party. All share the same electorate.”

This is a difference in outcomes that has less to do with policy and more with electoral systems. This is, once again, from this article from the Globe and Mail. The article goes on and says the difference in outcomes has less to do with policies and more with electoral systems.

“Forms of proportional representation prevail across continental Europe. By contrast, single-member plurality, or SMP” — which we call first-past-the-post here — “prevails in the U.K., U.S., and Canada. Whoever carries a plurality of the vote in a district carries the seat. PR and SMP have opposite intended consequences.”

The key there is “intended consequences.”

“Usually PR empowers ideological margins. SMP moderates them by encouraging brokerage politics and parties. Hurdles, such as 5 percent in Germany, are meant to keep out the ideological riff-raff. But thresholds are irrelevant when the AfD scores popular support in the teens and twenties right out of the gate. SMP would not have prevented the AfD from getting seats here and there, but PR translates into far more seats for the AfD than would have otherwise been the case. It is proportional representation, after all.”

[2:35 p.m.]

I think the key here, when you look through this, is:

“Proportional representation risks begetting an ‘Alternative for Canada.’ Does Canadian democracy really need to put that hypothesis to the test?”

I said in my previous comments, with regards to British Columbia and Canada as being these jurisdictions with — not in Canada’s case, but in British Columbia — balanced budgets, a solid economy, good performance, a very high quality of life and living standards, labour laws, etc…. What is the challenge? Why is it that we’re trying to find a different system that created all of those positive things in Canada and in British Columbia?

There’s only one answer. It is there for one reason and one reason only, and that’s to empower the fringe minority parties — and, of course, by the governing party, to try to maintain power.

There’s another interesting article I want to read and put on record from the New York Times. It goes:

“Proportional representation sounds like the ultimate in democracy — no voice too small to be heard. But its great defect is that it can spawn too many splinter parties. It tends also to create a permanent class of power brokers, since national parties choose lists of candidates and winners owe nothing to their constituencies, providing less accountability than in other systems.”

The article goes on, saying:

“Mechanical changes alone cannot make democracy work, turn crooks into paragons and empower voters. But they might help. Italy has been reeling from scandalous revelations about deep-pocket politicians, billions in graft and corruption links between leaders of musical-chair government and Mafia overlords. This is the bitter fruit of a voting system that favours collusive coalitions, in which the dominant Christian Democrats” — which is the dominant party in Italy — “haggle for spoils with smaller parties.”

Going on:

“Other democracies, notably Israel and Poland, also suffer from the effects of proportional representation. Dreamed up in the 19th century, the system is pure in theory, sometimes calamitous in practice. Typically, parties prepare lists of candidates and voters, either on a national or regional basis, indicating the preferences. It is rare that a single party gains a majority of seats. Thus the system favours weak coalitions and corrupt bargaining.”

The article goes on and says:

“The procedure contrasts with what the British call first-past-the-post, in which candidates with the most votes are declared the winners in single constituencies. That is the method tilted in favour of big parties, since winner takes all. Depending on how third-party vote is distributed, a victorious party can turn 40 percent of the vote into 60 percent of the parliamentary seats.

“Every democracy has to formulate its own approaches to reconcile reconciling majority rule and minority rights” — but I find this very curious — “yet it is a historic oddity that Italy, Poland and Israel have replicated the proportional representation system used by the Weimar Republic, whose disastrous failure opened the way to Hitler’s takeover.”

I don’t see that happening here in British Columbia, but it is interesting to note what sort of challenges that a political system can lead to.

The article goes on to say:

“Some jurisdictions let voters recall their rep. PR fails to allow this. After a PR election, we cannot trace a voter to his representative, so we cannot know which voters might ethically vote to recall each rep. Full rep” — or PR — “is promoted most loudly by members of a few tiny fringe groups, such as the Libertarian Party and the Greens. They hope PR will give them the balance of power between the two major parties, as indeed it sometimes does in countries which use PR. Voters are better served by focusing on realistic policy options promoted by major candidates.”

There is a tremendous amount of articles that have been written — all across newspapers, all across various countries — all about the challenges of PR. It points out some very good issues. It points out the challenges that we have under a system that is not accountable. As the leader of the Green Party has said: “Platforms don’t matter.” It’s all about the backroom deals. It’s all about how the power broking can come together.

[2:40 p.m.]

Those are the exact same things that led to what those articles are talking about: the challenges we see in Israel, the corruption and challenges that we see in Italy, the issues of extremism that we see popping up in various countries across Europe that have PR systems. This is what PR does. It’s the inevitability.

You can’t look for examples across Europe or other places in the world, in the tens, if not hundreds, of countries that use PR that can come out and show how it has been successful. There are all challenges. There are all problems.

No democratic system is perfect. There is no question of that. But a system that has produced good, solid results for a country like Canada and a province like British Columbia, for other jurisdictions that are using the first-past-the-post or single-member-plurality…. That system has led to the kind of results that I think people are looking for, that people want. It’s hard to imagine…. I want to quote the Premier today from question period, when he stood up and answered a question about PR. He said that he personally wants to bring in PR.

Well, first of all, that’s certainly not neutral. Second of all, it certainly supports everything this government is doing, whether it is the consultation process that they’re doing in stacking the deck with people that are looking for PR, or whether it is an on-line form, which I went and filled out — the questionnaire going out to the public, which is clearly biased in its questions and how it’s doing it.

It’s incredible to think that a process by a minority government, a process that came about through a backroom, power-brokered deal, has the potential to change democracy in this province forever, when they themselves didn’t even get the threshold needed and are asking us to disregard the threshold across the province for any of the regions from across this province and simply have a 50 percent plus one, with not even a threshold for number of voters that participate.

The question in question period today was: “If 10 percent of the population participated, would that be enough?” Under what the governing party has said, it would be enough. A simple 50 percent plus one, of 10 percent of the population, would be enough to enact proportional representation. It’s crazy to think that our system that has produced such great results could be changed so simply and so easily.

I just want to requote from the Telegraph of April 23, 2011. “PR fails the challenge of positive electoral reform. Regardless of the model that is offered, PR may be proportional, but it is not representation.” To me, that’s the key. It goes back to my original comments that I made last Thursday.

You think about your riding, and you think about needing to represent people in the riding. How can an MLA be accountable and representative of those constituents when there is no constituency necessarily? There is no way to be able to make that connection.

I had an issue come up just today, actually. It was posted on social media for me as well as sent in emails. A person who is accused of murder, who admitted to wanting to kill four people and tragically killed one person before being arrested, has been released on bail to go back to the community, the community in which he allegedly admitted to having undertaken this act. The people in that community are outraged. They don’t want to see this person back in the community. So what did they do? The first thing they did was contact their MLA. “What can you do? How can you help us with the situation?”

Under proportional representation, who do they contact? Do they go off and contact somebody who hasn’t got the connection, who doesn’t know them personally, who hasn’t had the opportunity to be out travelling around and representing the area? Who do they contact? That’s the real problem under proportional representation. Accountability is just not there.

[2:45 p.m.]

I was reading through a list of countries that have gone through PR. I want to reiterate something that I mentioned before, which is Iceland, which is slightly larger than my riding but obviously very sparsely populated — only about 200,000 voters. Eight parties split 63 seats, with no party…. Political parties elected with less than 15 percent. I think only one party was around 23 percent, and it’s going to be the one that’s going to be asked to become government — pretty remarkable when you think about the way that is.

All of this speaks to one very important piece. In democracy, it’s important to be able to have people understand what’s being proposed and to have a fair and open system if you’re ever going to think about changing the way we vote.

Last time around I talked about the reports on proportional representation, the reports that came out from the previous referendum. I have copies of them here — Making Every Vote Count: The Case for Electoral Reform in British Columbia, the 2004 technical report and final reports. Those reports talked about the importance of getting out and engaging with people around the province. They talked about the importance of making sure that people understood what there was to fully engage in.

For the first time in history — that I know of, in my limited amount of doing research — no other jurisdiction has had the idea of a citizens’ assembly to go out and actually formulate the question and do this kind of purpose. You think about all of that effort that went in over those years — both leading up to the 2005 election and the 2009 election — all of that amount of engagement, the idea coming forward of the vote. Yet through all of that, the amount of awareness was low.

Here we are now, 2017. Now we’re eight years since the last referendum, and a referendum is being proposed without any of that — without any of the significant engagement working up to it, without the understanding of what needs to be put in place, with simple push-button, on-line agendas and biased perspectives from experts. It’s amazing. It truly is.

The real challenge, I think, for me is that people don’t pay a lot of attention to politics — and probably for good reason. They’ve got lots of other things going on in their life. But this has the potential to forever change how democracy could work in this province. I’ve been making the argument that it won’t change it for the better. How could it change it for the better, when you look at all the examples around the world and all the challenges that have come up through the system?

It’s interesting. The Fraser Institute…. I know a lot of folks on the government side don’t pay a lot of attention to Fraser Institute. They came out with quite a lengthy report called First-Past-the-Post: Empowered Voters, Accountable Government. I went through. Out of the conclusion, I’ll just read one line from that part of the report. It says: “First-past-the-post is the only way of voting that assures effective and accountable government. We abandon it at our peril.” It’s very true.

When you look at — as I mentioned, from an article before — countries around the world that have PR, there’s no way to, as I quote from the article, “throw the bums out.” It’s not possible under a PR system. It’s not possible.

The 2001 turfing of the NDP was impossible, the 1991 turfing of the Social Credit isn’t possible, under a PR system. It just doesn’t happen. At least, if it…. I suppose it could happen. But the reality in every jurisdiction around the world is that’s never happened. You can’t tell me there hasn’t been governments that people have wanted to turf from time to time. It wouldn’t make sense for that to happen.

Going out and listening to the people, having that way to be able to have that input, I think, is an important component of what democracy needs to be, of what we need to be thinking about doing.

[2:50 p.m.]

Another example from my riding is a mine, right now, Mount Milligan, that is facing a real challenge. It needs to go through a process to be able to access water. So what happened? They got the locals of the day…. The locals in various communities have come out and said, “Can you help us?” because they know they’ve got an MLA that works in their riding.

I know that if you asked every MLA around the House, around this Legislature — except for, perhaps, all the new ones, because they haven’t had as much time in their office — all of them will give examples. All of them can tell stories about how they had been able to make a difference advocating for an issue, trying to solve individual interests or interests in an area. Yet, without a doubt — and I think about Nechako Lakes — the chances under proportional representation of a representative coming from my area are pretty slim. It’s just a simple, straight fact of numbers.

An area that is 2.2 times the size of Vancouver Island, 72,000 square kilometres but only 30,000 people — their weighted concerns are not the same as an area of, say, Prince George, of 70,000 people, or the area of other larger communities. So it would be hard to get somebody to be able to give the same attention as you would under first-past-the-post, where somebody has to be representing that area. There are many areas around the province that are like that.

You think about the natural gas industry up in the Peace. The Peace country is very well represented by the two MLAs that are currently elected from that area. They know the area. They’ve lived in the area. They understand the things that go on with the natural gas. They understand all the issues around Site C, etc. Yet under PR there’s no guarantee there would be anybody from up there that would be elected. How could they? With the percentage of population that they have up there, it’s not even the size of one larger community down in the southern half of the province. That creates a real challenge.

You think about all the issues in my riding. I’ve got 13 First Nations that have reserves in my riding, as well as a number of others that have traditional territory that overlaps into my riding. I’ve gone and engaged with all of them. Now, it helped, of course, being the minister for a period of time, but even before that, I had engaged with all of them. How does that engagement work when you don’t have a representative for a particular area? It makes it very, very challenging.

I think, as I went on and did the research.... I encourage everybody to go out, all the public, members of the elected or unelected people, and get informed on this issue. It is important. Whether it’s urban areas or rural areas, it is important.

The biggest issue, I think, is certainly that piece of not having a representative that is accountable to a particular area. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re in Burnaby, Richmond, Victoria or Nechako Lakes. It’s all the same, all the same issue. If a representative is not doing the job, how do you hold them accountable?

Let’s say you happen to like the party that’s in power but the representative is not doing a very good job. You don’t have a choice. You can’t vote out anybody, because they’re on a party list. They’re on some inside list that’s power brokered and done. There is no direct accountability.

Was it the NDP government in the 1990s — I’ll look for your guidance, Madame Speaker, because you were here then — that introduced recall legislation? I think it was. That was out of the desire that came out of the 1980s.

Recall legislation. How would that work under proportional representation? How would they be able to reach that threshold of 40 percent of the registered voters in a particular constituency over a period of time if PR happens to come in? I’m sure the NDP government of the day thought recall was a great idea. It was solving a democratic problem that came out of the 1980s, yet it’s completely abandoned because something new is coming along.

Well, in this province, something new doesn’t necessarily mean something better. We need to be able to have the consistency.

[2:55 p.m.]

Last night, Sunday, I had the opportunity to attend the opening reception for a clean energy conference. I was out talking with a number of the people that want to move forward projects and want to invest hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in projects in this province. And they’re optimistic about potential for growth. They’re optimistic about the potential need for electricity, the changes to our system, whether it be electric vehicles or other such technologies that are going change the way the whole demand curve works. But they also know that they need to have an environment that they can count on, a stable environment to be able to invest that money.

Under proportional representation, where you’ve got governments — as a minority government that you have today — that could fall over short periods of time, you could have power-brokered deals where you have no idea what a particular party stands for. It doesn’t create a very inviting environment for investing.

I think about forestry and what’s happening with forestry, with softwood lumber, and the negotiations that are going on that have clearly broken down, the challenges that we have with trade, with NAFTA, etc. It makes it hard for anybody to invest to begin with in this province, but when you add that layer of uncertainty…. Capital is fickle. It can go anywhere. It can go to any jurisdiction to invest and to create jobs, create prosperity and improve quality of life. If we have a jurisdiction that is not stable, it just makes it that much harder to get anything done.

Some people have criticized me in the past for perhaps being too supportive of economic development and projects. But I’ll say this: I come from a rural area. When you’re in a rural area, you never know what project will go forward. You may have a dozen projects that are proposed, yet over time, maybe one of them comes through and actually creates the kind of jobs and hope and opportunity for a community. That’s why you have to support all the projects that come through.

I mean, they have to, obviously, meet standards. They have to be respectful, etc. But the challenge of trying to attract that capital and that investment, whether it’s a new mine that…. AuRico Gold is currently being bought out for the Kemess Underground. It’s going to be about $650 million that’s needed to be attracted to build that underground mine. That’s a lot of money for people to make a bet on a jurisdiction where they have no idea what the rules could be or how things could change.

Under the system we have — and there have been switches back and forth between the New Democrat Party and whether it’s a Conservative or a Liberal or a Social Credit Party on the other side — at least it creates some predictability because party platforms outline exactly what they’re going to stand for. That doesn’t exist under PR. Platforms don’t matter. Horse trading, all those kinds of components — the examples that I’ve given — create those challenges and that amount of uncertainty.

I think as we go through this debate…. Many of people have added a lot of comments. Many people have said the challenges that they see within their area. I just can’t understand, once again, how it is that we want to change something that has worked so well. One might argue that the current situation did not work well. The party that won the most seats didn’t form government, but that is our system. Even though I’m not happy with the results — as, I would argue, a majority of people in the province are not happy with the results — it is what it is.

It’s no different than the elections that have happened throughout the past. Democracy is not perfect, as Winston Churchill has said. So many people have given those examples as to why democracy is challenging, but this experiment called proportional representation is not the answer.

The member from Nanaimo argued with me. “Well, you know, if we don’t like it, in a couple of terms, we can get rid of it.” There has been a number of jurisdictions with forms of proportional representation that have tried to get rid of the system that they have. They’ve held referendums. They’ve tried to build coalitions, but the bottom line is they could never quite get to the threshold to get rid of it. Not that people weren’t happy with the system that they have, but people could not see how to change it. You couldn’t get enough consensus to go back to a different model.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s a real challenge, because once, particularly, small fringe groups like the Green Party or other small factions get power, they’re not going to want to change. Whoever they’re making power deals with, they’re not going to want to change it. So how do you get the momentum to actually get back to a system that works?

As designated speaker coming through this, it’s been an honour to be able to share comments through this. But I am also forced to move a motion associated with this, and that is:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 6) intituled Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”]

On the amendment.

J. Rustad: Upon moving this motion, the intent of this motion is to allow people, government and the various parties to be able to go forward, have more consultation and get people to have a better understanding, a more full understanding, of what this proposal is for proportional representation, because it’s so critical to the future of this province. It’s critical to all regions of the province, both urban and rural. It’s critical that we’re able to move forward in a way that people fully understand the consequences.

I would argue that what is currently being proposed by this government will not allow that. It will not allow for that fulsome discussion. It will not allow for the ability of people to have the kind of engagement that I feel and that I’m sure many other members in this Legislature feel is critical for making this decision on proportional representation.

This amendment allows for that extra time. It allows for the kind of engagement that I think all members in this House stand for — to be able to go out, spend time in the constituencies, have those discussions to allow the yes and the no sides to be able to fully develop, get out there and have a more fulsome engagement. It allows the electorate to become more engaged and understand what’s going on with this.

Quite frankly, it would be better if we ran a full election rather than a mail-in ballot on this, but it will at least allow for more time for that wholesome debate and discussion to happen, which is why I consider this to be a reasonable amendment in terms of bringing this forward. That engagement is fundamental to democracy.

Anything short of having the full type of engagement that’s required in something that’s so fundamental to the fabric of our society and our democracy is, quite frankly, an affront. I think it should be opposed — to try to rush through to this. We need to be able to have that fulsome debate.

By moving this motion, I’m hoping that it will find the kind of support that’s needed to allow for this type of engagement and knowledge and allow government to get the type of full feedback that is going to be needed to be able to make the decision. Quite frankly, a clear question can be developed, hopefully a question that is simple, that is yes or no and straightforward so that the electorate can be clear as to what it is they’re voting on.

Right now, when you go out and talk to people about this, a lot of people aren’t paying attention to what’s going on here. We have the circles, we have the people, obviously, that we’re directly in contact with, but you go out and talk to the average person — they’re not aware of this. And not without a significant plan and strategy for engagement will that level of awareness be high.

I quoted before, from the past two referendums, the level of penetration in terms of the knowledge. Only 15 percent understood what STV was, and 60 percent of the people either didn’t know or didn’t have an opinion with regards to it. That is unacceptable for that referendum, and quite frankly, it’s why it failed. Certainly that level of awareness needs to be raised if we’re going to have any hope at all of having a good, solid debate on the issue of proportional representation.

[3:05 p.m.]

I know there’ll be many other comments that people will want to add with regards to the motion that I have moved. With that, I will take my place and let the debate carry on.

L. Throness: I would like to support the motion of the previous member. I want to remind my constituents that I’m speaking to Bill 6, which is the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

The motion to consider it now has been amended, or proposed to be amended, by my hon. colleague, by deleting the word “now” and substituting the words “six months hence.” That would simply postpone the consideration of the bill for six months.

I think that’s important because my constituents are not engaged on this bill. My constituents don’t really know what’s going on. They don’t know the referendum bill that has been proposed by the government, which has not informed British Columbians about the content of the bill. I think that if they knew what the content was, they would be angered. So I want to speak in support of this motion.

I want to give a number of reasons why I will support this motion, and I want to do so by addressing several myths. I want to do it by addressing four myths of proportional representation, the first being the myth of collegiality.

The myth is that proportional representation would bring about more agreement, more cordiality and more collegiality in this place, that people would work together, better and more closely, that we’d all cooperate as a big happy family, that we would rid ourselves of the messy adversarial nature of the Westminster system, which we inherited from the U.K., where the opposition and the government are always bickering with each other.

I’ve made the case, and I’ll make the case again, that it will do just the opposite. The House we have now is much more peaceful than it would be under proportional representation. PR will cause even more division, more fractious debate than exists in this place already because the fracturing of the political spectrum would splinter politics into smaller political parties, which would cause them to dig in to their policy positions.

I want to describe why. When you think of it, why does a new party form in the first place? It’s because people have a cause. They have a great idea. They’re dedicated to their cause and their great idea. They go public, they go political and they go to the enormous effort that it takes to create a political party to try to make a difference across the province. The smaller the party, the more likely it is to be focused on a narrow issue or a narrow range of issues, and therefore, the more committed they would be to the cause, to their issues.

They’re not going to compromise on policy. Why would they? The reason they’re in the Legislature is because they would have held uncompromisingly to the policies that got them elected. To turn their backs on those policies could result in their defeat next time. So, in a structural way, even more disagreement than there is in the Westminster system of government would be built into the PR system, as every political party would have less incentive to compromise, more incentive to disagree, to dig in, to fight for their policy.

That’ll mean more debate, more factions, more fractions, more splinters, more stalemate, fewer bold decisions and less activity in this place, as the ruling coalition would have to devote time and energy struggling to put together a policy program that would please all the parties they need together to govern. Some of those parties may be poles apart in terms of policy and language and tone — very difficult to put them together.

A year ago we had two parties in this place, two main blocs of disagreement, and often, although people don’t know this, the NDP voted with the B.C. Liberals on bills that we would propose. They even voted for a B.C. Liberal budget a couple of years back, which I found astounding. Even in this place now, we vote with the government. We did last week on a smaller bill. So we do find ways to agree in this place, with two political parties. Now that we have three political parties in place, I would say that there’s one third more debate in this place, as well, than there was a year ago, and that is quite enough.

I want to move on to the second myth of proportional representation, which is the myth of positive international experience. There’s really a good object lesson in this regard from the experience internationally. When you read the writings of those who advocate for PR, they’ll point to the fact that most western democracies have it, therefore we should too — sort of an international keep-up-with-the-Joneses policy. It’s the fashion, the style of the day, so we all ought to jump on board.

I want to talk about a couple of experiences. I want to talk about the best and the worst experience with PR internationally. PR supporters will argue, for example, that it’s unfair to talk about places like Italy, which is sort of a fringe country in this regard since it’s had a notoriously bad record. It’s had an unstable government for decades.

[3:10 p.m.]

On the other hand, I would argue that it’s perfectly fair to talk about Italy. In fact, I want to especially talk about Italy, because they held a referendum in 1993 that was supported by 95 percent of the electorate, after a whole bunch of sleazy corruption scandals rocked that country in the years prior to 1993. That referendum in 1993 mandated Italy to leave its former full reliance on proportional representation that had been in place since the Second World War and introduce a first-past-the-post system for 75 percent of the seats in the national assembly.

Why did they do this? I want to quote here. I could have chosen many quotes — I found many quotes — but I thought Wikipedia’s was concise and really to the point: “The nearly pure proportional representation system of the First Republic had resulted not only in party fragmentation and, therefore, governmental instability but also insulation of the parties from the electorate and civil society. This was known in Italian as partitocrazia, in contrast to democracy, and resulted in corruption and pork-barrel politics.”

Now, I would quickly say that partitocrazia, in Italian — and my Italian is rather rusty — is a way of saying, in English, “party-ocracy.” Instead of autocracy or plutocracy or democracy, you have a new English word, party-ocracy, which is a de facto form of government where one or more political parties dominate the political process, rather than citizens and/or individual politicians.

Why would we want that kind of a system here in B.C., a porkbarrelling, party-dominated system that was largely rejected 25 years ago by the western government with the worst political record in Europe? It’s amazing that we are thinking today of establishing PR here in B.C.

Lest members be skeptical about my analysis, lest they think that I’m biased, allow me move on to talk about another country with proportional representation that’s the opposite of Italy. Let’s talk about the country with the best record in Europe. Let’s talk about a country which PR supporters love to talk about. It’s regarded as a European model of political stability and modernity and progressiveness and all of those other good things. It’s one of the G7. It’s the fourth-largest economy in the world.

Of course, I’m talking about Germany, which has had proportional representation ever since the Second World War as well. It was introduced in 1949. They’ve had it for a long, long time.

Well, there was an election in Germany on September 24. This is after Germany chose some very controversial immigration policies. They brought in more than a million immigrants since 2015. There have been tremendous problems with crime and with integration. Now those new Germans are clamouring for their family members to come to Germany, which would augment their numbers by millions.

The political result is that the AfD, which is called the Alternative für Deutschland, or Alternative for Germany party — a brand-new, previously marginal Eurosceptic party founded in 2013, just four years old — was not happy about immigration. It has burst into the mainstream, with 13 percent of the votes and 94 seats in the Bundestag. So in the election on September 24, there was no majority government.

True to form for proportional representation systems, as always happens, the required negotiations began in earnest to try to cobble together some kind of a coalition government. But the many sides are far, far apart. Negotiations began two months ago. We just learned in the news a few days ago that those negotiations have now broken down. There’s no obvious partner for Angela Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union, the CDU. She can’t come to an agreement with a minority.

Here’s what the AFP — all sorts of acronyms today — the French press agency, has to say: “Germany now faces weeks, if not months, of paralysis, with a lame-duck government that is unlikely to take bold policy action at home or on the European stage.”

Well, why didn’t the negotiations work out? During the two months of negotiations, party after German party stuck to their special issues. The FDP’s issue is business. They walked away from negotiations. They weren’t happy. The AfD party’s issue is immigration. They’re not happy, obviously, about their main issue. The Green Party’s main problem is energy. They want to phase out coal.

I would remind this House that Germany, which is supposedly a green wunderkind, which elected Green Party members beginning in 1993 — and there were various iterations of pre-Green, similar parties for a decade before that — still depends on coal for 40 percent of its power.

[3:15 p.m.]

The Greens in this House oppose the Site C dam, which would be entirely green in its electricity. The German Greens would be green with envy of their B.C. cousins and would sure love to switch places with them, even though the Greens here in B.C. don’t seem to appreciate just how good we have it, with more than 93 percent of our electricity being clean and green already. We don’t use any coal at all to produce electricity in B.C.

In any case, I digress. The German Greens won’t budge unless they get their way on coal.

Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the amendment, Member.

L. Throness: I am speaking to the amendment, and I continue to speak to the amendment, Madame Speaker. I just diverged for a moment.

The SPD, the Social Democratic Party, won’t even start negotiations. They lost big-time in the election in September and have altogether refused to come to the table with Angela Merkel’s CDU, and it goes on and on. So what is Germany looking at after two months of non-stop political turmoil? Thanks to the intricate machinations of proportional representation, they’re now faced with the possibility of a snap election two months later, two months after the last one.

Does that remind you of something? Does it remind you of what nearly happened this summer in B.C.? A snap election a couple months after the May 9 election because of the difficulty of forming a government, given the entry of a third party into the scene. That is a portent of what would come to B.C. as a regular occurrence under proportional representation.

Why does Madam Merkel want another election? Because, she says to the press, she wants a majority government. In other words, in her view, proportional representation failed to deliver what is in the best interests of Germany. Maybe Germany should move toward a majoritarian or first-past-the-post system like Italy did. And you might well see that in the coming months, after the train wreck that is in full swing over there.

Well, there’s just one word for the situation in Germany, and that is “chaos.” It’s political chaos. It’s another object lesson for B.C. For the past 114 years, since 1903, we have had party government here in B.C. Since 1952, we’ve always had majorities, except for this past election. Our political system has delivered a stable government almost every time, and that’s thanks to the majoritarian system.

We would be looking at something more like Germany in the future with proportional representation — heaven forbid. The people of B.C. saw this twice before, in two referendums, in 2005 and 2009. With our help on this side, they’re going to see it again, I trust, and vote it down one more time.

I want to continue on with my myth-busting. The third myth is the myth of the equally weighted vote. The way a coalition forms: there’s usually a larger party that negotiates with a smaller one in the Legislature to form a government. It has to negotiate with a smaller one, and it often gives in on key policy issues in order to get the support of the smaller party. This means that smaller parties can exert disproportionate power on government in legislatures with PR election systems.

We see this at work in the Legislature today with the Greens having a very significant effect on what the NDP government does. With only three members, they can hold the threat of an election over the heads of 41 other MLAs. The tail is effectively wagging the dog in this place. This is important because those who support proportional representation always argue that PR provides everyone with an equal vote. The proportion of votes in the province is mirrored by the proportion of the seats in the Legislature.

In fact, it’s written into the name of the system — proportional representation — and, therefore, is supposedly fairer than other systems. But of course, that isn’t true. Proportional representation disproportionately empowers voters for smaller parties, even fringe parties, at the expense of the majority of voters who tend to vote for one of a few main parties, as they voted for the B.C. Liberals in a majority way in the last election.

Allow me to give an international example. In Ireland in 1989, there was an election, which was the fifth one that decade under proportional representation. It resulted in eight parties being represented in that House. The Republican Party, which is known as Fianna Fáil, just one of the two larger parties in the House in Ireland, won the most seats, 77 seats, but had to negotiate with the Progressive Democrats, who had only six seats in the Legislature. The Progressive Democrats demanded and received two cabinet posts, which was all out of proportion to their vote. The weight of a Progressive Democrat vote in Ireland was much greater than a Republican vote.

[3:20 p.m.]

Another example is found right in this House. One single vote of a person who voted for the B.C. Liberal party in the last election counted for less, had less weight, was less effective, was less powerful and meant less than one single vote for the Green Party. Just think: three members in this place can make or break the NDP on any vote it chooses. It could even topple the government and cause a snap election if it wants. That is pure political party.

As a result, the NDP will do anything to please them. It has no choice. It will even offer a referendum on proportional representation that we’re debating today, even though it’s contrary to their own interests, since proportional representation could decimate the NDP as well as the B.C. Liberals on this side of the House.

There are different combinations of left that could band together on the other side, which would have every incentive to splinter and fragment into little parties. That is raw power put into the hands of just 17 percent of the voters of B.C., while all the other 80 percent have proportionally far less power in their votes.

It’s almost as if those three constituencies now held by Green members each had, say, maybe 200,000 voters in them, instead of 35,000, in terms of sheer voting power — six times the weight. So let’s explode the myth of equality of votes under proportional representation. They are not by any means equal.

Let’s go on to a fourth myth. Let’s talk about the myth of fairness. Let’s expand on it a little. Supporters of proportional representation say that PR is fair because members in this House would be apportioned on a percentage basis according to the percentage of the vote. So 50 percent of the voters would vote according to the policies they liked, supported by different political parties. They might vote for Green or NDP or B.C. Liberal policies. If they voted for those policies, they’d win half of the members of this House and get their policies enacted.

Well, the question is this: on what basis is this system fair? Now, I don’t argue that the proportion of seats would be roughly equal to the proportion of votes. First-past-the-post is also a proportional system, but the proportions are on a different basis. In a majoritarian system, proportionality refers to geography rather than policy.

Here’s how it’s proportionate. For each constituency, all across the province, the candidate who pulls the highest vote is elected. That allows each constituency to be represented in proportion to its population on a geographic basis.

The PR system, on the other hand, is about proportion in policy preference. There’s no reason why proportion by policy preference is more fair than proportion by geography. Indeed, I would say by allowing fringe and potentially dangerous policy preferences a seat at the table, proportional representation threatens the stability of government.

Our province is a combination of people, of policy and of land. Local issues matter. That is so important in our context because B.C. is a big place. It’s huge in geography. It’s spread out. But the NDP lost heavily in rural areas. It lost heavily on a geographic basis. They won in urban areas, so they have jettisoned the areas in which they didn’t win.

They’ve not mandated in the referendum, in the bill before us, any geographic representation at all. They’ve totally rejected and forsaken rural B.C., which will be cut out of the decision-making, because most people live in Vancouver, and they will be able to call the shots for the entire province — not just in the referendum but through proportional representation forever. I would say that’s terrible for our democracy.

I can’t believe that the NDP would do this to our province, by cutting out the influence of rural B.C. I hope the Attorney General is giving close attention to these words because these are important.

I’ve addressed the four myths of proportional representation. It’s not collegial, it’s not internationally successful, it’s not equal, and it is not fair.

I want to move on to a couple of other topics. I want to talk about economics for a moment. I want to talk about the economics of countries which have proportional representation now. Here are some more instructive, object lessons.

It’s a well-known fact that government spending in countries with proportional representation is markedly higher than spending in other countries. Well, the Greens say they love data. We have lots of data on this, and it is irrefutable. The data is in. It’s not just an opinion; this is a factual issue.

For some local examples, just to manage the relationship between the NDP and the Greens will cost a million bucks over the next four years. The Greens are pushing the NDP to cancel Site C. What would be the cost of that? Four billion dollars to the economy and an immediate jump of 10 percent in higher hydro rates.

[3:25 p.m.]

What’s the cost of cancelling the Massey Tunnel replacement bridge at the behest of the Greens? It’s incalculable. How do you quantify missing your kid’s soccer practices and the cost of other delays spent sitting in stalled traffic? Multiply those delays by 80,000 a day, year after year after year.

You talk about the cost to the province of $1 billion over 20 years if we lose the Trans Mountain Pipeline. There are already tangible costs to the coalition.

I want to move on to talk about data. I want to cite a 2016 study called Electoral Rules and Fiscal Policy Outcomes by Jason Clemens, Taylor Jackson, Steve LaFleur and Joel Emes of the Fraser Institute, a study that found that the average size of central governments from 2000 to 2014 in countries with PR was almost 25 percent larger than in countries with majoritarian election rules, similar to what we have here in B.C.

We’re looking at 25 percent larger government because of PR over time. If our annual budget is $52 billion today, a 25 percent increase would be $13 billion more added to that, a $65 billion budget. I don’t think that’s far-fetched at all, given what we have seen already in the past couple of months of coalition government.

The same study also found that PR countries tend to finance this extra spending by running larger deficits. Why would this be the case? As I have pointed out before, PR systems tend to elect more parties to the Legislature, increasing the likelihood for more coalition governments. In order to form coalition governments, there has to be negotiation, larger parties with smaller parties. Larger parties have to capitulate on some of their spending promises in order to gain the support of smaller ones, which leads to higher levels of government spending.

I would add to that. The larger a party you have, the more responsible it has to be in proposing policy, because these policies might actually happen. The smaller the political party, the less responsible it tends to be, because its policy is less likely to be implemented. So a small party can call for all kinds of radical change and negotiate big compromises from larger parties, all of which leads to the abandonment of balanced budgets. It leads to larger governments, bigger deficits and debt.

Other academic studies have reached similar conclusions. I’ll just refer to one more. We could talk about a book called The Economic Effects of Constitutions written by economists Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini. They look at the impact of electoral rules on government spending in 85 countries. That’s pretty definitive. Their research found that spending was almost 6 percent of GDP lower in countries with majoritarian systems — in other words, a first-past-the-post system, like we have now — than in countries with PR election rules.

British Columbians who care about balanced budgets, lower debts and lower deficits should oppose the adoption of the proportional voting system. They should also oppose it on the grounds that the resultant bigger size of government reduces economic growth in the longer run. Interestingly, the higher government spending in PR countries is financed to a greater extent with deficits than spending in other countries. So just another reason for British Columbians to vote against PR.

Now I want to move on to the issue of accountability. I want to talk about several issues here under the broad heading of accountability. First is the problem with local accountability in proportional representation.

Right now we have recall here in B.C. Voters can recall a member if they don’t like that member, if they can get enough signatures to force a by-election. The measure is not dormant. Although we’ve never had a by-election generated by the recall law, there have been 26 recall petitions launched since the law went into effect in 1995. So although no by-election has actually been triggered, the process is there, the process is active, and it serves as a check on an MLA’s behaviour since he or she knows that at any time, a recall initiative could begin.

Proportional representation would eliminate recall because after a PR election, we can’t trace a voter to his or her representative. The people who voted for an MLA may be thinly scattered across a very wide area. When you have more than one MLA representing a large conglomerate area, maybe the size of seven ridings now, to which voters within that super riding is the MLA responsible? We can’t tell, so there would be no recall. The accountability that it requires would be gone under proportional representation. I would add accountability for local issues to this. They’re lost in PR. In first-past-the-post, politicians represent local constituencies, so they’re much more likely to tackle local issues.

[3:30 p.m.]

Why would an MLA who lives in Harrison Mills, for instance, be concerned about an issue in Cloverdale, or vice versa? They might if they’re a virtuous person and a good MLA, but my point is that there’s no built-in structural requirement or democratic incentive giving them an incentive to pay attention to local issues.

Right now an MLA has what I would call the democratic imperative. He or she wants to get re-elected. Therefore, he or she has to pay attention, is forced to pay attention, to the little issues in his or her riding, and that’s a very good thing, but that would be lost under proportional representation. There would also be a lack of accountability on policy. Although a person may vote for a party because of its policies, because of the negotiating process after the election, a voter never knows whether their favourite policy might be traded away in order to obtain power.

In fact, there are several proportional representation countries, including New Zealand and Denmark, which are now pushing parties to declare their preferred allies before each election so that voters have some predictability. There’s no such guarantee with PR, but I would say that’s a step toward the majoritarian system — declaring your preferred allies before an election.

I want to add to this the issue of accountability in the broadest sense. Under a PR system, it would be very difficult to remove a reasonably sized centrist party from power. When governments are usually coalitions, some political parties are always there in government.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

For example, I would cite the Free Democratic Party in Germany, which was a member of the governing coalition for all but eight of 50 years, from 1949 to 1998, although it never gained more than 12 percent of the vote — pretty tough to get rid of a party like that.

Some parties will have an incentive to race towards the middle in policy, to head for safe ground, with policies that are watered-down, middle of the road — a mishmash of policy that doesn’t represent, really, anyone’s views. It adds to the fact that it’s an indecisive system.

Let me move on. The centralization of parties in the political process is really a profound concern that I have, so I want to deal with this for some time. We all have political parties. They’re not technically necessary to the political process, although it would be hard to get along without them, of course. We could all be independents in this place. For example, very few municipalities in B.C., except in Vancouver, have municipal political parties.

The larger the electorate is, the more you need political groupings, coalitions of like-minded people, in order to get things done. We call those groupings parties. Vancouver has such groupings, but Vancouver’s parties are not usually known as parties. For example, we have the Non-Partisan Association. That’s an association, not a party. We have Vision Vancouver, which doesn’t attach to it the name “party.” We have the Coalition of Progressive Electors. It, too, does not take on the name “party.”

Only Vancouver’s Green Party uses the title “party,” and for good reason. There’s a distaste for political parties on the municipal stage. People prefer a non-partisan process, and I’ve found that on the doorstep. People don’t like political parties very much.

In this House, we could all conceivably sit as independents. It would be impossible to govern in this way, so we need the political parties. But all around the world, for the last century, political parties have vied with the legislatures of their countries for control. Think of the communist parties of the former Soviet Union, the Communist Party of China. They’ve vied with the legislatures.

Even here in Canada…. I’ve been involved with political parties for a long time and have found that there’s always something of a tension between a political party and the elected members. That’s why I would oppose proportional representation in this place. It accords a formal, irreplaceable and central role to the political parties in B.C. It would make political parties much more powerful than they are today.

Some MLAs would be chosen off party lists. Those people would be directly or indirectly beholden to the party in a new and important way, but the party is not elected to the Legislature. Invisible party officials would be lurking in the background, manipulating Byzantine rules of proportional representation, and they would wield real, formal party power, although unelected, and that’s wrong. It’s undemocratic. The people of B.C. should reject it when the referendum comes this next fall for this reason alone, in addition to all the others I have cited.

I would close by saying that the U.K. has a majoritarian system. In 2011, they had a referendum, and 68 percent of voters in the U.K. voted to continue their majoritarian system and reject proportional representation. That was a very good idea.

[3:35 p.m.]

So 2.4 billion people in this world today are governed by majoritarian systems. It serves them well. It’s served us well for 100 years. It’s served Canada well, and I would encourage us to keep that and vote against this motion.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure today to rise to speak to the amendment on the proportional representation bill.

Fortunately, one of the benefits of having such a large opposition is that there are a good 40 of us that all have varying opinions on this bill and the amendment. I’m sure we’ll hear from the vast majority of us.

I will stick to the points that particularly bother me around the bill and why I think the amendment to give that six-month period is wise and, hopefully, supportable by this House to make sure that we really are, as a House, moving forward to the public, making sure that we go into a referendum with the most informed public that we possibly can around a referendum.

We’ve heard a lot about the 2005 and 2009 referendums. Those two referendums, and the outcomes of those two referendums, really drive my belief that the six-month period that this amendment would bring forward is crucial for us to better inform the public. When you look at the results of 2005 and 2009, they very much mirror what is going on in this House. I’ll get into that in a little more detail.

In 2005, we saw a referendum that actually almost passed. It was at 57.8, 57.9 percent in favour, but it didn’t pass on the second test, didn’t come close on the second test, around the number of ridings needed. Why that’s important is because if we think back, historically, on what drove the 2005 referendum, it was the result in a general election where we saw 77 to 2 in this House — elected B.C. Liberals versus the NDP.

I think that put a bit of unease to the electorate, and I can understand why. A strong opposition in our Westminster system is vital to having a strong, functioning democracy that we all count on in this province and in this system. Regardless of political stripe, in government or in opposition, having a good and strong opposition is very important. It creates better legislation, holds the government to account and makes them think twice before they bring forward legislation, even, to make sure they don’t push things too far.

When we have a result like 77 to 2, a vast and wild anomaly when you look at the history of voting in British Columbia, it’s no wonder that the public were clamouring to try to maybe right what they felt was a wrong with the electoral result based on the percentage of vote that happened. So we saw a referendum that wound up actually being very close to being successful to bring in proportional representation. Then we had the general election, and we had a more balanced redistribution of the seats based on the vote.

I should point out that in the election previous to 2001, in fact, the NDP managed to govern in this House even though they did not receive the majority of actual vote. Yet I did not hear the NDP back then screaming that proportional representation should be enacted and there should be better fairness to the system and we actually shouldn’t be government because the majority of the population did not vote for us to be government. However, the rules state with first-past-the-post that that was the result. That was upheld, and we accepted that, and we moved forward as a parliamentary system.

You don’t go and change a whole voting system based on one result. It’s the equivalent of watching my kids playing heads or tails and saying “best two out of three,” and then, when they lose the first two, saying, “Well, maybe we should make it best three out of four, best four out of seven,” and so on until the result that you may want suddenly happens.

The six-month extension in this amendment, I think, helps to provide a bit more clarity for people. As I say, the 2005 in the context of the 2001 vote…. The lead-up to the 2005 referendum and the subsequent result of the 2005 election would indicate that the public rebalanced things and this House was back to how it’s always operated.

There was a second referendum, though, in 2009, with that new, balanced House back in place and people feeling like their needs had been served in the general election. That referendum didn’t even come close to passing.

I believe there are two reasons for that. This House, the result of the general election, had given the people comfort that the system was working properly. Although there is no absolute perfect system — proportional representation or first-past-the-post — out there, the people were comfortable with what had been decided in the election, and it felt right.

[3:40 p.m.]

The second reason…. This is why the amendment is so important. I firmly believe that as people got more and more educated on proportional representation and what, particularly, this single transferrable vote would mean…. The confusing and complicated fashion that they would not only be voting and selecting people but how the province would even operate played a big role into that massive change of almost 20-plus percent of people suddenly changing from a yes vote to a no vote for proportional representation.

For the government to rush this bill forward, strictly because they’ve made a backroom deal with the Green Party to move forward with a proportional representation vote, does not really serve the democratic process very well. We’ve heard from the Attorney General that, in fact, we don’t even need to have a referendum for this.

The troubling part of that statement is we’ve heard that exact same language from the leader of the Green Party earlier on, in the early days of this new government. You have the Attorney General, who’s in charge of the referendum, and the leader of the Green Party, who is propping up the government, both saying that, in fact, we don’t need to have a vote: “If we wanted to really just do this, we would do it anyways.” I think that starts to maybe give us insight into why the rules and the lack of transparency in this bill, around what the ultimate vote will be, seem to be the way they are.

Having an extra six months to talk to the public, to better flesh out what exactly it is being proposed, I think would be very valuable. When I talk to my constituents — even some of whom were former Green candidates and others that have run provincially and federally before — they were actually quite surprised that there wasn’t more definitive language in this bill as to what this bill intends to do.

The fact that in this bill, they’re open-ended questions that will be answered at a future date really does raise a lot of alarm bells out in the general population. With this amendment of a six-month extension, I think that provides the vehicle to make sure that people really do understand what is being asked of this particular bill, let alone moving forward to a referendum question.

That is why I think people are starting to understand the rush and are starting to really describe this as a rigged game and something where a predetermined outcome is trying to be found with the rules of the game. As we see this being rushed through, there is no citizens’ assembly. Last time it was around 160 people, I believe, selected by a broad base throughout the population, from all over the province. They spent year or a year and a half deliberating, coming up with a system, educating the electorate. We’ve seen that happen in the last two referendums.

This time, for some reason, we want to try to have all of this done, start to finish, in less time than that public assembly even took place. Oh, by the way, this bill says: “Trust us. Later we’ll tell you what actually is going to happen in the referendum, after you give us the authority to set up the rules based on all of these possibilities within the bill.”

I suggest that’s a very troubling piece of legislation for this House to pass. I can only imagine what the members opposite would be thinking if the former B.C. Liberal government had brought in a bill worded this way, had come up with a questionnaire worded the way it is and had come up with the rules the way they have on an issue that the members opposite felt was being rushed through. And the rush is really the key to all of this right now.

We have broken promises by the Premier, at this point, around it being a simple yes-or-no question. We have all sorts of other broken commitments. That is really problematic when you look at this bill as a whole.

A six-month delay with this amendment would allow us to reach back out into the community. We’re already seeing within the media — and not just what you might consider typical right-wing media. You’re seeing it even in reporting that is normally much more favourable towards the Greens or to the NDP — commentary that the fix is in with this system of voting.

I think there is starting to build a level of distrust with this government’s intention around this bill out in the general public. I think another six months to review this, to be able to better consult with people and make sure that if we’re going to have an election on something that is going to fundamentally change democracy in this province moving forward, people have the respect given to them by government to actually know the ins and outs of what is being proposed.

[3:45 p.m.]

There is a fundamental lack of respect towards the electorate being shown by the Green Party and the NDP in this bill, in the rush. I would note that, coincidently, actually, the six-month extension…. Given that this government, which is being held together by a Green coalition, has taken it upon themselves to feel they have the mandate to extend a term by six months, instead of having the fall election date fall six months earlier in their mandate, an extra six months on this bill really shouldn’t be a problem.

They seem to be totally okay with extending things by six months when it suits their own interests of clinging to power. But when it comes to something as simple as making sure that we’re properly consulting with the public, having the public know exactly what’s going to happen, making sure the media is getting that message out in an uncluttered fashion…. Especially with the holiday season fast approaching, there will be less attention given over the next month or month and a half, naturally so, with people getting together with friends and family. To have an extra six months so that that messaging can get out properly to people — suddenly six months seems to be a problem with this government.

As with other electoral reforms that we’ve seen brought forward in this session, it seems that as long as it’s good for the government and the Green Party, that’s okay to rush things through and not consult and not talk and not be forthright and out there in front of this. Instead: “Let’s just rush it through. If it’s anything else, any other type, we need to delay, to talk, to put on hold and not move forward with it. If it comes to extending our own term and making sure that we can cling to power for six months longer than the current rules would allow for, of course, the government is all for that.”

One would think that extending consulting with the public for an extra six months, the people that everyone in this House waxes so eloquently on, time and again, about how they’re here to serve…. One would think that the members opposite would have no problem with extending consulting with the public for an extra six months on something as fundamentally important as the democratic process within British Columbia. When you look at the overall problems, what would come forward?

We already have had some changes in terms of what constitutes a party in this House. We’re down to now two members constituting a party. Now, given that the last filings by Elections B.C. indicated that there were 28 or 29 recognized electoral parties in British Columbia in the last provincial election, one would only have to wonder what would happen when some of those extremist-type parties do wind up with a seat or two, or two get a seat each and decide to get together and be a party in this House.

Right now we’re already hearing “Leader of the Third Party” when we’re in question period. I can’t imagine the days when we’re hearing “leader of the ninth party” and questions from “leader of the tenth party.”

Operationally in this House, it would actually create big problems, when you start getting past about a three-party system in this House, in terms of how the House functions to the betterment of the public, how decisions get made moving forward and how investment decisions, in terms of economic growth in this province, get made. If people are not sure what election platform has been elected to government, it makes it impossible for them to try to invest.

Now, we have seen where the NDP gets elected into provincial parliaments. It happens from time to time across this country. I say “time to time,” because usually they only last one term, and then they’re removed. Nonetheless, that seems to be the practice. Business still does somewhat operate when there are NDP governments in place. They at least have a sense of, maybe, the direction of the government or what the rules may be.

Right now in B.C., with an unprecedented outcome in an election, people don’t know what platform got elected. You never know what day you’re going to see some change to a proposal brought forward that the government campaigned on yet sees no problem in breaking their campaign promise. As the leader of the Green Party said, campaign promises are now irrelevant in this form of parliament. That is very problematic.

Although we hear about how well both sides of this House can work together if we would just give things a chance…. It sounds like we’re almost trying to paraphrase a John Lennon lyric there. That’s why the six-month extension is so critical.

Just last week we saw about as benign an amendment brought forward on local government finance for elections as could possibly be brought forward by an opposition party that had worked together. Although some members of the Green Party were unhappy with how quickly in the timeline of the amendment being brought forward….

[3:50 p.m.]

On the overall theme and context of the amendment, we thought we had a supported amendment with the Green Party. The fact that even something as benign as that amendment could not see the support of the Green Party — for fear, is all I can assume, of annoying their governing partners in the NDP is all I can assume — was quite shocking to me, especially given the amount of rhetoric we have heard in this House about how we just need to all start to cross party lines and work together. If an amendment of no huge consequence being brought forward by the official opposition is unsupportable by the Third Party in this House, I don’t know what type of amendment would be.

I don’t understand how everyone on the sides opposite is able to point to this current iteration of parliament as, actually, a microcosm of proportional representation. It’s not. It’s, essentially, a coalition government that is ideologically joined at the hip, to begin with, and that has decided to cling to power together.

Albeit yes, absolutely, we did try talking with the Greens as well. One could only imagine the howls of outrage with the NDP had the Greens actually decided not to sign an agreement with any party, had they actually tried to enact what proportional representation would truly look like in this House and just decide to work, vote by vote, and see where that took them and how long government could last trying to have people work together. No, they wrote down a formal agreement that has led us to where we are right now with this vote.

The extra six months of this amendment would allow a brighter light to be shone on this whole process.

We just heard today conflicting commentary coming from government during question period, where we were hearing that there’s going to be impartiality from this government around this vote. The fact is — within the confidence and supply agreement, unless that has changed, with the Green Party to stay in power — this government has guaranteed that they will be campaigning strongly in favour of proportional representation. It hardly sounds like they will be impartial as a government moving forward. In fact, they have taken a very firm stand that this will come through at any and all cost, as witnessed by what’s written in the legislation, to try to give them a blank cheque to move forward.

Now, I’m in business. I know there are not many members of the House opposite to me that have signed the front of a paycheque before, but I’ve signed many in my lifetime already. I can tell you that if I had been given a contract by a business associate to sign that was as wide open as this legislation is in this bill, around proportional representation…. There is no way any business person would sign that contract.

I guess that speaks to the fundamental difference between this side of the House and that side of the House, when you have people with business backgrounds seeing that it’s, essentially, a blank cheque, an open contract. There is no way that they would sign that outside of the confines of this House, yet we see it being railroaded through with such haste.

This amendment would take the six months to really make sure that people understand why it is there seems to be such an appetite, by this government and their junior partners in the Green Party, to try to cram this referendum through in such a rush and in such a way to make sure that there’s an uninformed electorate out there. It’s not that the electorate does not get engaged when they’re given enough opportunity. It’s not that the electorate would not be able to understand what’s being presented to them. The reality of the world is the electorate puts a great amount of faith in us to come to this House, to represent their interests and to debate the minutiae of the inner workings of how our government works.

When there is something that is of critical importance to them, they absolutely do engage. They absolutely fully understand it. However, it does take time. It takes time, and that’s what this amendment gives us — time to better inform them, time to better make sure they understand. They’re busy in their own lives. When they have entrusted us to come to this place to work on their behalf, that’s what they’ve done. They’ve trusted us, and they think that we’re going to do what’s right by them and review things properly and make sure that things are being done to a high standard.

[3:55 p.m.]

When we, as an opposition, see that’s not happening, it’s incumbent upon us to point that out and to make sure that enough time has actually been generated for the public to then be able to engage. When they’re busy, running around to various sports activities or other events or work in their daily lives, they can engage. They can read up on what’s being proposed, and they can make sure their voices are being heard.

Now, I know the people that live in the Richmond and South Delta areas have a little extra time every day, as they sit waiting in the Massey Tunnel. They can probably read a few more articles than the average person in British Columbia. But not everyone has that luxury of being stuck in an hour-and-a-half traffic jam every day.

People from where I live, when we have what’s called “rush minute” in Kamloops, would much rather have a few more months to make sure that they can review this legislation, or lack thereof, in terms of what is being asked of them moving forward.

When you look at how the votes get distributed around this province, we always have had to have coalitions. We’ve had Social Credit. We’ve had CCF in the past, which are now the NDP. B.C. Liberals. We’ve had reform parties, the Green Party.

We have a wide variety of ideologies within those parties, and they always get together under one banner and try to work very hard to put forward their ideals and their thoughts and try to build a platform around what can garner the most amount of support, which reflects, actually, the ability to actually implement or do what it is you’re promising the public you want to do and your ideals.

There are lots of people that can have great ideas around a coffee table, but it’s a whole other thing to try to implement them as a form of government. We’ve seen tons of broken promises already, in four months here, so I think even the NDP have suddenly discovered how hard it is to actually govern.

The argument for proportional representation seems to be hinged 100 percent on the fact that the B.C. Greens feel that because they got 17 percent of the vote, they’re somehow owed more seats in this House. In fact, what we see time and again within politics is, as you develop your policy, as you develop your credibility, as you develop policies and ideals that appeal to a broader mass of people, you wind up having more seats in this House.

We have seen the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head do that over the last four years. He kept building a platform. He went out, and he found more credible candidates, one could argue, in every riding that they ran in, compared to what, maybe, your typical Green campaigns in the past used to be. They ran a much more effective campaign. They appealed to many more people.

They actually saw that reflected — not in getting 17 percent of the seats in the House, but they saw it reflected in the tripling of their seats in this House. So one could say they’re on the cusp. And, instead of wanting to continue to work hard and continue to develop that and see where it could take them…. I guess it’s endemic of what we see in the school system now, where everyone gets a certificate for participating, and we’re loathe to applaud the child that maybe excels. Instead, it seems like: “Well, we should just get an instant 17 percent.”

Now, I know the members opposite will point out that we have a ranked or preferential ballot for our leadership race, but as I’ve pointed out to several people, the person who winds up with 20 percent of the vote in our leadership race does not get to be leader 20 percent of the time. It’s a way that lots of parties use to try to get down to one name in a closed system, not a provincewide system. But I would point out that we have geographic balancing, and we make sure that all parts of this province, regardless of size, do get an equal voice.

It’s interesting that during a referendum, where this is supposed to be about creating a system of fairness across the province, where everybody’s voice is equal, we’re walking away from glaring geographic discrepancies in terms of the size of ridings.

My riding is not even one of the larger rural-urban ridings out there, and it’s a three-and-a-half-hour drive on a snowy, single-lane — in each direction — highway that twists through a mountain road to go from one tip of my riding to the other tip of my riding. So it takes me a little while to get out to my riding to try to spread this message.

This amendment of six months would allow things like that outreach into your riding and into your communities. But when you have a government that’s all based in high-density, small, compact urban ridings, maybe they’re not as worried about trying to make sure that people get out and talk to the smaller communities of 300 and 400 that we all represent on this side of the House and that take hours upon hours to drive to. It’s the better part…. Essentially, it’s a day for me to drive to the far end of my riding, have a meeting and then drive back down. That’s my day in my riding. No other stops. That’s what fills your day.

[4:00 p.m.]

It takes a long time. Having an extra six months, which this amendment would allow for, would actually provide for much better public outreach. Frankly, it would show that the government and the Green Party actually respect the public and the electorate and are willing to give them a chance to try to actually see what’s being proposed and to wrap their heads around it, specifically around whether it should be a multiple-choice question or a yes or no, as the Premier has promised, and whether or not there should be a second form of a majority so that it shouldn’t just be left, as we heard from the Attorney General, if a 10 percent voter turnout happens, that that’s good enough and away we go with the result.

One can only imagine. We’ve heard the leader of the Green Party, I believe it was, say that this should be the last referendum. So apparently, as I say, if you flip a coin, that’s two out of three. They’ve already lost two, but now we’re going to keep going for another one anyway to try to keep trying to get the result you want.

Let’s fast-forward. Let’s say it’s a 10 percent voter turnout and it’s actually against proportional representation. I have zero confidence that the members opposite and the Green Party will suddenly think that that’s a valid response and that we wouldn’t be back to a referendum at some time in the near future again because, after all, it wasn’t the result that they wanted.

Now, I talked about trying to craft an electoral system around a desired outcome and a desired response. In this current parliament, I actually do think that we’re all very cordial with each other or collegial with each other. We do get along. We do holler across the floor from time to time.

I have to say that I’m new to this House. The members opposite, the ministers, have been very welcoming and willing to talk to me if I have something. My understanding is that’s how this House has always operated, regardless of who’s in government and who’s in opposition.

That’s this current makeup of personalities. There’s no guarantee when you move forward with a new electoral system that the personalities that get elected — especially if they’re broken into smaller, entrenched camps because that’s what they feel they are here for — will be that way.

Having that extra six months of this amendment really does let us fully contemplate: what does this House look like if you suddenly have four or five parties in here? I know, and I think many know, that it would be very unwieldy. Not much would get accomplished.

There would be huge concern within the investment community and the business community. I’m not talking about large multinational companies, although they would be absolutely impacted.

I’m talking about all the small businesses, which, again, you’d be hard-pressed finding anyone in this House on any side not professing to care about and to wrap themselves in whenever the mood suits. However, actions speak louder. Ramming something through here that would create huge uncertainty within the small business community in a very short, condensed timeline is problematic.

What we have right now is we have an anomaly of a result. I reference the anomaly of the result in 2001 when I began, and that was very clear. That led to a lot of discussion around proportional representation. It’s no surprise that it has continued on, based on the anomaly of the result that we saw in the most recent election.

However, that result resulted in an appointed minority government, unprecedented for us. But it’s resulted in an appointed minority government that is that choosing to extend its own mandate by six months. The audacity of that act alone, I think, should make people very nervous when they hear these are the same people that are creating the rules around a proportional representation referendum and think that they’re going to be fair and square and on the up and up.

I think that goes against our very Canadian fabric in terms of a fair fight. Everyone likes to have a competition. Everyone likes to see where they stand on things. We are a very competitive country, but we always do that based on it being fair.

In this case, I think about the extent of our competitive advantage that we gave ourselves as the home country in the Olympics was the lucky loonie at centre ice. Most would argue that that’s more superstitious than a changing of the rules of the game to suit our needs. We didn’t ask the International Hockey Federation to make us play with an extra man every game just to make sure that we could win something on our home soil. No, we fought and battled in the Olympics under the fair rules that are laid out.

That is really, I think, what everyone is asking for. We’re asking for fair rules. We’re asking for the Premier to live up to his election commitments, his statements that he made several times around it being a simple yes or no question, and other statements along those lines. That’s really what we’re asking for.

[4:05 p.m.]

I don’t think it’s too much for the public to expect their government to respect them enough that they show them the respect of actually doing something as simple as what they said they would do on a referendum during an election campaign. I think this six-month amendment would allow for more time for people to realize that and to voice their displeasure.

I thank you for this time.

T. Wat: It’s my privilege to rise and speak in favour of my colleague’s amendment, moving that the motion for the second reading of Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

As I outlined in my earlier speech on Bill 6, the measures that are being proposed will fundamentally change the way our democracy works. The effects that this move will have on our system of government will be profound and long-lasting. If we are going to make this type of change, we need to engage British Columbians appropriately.

It is important that we examine our system of government from time to time. I would argue that it’s quite a healthy exercise, in fact. But when this process largely cuts British Columbians out of the conversation, that’s not right.

We need to ensure that each citizen has a clear picture of how our system operates and what the potential changes to our electoral system could look like. When it comes to proportional representation, there are various forms it can take. I would like to outline some of them.

We have list proportional representation, or list PR, which is rarely seen in its pure form. Within list PR, there are two variations: closed-list and open-list, which both use a regional or national list of candidates in each riding.

In closed-list PR, the party runs the names on the list, and citizens vote for a party instead of a specific candidate. Parties earn seats in proportion to their share of the national vote. Then individual seats are allocated to candidates of each party in the order in which they are ranked on the party list, usually chosen by the party. Voters essentially choose which party wins but have little control over who their specific representatives are.

In open-list PR, voters express a preference for their party, and they choose a preferred candidate or candidates from the list of the party that they wish to vote for. Voters effectively determine the order in which the listed candidates will be given seats. In some systems, they may support candidates for more than one party.

Meantime, another system is the single transferable vote, or STV, which sees voters in multi-member electoral districts rank candidates on the ballot — as few or as many as they wish. To be elected, a candidate must receive a certain quota of votes. That quota is calculated using the number of votes cast in the constituency and the number of seats to be won there.

Candidates who reach their quota become the elected representatives. Excess votes beyond the quota are handed to the next choice on voters’ ballots. If no candidate reaches it, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their votes are transferred to the remaining candidates. Counting continues this way through as many rungs as needed to fill each seat.

Another option is mixed-member proportional, a mixed electoral system where citizens cast two votes: one vote to decide the representatives for their riding, and those candidates can be affiliated with a party or run as independents; and a second vote for a party or candidate on a party list. The members of a party list can either be selected by the party or voted on individually.

The constituency representatives are elected using first-past-the-post voting or another plurality or majority system. A citizen’s second vote could allocate seats to parties according to list PR. It’s used to try to compensate for any disproportionate results in the first-past-the-post constituency part of the election. Additional seats are given to qualifying parties where the number of constituencies since day one doesn’t reflect voter support shown in both components of the election.

[4:10 p.m.]

I know this was quite an explanation of the different systems. There are so many variations and details. But I think it illustrates how complex and confusing this system can be at times. That’s why it’s so imperative that B.C. voters get the information they need, to make an informed decision.

We need to ensure that they are involved in any changes we are looking to make. Certainly, as it stands, this legislation means British Columbians wouldn’t get much of a say in this process at all. There are no requirements for binding public consultations, and ultimately, the rules of this referendum, including the referendum question and the means of counting the ballots, will be decided by an NDP cabinet.

This is a big concern. It provides no appearance of impartiality. What’s more, while the government has said that maintaining our current first-past-the-post system is an option in the referendum, the bill allows for a ranked ballot, where voters have the choice between multiple electoral systems. It’s worth pointing out that by giving multiple proportional representation options, and conducting the referendum via ranked ballot, there’s little chance of maintaining the first-past-the-post system unless it succeeds on the first ballot. So it’s one way that this process is being fine-tuned in favour of a particular outcome.

Here’s another way. The government has lowered the required threshold for the referendum to be binding to a bare majority of 50 percent plus one. That’s the absolute lowest threshold possible. What it means is that there is no requirement for regional representation or no requirement for voter turnout. This means that a very small portion of our population has the potential to decide the future of our democratic system for the whole province.

Indeed, it could be Lower Mainland voters deciding this vote, giving rural British Columbians less say. Even though I represent a Lower Mainland riding, Richmond North Centre, even I can see that it hardly seems fair. It seems to show that the NDP and Greens are changing the rules to suit their own needs, to get the outcome they desire.

Perhaps this is no real surprise, given that we know that the NDP and Greens have a vested interest in the outcome of this referendum. They made it very clear in the last election that they wanted electoral reform. Their confidence and supply agreement puts that in writing. It says, “Both the B.C. New Democratic government and the B.C. Green caucus are committed to proportional representation,” and: “The parties agree to both campaign actively in support of their agreed-upon form of proportional representation.”

Meantime, in a recent article, Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer looked at how the Attorney General “ran in the election as a leading light in a party that promised to fight for proportional representation.” This is all while the government claims in its news release and backgrounder on this bill that: “The Attorney General will act as an independent official and refrain from engaging in debate and will recuse himself from any cabinet or caucus discussion regarding the referendum.” When even members of the media are saying the Attorney General has a particular will on this matter and campaigned on it, how can he act as an independent official? It just doesn’t make sense.

Meanwhile, as reporter Mike Smyth for the Vancouver Province recently looked at: “It appears that the deck is being stacked for this referendum to succeed.” I fear that is indeed the case.

Most recently the government launched its on-line questionnaire asking British Columbians to provide input to shape the referendum, but this questionnaire appears to be slanted. Again, even the media thinks so.

[4:15 p.m.]

Speaking with CHNL’s Shane Woodford last week, Global B.C. legislative reporter Keith Baldrey said:

“I thought it was decidedly and deliberately tilted toward eliciting opinions that favour changing the way we vote. The question and the phrases were certainly geared, I think, to get people to get their heads around voting for proportional representation rather than first-past-the-post, which is the current system.

“I think it is very clear. This government is stacking the deck in favour of getting people to vote for proportional representation in the referendum next November — a mail-in ballot.”

On the same program, Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer had this to say about the questionnaire:

“It is designed to create a rosy set of responses on what the NDP and the Greens want, which is a system of proportional representation that will entrench the Greens in the Legislature and make it more likely that we will have these kinds of coalition governments in the future. Given the government’s enthusiasm and support for proportional representation, a more neutral questionnaire would have been helpful.”

Mr. Woodford of CHNL added: “The questionnaire didn’t leave a lot of room to manoeuvre from anyone who is looking to stand up and defend the current status quo first-past-the-post system.”

We see a pattern here of the process being set up in a way to elicit the government’s preferred response. But it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, it’s not the way it was done in the two previous referendums this province has seen.

B.C. has already held two referendums on this issue in recent years — one in 2005 and one in 2009. They were shaped by the independent and non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, which was made up of 161 members from across British Columbia that included one man and one woman from each of the B.C. electoral districts at the time, two First Nations representatives and one chair.

The citizens’ assembly did extremely thorough work. It was responsible for learning in detail about a variety of electoral options. As we know, sometimes these options can be confusing and complex. They got into those details and were very informed about the different systems. They held numerous hearings across the province, consulting members of the public and ensuring that they had the chance to have their say on this important topic.

Then the assembly deliberated. Its members thought long and hard about all the information and input they had taken in. They submitted a final report and recommended an alternative electoral option for British Columbians to consider, which ended up being a customized single transferrable vote system called “BCSTV.”

This was the system that was put to British Columbians in a referendum, initially in 2005. The usual plus-one threshold, the requirement that BCSTV must receive a simple majority in 60 percent of the provinces’ ridings…. That’s at least half the votes in 60 percent of the province’s ridings. But it fell short of meeting the required 60 percent overall provincial vote threshold.

Still, the results of the referendum were quite close, so B.C. held a second referendum in 2009. It failed to meet the threshold that year as well. Not only did that year’s vote fail to meet the 60 percent provincewide threshold, with those who favoured first-past-the-post outnumbering those favoured STV, but BCSTV only received majority support in eight of the province’s then 85 electoral districts. In fact, support for reform actually declined when compared to 2005.

So even though voters have twice rejected electoral reform and even though the result of the previous two referendums don’t automatically suggest there is an overwhelming public desire for proportional representation in our province, the NDP and Greens are still pushing ahead for another referendum. The fact of the matter is that public opinion has nothing to do with it. Instead, the NDP government was motivated to put forward this bill for the sole purpose of preserving a shaky political alliance with the Greens.

This time they want to change the referendum process and the rules so that the two parties will get the answer they are looking for. They know that a system of proportional representation would likely serve each of their parties very well. But will it serve British Columbians very well?

[4:20 p.m.]

It’s something we need to think about carefully, because when we look around the world, we see some examples where proportional representation has caused instability. We look at Italy, which had two separate proportional representation systems since 1993. It has had 65 governments in 70 years, with as many prime ministers since the Second World War as in Canada’s entire history. There are currently 28 parties forming six separate alliances, and the average length of a government is only 21 months.

Spain is another example. In 2015, the country went 314 days without a government, and then, in the end, no government was formed, and a new election was held six months later. And what about Belgium’s election in 2010? It took 589 days before government formed. That’s more than a year and a half. After all that delay, the country’s six-party coalition government lasted just two years.

These are just a few examples of how proportional representation has led to instability and a lack of productivity in European countries. How could this apply in our province?

Well, instead of seeing one party earning election night victory, British Columbians knowing right away who would form government and what to expect, under proportional representation, the election results might not be so clear. The post-election period could instead by characterized by political wrangling and delay as parties negotiate with one another to create the alliance needed to form a government. This could lead to parties trading platform promises for the sake of forming these alliances, leaving British Columbians unclear on what to expect from the members who eventually form government.

Actually, if you think about it, we don’t have to look very far for an example of this type of behaviour. Remember $10-a-day child care and the $400 renters rebate? Those were key commitments of the NDP election platform, and maybe some voters liked the sound of those NDP promises and cast their ballots accordingly. But then the government’s Green partner comes out and says that those two initiatives aren’t a priority for him and, therefore, not for government. He said those campaign promises “are irrelevant”. And you have seen fractures in the NDP-Green alliance, disagreement over issues like ride-sharing, for example. There has been plenty of back and forth on that.

Under proportional representation, we could expect this situation to get much worse. The horse trading of promises we could see under a system of PR would make government less accountable to British Columbians because they would no longer have a clear idea of who or what they are voting for. Instead, both of these factors would be decided after the election. What’s more, those delays I just referenced, as parties work to form alliances, could have major implications for the timeliness of provincial decision-making.

Imagine there being no government in place during this summer’s devastating wildfire season or no government in place to deal with B.C.’s opioid crisis. Indeed, the big decisions that people expect of government in a time of crisis, or the big decisions that need to be made to get significant projects off the ground to benefit the economy and move it forward…. These are the types of things that could be stalled under a system of proportional representation if election results are unclear and coalitions take time to be formed. We need to be mindful of that.

Although, one could argue that a number of important projects and initiatives have already been stalled by this government. I know the 80,000 commuters stuck in traffic gridlock each day at the Massey Tunnel are not pleased with the NDP’s delay in addressing the problem. I certainly hear this from my constituents, who want to see action, not more study, on a project that’s been studied and canvassed extensively.

The George Massey Tunnel replacement project is just one of the projects under review by this government. There’s also the Site C project, ride-sharing, minimum wage, MSP premiums, poverty reduction, the foreign buyer tax, aquaculture and B.C. Ferries. Where does it end?

[4:25 p.m.]

I digress. Another danger of proportional representation is that it can encourage fringe extremist parties and their wills. In the Netherlands, after the country went 208 days without forming a government, a four-party coalition government finally emerged. However, it is anchored by an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT and anti-immigration Christian Union party.

Meanwhile, Germany is still without a government after an election this year. Talks to form a coalition broke down last week. But when those talks were still ongoing, it was known that the far-right party with strong fascist roots, Alternative for Germany, would have 94 seats in the new parliament. This is a party that wants to stop all immigration of other nationalities to Germany, and its election manifesto had a section on why Islam does not belong in Germany. That’s the type of party being given a voice under PR. Although now perhaps the country will see another election altogether, which is likely frustrating to voters.

Another consideration is the fact that proportional representation could diminish the connection between MLAs and constituents. I take pride in the fact that I know my community like the back of my hand, and I know so many of the people that make it a great place to live, work and play. I know the community organizations and stakeholders and the local services that I can point my constituents to as needed.

I know my constituents. I see them at local events. I speak with them in my office. I know the issues that are close to their hearts. Many of my constituents also know me very well. They feel comfortable coming to my office to speak with me or my constituency staff. They trust they have a point person they can turn to when they need help. I fear that relationship could be in jeopardy under a system of proportional representation.

As I mentioned earlier, when outlining some of the various systems of PR, in some cases, representatives are selected from party lists rather than having local members. That means an MLA could be living thousands of kilometres away from the communities he or she represents, with no idea what it’s like to live in those places. By increasing the geographical area that elected officials represent, the proportional representation system means voters have a weakened link to their elected representatives.

I don’t think British Columbians will be too excited about this prospect. There are indeed many flaws to proportional representation, whereas with our current first-past-the-post system, there are some key advantages I would like to outline.

First off, this system is simple to use and understand, with clear choices between the main political parties. There is an emphasis on strong individual candidates, rather than just accepting party choices. Popular independent candidates can be elected without a political party. First-past-the-post also promotes strong links between constituents and their representatives.

It excludes extremist or fringe parties from representation. We see a good level of stability with majority governments often being produced, as well as a strong opposition, which we know performs an important role in holding government to account.

As I said, despite all of these positives, examining our electoral system and exploring new ways of doing things is always a healthy exercise. In closing, shifting our electoral system to proportional representation is not something to be taken lightly, and it should not be up to us as elected representatives to set the terms for how we get to fill the seats in this House.

It is imperative on an issue as significant as this one to go back to our constituents to make sure that every one of them has the opportunity to have their say directly. This consultation effort should be meaningful and genuine, and the process should be designed to be fair to all British Columbians, instead of designed to produce the outcome desired by the NDP and Greens.

[4:30 p.m.]

They cannot keep moving the goalposts to get what they want. I hope they will take our amendment into consideration in a similarly meaningful and genuine way.

S. Gibson: I’m pleased to once again rise to speak to Bill 6, on behalf of my constituents of the beautiful Abbotsford-Mission riding, and support my colleague’s motion…

Deputy Speaker: On the amendment, Member. On the amendment motion.

S. Gibson: That’s correct.

…by amending, deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence” in the second reading of the Electoral Reform Referendum Act.

This bill, I believe, has the potential to substantially affect the foundations of our democracy and, by extension, our everyday way of life. It proposes a referendum on proportional representation, the third in just over a decade. Ominously, unlike previous referendums, this question and process would ultimately be determined by government without meaningful, binding, public input.

Given this set of circumstances, the discussion we are having in this House is especially auspicious. For that reason, I want to take time today to delve a little further into the potential challenges I see with this bill and with proportional representation more generally, and I hope to underscore why we need time to deliberate and consider the amendment.

I’ve made a top-ten list. We see top-ten lists in the public discourse. Well, I’ve made it easy to categorize the issue. This is indeed my top-ten list of why I have a lot of concerns about proportional representation as the government is proposing it at this time.

A little more about the process. The process that this bill proposes for a proportional representation referendum is quite different than what was originally discussed. Previously this process was guided by the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, and it was composed of 161 members from throughout the province. Now, before the 2005 referendum, the assembly considered a number of options, consulted a wide range of British Columbians across the province and ultimately came to a conclusion and recommended a single transferable ballot, BCSTV, to be put to referendum.

From the citizens’ assembly itself to the public hearings and public submissions, it was a process that was driven by British Columbians themselves. It was from the bottom to the top. The current process is the opposite to that, which should be alarming, I believe, to all British Columbians when they look closely and hear more about it. The opposite is being proposed.

Contrary to a promise made by our now Premier, British Columbians also won’t be able to vote on just one system which makes it easy to understand. I think the way that we’re going to engage the public is to make it simple to speak to and simple to comprehend. Instead, our citizens could see a ballot with multiple options to consider, and government could choose the way the ballot is counted and organized. This could be very confusing for voters, and I’m worried about that.

Two previous referendums required a 60 percent supermajority to pass, because the realization was that this is an important item for democracy to consider, with both a regional and a provincewide threshold in place. This time the government is imposing a simple, bare majority of 50 percent plus one, with absolutely no requirement for regional support. This is very troubling, and it should be concerning to all the folks that live in the rural parts of our British Columbia, including portions of my own riding of Abbotsford-Mission. It’s lowering the bar as low as possible. Very troubling.

[4:35 p.m.]

Point No. 9 on my top-ten list. The process for changing our electoral system becomes especially important when we consider the history of our current system. It’s the second point I’d like to make — No. 9, actually. Our electoral system is a time-honoured tradition. There’s a heritage to it. People have gone to war. They’ve fought to protect democracy. Now through some relatively simple means, we’re tampering with it. While no electoral system is perfect, I would argue ours has served us well, and that’s why it’s point 9 on my list. Providing strong leadership is what we have valued in this province.

All MLAs of this House were elected under the current system. I want to make a note here to new MLAs on the government side, reminding them they have been elected under this system, and this could be under threat. Some of those roles could be under threat with this system if it’s implemented under proportional representation — whatever model is finally subscribed to. I may not agree always with members on the opposite side, but I respect them and the roles in representing their constituents.

Point No. 8. In parts of this world — and we’ve discussed this quite a bit around these chambers — extremist parties are emerging and gaining traction. In New Zealand, we see the New Zealand First party, now a part of the governing coalition.

There’s a party called the Alternative, in Germany, which we’ve talked a bit about here, now the third-largest party in Germany. It wants to stop all immigration of other nationalities to Germany. Can we imagine something like that emerging here? Very concerning — a party with values so inconsistent with many people holding a prominent position. They can move in and have a significant impact. You can imagine how the people of different immigrant backgrounds feel in those countries when they hear that they’re going to be marginalized by a party that has an impact on the governing party. How do you think that it makes them feel? It probably makes them feel even nervous, frankly.

In Austria, an extreme party becoming part of the coalition. That’s what we may expect. It’s a possible trajectory, should we have proportional representation.

It’s very troubling, and some of these parties align themselves with previous political movements of another day, which causes me great angst. It should be alarming to all of us. There’s a risk to engaging and allowing these parties to be involved because they’ll become a part of the governing institutions and will have an impact on their platform.

It’s hard to imagine parties like that emerging here. But I’m sure, looking back, who would have envisaged parties like that, for example, becoming influential in New Zealand?

Just recently we saw some anti-Semitic posters posted at the University of Victoria and troubling posters displayed at the UBC campus. There’s a certain dark side to every culture, an element lurking below the surface. With proportional representation, some of those elements could emerge, gain traction and be a part of the governing process. How alarming is that? This is another reason why, in my heart…. Folks on this side of the House know it’s the wrong way to go. These incidents are concerning.

Now, I’d like to make the point, as a caveat: smaller parties aren’t a bad thing. It’s good to have variety in democracy, and we see a smaller party here in this House, which makes a contribution. But I’m speaking to those parties that do have a dark side and do have an element of support and, unfortunately, could gain prominence with proportional representation. We might call those fringe parties.

Our current system is time-honoured. It’s used all over the world. It allows good government, strong government and government that people can believe in. Turnouts are generally pretty good, because people know that when they vote for a particular party it’s going to make a difference. That’s the case with our traditional British parliamentary system, which we’ve had for so long here in Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and many other countries around the world.

[4:40 p.m.]

Point 7 on my list, working my way down to point 1. You can see I’m making some progress here. Proportional representation takes majority governments…. When creating a coalition, things just take time. They slow down. Democracy becomes sluggish.

I know recently…. We’ve discussed that a little bit here. Germany still doesn’t have a government after their election this past September. How would British Columbians like that, not knowing who on earth is in charge? It would be pretty alarming. It was expected that by the time a new government came in, the country would likely have spent more time, at 100 days, without a government in place — 100 days languishing and 100 days later still without a government.

I think British Columbians want better than that. Let’s not look to that for our model. Let’s stay the course. Just recently coalition talks between parties collapsed, which means the country may face a snap election and the inconvenience and expense of that — very time-consuming.

The Netherlands took more than 200 days to form a government after their 2017 election — 200 days, more than half a year.

In Spain, 314 days without a government after their 2015 election. Proportional representation doesn’t work if you want good, strong, decisive government. When no party or parties could form government, the country held a new election just six months after the first. It could happen here. Altogether, this meant nearly a year passed before the country had a new government functioning.

I think that probably the most egregious example, the most vivid example, is Belgium, where the country went a record 589 days without a government following the 2010 general federal election. These kinds of delays make it troubling for a government to be in place. These numbers of days lead to delays in decision-making. Government just collapses, really, and business as usual without any kind of strong leadership. This negatively affects residents.

Of course, imagine business investing in economies like that — so unstable, so unsure. That’s one thing, traditionally…. In the last 16 years in this province, we’ve had security, and that’s why we’ve had very healthy investment in our province.

Compromising democracy, proportional representation. By the time elected members are able to agree on a workable coalition, they’ve compromised. They haven’t stood firm to what they believe in. They’ve acquiesced. Each party will likely have compromised on the very principles they campaigned on. Somewhat, mildly, reminiscent of these two parties across the floor. There’s been a compromise there, which, for some viewers of the political process, may not be as healthy as we might expect.

This leads me to my sixth point. With a potential for horse trading platforms, they lose their accountability to voters. They cast their ballots — voters do — but it’s all compromised because the platforms have to be diluted in negotiations. What people are voting for is dramatically different than what they get. That’s another side people forget about proportional representation. You see, once a party comes to office, there’s no telling which of those promises will be implemented.

I can tell you this. I’ve had the privilege of serving here for over four years. When our leader makes an announcement, it’s going to happen because he or she knows there’s support there. It’s the same with the other side of the House. For the most part, when people make an announcement, it happens.

We’ve seen already confusion in campaign promises from the opposite side of the House. We know about the $10 daycare, the $400 renters rebate and many others. Government promises one thing, but then their junior partner says another. This is how we can learn a little bit from that experience under proportional representation.

[4:45 p.m.]

I don’t think these promises are irrelevant. You’ll probably recall that the leader of the Green Party said that campaign promises are irrelevant. Well, remember that. We were quite shocked. In fact, that reverberated around the province. People were quite shocked by that.

My next point, point No. 5. Under PR, the stakes are even higher, from what we see today. I spoke earlier about the growth of smaller parties, but unlike PR, there’s only one system that really allows people to have the good government they believe in, and that’s the current system that we enjoy here. We’re looking now at balances of power. This is kind of related to what I mentioned earlier. You can get parties with only 7 percent of the popular vote holding the balance of power. Is that democratic? A party that’s really been elected by a large number of votes being controlled, manipulated by a much smaller party? Veto power could be very constraining, very constricting, and I have a concern about that.

Point 4. Once the parties have completed lengthy negotiations, then they have legislative gridlock, because sometimes things grind to a halt, and people don’t know where anybody stands on a particular issue. We’ve seen that, as I mentioned earlier. You get delays — hugely inefficient.

Point 3. We know, for example, with Belgium — back to Belgium — a six-party coalition which only lasted two years. All of these make government almost impossible. Italy had 65 governments in 70 years. Is that what we want here? Is that going to be our legacy if this proceeds and goes to a mail-in voting system?

Proportional representation can be very complex, and there are different models — very difficult to explain to people, very difficult to implement, so complex. And it’s with variations. They can be difficult for voters to understand the nuances of them. Our current system is very easy to explain, and I think it engages many voters. In fact, I’m going to share something personal. My daughter is a special needs gal. My daughter has special needs. And even she understands. When she voted for me, she knew she was voting for dad in the last election. It didn’t have to be explained to my special needs daughter.

Can you imagine the complexities of these systems, especially if this government decides to give choices? It would be problematic, not just for my special needs daughter, but other folks who just observe democracy at a distance. They’re not that involved, like we are in this room. But they want to support democracy. They show, and there’s a long ballot — confusing. I wonder what the results are going to be, especially with a mail-in ballot, which is such an old-fashioned, archaic, antiquated system of democracy.

I see that the Attorney General is acknowledging that slightly over there. No, I’m just kidding.

The systems of PR get very complicated. We need, and I recommend to government, a very simple system that can be understood.

My last point, my No. 1 point on my top-ten list, relates to me personally. Colleagues have shared this as well. The thing I value as a legislator is that I am a representative of Abbotsford-Mission. All the folks across here, all my colleagues here — Surrey–White Rock — everybody around here all take pride in representing their constituents. With proportional representation, there will be a diminished connection to the local representative. This will be, in many ways, diluted.

As the name implies, proportional representation still leads to increasing proportionality in the Legislature, so representatives need to be standing up for vast areas of our province. We’ve heard this earlier from colleagues — how rural areas are going to be ignored to a large extent, or, certainly, their representation is going to be diluted — for Skeena, for example, and other areas in our province.

[4:50 p.m.]

We’re going to have larger, multi-member constituencies. Or whether that means that some representative represents the province as a whole depends on how PR is going to be constituted. But either way, here in B.C. we would need to either cut down how many single-member constituencies we have or abolish them all together. It just doesn’t feel right.

Representative democracy is what we believe in. Our constituents come to us. I was in my office on Friday and had a number of people come to me. I’m sure all of us did. Friday was our day in the constituency. People came in, told me about their issues, and I was able to be their ambassador to Victoria. I’m afraid that’s going to be discarded. I meet my constituents all the time. It’s my role.

Now, I’ve lived in the Fraser Valley for 40 years, the last 14 years in the riding. I had the privilege of serving on Abbotsford council for three decades. I value accountability. I value democracy. It’s a privilege that we have here. I’m very afraid that with proportional representation, that will be compromised and diluted. If it’s passed, and I certainly hope it won’t be passed, we will look back on that day with anguish and regret. I believe that.

This experience I’ve had…. Local government and parts of my community have given me the experience and relationship with my own community. When I go out in the community with my wife, my kids or my grandkids, people come up and say hi to me. They know that I’m their representative. People drop by the office. That may not continue under proportional representation.

I just want to wrap up my top-ten list, hon. Speaker, and thank you for allowing me to speak today.

I support this amendment, which would give us more time to reflect on this. It’s a good amendment, and I implore — I beseech — members of this House to support this amendment. Let’s give it a little more time. We don’t want to implement something so big, so important, with so little consideration.

This will affect every British Columbian, not just politically but personally. So let’s take one more look at this and hold off for the six months that’s been proposed. I believe it’ll be the right decision for all citizens of our province.

E. Ross: I rise today to speak in favour of the amendment. On a matter so important as the democratic franchise, any change should be well considered by a neutral third party before it comes to a vote in the Legislature. How are we, as elected officials, able to take any confidence in legislation born out of haste?

For a minority government that is fond of reviewing every major public policy question in British Columbia, from Site C to marijuana, electoral reform is conspicuously left off that list. Why is that? Because Bill 6 is enabling legislation. It enables the government to set its own conditions for the next election with very little public input.

If you look at the legislation closely, it does more to empower cabinet secrecy than to engage public participation. All critical issues, such as phrasing the referendum question, have been reserved by cabinet. This violates the spirit of electoral reform. The public is not invited to be a part of a very important debate.

The NDP and the Green Party are attempting to stampede the public into a referendum. They also are trying to set the goalposts along the way.

Last week an on-line poll was launched by the government that was immediately assailed for attempting to influence the result. This is what columnist Vaughn Palmer had to say about it. “It is designed to create a rosy set of responses on what the NDP and the Greens want, which is a system of proportional representation that will entrench the Greens in the Legislature and make it more likely that we will have these kinds of coalition governments in the future. Given the government’s enthusiasm and support for proportional representation, a more neutral questionnaire would have been more helpful.”

[4:55 p.m.]

It’s pretty clear that the fix is in by the NDP and Green Party coalition, which wants to rig the outcome of the next provincial election. In fact, Keith Baldrey also had something else to say about it, especially on the questionnaire.

“I thought it was decidedly and deliberately tilted towards eliciting opinions that favour changing the way we vote. The questions and some of the phrases were certainly geared, I think, to get people to get their heads around voting for proportional representation rather than first-past-the-post, which is the current system. I think it is very clear that this government is stacking the deck in favour of getting people to vote for proportional representation in the referendum next November, a mail-in ballot.”

This does not sound fair. As I have mentioned before, the B.C. Liberal Party is not opposed to electoral reform. The B.C. Liberals have held not one but two referendums — one in 2005 and one in 2009 — but their difference lies in the process.

The B.C. Liberals turned the question over to an independent body. The B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was comprised of 161 individuals chosen at random from every riding in the province. They did so because the public had to have confidence in the process. Yet this particular bill suspends the current Referendum Act of British Columbia.

The government of the day should not try to change our democratic system on its own. Such actions are seen as self-serving, which is precisely what this legislation represents. This attempt at electoral reform does not act in the public interest. It is the product of a power-sharing agreement between two political parties and nothing more.

Signed by the NDP and the Green Party, the confidence and supply agreement is what is truly governing this province today, and we are not talking about the public interest. This legislation only speaks to the narrow interests of partisan politics, which begs the question: what confidence can the people of British Columbia take from this government? If their only motivation is political self-preservation, who can really trust in the motives of this government?

We also have to ask why this government is providing any convincing or compelling reasons to change the current system. Right now British Columbia is governed by the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, which originated in the United Kingdom, yet even Britain doesn’t want proportional representation. In the last election in Britain, six million people voted for proportional representation; 13 million people voted to keep its current system.

The same system that saw the peaceful transfer of power in this province just four months ago is the Westminster system that is currently in place right now and has served this province well. The current system that got this minority government into power, and the previous Liberal government for the past 16 years, works. It’s been proven. B.C. was the leading economy of Canada. It produced five balanced budgets. In fact, the current system provides accountability, stability and, more importantly, steers away from extremism.

I find it curious why the NDP and the Green Party are in such a rush to change the rules, because any changes will have consequences. As an MLA that represents a northern and rural constituency, I’m concerned by proportional representation, because the outcome of the last election revealed a deep divide between urban and rural British Columbia. Yet if you look at British Columbia as a whole, you’ll see that we need each other. We need all British Columbians in all ridings to pull together, if not for ourselves and our future, then for our kids and our grandchildren’s future.

A quick look at the electoral map of British Columbia illustrates how a few NDP MLAs were elected in rural parts of the province. There are only a few NDP seats and absolutely no Green representatives. In fact, the NDP and Green Party coalition is comprised primarily by urban seats located in the Lower Mainland and the southern part of southern Vancouver Island.

[5:00 p.m.]

Proportional representation only would intensify this divide between urban and rural British Columbia, because nearly three million of the province’s population of 4.6 million live in the Lower Mainland. That means Metro Vancouver would always determine the outcome of any provincial election. Northern voices and rural voices, like my constituents, would be silenced by a purely urban mindset.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

First Nations would suffer more, at a time when First Nations are finally becoming part of the conversation, finally becoming part of the decision-making and being included in the economy. As the chief councillor of the Haisla First Nation for many years, I have seen how misguided beliefs and interest groups have robbed our region of the opportunity to help ourselves.

If you have witnessed, like I have and many other First Nations leaders, the cycle of poverty and seen the harm inflicted by substance abuse in remote communities, then you would think twice about adopting a system that would only alienate First Nations even more.

Under proportional representation, voters will no longer cast a ballot for a local representative. They will only vote for political parties. At a time when the public is already disillusioned by partisan politics, we now have a government in Victoria that wants to govern by more partisanship.

Without a local voice from the north, people in my riding of Skeena will have to bow down to an urban majority. Skeena represents 23,500 square kilometres of rural and northern British Columbia. The Skeena riding is larger than Israel and bigger than Slovenia. We have a population of only 32,000 people in the whole of Skeena. We are an electoral district that features many small and remote communities spread out over a large land mass.

Under proportional representation, none of these communities would have an elected official to call their own. And MLAs would only be accountable to political parties. In fact, in my riding, I know my community very well because I was born and raised in Skeena. I understand Kitamaat Village, the Kitimat townsite, the four Nisga’a villages that make up the Nisga’a treaty, Kitsumkalum, Kitselas, Terrace…. I know the issues.

I’m finding it very difficult to address all of their wishes and needs. I can’t imagine trying to address the needs and interests of an area ten times the area that I’m currently representing, trying to represent 30 communities. Thirty communities in B.C. represent a number of different issues, and there is no way that I can even begin to imagine that I could represent Haida’s interests or Atlin or Burns Lake.

They may be for LNG, for example, and maybe they’re not. But that is the power of democracy. We have the right to choose what we want to pursue. That’s what this current system provides.

Under the circumstance, proportional representation dispenses with local representation and favours single-issue parties. The NDP and the Green Party always point to Europe and how well proportional representation serves their national interests. But we’re also witnessing the rise of intolerance and the election of ultranationalist fringe parties in Europe.

These single-issue parties are often asked to take part in coalition governments. We do not need a system of electoral reform that would legitimize this kind of intolerance. In fact, if anything, we should learn from history. World War II didn’t arrive overnight. The racism in Germany that led to World War II didn’t come overnight. It was incremental. It was gradual, to a point where the whole country agreed with a leader that was actually proposing an extremist point of view.

[5:05 p.m.]

By the time they realized what had happened, it was too late. You ended up with World War II. You ended up with the Holocaust. You ended up with a number of countries that had to rebuild — meaning all of Europe. Many of the people that come to Canada should know this, because most of your ancestors came from Europe.

If one of these gradual steps in Europe had been noticed and been seen — where it was going to lead — maybe they could have stopped it before it got to that point. We are now at that point where we’re looking at a gradual step in our democracy in Canada. When we’re thinking about this step, we should think about the racism and the intolerance in other countries around the world. We’re not perfect in Canada, but there’s no real, legitimate government that proposes extremism.

The European parliament, once hailed as an institution to rebuild a continent ravaged by two global conflicts, is now home to parties that focus on racial intolerance and cultural purity. This does not put us on the road to racial harmony or reconciliation. In fact, if anything, we’re putting minorities in B.C. and Canada at even further risk.

You may have read that First Nations are a growing population in Canada. But in British Columbia, the population of all First Nations numbers around 200,000. In a province of 4.8 million people, it’s hard to imagine how proportional representation would benefit First Nations, especially given our achievements in the last ten years, and especially those populations located in rural and remote communities.

This year we celebrated the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation, but we are just beginning learn how to reconcile past injustices against First Nations, and we’re just beginning to understand how to build relationships for the future. So how do you give voice to those who suffered under institutionalized oppression? How will First Nations rise above a history that favoured only the majority?

Proportional representation will reinforce the power of a super majority. In our context, the majority located in the Lower Mainland, far away from the people that have lived off the lands for thousands of years…. How will they be represented? If we’re no longer able to elect representatives who are directly accountable to the people of northern and rural British Columbia, then what kind of democracy can we expect?

One of the deepest flaws in this legislation is the threshold of approval. According to this bill, any proposed system will pass by 50-plus-one percent. This is a bare minimum and risks dividing the province even further. One need not look further than the result of the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty to see how a province and, indeed, a country, was nearly divided. We don’t need this further division in B.C.

Worse still is the fact that there is no threshold for participation. In other words, no matter how low the number of people turning out to vote in the referendum, the government is willing to accept the outcome. In fact, the Attorney General has confirmed that just 10 percent of registered voters will be sufficient. That means just one in ten voters could alter our system of government, and this is unacceptable.

I also find it rather curious that neither the NDP nor the Green Party likes to make mention of the experience of other provinces, especially considering the experience of our sister parliament in Prince Edward Island. This is a province that held a referendum on proportional representation only last year. We are talking about a province that has one of the strongest voter turnouts in the country. In the past ten provincial elections, 80 percent of voters on Prince Edward Island took part.

One would expect that when it comes to changing the way people vote, this would be a province that would stand up and take notice. On voting day, 52 percent did, in fact, support something called mixed-member proportional representation. The only problem was that only 36.4 percent of eligible voters took part. The Premier of Prince Edward Island was therefore forced to declare the referendum results as not being a clear expression of the voters.

[5:10 p.m.]

The NDP and the Green Party should take note of this. Because in the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, laws are considered valid based on precedent. This means the government is needlessly opening itself up to a court challenge if it intends to proceed without clear guidelines. If 36 percent of Prince Edward Island voters is not enough to pass a referendum, how does 10 percent of British Columbia stand up as a parliamentary democracy?

It is not as though the government of Prince Edward Island did not try to encourage voter participation. People in that province were allowed to vote on line and by telephone. They even allowed 16-year-olds to participate, based on the idea that they would be old enough to vote in the next provincial election. But there were several flaws.

First of all was the ballot question. It was not a simple yes-or-no referendum question. Instead, voters were presented with the following question, and I quote what was on the ballot: “Rank the following electoral system…in your order of preference, one through five (with first choice being your most preferred and fifth choice being your least preferred). You may choose as many or as few of the…electoral system options as you want.” The options were listed alphabetically on the ballot as dual-member proportional representation; first-past-the-post, the current system; first-past-the-post plus leaders, noting number one; mixed-member proportional representation; and preferential voting.

Based on what I’ve seen so far, the referendum question will likely sound the same in British Columbia. But one of the reasons people in Prince Edward Island chose not to participate in the referendum was because the question was too complicated. It would be a challenge for anyone to explain the difference between all those different options, let alone rank them in order of preference. But this is just one of the reasons that the 2016 referendum in Prince Edward Island was deemed illegitimate.

The second was timing. We know that voter participation in any referendum is best when held in conjunction with general elections. In the case of Prince Edward Island, 36 percent was nowhere near the 80 percent who normally participate in the democratic process. So I’m baffled by the Attorney General, who seems to think that 10 percent is good enough for British Columbia.

The original promise by the NDP and the Green Party was to hold the referendum in conjunction with municipal elections. Well, here’s another flawed part of the process. Unfortunately, municipal voters lists are different from the provincial voters list, making this promise null and void. So what does this government do? It settles for the next best thing: a mail-in ballot. I’m not sure what this has to do with the government’s stated goal of bringing democracy into the 21st century.

What are we left with? A stand-alone referendum. Rather than assume a neutral position, the government of the day and their Green Party partners both intend to campaign vigorously on behalf of proportional representation.

I’m not sure what kind of message this sends to the people of British Columbia. If the people reject proportional representation, would this not call into question public confidence in this government? If only one in ten people participate in the referendum, and even fewer people vote in favour of one system or another, does this really make a statement about the clear intent of the people? These are all very important questions.

We can only hope that this government will take a second look at this process, because it looks like this legislation will likely end up being subject to a court challenge. That’s the beauty of our Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. It serves the people as it was intended.

[5:15 p.m.]

On my own personal behalf, if I’m allowed to…. I’m new to this House. I’m new to this Legislature. I’m new to this level of politics. But there are many experienced, educated and qualified members in this House who know that both this process and outcomes are wrong.

On behalf of the average British Columbians who don’t understand complicated politics and legislation, I ask this House to seriously reconsider this confusing and potentially detrimental referendum. I’m trying my best to understand it, so I can only think about the average British Columbian that’s not going to have the same tools at their disposal that I do to try to understand this, on this very important question that will determine the outcome of British Columbia for the next 50, 100 years.

If it does get imposed with all the fringe-party extremism, you’re not going to be able to take it back. You’re not going to be able to undo it, because you’re going to need a majority of this House. The majority of this House under proportional representation will be a deal-making House. Nobody is going to want to undo it when you’re making a deal to stay in power. With that, I do support this amendment.

J. Yap: I rise in the House to take my place in this debate to speak in favour of the amendment in respect to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. Specifically, it’s the amendment moved by my colleague from Nechako, which reads as follows: “that the motion for second reading of Bill 6 the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting ‘six months hence.’”

I speak in favour of this amendment, given what is at stake with Bill 6, which is the fundamental change of our system of voting, the re-engineering of our democracy. This amendment is the right and prudent thing to do. Bill 6, if passed, would trigger a referendum which could fundamentally change our democracy here in British Columbia.

Now, this is not the first time that British Columbians have been asked whether they want to change their electoral system. As we know, in both 2005 and 2009, British Columbians rejected a change in their electoral system. Now this NDP government has decided to send British Columbians back to the ballot box for the third time in less than two decades.

However, this time the NDP intend to do everything in their power to ensure that the results are not what British Columbians want but, rather, what the government’s agenda prescribes. They’re doing this by lowering the threshold to the absolute bare minimum of 50 percent plus one vote and by removing all regional requirements.

The lack of regional consideration ensures that those living in urban British Columbia, specifically Metro Vancouver, will be able to unilaterally change the voting system for the entire province. This works really well for the NDP, because it is the people living in rural ridings who will be most disadvantaged by a proportional representation system.

Our single-member-plurality system, or SMP, also known as first-past-the-post, does receive a lot of criticism from the members on the other side of the House. A single-member-plurality electoral system has been in place in Canada and its provinces since Confederation. And in our province, British Columbia, we have been blessed with strong leaders who have built our province into the great place that it is today.

Both SMP and PR, proportional representation, do come with their own pros and cons. It’s our job as members of this Legislature and as citizens to truly reflect on what kind of democracy we want in Canada. First, I will address what both systems have to offer, starting with proportional representation, a system that has been adopted by several countries around the world.

[5:20 p.m.]

The idea of PR is built on the key principle of representation. In a PR election, the percentage of votes that a party receives will correspond to the number of seats a party is awarded in the Legislature. SMP is a system based on the principles of regionalism, accountability, efficiency and stability.

Now, what does that mean for British Columbia? Well, allow me to break it down, starting with regionalism.

The regionalism aspect of SMP ensures that every citizen of British Columbia has an elected member whose job it is to represent them in Victoria, in this place, in the people’s House. Whether you live in my riding of Richmond-Steveston or you are 1,250 kilometres away, up in the Peace River North region, you have an elected representative who fights for you in this Legislature.

Many politicians directly consult with their constituents over local issues. Many, if not all, members of this House today are champions of local issues. I think of my friend from Delta South who has become a champion for the bridge replacement of the Massey Tunnel, even going so far as to personally plant signs on the side of the highway — with his own hands, along the gridlocked highway.

Now, elected members, as we all know, do far more than just deliver scintillating speeches on this floor. We have heard other members talk about their experiences and how their constituency offices provide valuable support and assistance to hundreds of people every year and act as a true community resource. I know that applies to every member on both sides of this House.

Whether they need help accessing government services or solving issues, like family issues, or simply listening to local concerns, constituency offices are there to help. It’s this local connection to voters that allows SMP governments to be responsive to the needs of their electorate.

Next, I’d like to talk about accountability — the accountability that SMP provides. Due to the single-member system, our electoral system, as we all know, does have a habit of producing majority governments. Now, members across the floor may see this as an issue, as they say a majority government cannot be held to account. However, the exact opposite is the case.

Majority governments allow voters to know exactly who to blame, should government policies make their lives worse, or who to reward, should their lives improve. Every four years, voters head to the polls and decide whether or not they will give a government another term.

In a PR system, there are almost always many parties who share power, and this can make it incredibly unclear who should be held responsible for the government’s failings or success. We often see this play out in the American political system, where they also have a low level of accountability due to their opposing Congress and President. This confrontational style repeatedly leads to one side blaming the other and little being accomplished.

Next, I’d like to bring up the issue of efficiency. We all want a government that can enact legislation in a consistent and efficient manner in order to respond to the needs of its electorate. Because SMP systems produce majority governments, nine times out of ten, we have governments which are unrestrained from enacting their vision for the jurisdiction.

The members opposite, I’m sure, have problems with this as well. The common phrase that we hear is: “40 percent of the vote equals 100 percent of the power.” However, when you consider what this has meant for our nation, for Canada, in the past, it doesn’t sound as bad.

[5:25 p.m.]

Let me use someone as an example who I’m sure everyone on the NDP side reveres and admires deeply. In the 1944 provincial elections in Saskatchewan, the first leader of the CCF, the forerunner of the NDP, won a majority government in the Legislature of Saskatchewan. This majority afforded to this leader ultimately allowed him to enact a bold and visionary idea, which was universal health care in Canada. He was able to enact this vision in the way he saw fit, without interference from political opponents.

However, this does not mean that he was not accountable to the people of Saskatchewan. Four years later, they would go back to the polls, where they would deliver their verdict on the leadership of Tommy Douglas. It’s a system like SMP which allows bold leadership and vision to truly take hold in our country and in our province. It’s the reason Canada is a prosperous nation and continues to improve every day.

Of course, there are multiple systems and options with proportional representation. Common among them is STV, single transferable vote, which this province already had two referendums on and rejected. STV works as follows. Citizens in multi-member electoral districts rank candidates on the ballot. They may rank as few or as many candidates as they wish. In most variations of this system, winners are declared by first determining the total number of valid votes cast and then establishing a minimum number of votes that must be garnered, based on the number of seats to be filled for the so-called vote quota.

Then we have mixed-member proportional or MMP. Mixed electoral systems combine elements of a plurality, or majority, system with PR. Citizens in a riding cast two votes: one to elect an individual member to serve as their representative and a second for a party or parties to fill seats in the Legislature, allocated according to the proportion of the vote share they receive. All citizens’ second vote, which allocates seats to parties according to the list PR…. Additional seats are awarded to qualifying parties when the number of constituency seats that they win fails to reflect voter support in both components of the election.

Finally, I’d like to address stability. Our system of responsible government is based on the idea that government is responsible to the members of the Legislature. Should that government lose the confidence of the Legislature, the government shall fall, and an election shall be called. Thanks to the majority government–producing system which we have in place today, governments do not often have trouble maintaining the confidence of the Legislature, and therefore, elections happen on a reliable and fairly predictable basis.

PR systems are known for anything but that. I’ll share some examples, which I know have been talked about by colleagues, but it’s worth repeating. In Belgium, for example, following the 2010 election, the nation of Belgium was left with no government for 589 days. In Spain, they went 314 days without a government and held two elections within a span of six months. Italy has had 65 governments in 70 years, including 28 different political parties.

The reality is that when you have a system that divides the Legislature into many small pieces, it’s almost impossible to form a stable government. What these minority governments entail — really, what most minority governments entail and rely on — is the support of small parties, with sometimes extreme visions, having all the power due to their ability to trigger another costly election.

It’s the same situation that we are facing today — an NDP government, controlled by a party with three seats. With the minimum threshold now of two seats to form a party, what we can expect to happen, potentially, is a proliferation of political parties. These parties will engage in negotiations, wheeling and dealing to try to form alliances and coalitions and open up the possibility of frequent floor-crossing or party-switching.

[5:30 p.m.]

For example, in Italy, lawmakers have crossed party lines 533 times since the last election in 2013 — some as early as five days after the election. In total, 342 different members of the government have changed party lines. Speaking of fringe parties, as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head knows, SMP voting systems are very effective at reducing the influence of fringe parties. That is why the Communist Party of B.C. and the Christian Heritage Party, to name two, are not standing with us today. However, that is not the case in jurisdictions with PR, proportional representation.

Long-time NDP commentator and supporter Bill Tieleman wrote recently:

“As a long-time opponent of” — I’m glad the Attorney General finds this interesting — “proportional representation, I led No BC STV, the group that defeated the single transferable vote electoral system in referenda in 2005 and 2009. I know proponents of proportional representation hate to discuss how those electoral systems open the door to parliaments for extremists. But with recent outbreaks of far-right actions here in B.C., including white supremacist flyers at the University of Victoria, as well as racist white pride posters seen in Burnaby and a Chilliwack school trustee attacking the sexual orientation and gender identity program that supports lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer students, there should be no doubt that this province has a substantial number of potential far-right voters.”

Mr. Tieleman goes on to say:

“Under proportional representation, representatives can be elected in some countries like the Netherlands with less than 1 percent of the popular vote, although a 5 percent threshold is more common. But under the current first-past-the-post or majoritarian electoral system, politicians are only elected in geographic ridings based on who captures the most votes, marginalizing both far-right and far-left parties and leaving them unable to win seats.”

We recently saw Austria give a significant portion of seats to the Freedom Party, which was formed by former SS officers after World War II. They, until very recently, wore the blue cornflower pin, which in Austria was used as secret support for the Nazi Party. Documented incidents include a Freedom Party politician who called for the concentration camps to be put back into operation; another who posted a picture of SS troops on Facebook with the caption: “Our grandfathers were not criminals”; and a third who openly displays an SS Death’s Head emblem and other Nazi memorabilia in a pharmacy which he owns.

Germany is likely to go more than 100 days before forming a government. There, the Alternative for Germany party, a far-right party with strong fascist roots, will have 94 seats. Alternative for Germany thinks that Germany shouldn’t be ashamed of its actions during World War II, saying: “We have the right to be proud of the achievements of the German soldiers in two world wars.” Imagine that.

Their leader also criticized the memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin as “a monument of shame in the heart of the capital.” He wants to bring back conscription into the military, and they want to stop all immigration of other nationalities to Germany. Alternative for Germany adopted an explicitly anti-Islam policy in May 2016, and its election manifesto had a section on “Why Islam Does Not Belong in Germany.” Their leader said that anyone attempting to cross the border illegally should be shot.

[5:35 p.m.]

That’s a party given a voice under proportional representation. That’s a party that now has almost 100 seats in the German Bundestag. I think that any system that enables the popularization of such ideologies should be examined very carefully and very closely and not rammed through in a referendum with a biased process. Instead, this is a function of a minority government whose sole interest is to gain an advantage in the next provincial election. That is what is so deeply flawed about this legislation and why I support this amendment.

This bill is based on the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and the Green Party. This is pretty clear from the legislation. Section 3, part 1, section B clearly states the following: “A referendum on proportional representation will take place in the fall of 2018, concurrent with the next municipal election.”

This article matches up with the backroom political deal signed between the NDP and the Green Party only a few months ago. Both parties agreed to terms that would see a referendum held at the absolute earliest opportunity. They hastily set a self-imposed and artificial deadline, and in their rush, both parties failed to realize that their plan had huge problems. Without any real public notice, the NDP and the Green Party were forced to realize that the earliest opportunity was simply not possible and definitely not feasible. Any cost savings achieved by holding a referendum simultaneously with the next municipal election vanished.

We’re not talking about what is best for British Columbians. Instead, we are looking at what serves the interests of two political parties. This only illustrates what truly decides legislation today in British Columbia — the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and the Greens.

Now, we’ve heard about this example, but it’s worth repeating because it’s instructive. Prince Edward Island held a referendum on a few different types of proportional representation in the fall of 2016, very recently. Like the proposed legislation in front of us, it, too, set a low threshold of 50 percent plus one vote. Voters were asked to choose among five different types of voting systems. Like British Columbia, the votes were ranked according to preference. In the end, those who voted in the referendum chose mixed-member proportional representation by 52 percent of the votes. The existing first-past-the-post system placed second at 43 percent.

However, Prince Edward Islanders faced a dilemma. In any given election in the history of PEI, normally 80 percent of eligible voters participate and show up to vote — a very high percentage of voter turnout. For the referendum, though, only 36 percent of eligible voters voted. This forced the Premier of Prince Edward Island to declare that the results did not constitute a clear expression for electoral system change in their province. The results of that referendum were deemed not legitimate because only 18 percent of the electorate supported the change, a monumental shift that would alter the very quality of life in that province.

On top of that, PEI employed the best use of modern technology to engage its citizens. Their referendum employed the use of on-line and telephone voting. What’s proposed for British Columbia does not. The NDP and the Green Party are planning to use mail-in ballots and not in conjunction with either a municipal or a provincial general election to increase voter participation. It seems we’ve brought ourselves up to 1900 technology and not 21st century.

[5:40 p.m.]

We can tell from the minister’s comments, articulated by my colleague from Prince George, that we are looking at a rather poorly organized campaign — the next best thing, because the government had no idea what they were promising. Rather than take a concerted, articulated and deliberate approach to electoral reform, we see concession. For something as fundamental as altering our democratic voting system in the province of British Columbia, we’re asked to decide through half-measures. The government made a terrible mistake, and it’s now looking for a means to do as little as possible to make this happen and satisfy their junior partners, the Greens.

There is very rarely a need, and rarely the circumstance, that requires a government to rush legislation through the House and to rush to implement it. There is nothing to be gained by adopting bad policy through defective legislation in the hasty pursuit of a self-imposed, hurried deadline. But that is happening right now in this chamber. In this case, we’re looking at an artificial deadline, crafted between two political parties — partners in a coalition that neither seems all that happy to be a part of.

This legislation is not designed to serve the public interest, as we all have been elected to do, but rather to satisfy an agreement, negotiated in selfish self-interest, to preserve the life of a minority government. In their haste to fulfil this power-sharing agreement, the government is neglecting a fundamental responsibility to the people of B.C. The established conventions and processes, as well as public benefit, have been completely ignored in the name of political self-preservation.

The legislation we have in front of us today contains serious defects. That’s why we have this amendment. Bill 6 is something that should be very carefully considered, and we should take full consultation. This government seems quite happy to defer issues until they’ve consulted and analyzed for a third, fourth or fifth time, on other issues. Yet with this issue, this government is refusing to learn from two previous referendums and decades of study. Instead, trying to force through a change to our electoral system, of such monumental scale, with virtually no public input and no careful consideration.

The weaknesses contained in this bill will have unintended consequences, and worse, will upset the stability that supports economic growth and prosperity in our province. This bill is deeply flawed and in desperate need of reconsideration. As my colleagues have pointed out, the Attorney General will recuse himself from any cabinet or caucus discussion regarding the referendum — another decision made behind closed doors, with the very foundations of the province at stake.

Too much is at stake with the proposed change. I support the amendment, and urge all members, as well, to support this amendment to delay by six months the consideration of Bill 6.

S. Bond: As always, I very much appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House and represent the people of my riding and of northern British Columbia. There’s probably not a more fitting opportunity to have a conversation like this one.

I think we stand in this place, and we look at bills that are in front of us. Bill 6 of 2017, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, is not a big bill. In terms of the number of sections, we’ve certainly seen much larger ones. But it’s not the words on the paper. It’s not the number of sections. It’s the intent and the potential consequences of this bill that bring so much passion and emotion to the floor of this House. In fact, the commencement section is only section 14 of the bill — certainly not a lengthy one, but one that brings significant consequences.

[5:45 p.m.]

That’s why I am speaking in favour of the amendment. I am hopeful, although hope is hard to have when you look at the coalition that exists in this Legislature. This is a piece of legislation that can impact and will impact the way that people get to exercise their democratic right in our province. I guess the major theme that I am hopeful that members of the coalition will think about is: what’s the hurry?

We find ourselves in this Legislature dealing with a piece of legislation that will potentially change dramatically the way that every person should have the right to vote in this province. And the irony of the debate that we’re having is that so much of the language we’ve heard from the members opposite, both inside and outside of the chamber, is about being fair, making sure that every voice is heard. Well, the irony is that by the very process that’s been set up, that will not happen for many, many British Columbians.

The other thing that surprises me is that there are not members on the opposite side of this floor that are standing up for their communities. Because if they represent a small or a rural community in British Columbia, there will be impacts. Yet we hear not a word about the risks, about the loss, about the potential that urban British Columbia will decide, simply by its geography and the number of people that live there, how all of us who live in this province will vote from today forward.

We hear a lot about fairness and about equity, and that’s what this is about — hearing everyone’s voice. Well, this legislation guarantees that some voices simply won’t be heard and certainly won’t be heard when it counts at the ballot box. As we’ve looked at the legislation and the process, it is flawed, and it requires and deserves reconsideration.

During the past election, the people of Prince George–Valemount elected me to serve as their representative and make laws that are in the public interest. The job of an elected representative is challenging at the best of times, and it can be greatly magnified if you represent a large geographic riding. You’ve heard members on this side of the House, at least, stand up and talk about what that means.

My riding of Prince George–Valemount is 31,467 square kilometres. It is a provincial electoral district that is larger than Belgium, yet it is represented by one MLA. To represent all of Prince George–Valemount effectively, the MLA has to know each and every one of those incredible, small communities. It’s about building relationships. In each community, whether it’s 50 people or 500 people, they have their own unique needs.

I think about my constituency — Dunster, Dome Creek, Crescent Spur, McBride or Valemount. The voters in those communities — are their voices going to be heard in this referendum? No, they’re not. That’s why, when we stand in this House, and on this side of the House, we speak with passion and sometimes anger and, a lot of times, with anxiety. Because this referendum is coming down to a geographic, mathematical formula with a predetermined outcome.

Members in this House have heard speeches that are passionate and personal and emotional, and they should be, when we consider what is at stake. We’ve heard much discussion about what people describe as the rural-urban divide. We heard from this government that it was going to be different. It’s going to be different all right. Because the voices of the people where I live and where so many other people live and members on this side of the House…. Their voices simply won’t be heard. It’s not mathematically possible.

[5:50 p.m.]

Just look at the results of the last provincial election, and you can see how the political map of the province breaks down. In fact, there are very few members of the NDP-Green coalition represented in the north. A great deal of that can be explained. Every leadership contender, every party, can make a choice about the strategy they employ. Certainly, the strategy that the NDP employed during the election was painfully obvious. Their leader focused on an urban agenda and spent most of the election campaign in the Lower Mainland.

Now the Premier and the Green coalition are looking at changing the way we elect representatives to this Legislature. The question, the process — it’s complicated. Ask anyone to try to describe what we’re going to be voting on just months from now.

Let’s look at some of the experience that people have had with electoral reform and how people understood it. In April of 2005, a polling company released some data about how informed voters were about the upcoming referendum.

Let’s think about that. The information was released on April 30, 2005, and guess what. The referendum was going to take place on May 17, 2005. What did that study tell us? Well, in fact: “A new research poll shows that 61 percent of British Columbians do not feel informed about STV and only 15 percent of British Columbians could name the proposed voting system.”

Now, I can assure the members opposite that I’m not questioning the ability of voters to understand complex issues if they’re given the appropriate amount of time and the information that they require so that they can understand the process and, most importantly, that they can see themselves having a meaningful say in the outcome.

None of those things will occur under the legislation that we are talking about today. That is why it makes incredibly good sense to simply say: “Let’s take a pause here. What on earth is the hurry?” Let’s allow British Columbians to be part of this. If it’s going to move forward, then allow them to be part of this process.

I don’t know if anyone has actually taken the time — I’m sure many members are looking it up, I hope, on both sides of the House — to actually look at what a sample ballot might look like.

I can tell you that there are still people in British Columbia who, for a variety of reasons, require assistance when they vote in a first-past-the-post system. The sample ballot that I’m looking at has six columns and five lines across: riding A, riding B, riding C, riding D, riding E; candidate A, candidate B, candidate C, candidate D; party A, B, C, D. Oh, and by the way, independent. This is not a simple matter.

What is most disappointing about where we find ourselves today is that every day we learn something new about what the government has decided and how it does not line up with what they once said.

Let’s start with the principle of a simple yes-or-no ballot. Not only did the then leader of the NDP, now Premier of British Columbia, commit to a yes-or-no vote; ironically, it’s in the agreement that the Green Party made with the NDP, saying that they would bring forward a — one, one would assume — model of proportional representation.

What happened to those promises? I don’t think it takes very much to extrapolate. They didn’t matter. What was said to British Columbians — and, in fact, what they said to one another — simply does not exist today. There is no yes-no.

[5:55 p.m.]

No. In fact, we’re going to have a potentially very complicated ballot, just like the one I looked at that has, potentially, six columns and six, eight, different parties. Who knows? That’s the problem. No one knows at this point. That’s why taking a pause, doing an appropriate amount of work and engaging British Columbians in a meaningful and thoughtful way matters.

When we look at proportional representation, let’s look at it from two perspectives. Proportional obviously refers to the number of voters who cast their ballots in favour of one party over another. So in a province like British Columbia, where more than half the population resides in the Lower Mainland, the outcome of provincial elections will be determined by Metro Vancouver.

Now, that may be good enough for the members opposite, but it is not good enough for this side of the House. We represent men and women who have built British Columbia, who live in very diverse parts of this province, very challenging geography. And the answer from the Green-NDP coalition is: “That doesn’t matter. We said it was going to be yes-no.” That didn’t matter.

“We told our Green junior partners that it was going to be a yes-no, and we’re going to bring forward a recommendation.” Apparently, that doesn’t matter either.

Now, the fact that a significant part of this province…. The people who live there will simply be unable to be heard because the math doesn’t work. So the challenge to the Attorney General and the members of the opposition….

What is wrong with taking a pause and doing whatever they want to do in terms of proportional representation? Why not line it up with the promises they made, first and foremost? And why not engage with British Columbians so there’s half a chance that they’ll understand the question?

If you live in rural or northern British Columbia, you are simply going to be ruled by the proportional majority. It really boils down to numbers and basic math, and geography and population are important factors.

I would like to ask those advocates for proportional representation, on behalf of my constituents: how is that fair? We’ve heard a constant dialogue from the members opposite about: “This is about hearing every voice. We want this process to be fair.” So we begin that process by having a referendum that is completely contrary to that important principle.

It seems to me that people who advocate for proportional representation really are not as concerned about the electoral process or voter satisfaction. They’re only concerned with the final outcome.

Why do I say that? Well, here’s what we know so far and why this amendment is so important. The Premier said it would be a simple yes-or-no ballot. No longer. Now the question will be created by cabinet. I’m not sure how complicated it would have been to look at a yes-no, as the Premier promised, but now a complicated, critical question will be written by cabinet.

As such, we believe that this bill on electoral reform needs reconsideration. We should not overlook the fact that the office of the Attorney General has been cast in a neutral role with all matters relating to the referendum. Ironically, it was the Attorney General that stood up in the House today and answered questions in question period. I’m not sure how that lines up either.

It says that the Attorney General will act as an independent official and refrain from engaging in this debate. Ironically, that didn’t happen in question period today. In fact, there was a very aggressive partisan response by the very Attorney General who has suggested he would be an independent official.

I further understand that the Attorney General will recuse himself from any cabinet or caucus discussion regarding the referendum. Well, how about question period discussion? Apparently, that wasn’t in the definition.

[6:00 p.m.]

This points to the fact that all the decisions related to democratic reform will be determined by cabinet, not the people of British Columbia. This includes the phrasing of the referendum question, a question that is absolutely fundamental not just today in this piece of legislation but to the future of this province. Yet it will be crafted by cabinet. I have respect for cabinet ministers. I know how hard it is to work and be a cabinet minister. But last time I checked, I have no idea how many, if any, of them are experts in electoral reform, and particularly in drafting questions.

There is no higher expression of self-interest than a government of the day that has taken it upon themselves to determine how people will vote in the next election. Electoral reform belongs to the people. The process should reflect and respect that.

We’ve heard lots about our government’s view. Our government held not one but two referenda on electoral reform, in 2005 and 2009. The difference is in the approach. In the interest of fairness and transparency, we, as the government of the day, turned the process over to the public over a period of months and months in order to distance ourselves from any perception that this was about partisan politics. We decided to turn the process over to a third and neutral party.

Now, I think that potentially, the current government has a little bit of difficulty defining independent and neutral. We certainly saw that on display today in question period, when the so-called independent Attorney General, who was not going to engage in debate about these issues, stood and answered questions in this House in an unbelievably partisan way, as if the outcome were already determined for this referendum.

It matters to those of us who live in other parts of this province. It matters to everyone on this side that if this is going to proceed, then at least it needs to be fair. The very process that is designed to determine, in the NDP’s words, a more fair electoral process, is, in and of itself, unfair.

The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was created by a civic lottery. The selection process sought out individual citizens in each electoral district of the province, and to ensure that there was gender balance, one man and one woman were chosen from each riding. The 161 members of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform were then tasked with the responsibility of making recommendations on electoral reform. That was a public process. We took the time that was necessary, and that is what the amendment is designed to do.

In 2005, the voters in my riding, at the time called Prince George–Mount Robson, rejected changing the voting system by 57 percent, nearly two-thirds of the people. In 2009, Prince George–Valemount voted 66 percent against proportional representation. There is a very good reason for that, and that reason has yet to be articulated or recognized once by members on the opposite side of this House, including members who represent ridings very much like my own. Where are their voices in this debate? Voters in my riding were concerned that they would lose their local representative, their voice in this Legislature.

For all of the reasons and so many more, we make this amendment in the hopes that we can take a pause and do this properly. If the NDP-Green coalition is insistent on moving forward, then at least British Columbians who live in…. All British Columbians deserve a fair voice, for their voices to be heard in the very referendum that will determine their ability to elect their representatives. That is not a lot to ask. We are talking about fundamentally altering the democratic franchise in this province.

[6:05 p.m.]

We can make it sound like it’s grandiose, but the fact of the matter is, this speaks to the heart of our democracy. This speaks to every individual’s right to be heard in this place and to be counted when the votes are counted on referendum day. Any change to the manner in which we choose elected representatives has to be considered carefully and thoughtfully. We have to make sure that any change is made in the public interest.

Now, I am trying very hard, as I look through Bill 6, 14 sections of it, to find how this piece of legislation, in its current form and the process that is wrapped around it, is in the public’s interest.

We certainly know that it’s in the interest of the Green-NDP coalition, although I’m surprised that we haven’t heard more from the members of the Green Party, although I know they’re very happy to be moving forward with a referendum of any sort. But the very secretariat and the very agreement that was made between these two parties have been ignored, because the commitment in that agreement was to bring forward a model of proportional representation.

Not one person, unless the Attorney General is prepared to answer the question, can tell us today what that question will look like. Will it have three models or four models or five models? We have no idea. I can assure you that many members of this House have spent a great deal of time trying to understand what the potential models might even look like.

If we’ve had time to think about it and work through it — in fact, we’ve had two referenda — imagine how the average British Columbian is going to look at a ballot that has more lines and boxes than you can imagine. Five or six parties, five or six ridings. How on earth are British Columbians, in a short period of time, without being engaged in the process, to be expected to feel like their voices are being legitimately heard?

We look at some of the reasons. Let’s be clear. We know that this is very much about the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and the Green Party. There is no doubt about that. If you read section 3, part 1, subsection b, it clearly states: “A referendum on proportional representation will take place in the fall of 2018, concurrent with the next municipal election.” Oops. The government forgot to check on a few things when they decided to announce and to sign an agreement about when it might take place. The fact is that the voters lists don’t match up. So what did they have to do? Well, in fact, they then had to concede that that wasn’t going to work all that well.

So how are we doing so far? The Premier promised a yes-no vote. That disappeared. The Premier and the Green Party decided that one model would come forward. Oops, that has disappeared. Oh, and by the way, we’re going to hold it in 2018 in conjunction with the municipal election. Oh, and by the way, that didn’t work either because the voters lists don’t mesh. How are we doing so far? Is that in the public interest?

What it sounds like, what it feels like and what it is, is a rushed piece of legislation and a process that is designed to have one outcome. And that is simply offensive to many, many British Columbians.

Without any fanfare at all, the NDP and the Green Party were forced to realize that the earliest opportunity was simply not possible. So what did they do? They decided they had to concede. In fact, now we’re going to have a mail-in ballot. Well, let’s see what the Minister of Finance had to say about how well this process is going so far. On Shaw community television, the Finance Minister said: “We looked at all the options. We looked at tying in with the municipal elections. That became very challenging.” Really? Maybe they should have considered that before they signed the agreement with the Green Party.

Different voters lists for municipalities than there are for provincial voters, so it didn’t look like that was actually going to be a savings. Surprise.

[6:10 p.m.]

I go on with the quote. “In the end, when you looked at the turnout for mail-out ballots, it was actually quite high. So we felt there’s a cost saving there. It’s accessible for everyone. There will still be some voting spots where people can go if they want to and actually mark their ballot and leave it there. There will be a number of centres around the province, but a mail-in ballot gives the most accessibility, the most opportunity and saves money as well It really was the best solution, the best choice.” I want to get the quote correct.

Well, there are a number of conclusions we can make from that. This is not a well-thought-out plan. We can tell from the minister’s comments that we’re looking at a concession, the next-best thing, because the government didn’t do its homework. Rather than take a concerted and deliberate approach to electoral reform, we see concession for something as fundamental as altering our democratic franchise in the province of British Columbia. We’re being asked and British Columbians are being asked to do that with half-measures. Does that speak to the public interest? Are the people of British Columbia being well served?

We’re seeing a government that is being held to the terms of a power-sharing agreement, an agreement that set up an artificial timeline. So I go back to my initial question. With something as fundamentally important as this, what is the big rush? Why is it so important to stampede the province into a flawed referendum process? How can the Minister of Finance assure this House that a simple mail-in ballot will best serve electoral reform? We’re not talking about what best serves British Columbia. We’re looking at what serves the interest of two political parties.

As I shortly conclude my remarks, I want to just remind British Columbians what we’ve learned over the last couple of days. The one that has been most difficult for me most recently has been that the Attorney General’s ministry confirmed that if the mandate is supported by even a voter turnout as low as 10 percent, the outcome would be valid. Madame Speaker, you’ve heard over and over the example of P.E.I., where over 38 percent of the people turned out and P.E.I. made a decision that that was not valid.

Yet we’ve lost the yes-no ballot. We’ve seen the very agreement that was made between two parties…. That commitment was broken. We’ve seen the threshold drop to 50 percent despite the fact that the NDP, in their own party, govern with a two-thirds requirement to make massive changes. On top of that, we learn — not by having the Attorney General stand up and take responsibility for the 10 percent threshold but by having a ministry spokesperson basically confirm it — that if 10 percent of British Columbians show up at the polls, that is a valid electoral outcome.

Well, what I say to the members opposite is it’s time for them to recognize that the process to date has been ill-informed, that the process has been poorly laid out, that it disenfranchises in the very process that is supposedly going to have an outcome that allows for fairness in British Columbia…. It is unfair.

I support the amendment, and I urge the members opposite to rethink this piece of legislation and their timelines.

M. Hunt: I rise to speak to the amendment that is before us for Bill 6. The basic essence of the amendment is to postpone the consideration of this bill for another six months, as there’s need for some more work here.

This bill itself proposes a tremendous change to the fabric of our democracy, which is built on the British parliamentary system of representative government, and will affect British Columbians across this province regardless of who they vote for. It is a change that will move from the voters electing their representatives to one where the voters will vote for their party, and the party will decide who gets to sit in this House.

[6:15 p.m.]

I also have serious concerns about the question that is still to be determined. Ultimately, the bill ensures that the question will be decided by the NDP cabinet behind closed doors — after, I assume, consultations with the coalition secretariat. Now, that’s code for meaning the Green Party will actually decide.

So what form of proportional representation is it going to be? Well, we don’t know that. The bill doesn’t say it. There are dozens of forms of proportional representation, and new ones are being proposed all the time. As a matter of fact, I have one here that’s called — what is it now? — local PR made easy, and they’re in fact designing this for a designed-in-B.C. form of proportional representation. You know, it’s interesting. The Premier promised a simple yes-no vote before the election, but this bill allows for more than two choices.

Now, the leader of the Green Party has spoken to the bill itself, and he’s talking about the wonderful benefits that a new PR system will have. The problem is that that isn’t in Bill 6. It seems to be in his imagination only, because the question hasn’t been decided. Well, maybe I should say: the question hasn’t been decided by the NDP cabinet yet.

This will actually be the third attempt at a referendum in British Columbia for British Columbians to vote on. They voted in 2005. They voted again in 2009. And twice they have said that they don’t want proportional representation.

I have further concerns about the nature of the public engagement process. Interestingly, the bill doesn’t speak at all to public consultation. As a matter of fact, the word “consult” or “consultation” isn’t even in the bill. But over this last weekend, we’ve suddenly discovered that a consultation process has begun. Well, that’s interesting.

At least in 2005 and 2009, there was an independent, non-partisan citizens’ assembly for electoral reform that decided both the process and the question. Each time, the assembly ensured that British Columbians from every corner of this province were in fact consulted. Yet we can’t find anything about this here in this bill, and the consultation that has begun is, quite frankly, a sham.

When you read through the questions, the questions are totally stacked against the current system that we have. They’re stacked for proportional representation. As a matter of fact, three of the four academics who are supposed to be guiding this process support change. That tells you where they’re guiding it to. Not very independent, I’d say.

Then we have this line of the bare majority of 50 percent plus one. Well, you can’t lower the bar any lower than that. It simply ignores the need for regional support. Yet, again, when we were listening to the leader of the Green Party speaking, he was telling us how it was going to address regional concerns. Well, where? It’s certainly not in this bill. As far as I’m concerned, this is a lack of respect for the public and a desperate attempt for change for the sake of change because they want to secure their shaky political alliance.

In fact, I believe that this bill will guarantee that the Greens, or another small party, will perpetually hold the balance of power here in the province of British Columbia. Now, maybe that’s what they’re really after. Maybe that’s the purpose of this. But it shouldn’t be this easy to change such a fundamentally important process as how we vote for our members of this Legislature.

Now, for those of us that are members of strata councils, it takes 75 percent of votes cast in order to deal with the resolutions at our strata councils. For those who are involved in charities and not-for-profits, they too — 75 percent for special resolutions.

Even the NDP, themselves, at their recent convention…. It took two-thirds votes in order to change how often they meet. That’s simply whether they’re meeting annually or they’re meeting once every two years, but they had to have a two-thirds vote for that, not 50 percent plus one. Surely the system of choosing our government is more important than how often the NDP hold their conventions.

Canada’s constitution requires both the House and the Senate to agree. Then two-thirds of the provincial legislatures must agree, and then 50 percent plus one — that is, both the regional and the popular vote must support it and work together to change the constitution.

[6:20 p.m.]

Yes, the Attorney General reminded us: “Actually, we don’t need to have any of this kind of stuff. We can just unilaterally make changes.”

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Well, that’s not the way that we should be running this province. The NDP’s campaign platform dealing with the referendum said: “We’ll ensure B.C.’s regions are all represented fairly.” Well, that simply isn’t the case here. There is no mechanism within this bill or within anything I’ve heard so far for regional voices in this bill. Metro Vancouver is going to decide the issue, and the rest of the province is going to be ignored.

That’s right. The leader of the Green Party confirmed that the NDP’s campaign platforms have absolutely no meaning now that they have this agreement. The NDP and the Greens have the backroom deal. It’s what takes priority over anything that was said in the election. Who cares about the voters that voted for those platforms? This is the power of minority parties in a coalition or a minority government.

Again, we’ve heard it said before. Prince Edward Island — little, tiny Prince Edward Island. You can stick it into Surrey and all of the people into Surrey. They had a referendum. Fifty-two percent of the voters were in favour, but only 30 percent of the voters showed up. Their Premier, Prince Edward Island, said: “It’s not good enough.”

The NDP-Green coalition say that 50 percent plus one is just fine. As a matter of fact, they say no matter how many show up. We have the ministry confirming that if it’s only 10 percent that show up…. Again, 50 percent plus one of 10 percent makes 5 percent of the voters of British Columbia. If that’s what it is, that’s fine. Well, you can’t set the bar any lower than that. I don’t know how you can set the bar lower than that.

Now, I come from local government. In local government, we have R and D. Well, in local government, we call it research and duplicate, because that’s exactly what we do. We look all over the world for creative ideas of what other municipalities are doing and how they’re doing it, and we bring them back to our municipalities and adapt them and make them work. We also hear it’s called best practices in other places. You know, just like good farmers, they pick the variety that they want to grow for the attributes that they want to have, and they move on.

Where are the best practices here? That’s why I’m supporting this amendment. I haven’t heard any best practices. I haven’t heard of where we’ve got better government than what we’ve seen in the British parliamentary system.

The question is: what have the Greens and the NDP found in PR that they want to emulate here in the province of British Columbia? Well, there are 87 countries that use some form of proportional representation. The question is: who are we trying to emulate? Well, let me list them for you. I think it’s really enlightening to find out who these 87 countries are.

We have Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Australia. Okay, well, Australia. For Australia, it’s for the Senate only — their first election was just had in 2016 — but not the House of Commons.

Then there’s Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia. Here’s a good one: Bosnia-Herzegovina. We really want to emulate what’s happening there. Brazil. Bulgaria. Burkina Faso. Burundi. Cambodia. Cape Verde.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Yeah. There are lots of them that have it. But do they have better government than what we already see in the good British parliamentary system that we’re working with?

We’ve got Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark. That’s only the first 25. We’ve got the Dominican Republic, East Timor, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia and, of course, the European Union itself, but each member gets to choose their own system, so it’s a real hodgepodge.

Then there are the Faroe Islands, Fiji, Finland, Germany. We’ll talk more about Germany in a few minutes. Actually, noting the hour, I don’t know that I have…. I see Section A isn’t finished, so I’ll keep going until….

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Oh, you are. You’re here. You usually sit over in the corner there.

Well, then, noting the hour, I would reserve my spot in the debate to be continued when it’s called again and move adjournment of the debate.

M. Hunt moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.