Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call government Motion 14 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 14 — AMENDMENTS TO
TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION
FINAL AGREEMENT

Hon. S. Fraser: I move Motion 14, standing in my name on the order paper:

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to clause 6 of Chapter 23 of the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia consents to the amendments to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement set out in the attached Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement First Amending Agreement.

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION FINAL AGREEMENT FIRST AMENDING AGREEMENT

THIS FIRST AMENDING AGREEMENT (this “Amending Agreement”) is dated for reference July 17, 2017.

AMONG:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

(“Canada”)

AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION, as represented by Chief Bryce Williams

(“Tsawwassen First Nation”).

WHEREAS:

A. On April 3, 2009, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement came into effect.

B. The Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement provides for its amendment and specifies requirements for the amendment of various of its provisions.

C. The Parties agree to propose the amendments to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement set out in Part II of this Amending Agreement, in order to:

1. Update Appendix C-4 (Parcel Description of Tsawwassen Lands):

a. with the legal descriptions and parcel identifiers as of the Effective Date; and

b. to amend the legal descriptions and parcel identifiers for two parcels, after new survey plans were prepared and registered after the Effective Date, to accurately reflect the natural water boundaries as of the Effective Date;

2. Update Appendix E-2 (Parcel Description of Other Tsawwassen Land), Part 1 (Fraser River Parcels) and Part 2 (Boundary Bay Parcels) with the legal descriptions and parcel identifiers as of the Effective Date;

3. Update Appendix E-3, Part 1 (List of Interests on Fraser River Parcels) and Appendix E-3, Part 2 (List of Interests on Boundary Bay Parcels) with legal descriptions and parcel identifiers as of the Effective Date; and

4. Update Appendix G-2 (Parcel Description of Tsawwassen Lands included in the Agricultural Land Reserve) and Appendix G-3 (Parcel Description of Tsawwassen Lands Excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve) with legal descriptions and parcel identifiers as of the Effective Date.

D. The Parties have determined that the processes set out in clauses 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of Chapter 23 – Amendment apply to the proposed amendments set out in Part II of this Amending Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree that the proposed amendments to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement set out in Part II of this Amending Agreement be recommended:

a) by Chief Bryce Williams to the Tsawwassen First Nation Government;

b) by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Governor in Council; and

c) by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to the Legislature of British Columbia.

PART I – DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

1. In this Amending Agreement:

“Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement” means the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement among the Tsawwassen First Nation, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia as it took effect on April 3, 2009.

2. A reference to a Chapter by number or name is a reference to the chapter of that number or name in the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement.

3. A reference to an Appendix by letter or number is a reference to the Appendix of that letter or number in the Appendices to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement.

4. Words and expressions appearing in this Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but are defined in the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement.

PART II – AMENDMENTS

5. Appendix C-4 is deleted, and the document entitled “Amended Appendix C-4” attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

6. Part 1 of Appendix E-2 is deleted, and the document entitled “Amended Part 1 of Appendix E-2” attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

7. Part 2 of Appendix E-2 is deleted, and the document entitled “Amended Part 2 of Appendix E-2” attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

8. Part 1 of Appendix E-3 is deleted, and the document entitled “Amended Part 1 of Appendix E-3” attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

9. Part 2 of Appendix E-3 is deleted, and the document entitled “Amended Part 2 of Appendix E-3” attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

10. Appendix G-2 is deleted, and the document entitled “Amended Appendix G-2” attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

11. Appendix G-3 is deleted, and the document entitled “Amended Appendix G-3” attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

PART III – PROCEDURES

12. The proposed amendments set out in Part II of this Amending Agreement will take effect in accordance with clause 9 of Chapter 23 – Amendment, on the date the consent requirements required under clauses 3, 5, 6 and 8 of Chapter 23 – Amendment are completed.

13. This Amending Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts. A signed counterpart may be delivered by one Party to another Party by facsimile or e-mail transmission and a facsimile or e-mail so transmitted will constitute an original document. Signed counterparts held by a Party, taken together, will constitute one and the same instrument.

FOR HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, signed this _______ day of ______________________, 2017.

___________________________________

The Honourable Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Witnessed by _______________

FOR HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, signed this _______ day of ______________________, 2017.

___________________________________

The Honourable John Rustad, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

Witnessed by _______________

FOR THE TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION, as represented by Chief Bryce Williams, signed this _______ day of ______________________, 2017.

___________________________________

Bryce Williams, Chief

Witnessed by _______________]

Hon. S. Fraser: I rise in this House to move the amending agreement to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, British Columbia’s first urban modern-day treaty. The purpose of this amendment agreement is to correct five appendices of the final agreement.

[1:35 p.m.]

These appendices contain the legal descriptions of the Tsawwassen lands as of the effective date of the treaty, April 3, 2009. These appendices have some inconsistencies with the legal descriptions of the Tsawwassen lands as registered in the land title office on the effective date. In this treaty, land was transferred to the First Nation both by passage of the law — it’s called statutory vesting — and by land title office registration. The legal descriptions of the land in each must be identical.

The amending agreement will correct this discrepancy and is considered a housekeeping item among the treaty partners. The Tsawwassen Legislature unanimously ratified the amending agreement during its session on November 9 of this year. I’ll take this opportunity to congratulate Tsawwassen First Nation on its ongoing efforts to create a powerful, sustainable economy that benefits its members with jobs and with opportunities.

This treaty is the foundation for the incredible work Tsawwassen is doing to create a healthy community, improve the social well-being of their people and uphold their culture and their language. Tsawwassen demonstrates the power of treaties, and that’s why it’s part of my mandate to re-energize treaty negotiations. Treaty First Nations have increased opportunities for participating in the economy, law-making authority and clear jurisdiction over lands, resources and the wealth and well-being of their communities.

With our partners the B.C. Treaty Commission, the First Nations Summit and the federal government, we are working to transform the treaty process so it better respects case law and embodies the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. We are looking at improving that treaty process to take out the bottlenecks and make it much more effective and inclusive. This is part of our commitment to transform the Crown–First Nation relationship based on respect and recognition, building lasting government-to-government relationships.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: Second reading on Bill 6, continued.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

M. Hunt: Continuing on from where I was on yesterday’s debate, I’m speaking to the amendment that is before us, the amendment to Bill 6.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I would note that the amendment is a rather simple one, simply saying to delete the word “now” and substitute it with the words “six months hence.” I think the reason for this, the reason for this delay, is because we’ve been raising some serious issues that have not been addressed in the bill. I believe the public needs much more information on this because this bill proposes to change the very fabric of our democracy, which has been built on the British parliamentary system of representative government and will affect all British Columbians.

As I began yesterday, I raised the fact that I have serious concerns about how the question itself is to be determined. Ultimately, the bill in question is going to be decided, as the bill says, in cabinet, but we don’t know that for sure. We don’t know the process by which it’s going to come to that.

We’ve got a public engagement process that has just begun this past weekend. Interestingly enough, this bill says absolutely nothing about consulting or consultation. So the consultation that we have — what is it? It’s a question-and-answer process, but it’s interesting that the questions are all stacked in favour of proportional representation. It’s not a surprise, when you look at the four academics that are involved in guiding this process, because three out of the four support change and they don’t support the current system that we have.

We’ve raised the issue about what the majority is. What is the decision to actually make? As we come to this decision, how is it actually going to be dealt with as a majority? Traditionally, it’s been dealt with as a double majority, both a regional as well as a popular question. But, again, we’ve been finding out that the Premier, before the election, said: “Well, of course, it’ll be a double majority, just like the constitution of Canada is.” We had the Greens saying that it would be a unilateral process.

[1:40 p.m.]

Now we discover that it’s going to be 50 percent plus one, no matter how many show up. That’s “hard-wired” into this. Well, it’s not in the bill. It’s not in what’s before us. Surely, the citizens should have a right to know what’s actually is going on here. The information certainly is not before us, and the citizens don’t have an idea.

We’ve talked about how serious decisions are made in so many different places. Whether it’s the strata council, not-for-profits, charities, all require 75 percent. Even the NDP themselves, when it comes to their convention, whether they’re going to meet once a year or once every two years, they have to have a two-thirds majority for that, which seems like a fairly simple, straightforward type of decision. But no. It needed two-thirds.

When it comes to our voting system, 50 percent plus one is fine, and we really don’t care how many people show up. We’ve had the minister suggest that, in fact, if only 10 percent show up, that’s fine. So 5 percent of the population plus one is actually going to make the decision.

Then we have this whole thing about neutrality. Well, it’s interesting because it was raised in a previous referendum. A previous Liberal government had said: “This is how we’re voting.” We were mocked for that in question period.

It’s interesting. In the agreement that the NDP have with the Green Party, it says that the government will support the referendum. Well, isn’t that interesting? So much for neutrality there. But again, I guess the decisions only happen…. Only this side of the House is bad, and that side of the House is altogether pure. The question is: how low can they set the bar? Well, they have done it as far as they possibly can.

Again, I come from local government. In local government, we research things. We look for best practices. So where are the best practices? Well, again, that’s information that hasn’t been given to the public. No doubt, it’ll show up at some point in time. But who knows when? Long after this bill is before us.

When we look at the countries that have this, it’s 87 countries. Simply doing my research — 87 countries. I’m looking for what it is that the Greens and the NDP are trying to emulate in these countries. Let me list to you the 87 countries that currently have some form of proportional representation. Oh, and I guess that’s another thing. It’s some form of proportional representation. There are so many different ones. Again, this bill doesn’t address what ones or even give us a clue as to where the government thinks it’s going.

Let’s list the 87 countries: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Australia. Well, Australia partly; it’s only for the Senate. They first introduced that in 2016, but it’s not for their House of Commons. Then we have Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso. What are we trying to emulate from these countries? That’s the question.

Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, East Timor, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia. Even in the European Union, which in this list is the 31st one. Each member of the union gets to choose their own form of proportional representation because there are so many different types. But we haven’t a clue what this government is thinking.

It goes on with 32. The Faroe Islands, Fiji, Finland, Germany. Well, we’ll come back to Germany in a few minutes.

Then, of course, there’s Greece. Now, Greece is an interesting one. We have a couple of nations that do this. What they do, just to make sure that the deck is really stacked as they go into these coalitions — tremendous coalitions of parties, ultimately, is one of the common themes throughout this — is they give a bonus. If you can actually get a majority, 50 percent plus one of the seats in the House, you get a bonus. In Greece’s case, you get a bonus of 50 seats.

[1:45 p.m.]

Now, where do those 50 seats come from? They don’t come from the people having another election so that they’re there representing the citizens. No, this comes from party lists, so it’s actually the party that these members are beholden to, not to the citizens who should be electing them. That means that in the ruling coalition, over 40 percent of the government seats were not elected at all. Those are the government seats. I’m not talking about the other ones that may have everybody that wasn’t elected.

Then we have 37. It’s Greenland; Guatemala; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Honduras; Iceland; Indonesia; Iraq — Iraq is one; Israel; Iran; Italy — oh, we’ll talk some more about Italy as well, but Italy, again, also has that same kind of bonus provision; Kazakhstan; Kosovo; Kyrgyzstan; Latvia; Lesotho; Liechtenstein; Luxembourg; Macedonia. I’m terrible at pronouncing half of these names. Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania.

Here we have it, Madame Speaker. Number 71 is Rwanda. Again, what are we trying to emulate here in the province of British Columbia?

San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Saint Martin, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey. And the 87th one is Uruguay.

Now, what is the common thing that we find in these 87 countries? Again, what are we trying to emulate here? Well, we have party lists, coalitions and instability. We have minority governments. We have coalition governments that produce instability for the voters and the investors.

Let’s look at some of these particular nations, like Belgium. Belgium spent 589 days without a government in 2010 and 2011 while the parties were unable to come to an agreement on a coalition. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy was fine doing all the little things in the normal operation of government. But when it came to things like migration, legislation and the eurozone crisis that was happening at the time, all of those decisions were put off because there were 11 parties in the House and it took six parties to actually create the coalition. By the way, with almost two years to create the coalition, the coalition only lasted two years.

What about the Netherlands? Well, in 2017 — 208 days before a government was formed. The government ended up being a coalition of four parties that they were able to cobble together out of the total of 13 parties that were in parliament.

What about Spain? Spain: 314 days. Again, tremendous lengths of time — this was 2015 — without a government. In fact, they couldn’t form a government. They couldn’t create this coalition to get together, so there was a new election six months later. There are ultimately 12 parties in their parliament.

Italy is so special. This is why when you look at this, you go: “Yes, we need to delay this bill for six months in order to find out what in the world the government is actually looking at in these proportional representation systems that we’re trying to emulate.” Then the citizens will at least have an informed debate and an informed decision.

That’s not what is before us. Between 1946 and 2016, they had two separate….This is the period I’m talking about with Italy. They had 65 governments across those 70 years. That’s an average of just slightly over a year per government. They’ve had two separate proportional representation systems since 1993.

Interestingly enough, here we find out that modern-day Italy has got a little problem. This is from the recent edition of The Economist magazine. It’s talking about Italy, and it’s talking about a particular member who is a senator and how he is changing parties. Then it comments. It says there have been 533 times in the Italian parliament that some member has changed sides from one party to another party in the current Legislature, which has only been sitting since 2013.

[1:50 p.m.]

Across the last four years, we’ve had 533 times that a member has changed parties within the Legislature. Now, there are 945 deputies and senators that are elected. Just think about that. How would you like a House of 945 members? Massive. And 342 of them — that’s 36 percent of the members in the House — have felt moved by whatever to change parliamentary groups at least once. That is good, stable government. I think that’s exactly what B.C. needs, right?

One of the interesting ones is that one of the reasons why we have this massive amount of change happening in Italy is because the parliamentarians don’t feel they have to abide by the wishes of their constituents. They are largely unanswerable to their constituents. So in fact, since 2005, they have chosen, in one of the changes they made, to make multi-seat constituencies from slates that were crafted by party leaders who decided which candidates can stand the best chance of getting elected. So again, it’s the party that’s deciding who’s out there and who’s not out there.

Interestingly, even Italy has thrown up the white flag of surrender. They have created a new law that means at least a third of the members — well, it’s only a third of the members — in the next election will be chosen — how? — by first-past-the-post in single-seat constituencies. That’s what’s happening. They have gone all the way around, and now they’ve come back to, “Gee, first-past-the-post, single-member constituencies make the most sense,” and that’s what they’re doing. That’s the new law in Italy.

Getting back to the future, again, what is it we’re doing here in B.C.? These are questions that Bill 6 doesn’t give an answer to, which is why we’re suggesting that the government go back and reconsider this.

Now, what about Germany? Well, Germany had their election in September. Yes, we know that the government was working hard to try and create a coalition. Well, interestingly enough, the talks for the coalition have now failed, and now the…. What is she called?

Interjection.

M. Hunt: The chancellor, that’s right. Thank you.

Chancellor Merkel is now suggesting that there be a new election because she can’t see any way of creating a coalition in this. Well, that’s interesting.

Again, we’ve had members stand and speak about how this promotes fringe parties, and it promotes the extremes. Well, again, we have the Alternative for Germany party, the AFD, which got 94 seats in the House. They actually support and advocate for a return to Nazism in Germany.

All of this, these ones that I have just listed, are in the context of the European Union, which is a government that is elected by PR, as I said earlier. But they also have the ability to override the national governments. So, I mean, it is a total confused mess that is there. I’m not even going to mention Greece and the financial challenges and the rest that Greece has. Maybe I should just….

I am just too tempted, because it’s so amazing. If you remember the financial crisis that Greece was going through…. The World Bank was basically saying: “You’ve got to make your payment.” The president of the day said: “I can’t do it. We’re calling a new election.” They called an election. They had the election. The party that won said that they would stand up to the World Bank and they would not make the payment. What was it? Less than a week in office, and they had completely changed their position because reality was facing them. It’s one thing to have a political thing and another one — the real world of banks and international banking and the rest of that.

So what are we looking for? What is the government looking for when they’re talking about proportional representation? Well, the leader of the Green Party has brought up Northern Ireland and New Zealand as the two countries with the British parliamentary system that use PR. Let’s take a look at them.

Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland re-established parliament in 1998, so they’ve only had it for 19 years — under 20 years, anyhow. The fixed term was set. The fixed term was a five-year term from the elections. Since 1998, they have had six elections. Do the math, and you see that no one has made it to the five-year fixed term. So that’s an average of three years that they’ve actually been able to have the stability of a government when the term was, in fact, a five-year term. The last parliament only lasted for one year. The elections that they held in March of this year, 2017 — a coalition still hasn’t been established. Is that really what we’re looking for here in the province of British Columbia?

[1:55 p.m.]

New Zealand. Well, New Zealand is a whole amazing one.

I see the green light has gone on, so I’m running out of time, and I have so much to say. But the challenge is simply this: who are the members of this House going to be accountable to under proportional representation? We don’t even know the system, because the government hasn’t even gone through its process. It hasn’t even given possible ideas of what they are looking at so that there can be an intelligent debate and discussion over what form of PR we’re actually going to have.

Ultimately, what happens in each and every one of these 87 countries is that the parties put out lists. The electors vote. They don’t necessarily…. In most of the cases, they don’t vote for an individual. Rather, they’re voting for a party. They’re voting for a party slate, and oh yes, we’ve discovered that the party slate hasn’t got anything to do with anything because the backroom deal changes your platform completely.

At least they’re trying, but ultimately, it comes back to the loyalty. It’s not to the constituent. The loyalty is to the party. That’s why I am supporting this amendment. I am not supporting Bill 6 in the way it stands, because I believe the government needs to go back, think about this some more and come back with a more reasoned process for people to be able to make a fair decision and understand what they’re actually voting for.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just want to speak against this amendment. For those following at home, what we’re debating is whether or not we should avoid having a decision on this bill for six months, maybe longer. The Liberal opposition can’t seem to take a position, aside from saying they’re against it, but they want six more months to decide if they’re still against it. That’s what we’re debating here.

I don’t think that’s all that responsible, in the sense that it’s pretty clear to me…. We ran on a platform saying we wanted a referendum on proportional representation. That is what is in the legislation — to say: “Let us have a referendum on proportional representation.” The public consultation is starting now to involve the public and what those questions should look like.

While some on the other side of the House may argue that we’re wanting this, for some sort of reason, to be somehow against the interests of our constituents, I should inform them that my constituents voted to change the first-past-the-post system twice — majority support both times.

What I’m told from my constituents is that they like it when parties work together, as the New Democratic Party and Green Party currently are. They actually expect that to happen in the Legislature more often. Maybe it’s because they are tired of 16 years where the Liberals thought that they had every best idea in the world and nobody else needed to matter.

Unfortunately, it was very rare for there to be any sort of sense of collaboration together to solve problems. Of course, when we go home, regardless of who our neighbours are and their political affiliation, we try to work together to solve problems. We don’t say: “Check your party card. Oh, you voted for the opposition. You need not apply.” That’s, I think, what we would get more of. We’d get more togetherness, more cooperation — not always get everything we want.

I know some on the Liberal side want a might-makes-right, “We have more numbers than you, so we don’t have to listen to you” kind of politics in B.C. But I think that we should put a little humbleness into politics and realize we don’t have all the solutions. That’s why consulting the public and actually asking them if they wanted to change the electoral system is a good thing to do.

It’s interesting. I’m curious about why some would seem to suggest, on the opposition side, that somehow proportional representation is going to lead to a Nazi under every bed, a horrible situation where extremists rule the roost everywhere. They would never get elected under the first-past-the-post system seems to be the argument.

Well, I’m sorry to inform the members, but under the first-past-the-post system in British Columbia, we had plenty of governments who were racist. They were sometimes sympathetic to causes that all those people that the Liberals say are going to get elected now under proportional representation…. We had those governments in B.C. under first-past-the-post. That existed in British Columbia under the current system that they’re defending. They don’t reference that. Maybe it’s an inconvenient fact, but that’s the truth.

In fact, there are members in their current caucus who argue against the equality of transgender people in British Columbia. So don’t tell me that proportional representation is going to lead to extremists getting elected. They’re in the Liberal caucus right now. That’s the reality.

[2:00 p.m.]

There are those who believe that certain members of our population shouldn’t have human rights. They made it clear that they shouldn’t have the ability to have their gender expression reflected.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: If the member from Surrey is upset that I’m referring to him, I’m not.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

Point of Order

S. Bond: On a point of order, please, Madame Speaker. We would ask that the member opposite withdraw his outrageous statements about the lack of human rights beliefs on this side of the Legislature. That is totally inaccurate and should be withdrawn.

S. Chandra Herbert: If the member would like to read into the record that every member of her caucus voted in support of human rights changes, I would appreciate that. Most B.C. Liberal members supported human rights changes, and I applauded them on that. But there are members of their caucus who do not believe that gay people — there’s one at least that I know — should be supported to have their education supported in schools. We also know that members on that side…. One member….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, speaking to the amendment.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Well, clearly, I think that proportional representation is going to give the opportunity for a number of voices that have been excluded from this House, including transgender people, including racialized minorities, to actually have their voices heard in a bigger way, to have people who have disagreement, to have people who disagree, actually have that ability to have that debate in the House. I think that’s really important.

Some people don’t like the fact that under the first-past-the-post system, extremists have got elected, but they have. That’s why I think this amendment to delay having a decision on even being able to ask the public whether they support proportional representation or first-past-the-post is wrong. I think we should give the public the opportunity to have that discussion. Simply saying, “Let’s kick that problem down the road,” when, at least in my constituency, a majority of the public have supported, twice, changing from the first-past-the-post system…. I think that needs to be recognized. People deserve that chance to have that opportunity. My constituents deserve that opportunity.

I’m sorry if members on the opposite side are upset that I’ve referenced one member in their caucus who I don’t think fulfils all the great human rights goals that the rest of the caucus does. But I think that’s in fact true, based on the record in print, media and in this House.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, you’ve been asked to withdraw the comment. Kindly do so.

S. Chandra Herbert: I wholeheartedly withdraw, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Debate Continued

S. Chandra Herbert: I think it’s important that when we get an opportunity to ask the public their views on democracy and how it works, we should. That’s what this legislation does, and that’s why this amendment should fail, because it’s trying to delay the opportunity for the public to even have a chance to have their say heard on first-past-the-post versus proportional representation. Let’s give them that opportunity. Let’s defeat this amendment.

T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to speak on the amendment to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. I do support the amendment, replacing the word “now” with “six months hence.”

Perhaps the comments and the speeches, the thoughtful debate that members of the official opposition have been contributing to this particular part of the discussion, is getting under the skin a bit of members opposite. The member for Vancouver–West End…. To stand up and make some of the insinuations that he did about the integrity and the honour of members of the opposition is, frankly, unnecessary, and it’s outrageous. It doesn’t have a place in this House.

We do believe that having a thoughtful debate about a delay on this decision is important. It’s important that political parties and politicians keep their promises. This is the most fundamental change to a democracy that one could entertain — how we elect our MLAs — and it does matter what one says in the public domain. It should matter what one commits to in election campaigns.

[2:05 p.m.]

In this last election campaign, the current Premier, the former leader of the opposition, was very, very clear that there would be a vote on moving to a different system of electing our MLAs and that that question would be a simple yes-no question. It is not going to be that now. The current Premier made the commitment in the last campaign that it would be a very simple question and that the current system would be, without question, an option on that ballot.

Now we learn that the question will not be that simple, that it might be a preferential ballot. The first-past-the-post current system may or may not even be on the ballot.

We heard commitments from the current Premier in the last campaign that citizens would be very much involved in this process, much like the citizens’ assemblies of the previous two referendums on this matter that have been held in the past ten years. Those commitments don’t seem to matter either, because the question is going to be developed in the closed confines of cabinet. It will not be developed by British Columbians in an open, transparent manner, such as was the case with the previous citizens’ assembly.

When we look at the commitments that were made and the broken promises that we now see…. When we look at the fundamental nature of the question at hand that British Columbians will be asked to weigh in on, how we elect our MLAs, and changing that forever…. You’re darn right that we think there should be a delay, that there should be more time to get this right, to make sure that all British Columbians are part of this process.

It was with a tremendous amount of shock that we learned and British Columbians learned…. It was confirmed by the Attorney General’s ministry the other day that, yes, a simple 10 percent may actually qualify — 10 percent of voter turnout. As long as it gets 50 percent plus one, it would represent a mandate to proceed with the change that is so fundamental to our democracy: how we elect our MLAs. Five percent of British Columbians would, essentially, be making that decision in that situation. That is patently ridiculous. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

Prince Edward Island held a vote on this. A majority of Prince Edward Islanders endorsed moving to a new form of electing MLAs there, but the government actually held back. It said that because the voter turnout was not sufficient — it wasn’t high enough — it didn’t give the strength of confidence that warranted proceeding with that fundamental of a change. The government backed away.

Yet here in British Columbia we learn that a 10 percent voter turnout, with a 50-percent-plus-one threshold, will be good enough. That, in our view in the official opposition, is not good enough.

Bill 6 does have huge implications for our democracy, and it will have a tremendous impact on the day-to-day lives of British Columbians and that relationship that exists between elected provincial officials and the constituents they represent.

I want to continue my remarks by telling a story. In August of 2003, in the small town of McLure, which is just north of my riding in the lower North Thompson Valley, someone carelessly dropped a lit cigarette in the midst of a period of abnormally high temperatures in British Columbia. It was the driest three-year period on record to that point.

Now, that thoughtless action sparked one of the most destructive wildfires the province had ever seen, not really matched again until this most recent fire season that we had this summer. The McLure fire burned out of control and forced 3,800 residents out of their homes. The entire nearby town of Barriere was evacuated. A state of emergency was declared. Hydro services were lost. The area’s main highway, the Yellowhead Highway, was closed, and 72 homes went up in flames, and with them, an innumerable amount of personal and sentimental items, precious memories collected by those families over the years.

Nine businesses were burned to the ground, including the Tolko sawmill in Lewis Creek. That mill was the region’s biggest employer, and its destruction left more than 180 people permanently out of work. The total estimated cost of the wildfire damage was $31 million, in addition to $8.2 million in property losses.

The final size of the McLure fire was 26,420 hectares, and it burned for more than 75 days. Let that sink in: 75 days. That’s 2½ months that this fire raged on.

[2:10 p.m.]

If all this wasn’t bad enough, imagine a scenario where there was no government in place to help. Imagine our province in the midst of political gridlock following an election with an unclear result as parties scramble to cobble together a working coalition. It’s the type of scenario that often plays out in countries that have adopted various forms of proportional representation. We’ve heard many, many examples cited here in this chamber over recent days — and, I would argue, the type of scenario that we should try to avoid here in British Columbia.

There are, as I said, many examples that have been cited, and here are a few others from jurisdictions. We have Germany, which held an election this year but still doesn’t have a government in place. Last week we learned that the talks to form a new ruling coalition have collapsed altogether, so perhaps further delays and even a new election are possible.

The Netherlands also had a vote recently, and it took 208 days for a government to be formed there. In 2015, it took 314 days before the people of Spain had a government. In Belgium in 2010, it took a whopping 589 days — more than a year and a half — before a government was formed.

This type of outcome isn’t just a one-off. It isn’t just a rare occurrence. It happens again and again under proportional representation. When government is stuck in neutral, those big, important decisions, those visionary decisions — planting the flag in the ground and saying: “This is where we’re going. We’re going to take a risk getting there, but it’s the right thing to do….” Those kinds of decisions just don’t get made.

When I think about this as a possibility for the people of British Columbia, I think about that story that I just told, about the wildfire that ravaged McLure and Barriere and all the structures lost and livelihoods affected. I wonder how much worse it would have been for those folks had there not been a provincial government in place to work with all the different levels of government, to put responders on the ground, to advocate for those folks, to assist them in the initial emergency response and the recovery effort that followed.

I know my colleagues who represent other communities hard hit by forest fires in this past wildfire season share these similar concerns. We’re coming off another devastating wildfire season here in British Columbia. My colleagues from Prince George–Valemount, Fraser-Nicola, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Cariboo North, Nechako Lakes and Kamloops–North Thompson, in particular, have been working really, really hard to advocate for those affected by this year’s wildfires — from local residents, who spent days and even weeks out of their homes, to farmers and ranchers, who saw crops and wildlife fencing go up in flames and animals fleeing toward injury or even death, to small business owners losing revenues because of highway closures and a decrease in tourist traffic.

It’s these types of crises that require an appropriate and timely response from government. It’s when people really need to have confidence that their government is going to be there for them. It’s no time to hit the pause button and tell people to wait. But I fear that these types of delays in decision-making, in the midst of the instability that could come under a system of proportional representation, is what we would see here in British Columbia.

In the meantime, there are other drawbacks to these various PR systems that I’d like to outline. We could see a real fragmentation of the party system, leading to extreme minority parties holding larger parties at ransom for their support. Fringe parties with extreme ideals could have a platform to spread them to a wider audience of people. We’ve certainly seen many examples of this around the world in some of the countries that have been mentioned often in the debates here in recent days.

In Germany, where efforts to form a coalition were being made, it was expected that once a parliament finally got formed, the far-right Alternative for Germany party would have 94 seats. As I referred to earlier, those talks appear to have broken down, but it’s worth noting that this is a party that wants to stop all immigration of other nationalities to Germany. Meanwhile, the coalition government that’s formed in the Netherlands includes an anti-LGBT Christian unity party.

Proportional representation legitimatizes extreme or fringe parties from the far-right or the far-left wings of political ideology. It’s worth noting that we’ve seen evidence that far-right leaders and political parties are rising in popularity around the globe. The far-right party in Germany that I just referenced, Alternative for Germany, received 13 percent of the vote in the country’s 2017 election. That was up from 4.6 percent in 2013. And, of course, in France, far-right leader Marine Le Pen won a seat in their parliament in the 2017 general election.

[2:15 p.m.]

Another negative aspect of proportional representation is that voters are unable to enforce accountability by throwing a party out of power or even a particular candidate out of office. There is no accountability for parties or politicians to keep their election promises, although I guess you could argue that’s exactly what’s happening right now here in B.C. with all of the broken promises that we’re seeing from this government.

Any assertion made by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head — and we all remember this well — that campaign promises made by the NDP are actually irrelevant…. Why? Because they have a supply and confidence agreement which supersedes the commitments that were actually made with British Columbians in the election campaign.

But I digress. Proportional representation can be difficult for voters to understand and for electoral administration to implement because the rules of these various systems are very, very complex. There are indeed many variations to proportional representation. Some systems require that a party reach a minimum threshold of the vote share in order to earn any seats. How it works for the voters is that they generally cast a ballot for several candidates or a party, and the results determine which individual members will sit in the Legislature, as well as the overall distribution of seats belonging to each party.

Now, let’s take a look at some of these different variations. There is list proportional representation or list PR, although I will note that this system is rarely seen in its purest form anywhere in the world. Within this system, 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 ranks the names on the list, and citizens vote for the party rather than a specific candidate. Parties earn seats in proportion to their share of the national vote. Then we see individual seats allocated to candidates of each party in the order in which they are ranked on the party list, usually chosen by the party.

Meanwhile, when it comes to open list PR, voters choose a preferred candidate or candidates from the list of the party they wish to vote for. In this case, voters effectively determine the order in which the listed candidates will be given seats.

Another option is the single transferrable vote or STV. I’ll note that a customized version of STV was the system that British Columbians considered and voted on in both of our two previous referendums. How this works is that voters in multi-member electoral districts rank candidates on the ballot. They have the choice to rank as few or as many candidates as they want.

In most variations of this system, something called a vote quota is used. That is, winners are declared by first determining the number of valid votes cast and then establishing a minimum number of votes that are required based on the number of seats to be filled. Candidates who have received enough first-choice votes to reach that quota become the elected representatives.

Now, if there are still seats to be filled, a two-step count occurs. Firstly, any votes in excess of the quota for elected candidates are redistributed to the second choices indicated on the ballots of the elected candidates, using a weighted formula called excess transfer. Those who then reach the quota are elected. But if no candidate achieves that, then we go to step two. The candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is dropped, and the second-preference votes on the ballots, where that candidate ranked first, are then assigned to the remaining candidates.

Moving on, we have the mixed-member proportional system, which I understand is favoured by the federal NDP. This is a mixed electoral system where citizens cast two votes, one to decide the representative for their single seat constituency and one for a political party or parties to fill seats in the Legislature, which are allocated according to the proportion of the vote share they receive. The constituency representatives are elected using first-past-the-post voting or another plurality or majority system.

A citizen’s second vote, which allocates seats to parties according to list PR, which was outlined earlier, is used to try to compensate for any disproportionate results in the first-past-the-post constituency part of the election. So additional seats are given to qualifying parties where the number of constituency seats they won doesn’t reflect voter support shown in both components of the election.

I’m not sure if you’re still following me after all of that. I wouldn’t blame you if you’re not. It’s a lot of information to take in. There are a lot of complexities there. And the ins and outs of each system and its variations can be a bit confusing to follow at times. Perhaps we saw evidence of the difficulty of understanding PR in the previous referendums on electoral reform held here in British Columbia.

[2:20 p.m.]

In 2005, B.C. held a provincewide vote on whether to retain the existing first-past-the-post electoral system or change to BCSTV, which, as I mentioned earlier, was a customized version of the single transferrable vote system. That was recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. This assembly was set up to assess models for electing MLAs and to issue a report on whether or not B.C. should change its voting system.

By all accounts, this citizens’ assembly did exceptional work. The independent, non-partisan assembly was comprised of 160 randomly selected British Columbians, men and women from all over this province. There were four from Kamloops, from my constituency — Katie Cavaletto, Lee Harris, Ray Jones and Ilene Zurowski.

There were 50 public hearings and more than 1,600 written submissions. The assembly members carefully considered the input and ideas of thousands of British Columbians before recommending the BCSTV system. But when it went to a referendum vote, it didn’t meet the threshold that was established for the referendum to pass. The threshold was minimum of 60 percent with a simple majority in 48 of the 79 districts.

It came close, very close, so the government of the day committed to a second referendum, in the 2005 throne speech. In 2009, that second provincewide referendum on electoral reform was held at the same time as the 2009 general election. Voters were given the choice again between first-past-the-post or the BCSTV model. In that referendum, government split $1 million in funding amongst the registered proponent group, British Columbians for BC-STV, and the opponent group, No STV.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s office was tasked with establishing a referendum information office, with a mandate to provide objective information to voters about electoral systems. For the referendum result to be binding, the approval level had to be at least 50 percent of the total popular vote, provincewide, and more than 50 percent of the votes in at least 51 of the province’s 85 electoral districts. This second referendum also failed to meet the required thresholds.

Twice now this issue has been canvassed amongst British Columbians, and twice they have rejected it. We’re going to do it a third time. Actually, I’m okay with that. The official opposition is okay with that. We’re okay with asking British Columbians to vote on our electoral system. I think it’s always a good thing to ask British Columbians what they think. That’s why holding the referendum is not the issue.

The trouble is that the NDP government and their Green partners have decided to essentially rig the system, to stack the deck, to ensure the result that they want — to ensure a yes vote. They thought to themselves: “How can we make this referendum process work to our maximum advantage? How can we tweak things to ensure that we get the result that we want?”

We all know what they’ve come up with. They’ve lowered the threshold for the result to be binding on government to a bare majority of 50 percent plus one — 50 percent plus one of the entire population that votes in this referendum.

Now, as part of moving to that new threshold, they’ve also done away with what was always there as a second level of threshold required for such a fundamental change. That was that a majority of ridings would have to also support this kind of a change.

That threshold is important. It is there and it has been there to respect the massive diverse geographic realities of British Columbia — to respect the fact that is a really big place, with many, many small communities and rural areas dispersed all across this province of ours — and that the voices of those small communities, the voices of those rural areas, matter just as much as the voices in large urban centres.

There has always been some level of accommodation for that diverse geographic reality in this province, including the number of seats that we have and where the seats are. When you look at the total number of voters and the population that lives within seats, there has always been an acknowledgment that there will be, often, larger numbers of people living in urban seats, versus those living in some rural seats. Again, it’s to protect the voice of all British Columbians in our democratic process.

[2:25 p.m.]

Rural voters will, essentially, be shut out of this process. Their voice, essentially, will not matter. With a 50-percent-plus-one threshold and that being the only threshold, the decision will be made in the large urban centres. That, to me and to all of us in the official opposition, is a shocking attack on our democracy, and it’s an attack on rural British Columbia.

What’s more, as I mentioned earlier, not only is 50 percent plus one the required threshold to be met, of all those who vote, but it will be a mail-in ballot — which, if we look at the mail-in ballots that we’ve had in this province, always have a lower voter participation level than the participation level tends to be in general elections.

We had confirmation when pressed. We asked these questions. We had confirmation, from the Attorney General’s ministry, that a 10 percent voter turnout would be sufficient, as long as 50 percent plus one support the decision moving forward. Again, that would be 5 percent of British Columbia’s eligible voters making a decision that would result in us changing how we elect our MLAs. That doesn’t seem like a sufficiently high enough bar for such a critical change to our democracy.

What’s more, the now Premier is breaking a promise he made to British Columbians. He said, in the recent election, that a referendum question would be a simple yes-no question — yes or no, just like we’ve had as the question in previous referendums. Now we learn that voters will have to choose between multiple proportional representation options, and there may or may not be a first-past-the-post option on the ballot, to boot. That’s another element in this process that could sway the outcome.

I should also note that a first-past-the-post victory is not favourable under a ranked ballot. Again, we’re hearing there might be a ranked or preferential ballot that British Columbians are asked to consider in this referendum process. That’s not a simple yes-no question. That’s not a simple proposition being put to British Columbians, as was promised by the now Premier. Voters who choose first-past-the-post as their first choice will have to choose between multiple PR systems for their second and third choices. If first-past-the-post doesn’t win on the first ballot, a victory is unlikely.

Also shocking is the fact that the referendum question will likely be determined by cabinet behind closed doors and, I’m sure, with input from the Green members. Good for them. But as I mentioned earlier in my comments, the citizens’ assembly, the people of British Columbia, criss-crossed this province, held hearings and accepted thousands of submissions.

The citizens, who were removed from the political process, made the decision, in terms of what was recommended as the question. They made the decision, in terms of what was recommended as what British Columbians were asked to vote on, in the previous two referendums.

We can clearly see that through a number of different approaches the government has taken to this referendum, it is very much being geared towards doing everything the government can, in partnership with their Green coalition partners, to wire a yes vote — to set this up, as best as they possibly can, for the result to be what they want.

We can see the desperation that this reflects upon the government, in their effort to cling to power, in that they would so quickly throw these promises out the window — promises that were made only months ago in the election campaign by the current Premier — in order to grab and retain power.

[2:30 p.m.]

Similarly on the Green Party side, we have seen in this House, certainly in this session, opportunity after opportunity for the Green Party to work with the official opposition on different matters, to truly put their actions where their words are, in terms of working with everybody in this House. They choose not to do that, issue after issue, after great fanfare and after lots of arm-waving and so forth.

The Greens seem to be intent on compromising every single principle that they stand for to prop up this government to get to a PR referendum in a year from now. That’s really what’s going on here, and unfortunately, British Columbians are being caught in the crosshairs.

I hope that this government and their Green partners have enough respect for British Columbians that they will change course on this. I don’t have a lot of hope that they will, but I put that out there.

I think we saw, in the recent engagement survey that was released by the government — obviously to just put a check mark in the box next to public engagement; again, just another example of how skewed this referendum process is being set up — how wired it is to ensure the result that they want.

When you ask questions like: “Do you want your MLA to go to Victoria to represent your interests or to represent the interests of a party…?” I mean, come on. British Columbians aren’t stupid. This engagement survey is a pathetic example of a government trying to demonstrate that they’re actually engaging, when really all they’re doing is putting out a very weak attempt to solicit some data to be able to say that they made the effort.

Writing the question in the secrecy of cabinet, not by British Columbians; reducing the threshold from 60 percent plus one, plus the dual requirement for a majority of ridings to vote in a majority for this; not putting forward a clear-cut, simple, yes-no question that is designed, built and recommended by British Columbians independent of the political process — these are all serious concerns that we have about the process. Of course, as I mentioned earlier in my comments, we’re very, very concerned about the merits of moving away from our current system, with all of its warts, to any of the proposed systems under PR.

With that, I intend on voting in support of the amendment that is on the floor, and then I will subsequently be voting against Bill 6.

J. Thornthwaite: I am standing here looking forward to speaking in support of the amendment, but before that, I wanted to address something that a previous member from the opposite side mentioned.

One of my constituents, who actually is quite knowledgable on this topic, Dr. Edmonds, has advised me on numerous occasions about the issue of proportional representation. In actual fact, he’s not a supporter of it. He did share with me that he had voted NDP in the past election, so he wasn’t supporting me, but he doesn’t support PR either. His question to me was to ask everybody here: if you think you want to expand our electoral system into proportional representation, then what are you willing to give up?

I think that’s the key. There’s no doubt that this bill, the proportional representation bill, is designed to increase Green seats. That might be okay for some people. Certainly, the Green people and all of the supporters of the Green people think this is great. Sixteen percent of the voters in last May’s election actually voted Green. So that’s okay. But by changing the electoral system to allow more Green seats, we are also increasing the chances of fringe parties that we may not want.

[2:35 p.m.]

This is the thing that we’ve got to consider. After listening to the remarks of the member for Vancouver–West End, I was very concerned with the way that he talked about the argument about LGBTQ rights. And wouldn’t it be good to have more parties that focused on trans and LGBTQ rights? Well, you know what? I actually agree. But in proportional representation, what are you willing to give up — in that, if we did have proportional representation, what are the chances of more anti-LGBTQ people binding together to make a party and also getting elected?

We also know what has been going on in Chilliwack. There’s a group called Culture Guard in Chilliwack. Are we wanting them to form a political party and get some seats? Before you say that this has not happened, let’s talk about Indonesia.

Indonesia elects their People’s Representative Council via PR system. There are two parties that are anti-LGBTQ. The Prosperous Justice Party has 40 seats. The United Development Party has 39 seats. And they proposed bills to ban LGBTQ activism and criminalize LGBTQ people, rights and behavior in 2016.

So my question to everybody…. If you think PR is going to increase just the Greens, it’s also going to increase fringe parties that we might not feel too comfortable with.

Moving on to the actual amendment. One of the reasons why I am supporting the amendment is to give us more time to actually think about this sort of stuff.

The member for Nechako Lakes said that he was moving this amendment to say “deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting ‘six months.’” “Upon moving this motion,” that member said, “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 we all have heard from the other folks in the House that we don’t know actually what this question is going to be.

It’s critical that if we’re going to move forward, people must understand what they’re voting for. I remember my dad. God rest his soul. The thing that he used to tell me when I grew up was that there’s only one thing worse, if people do not vote. The worst thing for not voting is voting for something that you don’t know you’re voting. “Always, Jane,” he used to say to me, “vote for the ones that you know. Vote for the parties that you know.” And he always encouraged me to meet my elected representatives.

In fact, in the first-past-the-post system, which I got elected in, it’s really easy to meet me. I’ve got an open door policy. You can make an appointment. Obviously, it’s a good idea to make an appointment, because somebody could walk in off the street today, into my office, and they wouldn’t find me there. I’m actually here. But certainly, you can walk in off the street. I am accessible. I’m everywhere.

Now, is everybody that’s going to be elected through a PR system going to be that accessible? I’ve heard people complain, in areas that have PR, in European countries, who say: “I never get to see my elected representative. In fact, I don’t even know who my elected representative is.” Because most of the forms of proportional representation have party lists.

I’m not going to repeat what I said in my last remarks, last month, when I was talking about the bill. Suffice to say, again, if we are going to support a system like proportional representation, what are we willing to give up? Are we willing to give up personal representation for people to have easy and accessible access to their individual MLAs?

Now, I can tell you that I do have somebody that has written me on this quite a bit, and he has some great ideas. In fact, he was the Green candidate that ran against the member for Vancouver–West End, and he supports proportional representation — but not all forms.

[2:40 p.m.]

He told me that there are a couple of PR systems that would actually help the negative talk about some levels of proportional representation with regards to having an individual MLA that you could easily access. Or even, as my colleagues here from rural British Columbia, who are really, really, worried about the diminishment of rural representation…. He brings up the examples of what is going on in the Scottish national parliament as well as the German state of Baden-Württemberg. I would be really, really interested to learn more about these systems of PR, but right now I bet you there’s nobody in this House that is familiar with these.

The fact is that we need more time. If we are going to be voting on a system, we need more time to figure out what these systems are. If, as I said before, we want to elect a PR system — whatever that PR system is — what are we willing to give up? And that is my point.

Right now what we have is an Attorney General who has already indicated in his remarks today and yesterday in the House that he is biased in favour of proportional representation. That’s not right. That is not an unbiased opinion of somebody who is actually going to be making a decision that will influence the electoral system of all British Columbians — and, for now, that’s just under 5 million people. So one Attorney General, 22 members in cabinet plus a Premier are making a decision for 4.8 million people in British Columbia.

But I digress. How did we get here? Way back in May, the 2017 confidence and supply agreement between the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. New Democrat caucus was announced. Under section 3 of the agreement and under the subheading “Making Democracy Work for People,” the two parties stated their commitment to proportional representation and declared their commitment to introduce proportional representation in the Legislative Assembly in this session. They have done that. Great. One promise.

We’ve also passed a bill that proposes to change the laws surrounding campaign finance fundraising, a bill that amends the Constitution Act to ascribe a different meaning to the definition of what it means to actually be a political party. And now this bill, which attempts to make wholesale changes to our voting systems and the way we pick our elected officials.

These three bills speak to the heart of our democracy here in British Columbia, and the accumulated effect of these bills are set to change our democratic system in a way that stacks the deck for both the NDP but — I could argue — more for the Greens. Neither one of those two parties actually won the election last May, but combined, they did get one more seat than the B.C. Liberals.

Our current system is first-past-the-post, and it is the most common electoral system in democratic elections. Under the current first-past-the-post system, each voter gets one vote and chooses one candidate to represent their constituency. The candidate who wins more votes than another is elected — thus each first-past-the-post constituency has one MLA who is personally accountable to their voters and their respective constituency. It’s a very uncomplicated and straightforward process.

That highlights some of the key advantages. It’s simple, and they have one MLA. My constituents, as I mentioned before, find it very, very easy to come and visit me. They have great access to me, and I represent everybody in my constituency, not just the people that voted for me. With a stronger link between constituents and elected representatives, accountability is increased. My accountability is increased. Certainly, there are people that support me as a person. Even if they didn’t support my party, they supported me. I am elected to represent, as I said, all of my constituents, and that is what I do.

Almost all of the models, like mixed-member plurality or the MMP one — that, apparently, the leader of the Green Party has expressed an interest in — have party lists. In addition to an elected MLA in a particular riding, depending on the provincial percentage of votes that other parties got, those party leaders would appoint MLAs to certain regions.

That, in my opinion, is a lack of accountability. Again, I recognize that there are other models out there, but give us the time with this amendment to actually examine them before we actually vote on whether or not we want proportional representation to begin with.

[2:45 p.m.]

That’s not to say we haven’t put the question of proportional representation to the electorate. We did. In 2005 and again in 2009. The B.C. Liberals held two referendums on proportional representation. That would make this proposed referendum our third in 13 years.

What’s different about this proposed referendum when compared to the other two? Prior to the 2005 referendum, the process was handed over to the public through the creation of a 161-member panel on electoral reform. The B.C. Citizens’ Assembly was created in an effort to determine what kind of improvements needed to be made and how the referendum question would be processed.

British Columbians from every corner of the province were consulted, and the process was universally lauded for its independence and impartiality. From this extensive consultation, the citizens’ assembly recommended a referendum on the single transferable vote. After being put to a vote in 2005 and ultimately failing to meet the minimum threshold, the question was again proposed to British Columbians in a 2009 referendum. Moreover, the government promoted public awareness and understanding of the two elected systems, openly and transparently, and provided equal funds to supporters and detractors of each system.

This was a truly public process. While the first referendum was close, the second was not. The STV suffered a wholesale defeat with only 39 percent voting in favour of the proposed reform.

Now, we have the Green Party, a party that had the support of only 16 percent of the popular vote, wielding the balance of power and dictating policy for all British Columbians. And one person, as I mentioned before, the Attorney General, will be making that decision.

Is there is a model of proportional representation that the Attorney feels would be better suited for British Columbia? How about some examples in Europe where proportional representation is widespread. Consider the system of proportional representation currently in place in the Netherlands, where there has been a proliferation of no fewer than 28 smaller special interest parties and where 13 of them currently sit in parliament.

Or what about the system in Belgium, where it took 589 days without a government to form a six-party coalition government. What about Germany? Everybody seems to be talking about Germany, until recently. It almost looked like the coalition talks between Chancellor Merkel’s CDU-CSU alliance, the Free Democratic Party and the Green Party would successfully lead to the creation of a minority coalition government.

Well, those talks fell apart on November 19, with immigration being cited as the major obstacle to any agreement being reached. With 51 percent of Germans now supporting a new election, there is the fear that the far-right, anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany, which secured 94 seats in parliament, would stand to gain even more seats.

For decades, it appeared as if far-right, anti-immigration, pro-Nazi fringe groups like AfD had been sidelined. Yet in recent years, European voters seem particularly attracted to the political rhetoric of the extreme right.

In the Netherlands, we now see the Freedom Party holding 20 of 150 seats. This is a party whose leader has called for the banning of the Quran, the closing of mosques and a halt to immigration from non-western countries.

In Austria, the Freedom Party of Austria currently holds 51 of 138 seats in the lower house and 13 of 61 in the upper house. This is a party that was founded by former SS officers and whose party leader has called for a ban on Muslim symbolism in response to Austria being “Islamified.” In 2000, the FPÖ was even part of a governing coalition.

Throughout Europe, a recent string of confusing and inconclusive elections have eroded political stability from Spain to Ireland to Slovakia and Portugal. Elections across the EU have produced fractured parliaments, improbable and unstable coalitions, weaker, more divided and more extreme governments.

I find it quite reasonable to suggest that the rise in popularity of far-right populist parties is partly owed to the electoral systems that have given them legitimacy. Smaller parties get a disproportionate amount of power, which leads to horse trading between parties during post-election transition periods.

Look no further than the B.C. election last spring, where the Libertarian party took 0.4 percent of the vote, the Christian Heritage Party took 0.717 of the vote, the Vancouver Island Party took 0.03 percent of the vote and the Communist party of B.C. took 0.04 percent of the vote.

[2:50 p.m.]

But thinking ahead to the next provincial election would be premature. Unfortunately for myself and all British Columbians, we’ve still yet to find out what exactly the system is of PR that we’re even being allowed to vote on. That’s because the NDP won’t release the ballot question until after this bill’s debate has passed. Again, that is why I’m supporting this amendment for delay.

The single biggest demarcation from the referendum posed in this bill and the referendums of 2005 and 2009 is the lack of transparency in the public engagement process. Gone is the report from the independent citizens’ assembly. Instead, the NDP and the Greens say the government will ultimately determine the outcome, which is going on right now with regards to their consultation, after they hold these so-called non-binding public consultations on a new system.

Don’t take my word for it on what people are saying about this consultation. I will quote a portion of what Keith Baldrey has said: “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.”

Vaughn Palmer said that 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. Despite assurances from the now Premier back in May that the referendum question would be a binary yes-or-no option, that’s now gone out the window.

Again, in conclusion, as I wrap up my comments on the amendment, I’d like to reinforce my strong objections to not only the content of the bill but the spirit of it. To radically change our electoral system because of the NDP’s capitulation to backroom demands of the Green Party strikes me as a real rotten deal for British Columbians. Should this bill pass, and should British Columbians be forced into a referendum, I feel we are destined for weaker governments, more frequent elections and a politically splintered Legislature.

I’d like to repeat what I said before, at the beginning. I’d like those who are currently in favour of proportional representation to think about just how much they are prepared to give up. It may be more than what they think. We might be okay with increased Green seats. I’m not making a comment on that. But we might not be okay with fringe parties grasping more seats and allowing them to control more power and therefore significantly influence legislators of British Columbia in the future.

In closing, I think the future of our democracy here in British Columbia is actually at risk. I would hope that everybody, in addition to researching this issue thoroughly, would support this amendment to put it on hold for a little bit of time so we can study it a little bit more and not make any rash decisions that might potentially make British Columbia worse than it is.

D. Barnett: I, too, would like to add my support for this amendment to the legislation that we have before us. Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, is indeed deeply flawed and should be reviewed by the minister responsible, the Attorney General.

This amendment would delay this legislation for a period of six months. Given the fact that the government does not intend to implement proportional representation until July 1, 2021, I believe there is ample time for the Attorney General to reconsider.

This particular bill can be described as enabling legislation. It attempts to set the stage for a referendum question and even sets a deadline to have the whole affair wrapped up by November 2018. This is rather a tight timetable. Mistakes have already been made along the way. This strongly indicates that this legislation was drafted too quickly and without a full appreciation of all the unintended consequences.

[2:55 p.m.]

For example, according to the power-sharing agreement signed between the NDP and the Green Party last May, the referendum was to be held concurrently with the next municipal election in the fall of 2018. However, we already know this is not going to happen. Somewhere along the way, the government finally realized that municipal voter lists were not the same as the provincial voter list.

The people of British Columbia were led to believe the whole purpose of holding the referendum at the same time as municipal elections was to achieve some economy of scale. One might also expect it would have given the referendum greater public profile by holding it at the same time as municipal elections.

Faced with this embarrassment, this particular flaw had to be defended by the Finance Minister during her last appearance on Voice of B.C. I would like to read what the Minister of Finance had to say.

“We looked at all options. We looked at tying it in with the municipal elections. That became very challenging — different voter lists for municipalities than there are for the provincial voters lists. So it didn’t look like it was actually going to be a savings. In the end, when you looked at the turnout for mailout ballots, it was actually quite high, so we felt there was a cost savings there.

“It’s accessible for everyone. There’ll still be some voting spots where people can go if they want to actually mark their ballot and leave it there. There’ll be a number of centres around the province. But a mail-in ballot gives the most accessibility, the most opportunity, and saves money as well. It really was the best choice.”

The Finance Minister’s defence reveals that the decision to fall back on the mail-in ballot is really just a compromise. The NDP government left it up to the minister to defend the next best thing, but not because it was in the best interest of the public. Rather, the NDP had to meet a deadline imposed by the Green Party.

Any responsible member of this Legislature has to ask the obvious question: why the giant rush? Why is the Attorney General attempting to stampede the people of British Columbia into a referendum?

The people of this province elect us to serve as their representatives and to pass good laws on their behalf. This bill, in fact, is fundamentally flawed. In their haste to rush through legislation, we are witnessing a government opening itself up to a court challenge. The challenge will come as a result of having a lack of proper thresholds. This legislation contains only a 50-plus-one-percent threshold on the referendum question.

We do not know what form the question will take. Under this legislation, the public will not have direct input into how the referendum question will be phrased. All of those decisions have been reserved by cabinet, and any decision will be protected by cabinet secrecy. In fact, it is most likely that the referendum question has already been negotiated in private between the NDP and the Green Party.

We know this. We are dealing with a government that is rather fond of holding public consultation on everything from ride-sharing to Site C to bridges. However, electoral reform has been conspicuously left off that list.

The future of our democratic franchise is the most important issue being debated by this Legislature, yet the public is being left out of the process. It is well acknowledged that the on-line questionnaire launched by the government last week is designed to produce a specific outcome, an outcome slanted toward some form of proportional representation that the government will not reveal until the last moment.

When the government finally does spring the question on voters at the 11th hour, we already know the NDP and the Green Party will gang up on the public and use government resources to push through their referendum. According to the power-sharing agreement signed last May, the NDP and the Green Party will “campaign actively in support of the agreed-upon form of proportional representation.” So why hold a bogus public consultation exercise at all?

[3:00 p.m.]

The government has lowered the bar for approval to a threshold of 50 percent plus one. This is to ensure safe passage for any one alternate favoured by the NDP and the Green Party. In effect, they have established a low ceiling for some form of proportional representation.

What the government hasn’t done is to establish a minimum level of voter participation. This puts the province in a precarious position. It also opens the government up to a court challenge. It is a fact that stand-alone referendums do not get the same level of voter participation. So we have to ask the question: what is an acceptable minimum level of voter participation in the referendum?

According to the Attorney General’s office, even if only 10 percent of registered voters cast a ballot, that would be valid. Let’s be clear. We are not even talking about 10 percent of the population voting in favour of proportional representation. We are just talking about the total voter turnout. In other words, this government is willing to accept any result, as long as it meets their objectives. That’s where the danger lies.

The most recent Canadian experience with a provincial referendum lies with our sister parliament in Prince Edward Island. They, too, held a referendum on proportional representation. This is a province that takes its politics very seriously. Over the past ten provincial elections in Prince Edward Island, the average voter turnout was 80 percent — much higher, in fact, than in British Columbia in 2017, where only an estimated 60 percent of eligible voters turned out at the polls.

Prince Edward Island pulled out all the stops to increase public participation in their referendum on proportional representation. Voters had access to on-line voting and telephone voting, too — something very attractive to rural voters. They even lowered the age of eligible voters to 16, based on the idea that they would be 18 years of age come the next election.

On voting day in P.E.I., 52 percent of the people who participated approved of something called mixed-member proportional representation. This is what the NDP and the Green Party are pushing the province towards. Unfortunately for proponents of proportional representation, Prince Edward Island had to declare the referendum null and void.

What happened? The problem was that only 36 percent of eligible voters in P.E.I. chose to participate in the stand-alone referendum — this in a province where, normally, 80 percent of eligible voters take part in general elections. The Premier was therefore forced to declare that the referendum did not state the clear intention of the people of Prince Edward Island.

This sets a precedent in our Westminster system of government in Canada. That’s the problem with this legislation. If 36 percent of eligible voters in our sister parliament does not constitute an eligible threshold for public participation in Prince Edward Island, then how in the heck is 10 percent good enough for British Columbia?

That comes to where a court challenge comes into play. I suspect that the Attorney General’s office is already preparing for that possibility. With no minimum threshold and a bare-minimum ceiling on approval, what is the government hoping to achieve? Let me explain. Prior to the last election the Premier met with an editorial board to make his position clear.

[3:05 p.m.]

The Premier said: “Once we establish the referendum question, we’d establish the threshold, and this would be part of our consultation process. The amending formula for our constitution, for example, requires approval by seven provinces with 50 percent of Canada’s population. So it is an absolute 50 percent, but it has to include seven provinces…. This amending formula is similar to the kind of formula we’ll need for a plebiscite on changing how we elect people in B.C.”

The Premier is following through on his plan. We already know that the NDP and the Green Party have likely determined what the referendum question will be. And therefore, any public consultation has commenced…. This bill already lays out what the threshold of approval is — 50 percent plus one. But without a minimum threshold of voter participation, any result will do.

This is unacceptable. It comes from a party that strictly requires a 66 percent majority to alter any NDP party policies. Why is only 50 percent plus one good enough for the people of British Columbia? Because this referendum is not a serious attempt at democratic reform. It is a thinly veiled attempt to consolidate power by the NDP and the Green Party.

Unlike the two previous referendums, in 2005 and 2009, the results of the referendum in 2018 will rely on a simple majority. This means a simple majority of the largest population centre in British Columbia can determine the outcome, and 2.8 million British Columbians live on the Lower Mainland. In a province of only 4.6 million, the Lower Mainland will determine the outcome of the referendum.

When you look at the results of the last election, you will notice a distinct divide between urban and rural British Columbians. There were virtually no members elected in northern or rural British Columbia. There are no Green Party members either. They are all located on the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island, so it would make sense to a minority NDP government and their Green Party partners to adopt a new voting system that would favour them the most.

It doesn’t matter that people in rural British Columbia, like the people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, would no longer have a voice in the Legislature. Under proportional representation, people would no longer vote for their MLA. They would only vote for political parties. At a time when the public is showing lower tolerance for partisan politics, the NDP and the Green Party want to institutionalize it.

This is fooling no one. It is well acknowledged that the NDP and the Green Party want proportional representation because it will favour their foothold in urban British Columbia. That represents an affront to our democratic process. During the last election, the NDP and the Green Party did not spend any time north of the 50th parallel in British Columbia. The results of the last election reflect this divide, a deep divide between rural and urban British Columbia.

Why not pose a simple referendum question that people can understand? A simple yes or a no to proportional representation. Prior to the last election, that’s what the Premier said he would do. That is another broken promise.

According to the legislation that we have in front of us, voters will be asked to rank any number of different types of proportional representation. Most political scientists would have a difficult time trying to explain, for example, the difference between a single transferable vote and a mixed-member proportional system. How is the average voter going to make such a determination?

The vast majority of voters on Prince Edward Island decided not to participate in the referendum because it was just too darn complicated. That’s why the outcome was declared illegitimate. This sets a precedent for British Columbia.

[3:10 p.m.]

Why can we not have a yes-or-no question that the Premier seemed to favour only a few months ago during the election? The consequences can be quite difficult for our province.

Proportional representation has proven to be a disaster around the planet. Let’s look at some international examples.

Iceland, 2017. This country recently concluded their second snap election in less than one year. Eight political parties in a new parliament with only 63 seats, one of them which is the Pirate Party.

Germany, 2017. This country will not have a new government until 2018 after a September election. The far-right party, Alternative for Germany, will have 94 seats in their parliament.

Spain, 2015 — 314 days without government, 12 parties in parliament.

Belgium, 2010 — 589 days before government formed, a six-party coalition government. That government lasted only two years.

Italy, 1946 to 2016 — two separate proportional representation systems since 1993; 65 governments in 70 years, with as many Prime Ministers since World War II as Canada’s entire history. Currently 28 parties form six separate alliances in parliament.

This is what the NDP and Green Party have in store for British Columbia, and this is why I support this amendment. When it comes to fiddling with the way people vote in a province, the public deserves a better process for electoral reform. This bill is fundamentally flawed and needs to be sent back to the drawing board.

A. Wilkinson: We’re here, of course, to debate the amendment to Bill 6, which provides for a proportional representation referendum here in British Columbia. Now, this has been controversial in this House, and we do hope that it becomes more of a controversy amongst British Columbians, because this really is a stealth campaign to change our democracy.

It’s part of a three-bill package, one of which extends the term of the NDP government, if they last that long, for another six months. The second one provides for taxpayer funding for political parties, which has never been agreed upon by the people of British Columbia. It’s just something that the NDP have invented since they took power. And the third part, of course, is this referendum bill about proportional representation.

Of course, the stated goal is for the NDP to make every vote count. That sounds good until the actual mechanics come into focus. What it means is that there will be large ridings, perhaps one riding for all of northern British Columbia, with multiple members. There’d be a loss of accountability at the local level because people won’t know who their MLA is. Sure, they’ll make every vote count, but as soon as they leave the ballot box, the voter will realize that they just voted for four people and they actually have seven MLAs in their area. The other three come from party lists.

This is exactly what happens in New Zealand — 120 members for a population about the same as British Columbia. What happens? Well, 48 plus of them come from party lists. They aren’t chosen by the voters on geographic boundaries. They’re chosen off party lists by some central machinery. So making every vote count actually doesn’t mean much when you lose track of who your elected members are and the geography of your riding. You don’t really know who represents you. This is the first part of this stealth campaign.

The second part is when those elected members come to Victoria, meet in a room and decide who will form the government. There will be a multiple list of parties, because there were so many small parties represented in proportional representation. So what will happen, of course, is that the larger parties like the NDP might have 20 members, and they have to go and collect a bunch of minority parties to join them into a coalition. This means horse trading in the worst kind of way, behind closed doors. Those small parties get to demand whatever they want.

This is exactly what happened in New Zealand, with an anti-immigration party holding the balance of power, exactly what happens routinely in Israel with an Orthodox Jewish party holding the balance of power. They get whatever they want because they hold the key to power for the larger parties.

[3:15 p.m.]

If it’s the NDP, of course, their platform would go out the window. They have to compromise their principles behind closed doors to form a large coalition that’s sufficient to form government.

It gets worse, too. If a coalition member gets grumpy and quits the coalition, there usually isn’t a new election. In fact, they just go and find a new dance partner. So the policy background, the drive behind government, the goals of government keep changing because these coalitions are so unstable. We also get that extreme instability on who leads the government.

In Israel, we’ve seen dozens of governments in recent years. In Italy, we’ve seen 70 Prime Ministers since World War II. We don’t need this kind of instability. This province has thrived on peace, order and good government, which is written into the Canadian constitution. We’re celebrating the 150th anniversary of Canada, which has performed remarkably well in a big, diverse country with lots of regional interests. It’s worked.

That’s, in fact, of course, why the federal government embarked on a campaign for electoral reform and then abandoned it. They realized all it would do would empower regional parties. There’d be a New Brunswick party, a Newfoundland party wanting their own special interests taken care of and, of course, the Bloc Québécois, which tried to tear this country apart.

The federal government backed down from this because they realized it would have been catastrophic for this country. That is what we see in a smaller form in British Columbia. Those of us who’ve been around the province recently know that the issues list in the Peace River country has almost nothing in common with the issues list here on the southern part of Vancouver Island.

We keep this province together. We keep our almost five million British Columbians on the same path because we have political parties that have to represent the entire province.

There’s also a great irony, of course, that this party, the B.C. Liberal Party, finds itself in opposition with a razor-thin minority government in charge. Yet we aren’t asking for the system to be changed. We aren’t asking for some kind of advantage to be built into the next election. We’re saying: “We take our lumps. We lost this election even though we got the most votes, even though we got the most seats. The other side were able to form power in a minority government.”

That is the beauty of parliamentary systems. If there is no majority, you get a minority government, which usually doesn’t last very long, and then there’s an election when the appropriate time comes. It’s not a matter of continually building coalitions that are unstable and lead to unreliable and unpredictable government.

The concern, of course, about proportional representation is while it’s attractive to the person entering the ballot box, thinking they’re going to get the party of their choice, whether it’s the Marijuana Party, a regional ethnic party or a special interest party…. Sure, they might get their way and get a member into the Legislature. Sure, they might get political party funding after the votes are counted. But nonetheless, it leads to opaque, unstable and unpredictable governments where the balance of power is held by small special interests. We don’t need that because we have thrived on a system based on openness and clarity in who we vote for and why we vote for them.

The history, of course, in Canada of mixed-member proportional representation has been very flawed. There was a referendum in Ontario in 2007 that failed. The manoeuvre toward some form of change in electoral process in British Columbia that started in 2004 failed twice, in 2005 and 2009. It was for a different voting system, but it wasn’t for proportional representation. Nonetheless, the public said they didn’t want it.

Of course, in Prince Edward Island last year, there was a vote, and 36 percent of the public voted. Fifty-two percent of them voted in favour of proportional representation, meaning that less than 19 percent of the public asked for the change. Of course, the provincial government in P.E.I. came to its senses and said that’s not enough of a mandate to change the basis of their democracy.

We can see that these moves towards proportional representation or to change voting systems have failed across Canada repeatedly. Yet we find ourselves here today debating a bill that will lead to exactly that proposition being put forward once again. But this is no ordinary bill. It provides for 50 percent plus one of a mail-in ballot to be held in the fall on questions decided by an NDP cabinet and, of course, with the proponent and opponent groups funded and chosen by the NDP cabinet. So this is an extraordinarily secretive and closed process which the NDP are doing everything they can to appease the Green Party.

The Greens got three seats in the election. They think they’re entitled to 13. The only possible way they can get there is to force through proportional representation for the next election. Hence, we have this bill, which is really the only substantive piece of legislation that this government has put forward this fall. Every other issue has been put out for study, whether it’s marijuana or ICBC or the George Massey Tunnel replacement. All of them have been put out for study and consultation because this government can’t make a decision.

[3:20 p.m.]

One thing they can make a decision on is the naked grab for power where they want to keep the Green Party on side. So what they will do is sell away our democratic process to the Green Party and allow them to maintain this crude coalition as long as they possibly can. The Greens, of course, hope it will last long enough to get the referendum passed and that any election thereafter would be done on PR.

Of course, the NDP are conflicted on this. Their own commentators are saying that proportional representation is not the path to the future, yet we find them having been cajoled into this by the Greens because they have no option. If the Greens leave, the governing coalition then falls apart. There would be an election, because that’s what parliamentary systems are for. They do not tolerate instability. They generate new elections, which generally result in a stable majority government.

In this scenario, instead, we’d have proportional representation with constantly shifting coalitions and transitions of power without accountability. Of course, at the riding level, there is almost no accountability, because if I live in Chetwynd or Terrace, I may not have an MLA within 300 miles of my home. They could all live in Prince George. They could all live in Williams Lake. We just don’t know where they would come from.

This is, of course, fundamentally problematic in rural British Columbia, because representation really does matter in rural B.C. People need to know who to complain to about their roads. They need to know who is responsible for building that school or that hospital. They want to know who to complain to about the issues that affect their daily lives.

It’s, perhaps, less of an issue in a riding like mine, in Metro Vancouver, but if I’m in rural British Columbia, I want to know who my MLA is. Being told there are seven of them for an area of size of France or Germany does not cut it in our country. It should be the subject of this amendment, and this bill should be defeated.

We heard in the throne speech earlier this summer about the threat to democracy. We just have to look around the country and see how countries that were formerly very stable, like Hungary and Poland, are going through nasty transitions. Countries like Turkey and the Philippines, where unstable government, in the guise of democracy, is coming forward.

Why on earth would we mess with a system that has provided, in the English-speaking world, 300 years of stable government with orderly transitions of power? This is the heritage we have inherited from the British parliamentary system. It works, and we should not screw it up with some fanciful venture into proportional representation done behind closed doors by a secretive NDP cabinet solely to maintain their grasp on power by keeping the Green Party happy.

We should vote in favour of this amendment, because it means that we can avoid this world of confusion, lack of representation and poor accountability — a world in which we’ll have a proliferation of political parties. Around British Columbia, those of us who have spent the time to get around this province know that the interests in local communities vary dramatically. All of us can spot, in the fabric of our society, the potential for fractious parties, small parties that represent regional, ethnic or religious interests or, God forbid, the extraordinary special interests of something as narrow as a marijuana party.

This is absurd in a modern democracy, but that’s exactly what we’ll get with proportional representation. Not only that, under this government’s package, those parties that can get 5 percent of the vote get full funding for the next election. They get their election expenses rebated. This, of course, encourages even more flaky parties to get into the marketplace, because all they have to do is get 5 percent of the vote and they’ll get four members in the House and full funding to carry on their cause. This is not what we need in this province, because we have had nearly 150 years of stability, and that is what we have thrived on.

More specifically, in the bill itself, there’s simply no definition of proportional representation anywhere in the act. This is irresponsible — for this government to go out there and force through this House a bill that provides for them to have a greater grab on power with no definition of what they’re asking for.

They say there’ll be consultations. Well, those are to be conducted by the Attorney General, who is supposedly neutral. Yet last week, we saw their supposedly neutral questionnaire come out which is massively biased toward a proportional representation choice.

I look at my own history in this House of being on the other side and being accused of being the minister of propaganda. That’s been the subject of some sanctions recently. We’re not allowed to use those mocking names anymore for ministries. But look at this bill. The material that’s coming out on it is nothing less than propaganda. It is highly biased toward convincing people toward a certain result which makes no sense for the people of British Columbia, but that’s what the NDP want.

[3:25 p.m.]

The other factor in this bill, of course, that completely defies logic is that there’s no benchmark provided. What’s the goal? What’s the place you want to get to? Why are we doing this? There’s no explanation for that whatsoever. Certainly, the bill is empty in that regard.

Who provided input into this bill? We have no idea. Was there any public consultation? Absolutely not. There was none. And now the NDP cabinet say that they’re going to do that after the fact. As soon as they’ve got their bill in place and as soon as the referendum is inevitable, then they will go out and make some consultation.

Then they will go out and appoint these proponent and opponent groups. And how will they be determined? What is their legitimacy? Did the public choose them? Did the public have any input into these supporter and opponent groups? Absolutely not. It will be chosen by the NDP cabinet behind closed doors, once again sending out public money to a special interest group to serve their own purposes.

This is an appalling embarrassment for this House to have to debate something which grants, basically, the two parties that form government a blank slate into the future and a blank cheque to support their process for the decades to come. As part of the electoral financing bill, they say they’ll review it in five years. Well, that’s farcical, because we know that once the NDP get addicted to cash flow from the taxpayers, they’re hardly going to give it up if they have control over it in the years to come.

We come back to this bill, and we have the issue of the voting package that is defined in the act. But there’s no definition whatsoever of what the question will be in the statute. So why are we talking about a voting package when we don’t even know what the question is? This is the kind of crazy approach that this bill provides, which is bootstrapping itself into the result by guaranteeing the fact that there will be a mail-in referendum, with no content at all to the idea. No one knows what will go into that referendum.

It also provides for one or more questions. This is ridiculous. Why can’t we know what the proposed question is now? Why can’t the NDP come out and tell us what the question would be before we vote to support it and fund it? This, again, is an attempt to hijack our democracy.

Why was the date chosen for the fall of 2018? Out of the blue. The timing of these things matters. Why was the mail-in referendum format chosen? Again, no rationale, no reason — just an assertion of a certainty that things will be great if we follow the plans of the NDP.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Well, we know who’s conflicted here. The Greens and the NDP will be the ones who are driving the decision on what the question is and who gets funded to support and oppose it. This is basically a fraud on the voters, and it’s a fraud on this House that we find ourselves having to debate this today, when the House should actually be debating what happens in the future of British Columbia economically and in terms of our social programs.

All of those issues have been put aside. They’ve been swept off the table so that we can debate one topic only this fall, which is the issue of keeping the NDP and the Greens in power indefinitely. This is an embarrassment in our democracy. Of course, it’s going to be up to all of us to get out in our communities and make sure that people are fully aware of the scam that the NDP are trying to pull on the rest of us.

We have to look at the issue of 50 percent. Why did they choose 50 percent plus one as the threshold for changing the fundamental fabric of our democracy? No rationale whatsoever. Well, it sounds like majority government. This is exactly what they’re trying to get away from with PR. They’re saying that PR will present a better system than 50 percent plus one, yet that’s the threshold they set for this vote.

We know what happened in Prince Edward Island — I referred to it earlier: an embarrassingly poor turnout, with a 52 percent vote in favour. Is there any provision in this legislation for a low turnout? No. If 20 percent of the voters show up and 51 percent of them vote for PR, the NDP get to say: “Well, that’s what happened in the legislation. It was fulfilled, so now we’re going to move ahead with PR.”

The legislation states that the government “must take steps that the government considers necessary or advisable to implement the result….” There’s no discretion whatsoever. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has no discretion in this. It’s obligatory. If there’s a 51 percent vote, if it’s 15 percent of the public who support this thing, it has to go ahead.

Then the real nastiness arrives: “…that the government considers necessary or advisable….” Well, necessary usually means advice by lawyers. Advisable? Is that a political decision of how to go about ramming this down the throat of the general public after a small minority of the public vote in support of it? Once again, this is an embarrassment for this House to have to debate this at all, let alone to fund it on behalf of the NDP and the Greens as they try to bootstrap themselves into power for the next ten years.

[3:30 p.m.]

Overall, we can see that this is a rushed campaign. This is an effort to blow it past the public. This has been a low-profile campaign to date, but it’s our mission as the opposition to make this a very high-profile issue in 2018. This is the fight of our lives as a political organization, to make sure that we keep the NDP and the Greens where they belong, which is accountable to the public.

The result of the election will be whatever it is. Whoever wins in a first-past-the-post election gets to form government, and we accept that. That’s why we’re on the opposition benches right now, and we are not advocating a change in the voting system. We’re saying: “Our chance will come next time.”

That’s what British parliamentary systems do. They give a reasonable time for the government to prove itself. If it doesn’t, it provides, unlike American or French systems, that the term of the government will be shortened. Certainly, the performance of this government should be shortened, because of its complete lack of substantive policy work and its profligate spending habits that are starting to show up already.

Why are we here? It’s plain and simple: to appease the Green Party. This is the only thing that they really want. We are already finding ourselves in that nasty world of proportional representation, where the Greens are the tail wagging the NDP dog. The dog, in the form of the NDP, can’t do anything substantive. So what do they do? They keep the Greens happy, to maintain a grasp on power. Everything of substance in this term of government has been sent out for study and review, because they don’t have the guts to make a decision. All they do is spend their time playing politics.

Do we want to acknowledge and accept that behaviour? It’s something that will change our democracy forever, that will go to the very fabric of our society, and this is the only thing the NDP has to offer. Why are we doing this? It’s to keep the Greens happy.

Let’s keep in mind, after 146 years of democracy in this province.... This building has been used, and this room has been used, as our Legislature since 1897. It works — 150 years in this province of effective, stable government. Sure, there have been mistakes. Sure, there are things to learn. That’s why we’re here. If everything were perfect, we wouldn’t need a Legislature. It’s our job to improve the state of the province, to improve the lot of British Columbians. That does not include changing their voting system behind their backs.

Who would benefit from this, beyond the Greens? Narrow special interests. I referred earlier to special interests, like regional interests, religious interests, ethnic interests. That is not what Canada is built on. We are built on including everyone in this — including immigrants like me — including people who have come from different parts of the world and settled here but who form part of the overall fabric of society. They do not want to see a situation where those particular groups are forming special sub-parties which are then seeking their own particular self-interest, where everything else doesn’t matter.

That’s what proportional representation will do. It will create funded, perpetual, small-interest parties that are not in the general public interest. That’s why our democracy has thrived for so long. We have to have parties with broad appeal.

That’s why it’s ironic to see the NDP doing this. They, I grudgingly admit, have been moderately successful since the CCF was formed in 1933. They’ve actually managed to get it past the voters in three elections — in 1972, in 1991 and in 1996. We hope that they won’t be able to fool the public anymore, but they should do so in a first-past-the-post general election of the sort that has been so prevalent in the English-speaking world for the last 200 or 300 years.

The core of this, of course, for the individual voter goes to the idea that they’ve been told their vote will count when they enter the ballot box. When they leave the ballot box and go home, they realize that they’ve been conned. They didn’t actually vote for their MLA. There’s no accountability to that group of seven people who supposedly represent them. Of course, it makes the whole political party process increasingly irrelevant. One of the learned columnists in this province, Paul Willcocks, wrote a column in the regional newspapers, saying that the electoral funding package the NDP have put forward makes political party membership almost irrelevant.

If they don’t have to raise money, if we don’t have to raise money, then we don’t have to prove ourselves to the voters. We don’t have to convince them not only to show up and vote for us but to open up their chequebooks. If we don’t have to raise money for political parties anymore, then anybody and his dog can get into this game. Anybody who seeks to get a few votes will be running for office, and we’ll see a proliferation, on the ballot, of oddballs and special interests seeking to get to that magic 5 percent marker provincewide that gives them long-term funding and a job for the future.

The other thing, of course, is this phenomenon of unstable coalitions. Deep in my heart, I must say, I’m certainly hopeful that this coalition of the Greens and the NDP proves to be very unstable. We’ve seen how timid they’ve been, apart from this attempt to blow past the voters to cement themselves into power. But they’re lacking in backbone to make decisions. They put everything off, because they’re not sure what to do. They’re already showing a level of instability that will only be magnified if we form governments under proportional representation.

[3:35 p.m.]

Our mission in this House, as a party and as elected officials, must be to hold this province together, to serve the interests of the people of British Columbia, to make this great, big, beautiful province even better than it is. It’s one of the finest places in the world to live, and that’s partly because we’ve had good, orderly government under first-past-the-post elections for 146 years. This is not the time to go and fiddle around with the basic tenets of our democracy, to tear the fabric of our society. Let’s let British Columbians decide how they want to vote and not take it in a rigged referendum. We should carry on with the system we have now.

This amendment should be passed to provide a lengthy study period of this bill, and then the bill itself should be defeated, because our job is to keep British Columbia whole, to protect our democracy and serve the interests of British Columbians, not to serve the interests of political parties seeking to grant themselves an extended term in power paid for by the taxpayer.

This is a turning point in our democracy, and it’s time for all of us and the people of British Columbia to stand up and say: “We don’t have to take this nonsense from the other side. We will not be conned into this by the NDP and the Greens.” That’s our mission for 2018. That’s what will determine the agenda in 2018, and it’s up to us to make sure this proportional representation bill does not pass.

I. Paton: Thank you to my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena — very well done, a very tough piece of debate to follow.

I rise to voice my support for my colleague’s amendment, which moves that the motion for second reading of Bill 6 be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

As I outlined in my previous remarks, I have many concerns about aspects of this bill. Although its subject matter is serious and its proposals will change the fabric of our democracy, we see it being discussed in the back room with very little consultation, transparency and openness with British Columbians. A process of this magnitude with so much potential impact on voters should be treated better than that. Indeed, the issue of change in our electoral system has come up before in this province, once in 2005 and again in 2009.

In 2005, the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was set up. It was comprised of 161 members from throughout the province. It included one man and one woman from each of B.C.’s electoral districts — of which there were 79 at the time — two First Nations representatives and one chair. They worked diligently to learn about and assess models for electing MLAs in B.C.

After extensive work and consultations with British Columbians, they issued a final report and a recommendation. They thought we should move to a customized version of the single transferable vote, called BCSTV. The level of voter approval needed for the referendum result to be binding on government was a minimum of 60 percent, with a simple majority of 48 of the 79 electoral districts.

In this referendum, the yes vote passed one of the two thresholds, and thus failed. However, because the vote was close, our province held a second referendum on the issue in 2009. Again, voters weighed whether we should stick to our current first-past-the-post system or move to BCSTV. And again the referendum failed, with support for reform actually declining from 2005 to 2009.

It looks like we’re going to go through this exercise again, despite these two previous rejections by British Columbians — not that that is a bad thing. It’s an important issue. It’s healthy for us and it’s healthy for voters to discuss it, but it’s the way this government and its Green partners are going about it that has many people quite upset.

It appears that it’s all being driven by their political negotiations. We know that this referendum is a key component of their confidence and supply agreement, which not only stated that government would hold a referendum on electoral reform but that both the NDP and Greens would campaign in favour of an agreed-upon system of proportional representation. It certainly seems like they are stacking the deck to achieve the referendum outcome that they desire.

[3:40 p.m.]

For one thing, while in 2005 and 2009 referendums required a supermajority of support in order to pass with a threshold of 60 percent plus one, the government has proposed lowering the threshold to just a bare majority of 50 percent plus one to pass. Even at their own recent local convention, to pass the party constitution, they had to bring 66 percent of a vote to pass party policy in their constitution. Yet now they’re saying something as grand as this referendum in British Columbia will only take 50 percent of the vote plus one.

I laugh when I think about our judicial system. Imagine if our court system came to the point where a gentleman was sitting in front of a jury with his life on the line, perhaps facing life in prison, and the jury only had to come back with a 50-percent-plus-one decision on whether that man was guilty or not. Even worse, the jury — most of them called in sick that day, and only 10 percent of them showed up to make the decision on the person that could face life in prison.

What a crazy rule this is — 50 percent plus one. And only 10 percent need to show up to make it legitimate. I would argue that it shouldn’t be that easy to change such a fundamental aspect of our democracy.

What’s more, it ignores the need for regional support. It means large urban centres could dictate the result, shutting off areas like the Interior and the north. And even though I represent Delta South, which is part of the Lower Mainland, I think we all need to consider the impact for those living in B.C.’s rural communities. We need to ensure fairness in this important process.

The second concern comes from the way the referendum question will be determined. The government has said it will hold public consultations to decide ballot questions, as well as to determine whether there will be public funding allotted to proponents and opponents of the proposed systems.

But these public consultations will be non-binding. That means the government and its junior partners will ultimately be the ones to make these crucial decisions. That hardly seems fair either. Voters expect meaningful and thorough consultation, especially on an issue of this magnitude.

Of course, we know that for the 2005 and 2009 referendums that I highlighted earlier, the independent and non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform defined the process and the question. And each time, the assembly assured British Columbians from all over the province that they would be consulted.

I ask: why can’t we maintain that standard one more time this time around? I’m not sure. But again, maybe it’s because the NDP and the Greens know which outcome benefits them the most, and they’ll do anything to make it happen.

I’d like to also highlight how this Premier broke his promise to British Columbians on whether or not we’d see a simple yes-or-no question on the ballot. In an interview, when asked whether he will give British Columbians one clear system to vote on, the Premier said: “Yes, exactly.” But now that’s out the window.

Instead of a simple yes-or-no ballot for proportional representation, the voters will have to choose between multiple PR options against first-past-the-post. It’s worth noting that voters who select first-past-the-post as their first choice will have to choose between multiple PR systems for their second and third choices. If first-past-the-post doesn’t win on the first ballot, a victory is unlikely. So that’s just one more concern about the fairness of this process.

If the NDP and Greens get their way after all of this, what could it mean for our province and its citizens? I’d like to lay out some of the negative consequences we could see, if we adopt a form of proportional representation in British Columbia.

For one, the systems of proportional representation don’t even always depend on elected officials. An example comes from the most recent election in New Zealand, where the government’s coalition agreement had to be ratified by the executive of New Zealand First, which is a political party with not only an appointed board but an anonymous board as well.

Here was one headline on the matter, courtesy of the Guardian newspaper. It read: “New Zealand Election Result ‘Held Hostage’ by Anonymous Board of Minor Party.” Furthermore, an excerpt from that article reads: “The next government won’t be decided by voters but by a faceless and secretive board.”

This, of course, speaks to the fragile nature of this government, which would be the norm and exacerbated under a system of proportional representation. Minority and coalition governments often produce a great deal of instability for voters and investors.

[3:45 p.m.]

When we’re talking about instability, another example is Belgium. After the country’s 2010 election, they spent 589 days without a government after the parties were unable to agree on a coalition. That means any major decisions and new legislation at a federal level were delayed for nearly two years.

Now, imagine if a similar situation happened in British Columbia during a major crisis. How would we be dealing with the dangerous opioid situation, the damaging floods this past spring or the summer’s devastating wildfire season?

How would we deal with this, with a coalition of five or six different governments trying to work together here in this House in British Columbia? As my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena said: “Embarrassing is the only thing I can think of.”

How confident would they be in their ability to access support and a recovery plan for rebuilding what they had lost? I don’t even want to imagine that type of scenario.

Let’s look at another country: Spain. In 2015, they went almost a full year, 314 days, without a government. They had to have two elections before they were able to form one. At the end of it, the governing coalition still didn’t have enough support for a majority to elect a prime minister. But the other side abstained instead of forcing a third election. They just gave up so that Spain could have a functioning government for the first time in a year.

Next we have Italy. This is a country that has had as many Prime Ministers since World War II as Canada has had in its entire history. Italy has had 65 governments in 70 years, and the average length of those governments is a mere 21 months. But wait, I’m not done.

We can also look to the Netherlands as an example. The country went 208 days without forming a government. Finally, a four-party coalition government emerged, but I should note that it’s anchored by an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-immigration, Christian Union party also. That leads to the next negative consequence of proportional representation: that it can legitimize extreme or fringe parties from the far-right or far-left wings of political ideology, and the Netherlands isn’t the only example.

Alternative for Germany, a far-right party with strong fascist roots, was to have 94 seats whenever government was formed following this year’s election. This is a party that wants to stop all immigration of other nationalities to Germany, and their leader wants to bring back forced conscription into the military. But as we’ve learned, the talks that were underway to try to get a coalition together haven’t been going well, and some are musing that another election might be needed, producing more delays in Germany.

It’s a genuine fear of some folks that under the system of PR, parties with values that don’t align with most British Columbians could gain influence because of their need for political alliances. Some might laugh that suggestion off, but I’ll note that there are some small parties here in B.C. whose views appeal to only a small portion of the population. They tend not to get elected because our current system works to ensure that only parties with broad-based support as well as locally popular independent candidates can earn seats. But when we look at some systems of PR, we can see the risks of electing minor parties and relying on coalitions to form government.

Another negative consequence of proportional representation is a lack of local accountability. Here again, Italy provides an example. I read with interest an article in the Economist about party-hopping MPs. The article notes that the latest hopper was a senator named Giovanni Piccoli. He recently swung back to Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia party just 21 days after leaving it. That marked the 533rd time an Italian parliamentarian has changed sides since the start of the country’s 2013 Legislature.

How good can the voters feel about that? They cast ballots in favour of certain candidates who don’t seem to hold any loyalty to their party or to the platforms they run on. What’s more, coalition-forming amongst political parties tends to lead to horse trading of platform promises during the post-election transition period.

Again, it raises the prospect that the policy proposals the party ran on could simply be thrown out the window to satisfy a potential coalition partner. Have we noticed this in this House? I certainly think we have, which, I would think, would be extremely disappointing to many of our voters.

What about our connection to the people we represent? I worry that relationships could be threatened under a system of proportional representation. Under any system of PR, we could expect members to be representing much larger geographic areas. MLAs could be responsible for representing even more individuals over even larger areas, whether rural or urban. Maybe a member ends up representing people from a community he or she isn’t so familiar with.

[3:50 p.m.]

How confident can voters feel that their MLA will be responsive to their needs if their concerned MLA doesn’t even understand their needs or their particular area of the province? As someone who has lived in Delta for 61 years, I know it like the back of my hand. I know the people. I know the places. I know the landmarks, the successes and the challenges because I live there. I talk to people. I drive the roads. I get trapped in the gridlock at the George Massey Tunnel, just like everyone else in my community. How could I be a strong, effective advocate for the needs of my community if I wasn’t an active member of that community that I live in?

There are, indeed, many downsides to proportional representation. In contrast, here are the some of the advantages of our current first-past-the-post system. It promotes strong links between constituents and their representatives, which I say is so important. There is an emphasis on strong individual candidates, rather than simply accepting party choices, and popular independent candidates can be elected without a political party. There tends to be more stability, which majority governments and strong oppositions often produce. There are clear choices between the main political parties. The system is simple to use and understand and excludes extremist and fringe parties from representation.

In closing, I want to make the case that a decision of this magnitude, to significantly change our electoral system, ought to come from our province as a whole and the people who live within it. They need to be properly informed and appropriately engaged in the process, which government should be staying out of.

The NDP should do the right thing and stay out of the process to draft the referendum question. What’s more, they shouldn’t be the ones deciding which system or systems British Columbians should consider. They certainly shouldn’t be lowering the threshold for the referendum to pass, making it easier for them to get the answer they want. Of course, I talked earlier about the 50 percent plus one and the ridiculous notion that only 10 percent of the population needs to show up to cast votes to make it effective.

I argue that if we’re going to go through this exercise again, we should do it in a meaningful and genuine way and take the time needed to get to it. We need to carefully consider any potential changes to our electoral system, but the way this referendum is being designed means we won’t see such consideration.

In that spirit, I support the amendment introduced by my colleague to get us going in the right direction.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to rise to provide some comments and perspective on the amendment that is before us, the amendment “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’.”

I’m pleased to support this amendment. I believe it is one that is reasonable and provides the time that is necessary in order to work towards ensuring that we have a much better process, a much better understanding and a bill or a process forward that will be much more fair and balanced and in the best interests of the province than the current bill that we have in front of us.

I did note in my earlier comments, in the earlier debate on second reading, that representation is integral to our democracy. I believe in it wholeheartedly. I’ve always tried to represent the best interests of the community, the riding that I represent, as I’m sure all members in this House do. One of the reasons that they put their names forward to represent those areas is to work for the best interests of those ridings and our communities.

I believe, as I said in my earlier comments, that our community, our region, has seen the benefits of good government in British Columbia — stable government, strong local representation, direct accountability — in those ridings, to the constituents.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’m sure that this amendment, hopefully, would provide the time in order to be able to address many of the concerns that have been brought forward and make sure that we have a process that is going forward. I say this because I believe, ultimately, that the representation, the good work in those areas, is at risk. It ultimately can mean that the riding may not be represented by an MLA from that riding or even from that regional area, depending on the form or the nature of proportional representation that’s developed.

As I noted in my earlier comments on the bill, I don’t support the proposed legislation, not because I don’t believe that it might be appropriate, in a properly structured process, to consider whether or not our current approach continues to meet the needs of voters and the public of B.C. and whether it provides fair, equal, equitable representation for all regions of the province. Clearly, in the process and in the bill we have before us — and that’s why the amendment is being proposed — this is not the case.

Some of the comments that have been made, in terms of the concerns that we’ve been bringing forward, have been suggesting that all we’re doing at this point is fearmongering, that our concerns aren’t justified, that it’s being portrayed as wanting to protect specific self-interests.

Since all of those concerns have been raised — and what has happened since those earlier comments and we raised those concerns — nothing has transpired or nothing has progressed that gives me any comfort that those concerns are being heard or anything that would allay those concerns. In fact, steps have been taken since then, since some of those concerns have been raised, that further the concerns, further the fears that we may have that are justified.

What have we seen since, and what have we seen recently? A skewed and slanted survey process. A panel of academic advisers slanted to support proportional representation. Further entrenchment of the positions on voter turnout threshold. So in my view, this proposed legislation sets up a process that is not fair, is not informed, is not balanced, particularly on something as significant as this.

This amendment that is being proposed, the amendment to Bill 6 — the changes to delete the word “now” and to substitute “six months hence” — is done in order to provide the time needed to consult, to engage with citizens in a meaningful way and to ensure a fair process of consideration.

This bill proposes to change the fabric of our democracy and to affect British Columbians across the province regardless of who they voted for. It has been crafted in a way that is designed to tilt the outcome in favour of proportional representation. It’s a stacked deck in favour of a positive outcome, and evidence continues to grow that this was the plan from the beginning and the plan as it moves forward.

Let’s just look at a few of the elements. The threshold is 50 percent plus one for a binding result. In fact, this legislation, as we’ve commented earlier, specifically exempts this process from the Referendum Act. Apparently, for some reason, the government does not feel that the provincial legislation is good enough in this process. I’ve not heard of a clear rationale for this, other than the Attorney’s comments where he noted that this is “quite a high threshold” for British Columbia.

In fact, I think a more appropriate way to portray that and the threshold to determine…. A more correct statement would have been: “This is as low as we can go.” That’s coming from the member who has said that he is to remain independent in the process. In an interview prior to the election, the now Premier said: “When we establish the referendum question, we’d establish a threshold, and this would be part of our consultation process.” He also noted: “The amending formula for our constitution, for example” — and these are his words — “requires approval by seven provinces, with 50 percent of the population.” So it’s an absolute 50 percent, but it has to include seven provinces.

[4:00 p.m.]

“This amending formula is similar to the kind of formula we’d need for a plebiscite on how we’d elect people in British Columbia.” Well, let’s look back. We would establish a threshold, and this would be part of the consultation process. Is that the case? No.

A balanced vote recognizing regional and population differences, as provided for in the amending formula — approval by seven provinces, with 50 percent of the population. Is that a principle that he indicated then was similar to the kind of formula we need for a plebiscite and how we elect people in British Columbia? Is that part of this process?

No. And it’s not even the standard that they require within their own party to make a change that they just went through, to hold a convention every year or every two years, where they required a two-thirds majority in order to approve that change. Now, they did make that change, and it did achieve that two-thirds majority. But again, a standard that was applied to their own decisions around processes within their own party is not even a standard that they’re applying to this process.

What else do we see that continues to raise the concerns that we have with this? A broken promise to ensure that it was either a yes or a no question on the ballot? Clearly, that is a commitment or a promise that has not been kept in this process, where we now see the potential for multiple options on the ballot, not a clear process on the ballot process. Not a simple yes-or-no process, which was a commitment that was made.

We see no minimum threshold of voter turnout for a binding result. In fact, the Attorney and the ministry have confirmed that if…. Different numbers have been noted, but if 25 percent of eligible voters voted and 50 percent plus one supported an option for change, then it would be binding. The bill and the process ensure that whatever that result, it would be binding, essentially meaning that you could have a situation where 12½ percent or 10 percent or some other number like that, of eligible voters, could fundamentally change our electoral system.

So no simple yes or no. No minimum threshold of voter turnout in the bill, and that’s why we’ve proposed the amendment, because we need the process to make sure that we have a process going forward that ensures that fair and informed and balanced consideration.

We’ve seen the example in PEI, where the threshold of the vote was approved but only 39 percent of eligible voters voted, and the decision was made that that didn’t represent a significant enough percentage of the eligible voters in order to fundamentally change the electoral system. And the decision was made not to proceed.

Well, what we have here is a binding process, confirmed by the ministry, that if you had a situation that was 25 percent voter turnout, 30 percent voter turnout, any of those levels — that 50 percent plus one — those voter turnouts would result in a binding decision that would change the electoral system in the province — as I pointed out, essentially meaning that 10, 12½ percent, 15 percent of eligible voters could fundamentally change our electoral system.

In that same interview, the Premier, when talking about the threshold — the now Premier, the Leader of the Opposition at the time — said: “I’d like to see how low the turnout is first.” And at that point, talking about the threshold level, at least then, at that time, I think the now Premier expressed a degree and maybe some recognition that a fundamental change required a reasonable turnout and that that should be a factor under consideration. But now that, just like the promise of a yes-or-no, simple question on the ballot, has gone by the wayside.

[4:05 p.m.]

Now we have the possibility of a ballot with more than one option. As I said, not a yes-or-no question as promised. There is no recognition of the threshold for rural British Columbia, rural ridings. We have a skewed and slanted survey process that’s masquerading as public consultation. We have a panel of academic advisers that is not balanced — three that clearly support proportional representation and electoral reform and only one that supports the first-past-the-post system.

Now, I don’t want to cast any aspersions or anything with respect to the qualifications or the expertise of the individuals appointed to provide this advice. When you look through the list…. Max Cameron from UBC, the director of the centre for democratic institutions. Genevieve Fuji Johnson, from Simon Fraser University, a professor of political science. Jonathan Rose from Queen’s University, a professor of political science, and interestingly enough, the director of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

We should note, here, that in that case, they actually went to a citizens’ assembly, just as was undertaken here in previous considerations of options around moving to proportional representation, which were developed through that process, through a citizens’ assembly, that ensured that the public and the citizens had a say in designing the process, the question. Not a situation here where we have that question, which will be determined by cabinet, perhaps in consultation with the secretariat, with the confidence secretariat, with the Third Party. But again, a process that doesn’t provide for a fair and balanced process.

Peter Loewen from the University of Toronto, a political scientist there. The first three, all with clear public comments in support of proportional representation, and only one with public comments in support of the current system of first-past-the-post.

I really would have thought that the Attorney, in appointing those expert advisers and to receive that input, if he was — as he has said that he is meant to be — a neutral arbiter of the process, would have avoided any perception of bias. Then he would of at least appointed a balance of expert academic advisers, not one that is tilted in favour of proportional representation. The Attorney General has said that he is remaining neutral in the process — that he is to be the arbiter of the process to ensure a fair and equitable process.

I think the exact opposite is happening. He is shepherding a bill forward that is so tilted, so stacked, that it’s impossible to see how this in any way can be portrayed as a balanced consideration of something so fundamental and so important. All starting with the broken commitment to ensure a clear question on the ballot question, a commitment made by the now Premier and continuing the pattern of broken promises of this government.

The Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, stated unequivocally that any referendum question would be yes or no. Many members here have commented, on this side of the House, on that commitment — the comments he made in an interview where the question was: “So you would give them one system to vote on? You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no?” The question to the now Premier: “So you would give them one system to vote on?” “Yes, exactly,” were his comments at the time.

Instead, voters are going to have to choose between multiple PR options, again, stacking the deck. Just sensing a bit of a pattern here around those kinds of commitments. We’ve heard the commitments as no — prior to the election, during the election — that we’ll not have taxpayers pay for election campaigns. What do we see in Bill 3? Exactly the opposite. Now again, here, in this proposed legislation, in Bill 6, another broken commitment along with so many others.

[4:10 p.m.]

These are at the core of my concerns — the stacked deck, the tilted process. This is a little bit like a card game where they have dealt themselves all the high cards, a sleight of hand to the citizens of British Columbia, all to prop up an alliance with their junior partners in the Third Party.

The very real and very troubling approach that will result from this is the disenfranchisement of rural communities in British Columbia and the possibility that our election process could be fundamentally altered by the voting populace of Metro Vancouver.

This approach is not just about rural British Columbia and rural communities in the process. This should also be of concern to urban ridings with the very real possibility that areas will now be represented by someone who is not from that riding that the voters live in. The direct accountability and the access to local MLAs will be lost.

We’ve commented that this is the third attempt at the referendum since 2005 — the first two failing to meet both of the two thresholds required, for regional and majority in support. While I don’t stand and take my place here and make these comments against the idea of a referendum and allowing the exercise in considering that, I do stand against this bill.

I support the motion, as proposed by my colleague from Nechako Lakes, for changing from now to six months, because this overall package is so carefully and craftily designed to ensure that the members opposite can retain their hold on government and be done in a way that leads to preferred and presupposed outcomes. When you combine this with all the other measures that have been taken during this session of the Legislature — the financing reform, the Election Act amendments, the Constitution Act amendments on official party status, the timing of the next election — all part of a package designed for a pre-intended outcome.

As we’ve noted, we’ve got concerns about how the question will be determined. The bill ultimately ensures that the question will be decided by NDP cabinet behind closed doors and, as I said, maybe within the context of the secretariat with the Third Party.

We have concerns around the public engagement process. We already see those concerns start to manifest themselves in the skewed, slanted survey that has been put out — again, not at all allaying the concerns that this is just a designed process to achieve an intended outcome. It really shouldn’t be this easy to change something as fundamentally important as our voting system. As I said, it’s been done without a formal consultation process — again, part of that calculated strategy.

These are all very, very serious concerns that have been raised and why we are proposing the amendment to allow the time to get the process right, to ensure that we have an informed process around consideration, around development of the question, and that we take the time to do that and to engage citizens in a meaningful, direct way in order to do that.

The most important and concerning element of this is the potential, possible outcome to remove the direct link and accountability between the MLA and the constituents in his or her riding. We talked about, or I talked about in my earlier comments, the work we do in our communities, the work that we do through our constituency offices with our constituency assistants in serving all members of the riding and ensuring that we provide that direct link and direct accountability between the MLA and the constituents in the riding.

[4:15 p.m.]

Like my colleague from Delta South, who grew up, born and raised, in the riding — I won’t say quite how many years. I think he talked about 61 years, our family has been part of that riding and lived in that community since 1896. We continue to farm the same property that the family settled on. So the long history, the long roots and the long direct knowledge of the riding, the people in the riding and the community is something that is at risk to be lost in this process.

People, as we’ve said before, often ask us: what’s the best part of our job? I know many answer in this House that it is the ability to serve that individual constituent and the ability to provide that service that helps them navigate the pathways in government to address their issue or concern and to get them benefits that they’re entitled to or to help them deal with their concerns, provide that listening ear. We do that in our offices for all the constituents. We’ve always prided ourselves in our constituency office to run an open office, to be available to all, to run our office in a non-partisan way, to take in and listen to all constituents and, as I said, to do that in a diligent, non-partisan way. We take real pride in that.

I would just like to comment at this point that I am very concerned about the steps that are being taken by the government, by the members opposite, in the very real potential risk of politicizing the constituency offices by placing political staff and executive assistants into those offices. I think that is a very, very significant concern, one that requires attention and one that really does put at risk that process of being able to manage our offices in a non-partisan way for all constituents. And this legislation, this bill, also puts that ability at risk because it is going to change. It could change the possibility of having that direct relationship, that direct accountability.

Every four years we put ourselves in front of the people who we are directly accountable to in that ultimate job interview that’s based both on how you work directly in your community and on the record and platform of the party you are representing. This is particularly important in rural ridings and in ridings that include multiple communities that rely on and understand the direct relationship with an MLA and to know they can connect and visit with their MLA on a regular and as needed basis. Proportional representation puts all of that at risk. The stacking of the deck in favour of a positive outcome on some yet-to-be-defined question puts that even more at risk.

I’ve heard from many of my constituents. I expect I will hear from more as the awareness develops of the value of the direct relationship and their desire to maintain our current system, which has served us well. My colleagues and many have talked about the concerns around what happens with minority and coalition governments — the instability, legislative gridlock and fragmentation of the party system. All of those concerns which are evident in so many places and so many cases where we have the forms of proportional representation that will potentially result from this undefined process, this undefined question.

[4:20 p.m.]

I believe the amendment that is being proposed is a very reasoned amendment, a very reasoned suggestion to provide that time to ensure on something so important, so critical and so fundamental as this, that it is done in a way that is fair and balanced. I can be persuaded to support a potential referendum, but it would need to contain the qualifiers that this bill does not have. It needs to be done in a way that is fair, balanced — not this skewed, tilted, deck-stacked process that this bill provides.

That’s why this amendment and the motion from the member for Nechako Lakes should be supported and promoted. Appropriate thresholds are needed, a certain percentage needed to exercise the vote. It needs to be done in a way that ensures citizens are fully engaged and through the kinds of processes that were run before with the citizens’ assembly.

I really do worry that the representation that the government strives to give our constituents will be severely compromised after each election process in order to camouflage into a minority coalition government. I worry very much that this will result in, as we’ve seen in so many other situations, delays in forming government. It will be unsustainable, requiring constituents to wait for the backroom deals to materialize, which we’ve seen clearly in so many other jurisdictions.

This process, as I’ve commented on and has been laid out in the bill, is unacceptable. I’ll be supporting the proposed amendment as it stands so we can work actively to ensure constituents will have the representation so that they can make a fully-informed decision on this critical issue and to ensure that they will have a system that will serve them and the province in the years ahead. We need to take the time to do that, and the time to do that is now. That’s why the amendment is eminently supportable, reasonable.

I hope that all members of the House will support this in order to make sure that we do the appropriate consultation, do the appropriate engagement, set the appropriate standards in the bill and in the process to make a properly informed decision.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill 6. There are few topics that are more important to receive a full conversation than changes to our electoral system. For the past couple of months, this House has been having exactly this discussion on Bill 6.

Despite what members across the way have been saying, this bill in and of itself does not provide for any sweeping changes to our electoral system or the way we practise democracy. What this bill is fundamentally about is setting up a conversation for this province about whether our current electoral system, first-past-the-post, or single-member plurality is the best system to advance the values that British Columbians share. Although this specific conversation started in the Legislature just over two months ago, I think it’s important to remember that this is a conversation that has been ongoing in B.C. and in Canada for a long time.

In a democracy with any type of electoral system, discussion is always healthy. We should never be complacent about democracy. We should never forget that it is hard-earned, and we should never shy away from improving it.

Democracy evolves. We see that in our own province’s history, where the right to vote had to be extended to women, to Indigenous people. For a few decades now, we’ve been having discussions about how to ensure that everyone in our province feels that their vote counts.

[4:25 p.m.]

Bill 6, by design, is a bill that invites British Columbians into this conversation. Rather than government making unilateral decisions about the details concerning a referendum on proportional representation, this bill leaves many of the decisions to a consultation process that just got underway.

The process asks British Columbians to weigh in on everything from what the question or questions should be to what system best represents their values to how funding should work for opponent and proponent groups.

For the next three months, British Columbians will be involved in helping to make these decisions. Once this process ends, the Attorney General will be writing a public report based on what he heard and providing recommendations to cabinet about what the referendum process and question, or questions, should look like. All of this takes place before we even start the actual referendum campaign.

When it does finally begin, the referendum campaign will take this conversation to the next level. I expect we will see individuals, in groups across the political spectrum, engage with voters and give their perspective on changing to a system of proportional representation.

This is what Bill 6 sets up: a conversation about our democracy. I know the member who introduced this motion is concerned about ensuring that this discussion can take place, so let’s look at what we’ve already covered in the House up to this point. The debate we have had in the Legislature this fall has provided us with considerable time to consider all manner of arguments about our electoral system and the merits and consequences of changing it.

My colleagues and I have provided our thoughts about the challenges we see with our first-past-the-post system. We think that in a modern democracy like B.C., when a system consistently produces majority governments with only 40 percent of the vote, effectively disenfranchising 60 percent of voters, there is room for improvement. That’s why we campaigned on proportional representation, and that’s why we believe it’s essential to be engaging British Columbians in this important conversation about the future of our democracy.

Let’s look at the 2013 election, for example. The B.C. Liberals got 44.4 percent of the popular vote, which gave them 59 percent of the seats in the Legislature and 100 percent of the power. Every decision, every piece of legislation was made and passed without needing the support of a single MLA outside of the Liberal caucus. The 55.6 percent of voters represented by the rest of the MLAs — 33 NDP, one Green and one independent — could vote together on everything, and it made no difference.

So 44 percent of the vote gets you 59 percent of the seats and 100 percent of the power. No wonder the B.C. Liberals want to keep this system. But let’s dig a little deeper.

There was a 55 percent voter turnout in 2013. Of that 55 percent, 44.4 percent voted for the B.C. Liberals, which means that absolute power was given to one party based on only 24.4 percent of eligible voters in B.C. casting their vote for that party. Three out of four eligible voters did not vote for the party that had 100 percent of the power. I ask: does that sound like a success story for democracy?

By routinely sweeping parties to absolute power with less than 50 percent of the vote, first-past-the-post creates a winner-takes-all mentality to governing. It fosters a polarized political environment, and it enables parties to wield their power to force through their policy agenda without needing a single vote of agreement from any other party. Our system discourages cooperation and encourages politicians and candidates to focus on what they oppose, rather than what they support.

I believe we need an electoral system that incentivizes a very different type of politics, one that gives our politicians the tools to work together. Our province’s first minority government in over 60 years shows us what’s possible when we commit to a different approach, one where MLAs from different parties work together.

[4:30 p.m.]

We frequently have different approaches than the NDP to the issues. That’s no surprise. But what this system forces both of us to do is to focus on the shared values that we want to advance. It drives us to find a way forward together.

Take the new ban on corporate and union donations. In only a few months, this minority government has brought forward and passed a landmark piece of legislation that was gridlocked under the previous false majority government. It’s these sorts of accomplishments that this approach makes possible.

Here’s what I’ve heard from constituents in the Cowichan Valley. “Thank you for working across party lines.” “Thank you for putting aside your differences and working together.” And: “We are so happy with the outcome of the election.” Most importantly, what I’ve heard over and over again from people: “For the first time in a very long time,” they tell me, “I feel hopeful about politics in B.C.”

I am really grateful for these positive messages, but I’m also saddened. How is it that we get to a point that people in this province stopped feeling hopeful about politics? Politics should be inspiring. Politicians should be presenting a hopeful vision for the future and then working hard to bring that vision to fruition. If we as politicians are failing to inspire hope in the citizens of this province, then I would suggest we’re failing as politicians.

Proportional representation, on the other hand, requires parties to learn to work together. It creates an inclusive form of politics where parties have to collaborate to fix the issues that matter most to British Columbians. Power isn’t an absolute exercise. It requires compromises, which ensure more people’s views are represented.

Proportional representation will ensure that every person’s vote counts, and it will enable people to vote for what they believe in. Even if your neighbours all vote differently than you, your vote still counts. I think a more reflective, more responsive system is an exciting prospect for many British Columbians who right now feel that their voice isn’t heard at the polls.

The complexity of the problems that face our province today are ill-matched with a system where we sweep one party in and out of power, removing both institutional knowledge and policy direction. In many jurisdictions, proportional representation is associated with higher voter turnout, because people feel that their vote matters — and indeed, it does. When people know that their vote won’t be wasted and that they can vote with their hearts, they turn out to vote. This makes our democracy stronger and makes all of us in this place more responsive to the needs of our citizens.

All members of this House should be engaged and should be leaders in this process of debate about changing our electoral system. This debate is extremely important, and it’s why we’re having a more than three month long consultation.

Let’s go back even further. Both the B.C. Greens and the B.C. NDP had electoral reform in their platforms. This was something that was actively campaigned on by both parties. With over 57 percent of voters having cast ballots for one of our two parties, there was a clear mandate to bring this forward. The B.C. Liberals even had a referendum in their throne speech read out this past summer.

This isn’t a surprise. This has been talked about in B.C. for over a year. We don’t need to delay the bill for six months to examine the merits of the arguments put forward by the members opposite. We can do that in the chamber and in the consultation process and referendum campaign that will follow. Engagement is important, and I hope that people on all sides of the debate will continue to make their voices heard.

I do think it is important to address some of what we have heard from the members opposite over the course of this two-month debate. For me, these arguments have really broken down into two parts. Some of these arguments raised concerns that I believe many people across our province, including myself, share about the state of democracy. Other arguments amount to divisive, self-serving rhetoric that is only intended to polarize and divide us into camps.

[4:35 p.m.]

Let’s look at the concerns that have been raised about the rise of extremism, globally and in our own democracy. It is easy to see that extremism in many forms is on the rise all across the world. What is often overlooked by the members opposite is that this is happening regardless of electoral systems, not because of them. The rise of extremism is a societal problem we must all confront together. Its source is most often inequality — a growing gap between those who have opportunities to live healthy, fulfilling lives and those who do not.

The United States uses a first-past-the-post system like Canada, yet they are one of the main sources of instability facing the world. We can see how inequality has driven a wedge in their society and how that is now exploited by parties for partisan gain. Their system is a caution for every country that allows divisive partisan politics and out-of-control rhetoric to fester.

Avoiding this type of divisive, extreme politics is actually one of the reasons I am such a strong supporter of proportional representation. I believe that a system of proportional representation, which brings people together on those values that we share to advance solutions to the issues that we all face, is preferable to our current system, which puts the emphasis on the differences between us. We need a political system that is inclusive and that allows us to take challenges like inequality head-on in all regions of our province. We don’t need a system that pitches regions against each other. This is the discussion I hope we can have with this referendum.

However, one of the things I have been genuinely surprised about is the willingness of some of the members opposite to use their opportunity in this House, speaking to this bill, to compare a democratic conversation about the best way to elect representatives in our democracy to the steps that lead to extremism.

These haven’t been just passing references to extremism. Speaker after speaker has raised the idea that a force like Nazism might take root in B.C. One speaker even alluded to the fact that we are taking steps along the path to repeating the Holocaust. To suggest that, by changing our electoral system to a model used successfully in almost every OECD country, we are enabling this type of extremism is, frankly, insulting and irresponsible, and it greatly diminishes one of the worst moral failures to unfold in modern history.

This irresponsible rhetoric only serves to drive wedges between people in this province. It is fear-based and tries to reduce us to our worst fears, rather than inspire us to build a system that represents our best values. The members opposite may choose not to believe in British Columbians. They may not believe that our system can be improved, but I do.

The other main argument that is worth highlighting, as we consider the amendment before us to provide additional time, is the concern that has been raised about rural representation. I am as concerned as any member in this House about ensuring that all of the distinct community voices across our province can be represented. Across our province, we have extraordinary communities that define themselves on their own terms. I am from one such community on the Island.

It was actually the sense that we were being shut out of the decision-making process that drove me to run for office. It is because that last government felt so comfortable ignoring our voice that I am such a strong supporter of proportional representation. The B.C. Liberals claim that they alone represent rural B.C., but the reality is that almost 50 percent of the voters in these ridings did not vote for them.

[4:40 p.m.]

No voices should be shut out in our democracy. Our current system doesn’t elevate these voices at all. In the last government, the only way a riding had a voice was if you elected someone from the governing benches. I was disturbed, during the election campaign, to have that reiterated over and over again from the Liberal candidate. Thankfully, this is changing with a minority government.

What I support is a made-in-B.C. system of proportional representation. You want local representation? So do I. You want to make sure the unique contributions of rural B.C. are appropriately weighted? So do I. This is the conversation that Bill 6 and the consultation process create the space for. Let’s start having real conversations about the values we want our electoral system to represent and put systems on the ballot that do just that.

Let’s imagine it’s possible to improve our system and not accept a status quo that shuts out voices. Enough with the rhetoric that proportional representation steals the voice of the north. Enough with the empty fearmongering, calling this a power grab. How does this inspire? How does it create hope?

The B.C. Liberals are arguing, with this amendment, that we need more time for these conversations. I would argue this entire process has been set up to accomplish exactly that. Rather than attack every aspect of this process, perhaps it is worth engaging substantively in the conversation about the challenges of our current system and the merits of changing to a system of proportional representation.

Ahead of us, we have a three-month consultation process that will inform the government about how British Columbians want the referendum process to work and what they want the question to be. Following that, we will likely have several months of debate, during the referendum campaign, about the reasons for and the reasons against changing our system.

Changing our electoral system is not a decision to be taken lightly, and every British Columbian deserves to be heard and to formulate their own position about what type of system will best capture their values. I believe that the path laid out by government allows for this to take place, and I will not be supporting the amendment.

M. Polak: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. I’m going to add to my prepared remarks by utilizing some of the presentation that was just made because one of the reasons that I had in my prepared remarks is supported by what the member who concluded just now outlined in her case.

Here is where I think it really starkly shows that one of the reasons we need more time is because even members in this very chamber don’t understand our current system. To suggest that a majority in a parliamentary system retains absolute power is absolute rubbish.

The only members of government are members of executive council. The rest of this chamber holds those members to account. How? Because as individual members, we wake up each morning, and we get to choose: do I enter this chamber today and support government, or do I enter this chamber today and support opposition?

It’s why Premiers and Prime Ministers read about Winston Churchill discussing his system with Roosevelt. One of the things he pointed out is: “Look, if I make my voters, through their representatives, unhappy, I lose government.”

One of the beauties of our electoral system is that it ensures that there is not absolute power vested on a majority. And how about that executive council? I’ve been on executive council many times. Many members of this chamber have. When there are difficult issues, issues where representatives in your community are concerned and coming to you, you know darn well that if you don’t effect change at that cabinet table, you may be faced with the choice to resign your post in order to vote against what is coming forward, because you can’t do that as executive council.

[4:45 p.m.]

This entire Westminster system has evolved and has been established in order to give representatives in this chamber the ability to change government like that. That doesn’t happen in a Donald Trump world.

Let’s talk about the U.S. Actually, if you want to talk about proportional representation versus our current system, the U.S. doesn’t have proportional representation, but the effect of their executive branch as being coequal has some similarities.

One, for example, is that individual representatives have no incentive to concern themselves with anything other than their own individual electoral success — absolutely none. It matters not one whit to them whether their party is in majority or not. They have the same privileges, the same influence, what have you. It doesn’t make a bit of difference — which is one of the reasons why, in their system, you frequently see people pandering to individual interest–based politics, which can be very, very divisive.

In addition to that, because the balance of power is always swaying between the kinds of deals that can be made, porkbarrelling on votes, you end up with a person in leadership, a president, who, if they are skilled enough, truly does wield absolute power.

I do think it’s important for us to spend the time, not just to have a discussion about proportional representation or the potential for it. I think we need to ask ourselves, first and foremost: why is it that we would want to pass legislation like this? That’s something I ask myself on the opposition side. And when I was in government, I would ask that, when legislation would come forward: what’s the purpose for this legislation? Why do we need it?

We’ve heard a number of things in this chamber about why people think we should have a referendum. By the way, I’m supportive of having a referendum, although I will speak, in a little while, about why I think the particular design of this one is ill-advised.

Some of the reasons are interesting to me. It has become clear, as we listen, that what people are not supportive of…. When they say they want to change to proportional representation, they say it’s because they don’t like first-past-the-post. But then all the reasons that they give are actually a disagreement with our current Westminster system, our style of representative democracy.

The things they talk about have nothing to do with first-past-the-post — for example, saying that it’s not good enough that 40 percent of the people vote and then you get a majority or that you are not representative because you don’t have members of their party here. Once again, it’s another misunderstanding of our current electoral system.

When I am elected as a representative for Langley, I am not elected as a representative for the B.C. Liberal Party. I am elected to represent that community now, not just those who were B.C. Liberal voters. I am elected to represent the views in my community. What happens after an election? As every politician in this chamber knows, and I think most of the public know, after an election, one of the first things that a representative will do is look at where the votes broke down. That tells them something about what people in their community are thinking, and they represent those views in their caucus, in this chamber.

That is what the word “representative” means in our representative democracy. It doesn’t mean you count heads and say, “What percentage?” and if they’re not here, their vote was wasted. That is absolute nonsense. Their vote isn’t wasted. Their vote expresses an opinion. It’s recorded. The politician is well aware of that. The politician will hear from those people throughout their term in office and will make decisions based on what they hear. That is how they represent.

There are many times that members of this House bring forward matters that are not of a particular concern to them as an individual and perhaps not even to their party but are a concern to people in their community, whether they voted for that person’s political party or not. That is how our system works. Your vote is not wasted if your particular party does not get elected to represent you in your riding. You have a representative who must listen to you. That’s part of how our system works.

[4:50 p.m.]

I find it interesting, as well, that members opposite speak about the history of electoral activities in British Columbia and point out that it’s some terrible travesty that a government could be formed with only — heaven forbid — 40 percent of the vote. Yet at the same time, they are willing to support a referendum that has no threshold in terms of a minimum for participation, that would accept something even as small as 10 percent of British Columbians showing up to vote for it. That’s disgraceful. How can you, on the one hand, say that 40 percent isn’t good enough, but somehow 10 percent is? That’s ridiculous.

Let’s start cutting away some of the arguments here that really don’t make any sense. One of the others is this idea…. Actually, it’s interesting, because I know that members are trying to communicate a certain thing, but their words betray something else.

Over and over, I have heard members opposite speak of proportional representation…. This, again, is why we should delay, because we need to make sure people are understanding what they’re actually saying. I have over and over again heard members opposite speak to what they think is a benefit to proportional representation. Here’s what they say, and I’m quoting, I think, almost every one of them. They say: “It will force parties to work together.” In fact, I think many times people have applauded when that phrase has been read out.

Well, do you know what? They’re right. They’re right that it will force parties to work together. Why? Because you will have appointed members from parties. It won’t be MLAs in this chamber. It won’t be MLAs in their caucus working with their leadership who then bring debates, bills, what have you, to this chamber. It will be parties that will negotiate deals behind closed doors as to which pieces of legislation, which actions, which debates, which positions they’re going to support. Then that will be told to the appointed members.

How do we know that? Well, we’re already seeing it in action here. If the example of what has occurred in our current governmental arrangement is anything to go by, that’s exactly what happens. It’s not a discussion in this chamber, the people’s House. It’s not a discussion that people get to debate out in the public. No, it’s something that the parties — not the members, the parties — discuss behind closed doors. They come up with an agreement, and then it is rolled out for all to see — until it falls apart because maybe there’s something that they don’t agree with, and now they have to negotiate again.

It is true what members opposite say: it will force parties to work together. But the fact that they don’t hear themselves say that and realize that they are purporting to support a system that gives power to political parties rather than individual representatives of their communities is quite shocking and something that tells me we need more time before this gets rolled out to the public.

Let’s talk a little bit about why it is that the first two referenda were held. The first one was triggered by a very unusual result in British Columbia, and that was the election of all but two members on one side of the House. That was, in our history, quite an anomalous event. Nevertheless, I’m sure you do remember that. I wasn’t even here, but I remember it. That, of course, triggered questions as to whether or not we could improve on our current system.

As has been mentioned in this House before, a citizens’ assembly was established. It was quite diverse and broad in its representation, and they were tasked with taking a look at what options there were for improving our current electoral system and how that should be brought to the public — what form of a question. The threshold was set fairly high.

That referendum did not pass, but it was close. It was the closeness of that that triggered the subsequent referendum. It was felt that, really, this needed to be given more attention, so more attention was paid to providing educational materials involving outside groups that wished to advocate for and against a position. And once again the referendum failed. In fact, this time it failed even worse.

There were good reasons to trigger that look. I’m wondering, as I look at our situation today, what on earth could equate between our current situation and what occurred when there was a 77-to-2 result. In fact, our current system is showing its strength in that we do have a coalition formed of two parties on the other side, based on an agreement they have with respect to supply and confidence, and one that at this stage allows them to be governing from a position of majority when they vote together.

[4:55 p.m.]

We also have a system where one of our members decided that they wished to seek the support of the House to become the Speaker. That, in and of itself, had a significant impact on this chamber, how this chamber operates and what was possible with respect to the coalition on the other side. All of those things indicate the very things that people say they want to achieve with proportional representation but that, quite frankly, exist in much greater strength in our current Westminster system.

Again, I would point out that we better not be talking about changing our current system until we make sure that people actually understand how the current system works.

I am concerned very much with the method by which this referendum will take place. When I spoke about the first two referenda, I did not talk about their structure, but it was important. It was important because it recognized that we in our province don’t stick to a type of system that would purport to treat unequal people equally. That’s a well-known quote from Thomas Jefferson, who said: “There is nothing more unequal then the equal treatment of unequal people.”

Well, one of the features of our democracy, compared to some others, is that we do truly believe that regions have importance, that it isn’t just individual members casting their vote but that regional representation is important.

The regions in our province are not equal in terms of their populations. The regions in our province are not equal in terms of the issues and the matters that are important to people who live in those areas. It would be a grave error in this referendum to treat all regions of the province equally and to go forward with a straight 50 percent plus one, which, as many have mentioned, could easily result in having the Lower Mainland — the highly populated Lower Mainland — decide this very important issue for the entire province.

For those on the opposite side who purport to be supporting the hearing of every voice, I cannot believe that they would support this referendum with its current design, because it flies entirely in the face of allowing everyone to have an equal voice. The regions are not equal, and therefore, a straight 50 percent plus one does not provide an equal voice. It absolutely doesn’t.

I’m also concerned about the threshold, and I talked a bit about that before. We do have a system where the majority rules, but our system also tempers that majority in a number of ways. I talked a bit about that earlier, with respect to the role of individual members and how powerful they are within their own individual caucus and also within this chamber.

If we look at how the threshold has been arrived at, there is no provision for setting a threshold of how many voters participate and, therefore, the validity of the referendum that has been cast. That flies in the face of not only democratic tradition but some of the best practices in terms of evaluating electoral processes around the world, when organizations like the UN go in to monitor elections.

There’s no way that anyone in this chamber would say that an election that saw a 10 percent turnout would be valid, yet here we are purporting to say that that would be valid in the case of the most significant constitutional change in our province’s history. So you have to take a look at what kind of a threshold is appropriate, and I think that is something else that needs some additional discussion.

Certainly, there has been much made of what was first put forward in terms of the referendum yet what we arrive at now. One of those, for example, is the style of question. We know that it is looking less and less likely that the style of question is going to be the straight-up yes or no in terms of changing our system.

[5:00 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

In a case where people already have very little understanding of our current system, I think it’s just even more challenging to then try to put before them some new models that we haven’t had the time to walk through with the public and have that discussion.

The discussion is incredibly important — in particular, because we have something that has been of great value for us in British Columbia, as it has been around the Commonwealth for generations. And before we decide that we want to move to a new system of electing our representatives, I think the first thing we ought to do is decide if our current system is so flawed that it must be tossed out.

Make no mistake about it. All you have to do is listen to what members have spoken about in this House. The discussion isn’t just about first-past-the-post. The discussion that has taken place in this House very frequently references things that have nothing to do with that and have everything to do with how we function in a parliamentary system and what role members play. Members can’t play their appropriate role in a parliamentary system if they are appointed by a party.

At this stage in my political career, and I’m sure it’s the same for members opposite, I have grown in my experience in this chamber to appreciate just how valuable my independence as an MLA really is. There’s no political party that can tell me the way I should vote or the way I should think or the way I should speak. For any of us in this chamber, for a political party to come to us and say, “Thou shalt do the following,” it would probably result in the member turning around and saying: “Well, I’m sorry. You don’t understand my role. I’m not elected to represent you as a party. I’m elected to represent my constituents, and I’m elected to make decisions in the best interest of the province.” That’s what we’re elected to do.

If you’re appointed by a political party, here are some questions you could ask yourself. Why on earth would the political party appoint someone who was going to be a bit of a contrarian? We’ve had some famous contrarians in this chamber who had, sometimes, difficult relationships with their leaders, and that’s happened on both sides of this House. And those people were valuable. There’s something about iron sharpening iron and having adversarial debates that allows you to hone a decision and to hone your language.

What political party worth their salt, if given a number of seats in this chamber for whom they could appoint representatives…? What political party would appoint one of those contrarians as their representative? No, what they would do is appoint people that they know are going to toe the party line because it would be necessary. How else could they hold these discussions behind closed doors in order to achieve the agreements they need to operate if the parties — because those are the ones that would be negotiating — weren’t able to depend on the loyalty of their members and the obedience of their members to what they signed up for?

No, there’s no other way to call this, except that the parties would be running the show. The parties would be running the show, not the individual representatives. Because if the individual representative turned around and said, “No, I’m sorry; I don’t agree with you,” well, what choice do they have? Their party says: “Well, that’s fine. Then we’ll appoint somebody else.”

I want to talk a bit about the representation based on local area. I’m going to disagree mildly with some of my colleagues who’ve spoken about the importance of someone living in a riding or being from a riding. I think that’s a valuable thing when it happens, but I also don’t believe it’s necessary. What I do believe is absolutely necessary for our system of government to function properly is for that representative to be connected electorally to their region. In other words, when I’m speaking in this chamber now, when I’m casting my vote, I know that the people who will judge me when the next election comes around are those people who live in the riding I represent.

Well-known, well-loved politicians have spent entire political careers not living within the bounds of the riding they represent yet were effective representatives because of that tie to their region that elects them. They know who is going to hold them accountable, and because of that, they pay attention to what is going on in their community.

[5:05 p.m.]

I’m sure we all spend time when we’re here stuck in Victoria reading our local newspapers, keeping in touch with what’s going on in our local communities at home. Why? Because if we don’t, we’re going to very soon find ourselves on the wrong side of that voting public. So the fact that we are held to account by a region to which we are tied for our electoral success is something that is extremely important in our particular system and one that we ought not to take lightly.

When we look at what happens with respect to rural British Columbia, I think this becomes even more important. Again, while I think it’s valuable if a representative resides in a particular riding, I think the necessary piece of it is that they depend on their electoral success for that riding.

Our entire system is set up so that it creates certain incentives and motivations for MLAs, for representatives, right? It’s set up so that not only do I want to be elected in my local riding, but I also want my particular party to gain a majority. That’s an important incentive, because it means I’ve always got one eye on my local riding and what my local constituents want and I’ve also got an eye on what is good for the whole province.

Otherwise, you’d have 87 members in this House, each one of them with an individual issue that they wanted to take forward, not listening to anybody else, because they wouldn’t have to, because they’re just as fine getting elected on their own. That’s okay. Their electoral success is secured, even if their party doesn’t form government. It doesn’t matter to them.

This idea that somehow proportional representation is going to usher in some new era of cooperation between members, I think, is ill-placed. I would also point out that cooperation in this chamber between members takes place all the time on a whole host of issues. It takes place in the areas where it’s the most important, and that is working on behalf of your constituents.

When our party was in government and now when this party is in government.... You can go back probably generations. The time that we spend debating bills, estimates, is one part of our job. But arguably, the most important part of our job is taking forward constituency member concerns.

When voters come to me or to anybody else in this chamber and they have something they need help with from a minister, what do you think we do? Well, we cooperate. We get a meeting with the minister. We sit down, and we talk to them, whether they’re from the opposing party or not.

That’s happened. Well, it always happens. It’s the way this place functions, and it happens even when the House is not sitting. It’s one of the most important parts of our job. That cooperation and collaboration takes place all the time in this building. If you don’t think so, it’s because you haven’t been here long enough, because we all work together when it comes to our constituents’ interests. That’s what we do.

It is because of that that I feel so strongly that we really need to take some time to think about what we are doing with this referendum and make sure that it is constructed in such a way so that people are able to understand what it is they’re considering; in the case of our current system, that there is sufficient information for people to understand what it is they would be giving up; and to ensure that we are not placing our futures in the hands of one region of the province, as opposed to hearing from the votes of people all across our province in every region.

It is the way that our system is designed. Yet, in looking at the way this referendum has been designed, it makes me wonder if those who have put forward the legislation are already moving away from our existing system without having had a vote. Because I’ll tell you: the way that the referendum is designed looks an awful lot like what you would see in a proportional representation election. It looks an awful lot like that.

Until British Columbians decide that our current system isn’t meeting the needs of British Columbians in terms of their representation, anything we do along these lines ought to be modelled on our current system. It ought to reflect the fact that we need to have regional representation, create thresholds in each and every part of our province, and then create a threshold at which we would see a certain number of ridings necessary in terms of success of the referendum.

[5:10 p.m.]

Take the time to ensure that we are not treating unequal people equally, because that’s what the current structure of the referendum will do. Take ridings where there is no chance that they can outvote the Lower Mainland and essentially throw their voice out, make their voice unimportant in this debate.

Insofar as the consultations that have been mentioned — great. Let’s consult. But let’s get away from some of the questions…. I would encourage members and those citizens who are watching this…. I would encourage people, if they haven’t gone to look at the website for the consultation, to take a look at it. You’ll find not just some brain teasers but some impossible questions to answer, questions that certainly look as though they are aspiring to achieve a particular outcome rather than just what people view.

I hope that people will think twice about supporting this amendment and realize that with such a monumental decision in front of British Columbians, it behooves all of us to take the time to get it right. My goodness, this government is consulting on everything else and delaying everything else, things that are far less important than this. So let’s take the time, and let’s get this right.

D. Davies: Thank you to my colleagues across the way.

I’d like to stand, again, with my fellow northerners, and rural members as well, to provide a perspective that possibly could be lost in some of this discussion and to speak to the amendment that has been presented by my colleague, in essence to postpone this decision for six months to really, again, have a bit of sober second thought and to review. That, I think, is in the best interests of all British Columbians.

For those of us who represent ridings that are huge geographically yet lightly populated, having a dedicated voice in the Legislature is extremely important. With that, I want to thank my constituents for giving me the honour of representing them here in this chamber. I take my responsibility very seriously. As their representative, I will fight to continue to make our province stronger, as well as fight for a brighter future for the communities in Peace River North. But it is also my duty to defend great things in our province of British Columbia.

As I have mentioned before many times in this House, and I’m sure everyone is getting tired of it, my riding is quite unique. I’m very proud to represent the communities that make it up. With a land mass of about 161,000 square kilometres, Peace River North is the second-largest riding in the province. It’s larger than the countries of Ireland, Switzerland and Croatia combined, or Rwanda, Belgium and Greece combined.

That said, I very specifically chose these countries to highlight a point. I could have selected numerous other countries that have some sort of proportional representation that would also be much smaller than my riding alone. All of these countries that I just mentioned have proportional representation. Secondly, though, these countries have large populations and a geography that is very, very different than here in British Columbia. The above-mentioned countries, as I’ve mentioned, each have populations in excess of ten million people. I represent a riding that has a little over 35,000 people and is much, much larger than the countries I mentioned.

Now, is there room for improving our electoral process? I think there is, and I believe we can work toward that. But let’s do it right. Let’s not do it hastily. Let’s not do it for the wrong reason or for ulterior motives. I really believe that this bill has been politically driven and that we should be re-evaluating how we can truly strengthen our democracy. Again, this is why I support the amendment to postpone this bill for six months.

Again, my riding and our province are very unique compared to other countries that we use as examples. It is very diverse from riding to riding, from our culture to our industry, size and population, values and ideologies. As well, we are a province within a federation. We are not a country all alone.

[5:15 p.m.]

Now, I don’t want to discount the comparisons that we’ve been hearing in this place with other countries, but we need to keep it in perspective. As members of the other side often use comparables, comparing the great work that countries are doing with proportional representation, we need to, again, watch how we make these comparables with our province.

Another reason why I’m passionate about opposing this bill but supporting this amendment is that my riding is a very long ways away from Victoria — so distant, in fact, that I believe it could easily be overlooked here in the Legislature, as well as the needs of many other smaller communities. This place can easily get tied up in looking after our larger urban centres like the Lower Mainland.

That doesn’t happen, and that doesn’t happen for a reason. Because we have elected representatives in this place from across our province — from rural, northern, remote constituencies — whose sole job, like mine, is to remind this place that our needs are just as important as anyone else and anywhere else in this province.

Rural northern communities do matter. It doesn’t matter if you’re from Fort St. John or if you’re from Vancouver. We all enjoy the same rights, and my job as the MLA for Peace River North is to make sure that there is effective representation in this House. It’s also my job to represent everybody in my riding, not just the ones who voted for me, even if they didn’t even vote in the last provincial election. My job is to set aside my party affiliation and to make sure that whatever I do is in the best interest of my constituents. This is the moral compass that I believe guides all of us here in this place. If we don’t put the people first, then we are lacking in our primary task.

There’s another aspect to being an MLA, and that is the role of lawmaker or policy-maker. It’s our responsibility as an elected representative to examine all legislation that is presented before us. We’re responsible for ensuring that laws enacted during this session of the Legislature are in the best interest of all British Columbians. This includes the people of Peace River North. I am accountable to them as well.

When I see a piece of legislation like we’ve been debating recently here, my job is to give it thorough examination and determine if it is good for my constituents and if it is good for the province. And after careful review, I do have to concur with my colleagues who have already commented on this bill, on this side.

Each of them has arrived at the same conclusion: under proportional representation, you are at risk of how you’ll be represented in the provincial Legislature. But by supporting the amendment, it will allow some more time to talk to members of our ridings, to talk to British Columbians and to allow people to have some say in this process before this bill passes.

Make no mistake. Bill 6 will fundamentally change our democratic system and the way that we elect our representatives. I want to make it clear, though, that the B.C. Liberal Party is not opposed to electoral reform. We have heard here already that our party is one that launched two previous proportional representation reviews, one in 2005 and one in 2009. We took a very different approach in how it is being done by our present government.

The B.C. Liberal Party believes that changes to our democratic system — and rest assured, this is a big one — need to be in the interest of all British Columbians. We also believe that electoral reform should be conducted by an independent and neutral body.

We certainly don’t believe in a ruling government dictating the terms of this reform. This only generates public cynicism about our political process, and for obvious reasons, any ruling government — in this case, the NDP, supported by the Green Party — would be far too tempted to change our electoral system in their favour. That is precisely what this bill intends to do.

We’re seeing it already by having a stacked panel, a completely slanted survey in favour of proportional representation, no minimum voter turnout. In fact, in a recent interview by the minister, it states even a 10 percent turnout in this referendum would be accepted.

[5:20 p.m.]

Let’s say it’s a 50 percent plus one. That means 5 percent of eligible voters, as low as 5 percent, will be changing our democratic process of how we vote. Is this in the best interest of all British Columbians? No. No, it is not.

When the B.C. Liberals proposed electoral reform, we turned it over to the public. As we have heard already before in this House, we created the citizens’ assembly. That was at arm’s length from government so that it was protected from political influence and interference.

The citizens forum, again, was created by 161 citizens from around the province, including members of the Indigenous communities. The reason why the B.C. Liberal government did this was to ensure that the public had confidence in this process that no group or third party would have undue influence in shaping our democratic process. This is what exposes the deep flaws in this bill. The whole approach — how this is unravelling.

The government should not be directly involved in changing the way that people vote. That’s how things happen in dictatorships. Yet the NDP, supported by the Greens, feel that they have the right to permanently redesign a new form of government, behind closed doors, by order of cabinet, and make whatever the final question on this referendum will be.

This is not electoral reform. This is a deliberate attempt to rig our next election and to send our province into economic uncertainty. But before I begin to approach the topic of proportional representation, I want to point out another reason why this bill is deeply flawed. There’s not a single mention of the model or kind of proportional representation that the government intends to impose. The legislation lays out a process to change the way people vote but doesn’t say what we’ll be voting on. This privilege is reserved for cabinet only.

Cabinet will decide after the NDP and the Greens have negotiated behind closed doors. They have already set up a taxpayer-funded entity in the Premier’s office to manage these parties negotiations. It’s called the confidence and supply agreement. It only meets in secret, and it only meets with the NDP and the Greens. It’s all laid out in the pre-nuptial agreement signed this past May in the confidence and supply agreement. And the document outlines the terms.

Under section 3, article 1, part (b), it states: “A referendum on proportional representation will take place in the fall of 2018, concurrent with the next municipal election, and (2), the form of proportional representation approved in the referendum will be enacted for the next…election.” It seems pretty straightforward. The problem is the NDP was in such a rush to get the Green Party on board, or the other way around, that they failed to do their homework. Consequently, neither of the terms outlined in part (b) of the pre-nuptial agreement can be honoured.

The referendum on proportional representation will not take place concurrent to the next election, as we now know. The government has to break this particular promise because they screwed up. But promises don’t seem to matter to this government. As the Green Party leader has directed, promises don’t matter.

The NDP, they’re irrelevant. The NDP and the Green Party negotiators failed to realize that the provincial voters list is quite different from the municipal voters list. In fact, it’s safe to say most don’t have one, coming from a municipal government myself. I suppose that’s understandable. This whole changing the way that we elect is really more complicated than it looks.

According to an October 4 press release, the government is going to bring B.C.’s democratic institutions into the 21st century. They’re going to be doing it through a mail-in ballot. Modernizing through mail. So next fall our government is going to slip a ballot through your mailbox, along with the other junk mail and grocery flyers which we all get. Nobody is exempt from that. It sounds rather suspect to me.

I don’t want to downplay the important role of our postal service. However, this should not be the only means in which the government is hoping to garner responses from British Columbians.

[5:25 p.m.]

How is the government going to legitimize plans to fundamentally change the way that we elect representatives without a proper referendum — a proper referendum overseen by Elections B.C. at a ballot where people vote. This is done accountably. But according to the Minister of Finance, it’s too expensive to actually hold a proper referendum.

What about the British Columbians that have no fixed address? On October 5, the minister appeared on Shaw television and declared: “We felt that there’s a cost savings there. It’s accessible for everyone. There are still some voting spots where people can go if they want to actually mark their ballot and leave it there. There are a number of centres around the province, but a mail-in ballot gives the most accessibility, the most opportunity and saves us money as well. It’s really the best choice.”

Electoral reform is one of the number one priorities of our government, and they can’t afford to do it properly. Crazy. The NDP and the Greens want to fundamentally change the way that we vote, but they’re not willing to pay for it.

Threshold is the next piece I want to talk about. What better way to make sure that you win a referendum — by dropping the threshold to the absolute bare minimum of 50 percent plus one. This is a rather dangerous proposition. We saw this exactly unfold, and we’ve heard it in here before, but it’s important, I think, to continue to make the point about what happened in the Quebec referendum.

I remember the referendum quite well, as probably everybody, or almost everybody, in this room would — about how close that referendum was: 50.58 percent. This left a province and left our country deeply divided. When a referendum is set at 50 percent plus one, there’s always a danger of one side perceiving the results as illegitimate. That is why the B.C. Liberals had set a threshold at 60 percent on previous referendums — plus, in 50 percent of all of the ridings, again making sure that a majority of all British Columbians had a say and were heard. It also ensures that there’s a decisive win.

I also find it rather curious that the NDP and Green Party always point to the made-in-Europe examples as to why we should adopt proportional representation, and I’ll talk about that in a minute. But we have to only look as far as Prince Edward Island. I’m not sure why this example isn’t brought up…. Well, it’s only brought up on our side.

Prince Edward Island is an interesting case, because B.C. appears to be following the same route that Prince Edward Island followed. P.E.I. decided to hold a referendum on proportional representation, and like P.E.I., the B.C. government wants to propose a whole list of different options rather than just a simple yes or no.

The referendum ballot will offer a bunch of different systems that voters will be expected to rank in order of preference. I’ve got to confess, though, it isn’t that easy, certainly, for the average person going about their life, working and playing throughout this great province. I think it’s going to be a bit of a challenge to understand all of these different options, rank them, understand them and then rank them according to preference.

We saw that unfold in Prince Edward Island as well. People didn’t fully get it. In the end, the P.E.I. referendum actually did pass, by 52 percent. So 52 percent of the population voted in favour of mixed-member proportional representation. But there was a problem with the result. P.E.I. rejected the results due to poor voter turnout. So 36 percent of the voters decided to participate, and only one in five registered voters actually voted for change.

I guess voting on MMP didn’t ignite the hearts of P.E.I.’ers. They essentially ignored, for the most part, the referendum, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. P.E.I. attempted to bring in electoral reform using modern technology. They let people use the Internet and vote on line, on the telephone, and they even lowered the age to 16, as they would be affected by the next election.

But not in B.C. As the minister said: “The mail-in ballot is the cheapest way to go about doing this.”

[5:30 p.m.]

I guess all of those stable countries in the world that use PR, like Spain and Rwanda and Greece, know better than we do. I can add to that list, as we have heard in this House, about the other countries that are struggling with proportional representation: Iceland, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Italy. Those are just some of the countries that are having issues. This is why I do support this amendment.

Without knowing what the NDP and the Green Party have in store for B.C. — and that’s a cabinet secret — I want to return to what proportional representation could mean to rural and northern B.C. If you do the math, it doesn’t take very long to figure out that the population of Metro Vancouver — 2.5 million people — outnumbers the rest of British Columbia’s remaining population that is scattered throughout the rest of the province. In other words, people on the Island, the north, the Interior, the coast, the Kootenays and, yes, the people in my riding of Peace River North will have very little say in how this matter unfolds.

Under a proportional representation voting system, you get proportional, but I don’t believe you get the representation, and I’m really worried that we may lose local representation in the smaller communities. So if you’re unhappy with your government, it becomes near impossible to change that. Proportional representation not only has the possible effect of blurring truly local representation, it makes it very hard, I believe, for rural voices to be heard in this place.

That’s why the B.C. Liberal Party is opposed to Bill 6, but I do support this amendment. It’s kind of like a second sober thought of looking at this bill — moving it out six months before the decision is being made.

As I begin to wrap up…. I’m not wrapping up quite yet. I know that you’re all upset. As I begin to wrap up, I want to draw your attention to a couple of articles that I found. One is an article by Patrick Basham. Patrick Basham is a senior fellow at the center for representative democracy at the Cato Institute. He talks about the cost of proportional representation. There is an additional cost, he found out, by looking at 140 different countries and democracies around the world and comparing them, looking at first-past-the-post and proportional representation.

He found that countries that have some sort of proportional representation generally pay higher taxes. They have bigger governments. They do more spending. He also states…. It’s not just him. He has brought some economists into his work as well. “The electoral system also affects the size of the budget deficit. Under first-past-the-post, deficits are smaller — about 3 percent of GDP — than under a proportional representation system. A reform of the electoral system from first-past-the-post to proportional representation rule would increase government spending by about 6 percent of the GDP, financed by higher taxes and more deficits.”

So really interesting that some of the points that myself and my colleagues have made around the system of it and looking at it…. I think it’s important that, over the six months that we’re moving to amend this bill, we start looking at some of the other effects that proportional representation can have on our economy and those direct effects that it can have on our citizens.

Also going to talk about…. The member for Cowichan, earlier in her talk, talked about us on this side using examples along the lines of extremist parties. I can’t even remember half of the parties that I’ve heard here, but there have been lots of different fringe parties talked about.

Adam Radwanski, from the Globe and Mail — he’s a political commentator — wrote a piece a few years ago on the French election, very specifically around when they had 16 presidential candidates running, utilizing a proportional representation vote. The candidates were from extreme right to extreme left, moderates, fringe parties, and so on and so forth. Everybody figured it was a two-way race between Jacques Chirac and Lionel Jospin.

[5:35 p.m.]

In first-past-the-post, it probably would have been a lot closer to that prediction. However, that is not what happened. The result blew away the country’s international image, but it also questioned the credibility of a preferential voting system. Right up until the votes had been counted, the election was perceived, by both the media and the public, to be a two-way race by the two gentlemen I mentioned earlier. But the door was unexpectedly opened by another candidate able to top the 15 percent support.

The result was that Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the extreme right National Front, squeaked past Jospin and was on the final ballot with Mr. Chirac. We look at: “This can’t happen here. You can’t get extreme rights or lefts or fringe parties; it’s not going to happen here.” Well, it could happen here.

He goes on to say: “How did this happen? In large part, Mr. Le Pen was seen as a harmless protest vote against the perceived similarity of the two leading candidates. But even so, with 17 percent support, he only slightly improved his normal showing. It was really more of a splintering of the votes amongst a ridiculous number of candidates that enabled him to squeak through.”

Radwanski goes on to state: “It’s not difficult to envision similar scenarios unfolding across ridings across this country” — this is Canada he’s talking about — “if preferential voting were adopted.” People are looking at the possibility of having fringe parties, small parties and extremist parties rise up. It is a very real possibility.

I did have one other piece here. Another example that is often used here is using Australia as an example of first-past-the-post — and we understand that is only on the Senate. I just want to read a little piece here, which is quite interesting, from Ron Boswell. He’s a recently retired senator in the Australian Senate.

He says: “It’s not that micro-parties should be denied their democratic right to representation. It’s that the democratic process has clearly been subverted when ordinary Australians vote for one political view, and they watch their vote seep across the divide in the preferential votes to land in a party with contradictory views of their own.” Again, we can quite easily see that this could play out under a preferential voting system.

To quickly, I guess, recap my main concerns. We know for a fact that a stand-alone mail-in ballot is not going to attract anywhere near 60 percent of the eligible voters, which was the turnout in the last election. Again, we’ve already had the government having to break their promise to hold the referendum in conjunction with the next round of municipal elections. Let’s look. Even if half of the registered voters of British Columbia were to participate…. I think 30 percent would be incredibly high. I really do. But let’s just say 30 percent, and a bare minimum of 50 percent plus one voted in favour.

Do we really think that around 16 percent of the voting public, or lower, is a legitimate number to change this incredibly important piece of legislation, our legislation that’s currently in place? Again, we already heard that the minister is quite happy with 5 percent, with 10 percent, no minimum. We look at the Premier of P.E.I. He made that decision. He looked at the results of his referendum. Even though it did pass, barely, where the province usually has a high voter turnout, he looked at the low turnout and decided that that was not enough to represent what the residents of Prince Edward Island wanted, not enough to change the entire political process.

[5:40 p.m.]

My question, I guess, would be: would the NDP and the Green Party consider this as a legitimate result? Would they have the fortitude to admit defeat and ignore the referendum, just like Prince Edward Island did, if we had only a small portion of the public represented? I don’t think they would. The NDP and the Greens are very determined to make sure that this moves forward, that any result will do.

As we move forward, we need to understand that there are many people understanding this. There are people looking. There are people and forces gathering that feel just as strongly as we do on this side. People are not going to sit by and watch a piece of our democratic process that’s been in place, that works well, that has worked well for many years….

Canadians fought in two world wars to defend our right to vote. My grandfather was a veteran. We fought in Korea. We fought in Afghanistan. We have Canadian Armed Forces members serving right now throughout the world, helping countries that are fighting for democracy in their own countries. All of these people are out there to preserve what we currently have as a country, which is the envy of many democracies around the world. Our soldiers are out there fighting for this.

This isn’t something that I take lightly. I don’t think this is something that any of us on this side of the House take lightly. If the government thinks that they have the right to impose their own style of government on the people, well, they should be prepared for a fight. I think we’ve seen that already. I’m going to be fighting, tooth and nail, to defeat such an obvious political ploy.

I will stand up for my constituents. I will support this amendment to make sure that we do have this sober second thought. And I will make sure that we continue to be the envy of the world.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on the hoist amendment, hoist motion, brought forward by the members opposite with respect to our discussions on Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

I’ve listened to the debate. Speaker after speaker after speaker raised issues. I wonder, after reflecting upon it, if they recognize that we’re actually debating a bill that’s designed exclusively to create the legal framework for conducting a provincewide referendum before November 30, 2018, representing a proportional voting system.

Now, what I’ve heard here, in reflecting upon the need for more time, is members opposite on the one hand arguing passionately against proportional representation for reasons and rationale that are based on them actually knowing the outcome of the consultative process that is ongoing now. On the other hand, I’ve heard people argue against proportional representation in general. Some of the arguments have gone so far as to be, I would argue, somewhat outlandish.

One member opposite stated, and I quote — I mean, this is so inappropriate: “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.”

This is the member for Skeena who stood up and, in arguing against letting the people of British Columbia decide whether or not they would support proportional representation, evoked the fact that this could potentially lead to the rise of Nazis and a holocaust. This is so profoundly offensive that I honestly believe that that member should stand and apologize to the Legislature for those comments.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member opposite said I was taking it out of context. I encourage anyone here to go and read the Hansard. It was not taken out of context. It was there for all to see.

This entire debate, on both sides, has boiled down to one question. That one question is this: do we trust the people of British Columbia to actually determine the outcome of how their democracy would like to be?

This is not….

Deputy Speaker: Member, speaking to the amendment.

[5:45 p.m.]

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, I do appreciate you saying that, but I’ve listened, again, to speaker after speaker give speeches without referring to the amendment a single time during their speech. I have referred to the amendment many times already in this speech, yet the previous speakers have not.

I will continue to speak to the amendment and the reason why we don’t need to have the extra time. But I do reflect upon the fact that I did not hear other members do that in speaking to the amendment.

Coming back to the amendment, coming back to the rationale, we’ve had this debate boiling down to one question, on this amendment, as well as the motion before that: do we trust the people of British Columbia? Members opposite don’t seem to believe that we can trust the people of British Columbia to actually determine whether or not they want proportional representation. They don’t believe that we can trust the people of British Columbia to determine the outcome.

Their arguments against proportional representation and the need to consult further are compelling to themselves and their groups and their friends, perhaps. Then vote no, if there is a referendum. But we’re not debating proportional representation. We’re debating whether or not, this one question, we trust British Columbians to have a say. And do we need another six months to actually go through?

We know the reason why members opposite have turned this debate on whether or not British Columbians are entitled to a choice into a debate on proportional representation. It’s because, fundamentally, to quote their future leader, Dianne Watts…. On November 4, 2017, she said this. It’s because they said this, because…. You know what? “If we do not defeat this referendum, there will be no majority. There will forever be a minority of B.C. Liberals.” She also said: “That is my number one priority, and I’m hell-bent in terms of making sure that we defeat that referendum.”

Now, therein lies the problem. This hoist motion that’s before us now is nothing about proportional representation. It’s about fear — fear that the B.C. Liberals will actually tear apart and, actually, British Columbians, who we’re here to serve, will have a better choice as to who they want to represent them.

I have friends in the B.C. Conservative Party. I’ve got friends in the B.C. Liberal Party. I’ve got friends in the B.C. NDP. There is an unhealthy tension over there right now, an unhealthy tension because there’s a struggle for voices by members within that party. The whole purpose of proportional representation is to not create artificial coalitions but to allow society to be reflected in terms of the makeup of the people who represent them in government.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Again, the members opposite, who we sat quite patiently listening to, and it was trouble at some times, feel very uncomfortable when the truth is pointed out. The truth is that this is only about whether we trust British Columbians or not.

They don’t. They don’t trust British Columbians. They need more time — throw a hoist motion forward, and in doing so, what you’re basically doing is killing the bill. We all know that a hoist motion is killing the bill. That’s the purpose of this. They want to kill the bill, because they don’t trust British Columbians to actually determine the outcome of what they think is best. They don’t trust British Columbians to vote yes or no on proportional representation because the B.C. Liberals know the answer.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Members opposite are hung up on process. They’re hung up on process. What is ironic….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: This is the uncomfortable nature of the discussion, because the truth hurts. Let’s talk about the process, in response to the heckles from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. This is what the process is. There is a three-month consultative process ongoing right now. I encourage members opposite to do what the B.C. Greens are doing and to do, frankly, what the NDP are doing, and make your own submissions.

I’ve listened for…. It must be two months now. I don’t know how long we’ve been debating this bill. Member after member after member already say what proportional representation is. I heard one member saying: “Its ranked lists don’t work.” Well, your leadership convention is about to go through in terms of a ranked debate. I guess it works for B.C. Liberals, but it doesn’t work for proportional representation.

I’ve heard others talk about party lists, so you’re not actually voting for people, and “That doesn’t work.” But again, we don’t actually know what the question is.

[5:50 p.m.]

All this fear being put forward by the B.C. Liberals, and through their hoist motion trying to kill this, is basically fear of losing power. Because the B.C. Liberals care about power, not about doing what’s right for the people of British Columbia.

The irony in this as well — as we’ve heard talk, time after time, about these so-called backroom negotiations that led to this — is that the same negotiations were happening with the B.C. Liberals, who agreed to have a referendum in the fall of 2018. So I’m not sure what’s….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting that none of these members who actually attended those meetings seems to know exactly what went on in the meetings, but I actually was at those meetings. Hon. Speaker, let me tell you that there was no difference in the discussions that we had between both parties about the importance of having a referendum on proportional representation, in light of the fact that this is something that British Columbians had told us was very important to them — as the Prime Minister did as well, federally.

Let me come back to this again. Here’s the irony. I sit through question period day after day, listening to the members opposite hurl abuse at government and say: “You’re not fulfilling a promise.”

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It’s hard to hear….

Deputy Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: “You’re not fulfilling a promise,” they will say. “This promise is broken. That promise is broken.” But here we have a promise being fulfilled, a promise that the B.C. NDP campaigned on. They campaigned in the last election on actually having a referendum on proportional representation, and that’s what this bill is doing.

This bill is simply enabling a referendum to occur. There’s no question being posed yet. There’s no structure being posed. It’s simply informing a referendum.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: See, there we have the heckling, coming back to that again — the heckling opposite, saying: “You need to put the question for it.” Well, this points to the scale of their arguments. They’re internally inconsistent. They want to consult and we need to have a six-month hoist in order to consult as to what the question is, but now they’re heckling and saying we need to know what the question is now.

This is what happens when you have a party that’s hurting. I get that you’re hurting. I get that they’re hurting — in power for 16 years, now sitting in the benches there. There’s internal strife, as a few inner elite from the party from the past still dictate the way it will be and others don’t know what’s happening until they’re surprised in the chamber, and it frustrates them.

They see the liberty on this side of the House, where we have a working agreement, a working situation, showing British Columbians that two parties….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting, again. Nobody wrote my speech. I’m actually just going from the cuff there, to the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Here, too…. It’s hard to get a word in with the heckling, but I will say what’s interesting here, with the comment about the speeches. The speeches I’ve heard to this hoist motion, time after time…. I wonder if you have one speechwriter downstairs, because I hear the same examples appearing by 41 Liberal MLAs, time in and time out. The same examples. The same rhetoric.

I was, actually, quite pleased with the member for Peace River North. I commented. He’s gone, but I think he wrote his speech.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: That’s true. The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan — I have to give this to you. It cannot be said you’re not green, opposite, because you’re into recycling and reusing the speeches.

Coming back to the reason why the hoist motion is not necessary…. What we’re showing right now to British Columbians is that, yes, parties can work together. They can working together despite being fundamentally different in terms of values, despite the conflict that we have between these parties in the election campaign. We can show British Columbians that we can put people ahead of our partisan narrative.

[5:55 p.m.]

We see again this morning, as illustrated again, the games, which is why this is troubling to the B.C. Liberals, that get played. We need to hoist this motion. We need to hoist this bill to the future because it might affect our power. Everything is a game, and that’s what’s so sad. That is what’s so sad with what is going on here in the Legislature, both earlier today as well as now, when we listen to good people — good members opposite, the hon. members opposite — at times just reading scripts given to them by the 20-something-year-olds downstairs telling them to just make stuff up.

Again, I don’t want to criticize the member for Vancouver–False Creek because his speech was very good. It was actually clear that you wrote it yourself, not something that I’ve heard very often.

It’s important, though, to recognize that this ultimately comes down to one question again. This is what the debate is. The debate is one question. Do we trust British Columbians to determine their outcome? Yes or no?

The B.C. Liberals clearly will vote later and say, “No, we don’t trust British Columbians to determine their outcome,” whereas members on this side will say: “Yes, we trust British Columbians. We trust you to have a say in your future. We will give you that say in the future, despite the fact that in the quest for a Liberal majority, at all costs, they will suppress the rights of British Columbians to have a say in their democracy.”

J. Johal: It’s my privilege to rise for a second time to speak to speak on Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

Interjections.

J. Johal: Sorry. The amendment. As I outlined in my earlier speech on Bill 6, the measures that are being proposed will fundamentally change the way our democracy works but also impact our very way of life. The changes to our political system that are being discussed here will have far-reaching consequences in every community, workplace and home across the province. They will have an effect on every single person in British Columbia.

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

Or if you’re in New Zealand, you might be worried about New Zealand First, which is now part of the governing coalition there. They campaigned on a platform characterized by strongly restrictive immigration policies, no doubt making some folks very nervous about their future. Or if you’re part of the LGBT community in the Netherlands, you might worry about whether the Christian Union party, an anti-LGBT party that’s now part of the country’s four-party coalition government, will let you get married.

Indeed, this is a big concern with proportional representation, that fringe parties with extreme ideals and policy proposals can gain representation. Another concern is around the stability of government and what that means in people’s lives. Oftentimes, under proportional representation, coalition governments need to be formed. That can take time, leaving things in limbo for varying amounts of time.

Right now in Germany, they still don’t have a government after the 2017 vote, and they won’t have one until sometime in 2018. After the Netherlands 2017 election, it took 208 days before a government was formed. In Spain in 2015, the people there went 314 days without a government. And in Belgium, in 2010, it took 589 days for a government to be formed, more than a year and a half.

What happens when this type of delay occurs? Not very much. Sure, day-to-day operations proceed, but what about those big decisions government needs to make when it comes to big projects or an appropriate response to a major crisis? Oftentimes, these key decisions are delayed and put off, to the detriment of the citizens who live there and to the detriment of the local economy.

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

That could have happened under a stalemate, such as the one I highlighted in Belgium in 2010, and it’s not out of the question. It’s something we need to think about carefully as we consider changing something as important as our voting system.

Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the amendment, Member.

[6:00 p.m.]

J. Johal: We’ve heard a lot today. When you look particularly in the north, when you listen to residents when they’re concerned about proportional representation, particularly in and around the voting threshold…. We heard just recently that 10 percent of the public could vote. That would be a concern for those residents in the north, simply because that could pass as a law. That does not respect residents in the north.

My colleagues, particularly the one from Kamloops, brought this up not too long ago, earlier today. It’s about representation in regards to those in the north. In the city where I come from, Richmond-Queensborough, we know we’re going to get proper representation, but not in the north, and that’s a challenge for those residents.

I’ve talked about many examples about proportional representation, proper representation. We heard, just this week, Chancellor Angela Merkel pile pressure on social democrats to rejoin a grand coalition with her conservatives. This comes two months after Germany’s national election on September 24.

It’s difficult to believe Germany is still without a government, with so much at stake. Beyond domestic consideration, Germany’s leadership is required for many, many issues globally — conflicts in the Middle East, tensions with Russia, European Union issues and relations with the United States. All of that is put on hold. It’s now expected Germany will not have a government in place till 2018. Chancellor Angela Merkel has already stated she would prefer a fresh election to presiding over a minority government.

Those changes are coming to B.C. if citizens and legislators don’t speak up. These potential changes to our system could fundamentally change our quality of life in this province — taxation, health care programs, education, infrastructure. All of these things that British Columbians care about could be radically changed by the backdoor conniving, ever-shifting instability that proportional representation brings to government, not only because of delays and legislative gridlock but also because of the potential horse trading of platform promises amongst groups in the eventual coalition that’s formed.

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

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

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

“Metro contains more than half of the 4.6 million population of B.C., meaning Metro voters could tilt the referendum result. This regional imbalance is why the previous Liberal government required a double ‘super-majority’ in two earlier referendums on PR. In both those previous votes, the threshold for all the referendums to pass was set at 60 percent overall, plus at least half the votes in 60 percent of the province’s electoral districts. Now the NDP government is setting the bar far lower, with just an overall majority of votes required.”

As he’s pointed out, there is a regional imbalance in this province, and the NDP are happy to leave it to Metro Vancouver to make this momentous decision on behalf of all British Columbia. Now, I live in Metro Vancouver, as I stated earlier, in Richmond-Queensborough, but I see the lack of fairness here, and that’s not being acknowledged by this government, and I think others will see it too.

When you look at proportional representation and when you look at the many ways this government is working to manipulate the outcome of this referendum, you have to shake your head and wonder who they are really doing this for. Is it really for the betterment of British Columbians, or it is for the betterment of the NDP and its Green partners? We need sober second thought.

Once again, I quote Province columnist Mike Smyth. This time from his recent appearance on CKNW’s Jon McComb Show. He, too, has taken a look at the totality of these proposed changes. I quote….

Interjection.

J. Johal: Yes, I am using that example. Yes, that’s okay. Let me speak, sir.

Interjection.

J. Johal: Yes, I can include it.

“That’s why I say they’re making it as easy as possible for this referendum to pass and for proportional representation to be brought into B.C., because that’s a huge advantage to the NDP and the Green Party and a disadvantage to the Liberals.”

The media sees through this. It shouldn’t be this easy to change something that will seriously alter the fabric of our democracy and that will affect British Columbians across the province….

A. Weaver: I would rise on a point of order. This speech is word for word….

Deputy Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, what is your point?

[6:05 p.m.]

A. Weaver: My point of order is the speech we’re getting here is supposed to be on the amendment. It’s word for word from the second reading speech that the member did to the actual bill itself. The record of Hansard is there to illustrate it. The member is reading directly his previous speech. How can we allow that when we’re debating the hoist motion before us?

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Please continue.

J. Johal: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

I’ve touched on this already in regards to this particular motion.

Interjections.

J. Johal: Yes, we have. Thank you. We’ve gone through this exercise twice already in B.C., once in 2005 and again in 2009. Both times the independent, non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform defined the process and question.

It was a professional election, not mail-in ballots but people getting to vote and handled properly. I remember clearly the massive undertaking that was the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head will come to order.

J. Johal: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The system was studied for 11 months, looking at how votes cast for provincial elections translate into seats in this Legislature. What’s more, they considered the input of thousands of British Columbians through 50 public hearings and more than 1,600 written submissions.

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

Each group was given $435,000 to undertake public information campaigns, and a further $65,000 was provided later in the process.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. Johal: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

For the referendum to be binding, the approval level had to be at least 60 percent of the total popular vote provincewide. For strata councils, we need 75 percent. But the NDP on major motions in their own party — you need 60 percent.

The reason I’ve laid out the details on these two previous referendums is because I want to highlight how the process was turned over to the people. It was in the hands of British Columbians. The process was free of political interference and manipulation. As we stated earlier already, we heard the Attorney General, or spokesperson for the Attorney General’s office say, that even if 10 percent of British Columbians voted, that would be acceptable. It is not.

Citizen participation is one of the most basic signposts of a democracy. It doesn’t just include people’s right to vote in elections. It also means they have the right to be informed and debate issues. So when we look at this bill, and we see that rather than asking British Columbians for their opinions, the NDP will determine the referendum question likely with guidance from their Green partners as we all know.

We’ve seen what they’ve written. We know what they’re going to be asking. We know that. Instead of a simple yes or no, we’re going to have many, many questions diluting the very reason why we’re doing this. It was a campaign promise, and they haven’t lived up to it. Another broken promise.

We know very well participation builds a better democracy. We know that — the more voices, the better. Back in May, the now Premier promised British Columbians that any referendum question, like I said, was going to be a simple yes or no. When asked by Rob Shaw of the Vancouver Sun: “You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no?” And Shaw clarified that quote. “So you give them one system to vote on?” And he said: “Yeah, exactly.”

Now the commitment has been abandoned. So add that to the growing list of the government’s broken promises. They said taxpayer’s money wouldn’t be subsidizing political parties — broken promise, of course. They backtracked on $10-a-day daycare. What kind of confidence can British Columbians have with this process but also with the NDP and Greens?

In closing, radically changing 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 these seats in the House.

[6:10 p.m.]

It’s important we go back to our constituents and hear from them. The 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 same outcome desired by the NDP-Green coalition. I hope they will take our amendment into consideration in a similar meaningful and genuine way.

N. Letnick: Thank you to all the members in the Legislative Assembly who have spoken to this. Given the interest of time, I will not speak very long on the amendment. I will just say that I support the amendment. I think the members of this side of the House have clearly articulated why we should take some time out to think about the process as well as the outcome.

It’s important to recognize that when you look at a piece of legislation as important as this, the process to achieve that legislation is just as important if not more important than the outcome itself. That requires some time. If you look at the pundits that come and watch us every day in these hallowed halls, they have clearly come out in favour of reviewing this legislation and taking time to do it right, because what’s happening right now is jiggery-pokery.

I can tell the members opposite…. Some of them are Rotarians. I would ask them to consider the four-way test in Rotary. Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build better friendships and relationships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? I can tell you right now, this fails the four-way test of Rotary. This fails all common decency when it comes to legislation.

They should take the time-out. If they don’t take the time-out, they will get a time-out come the next election. I will support the amendment to delay.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, hon. Members, the question is the amendment.

Division has been called.

[6:15 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the hoist amendment on Bill 6, put forth by the member for Nechako Lakes.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 38
Cadieux	Rustad	Bond
de Jong	Coleman	Wilkinson
Stone	Bernier	Wat
Johal	Lee	Hunt
Barnett	Tegart	Martin
Throness	Davies	Sullivan
Polak	Morris	Ashton
Oakes	Thomson	Sturdy
Ross	Isaacs	Milobar
Thornthwaite	Clovechok	Yap
Redies	Paton	Gibson
Sultan	Shypitka	Reid
Letnick		Foster
NAYS — 44
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Krog	Furstenau	Weaver
Olsen		Glumac

On the main motion.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 6.

Division has been called. Members, waive the time?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

Second reading of Bill 6 approved on the following division:

[6:20 p.m.]

YEAS — 44
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Krog	Furstenau	Weaver
Olsen		Glumac
NAYS — 38
Cadieux	Rustad	Bond
de Jong	Coleman	Wilkinson
Stone	Bernier	Wat
Johal	Lee	Hunt
Barnett	Tegart	Martin
Throness	Davies	Sullivan
Polak	Morris	Ashton
Oakes	Thomson	Sturdy
Ross	Isaacs	Milobar
Thornthwaite	Clovechok	Yap
Redies	Paton	Gibson
Sultan	Shypitka	Reid
Letnick		Foster

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.