Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 6. In Committee A, I call the Premier’s estimates.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: The critic is here. Also with me here is Kevin Atcheson, senior policy and legislation analyst, and Nancy Carter, executive director of civil policy and legislation with the Ministry of Attorney General.

We look forward to hearing the questions from the members about section 1.

J. Martin: Thank you for being here. I understand the minister is a little bit under the weather. I hope it doesn’t escalate into anything and wish you all the very best there.

Thank you for this opportunity. We’re engaging in a relatively significant piece of legislation. This is my first time, obviously, engaging in this particular process. I hope to be able to contribute to an informative discussion during this exercise.

The first thing I would ask the minister, dealing with the section 1 definitions is…. There is no definition of “proportional representation.” It’s a little bit out of the ordinary for most pieces of legislation that have come forward here, at least in the four-plus years that I’ve been around. Can the minister speak to the absence of a definition of the very concept that makes up the bill that has been debated and is going to be voted on?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his well-wishes. I’m sure if I’d eaten his barbecue, I wouldn’t have been in this situation with the food poisoning. I thank him for his wishes.

Section 1 has a number of definitions. What we’re doing is we’re going through the act, section by section, around the referendum that’s proposed for British Columbia around proportional representation.

The member asked the question…. He’s absolutely right. There is not a definition of “proportional representation” in the definitions. There are a number of different systems that fall under the heading of proportional representation systems. By putting a definition in the bill, we would have limited the potential systems that could be put forward, or the system that could be put forward to British Columbians following the consultation process. So it is not defined in the bill, to avoid constraining the option or options that go to British Columbians.

J. Martin: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

I would like to stay on this for at least a bit longer. I assure you I don’t want to try to be snarky or facetious, but I’m concerned. This is kind of reminiscent of: “We have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in it.” If we’re going to be voting on something of this significance — that is going to have such a long-lasting effect on the electoral system in British Columbia and how we do select our governments, potentially, for decades and decades to come — it would be nice to have some clarity before we get to that actual vote.

There may be a system of proportional representation out there that I haven’t come across that I just absolutely love. That hasn’t happened yet, but without knowing exactly what we’re doing…. Some of these systems that all get bunched together under proportional representation, they’re day and night. They’re as far-flung from one another as the existing system that we’re using these days.

Again, if I can just ask for some elaboration from the minister as to the absence of a working definition of proportional representation before we vote on it.

Hon. D. Eby: This is enabling legislation. There are two potential policy approaches to legislation like this. One is to predetermine the question and the threshold and spending rules and so on, in the bill. The other is to enable a regulatory-making power, go out to British Columbians, consult and use that to inform. It’s a chicken-and-egg situation.

I’ve heard criticism from the members opposite that they’re very frustrated that the threshold is in the bill, that that is set out in the bill. Now I hear that they think there should be a definition of a particular proportional system in the bill. You can’t have both. You have to make that choice.

[2:40 p.m.]

We wanted to be clear in the legislation about the threshold, that it was a very clear policy decision, and we wanted to keep open to British Columbians the possible systems that could be presented. So it was a policy decision made to not define a system in advance in order to permit British Columbians to provide their feedback on which system or systems they would like to see on the ballot.

J. Martin: Moving on, still with the issues around the definitions in section 1, referring to the “financial agent.” The financial agent for opponents’ and proponents’ organizations — is this the same working definition and the same legislation that governs a financial agent during a regular campaign? Is this a different type of financial agent that may have other accountability processes that a typical financial agent we all may have used during the general election may not have? Just kind of looking for some clarity — if this is a financial agent in the sense of what I’ve always understood a financial agent to be in British Columbia.

Hon. D. Eby: This is a consistent approach with previous referenda in British Columbia.

Two parts to the member’s question. The first is, yes, this is the financial agent that would receive…. If British Columbians say, “We think you should be funding proponent groups to go out there and do the work to advocate for first-past-the-post or to advocate for a proportional system. We think you should go out and do that to encourage debate,” this would be the person that would receive that funding and be accountable for it. There will be additional obligations placed on financial agents, more detailed obligations placed under the regulations, which is consistent with the approach of other referenda in the province.

J. Martin: Moving on in section 1, we have the opponent group. We have the proponent groups. Can you tell us, please, Minister, the process by which these are going to be…? Applications will come in to be identified. How will they actually be selected and authorized to be an opponent or a proponent of the legislation? How will that decision take place?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of different models of doing this, should British Columbians advise us they think that yes, groups should be funded to advocate for the current first-past-the-post system or to advocate for a change to a proportional system.

If they tell us that that’s what they’d like to see, there are two models that have been used in the past in B.C. In 2009, on the proportional representation referendum, the Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia administered the funds. He received funding from government and then administered it. In 2011, for the HST referendum, it was a different approach. The CEO was not involved at all. There was a referendum-funding decision-maker, who was Stephen Owen.

It’s to be set by regulation, but I can advise the member that subject to feedback from British Columbians, it seems preferable to have the Chief Electoral Officer do this work.

J. Martin: Are you able, Minister, to give some assurance that cabinet will not be the decision-maker about who does and does not get funded?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows that the Premier and the government have taken a position in relation to this referendum. They are taking the position in favour of a change to proportional representation. They’ve asked me to take on the role of, as best as possible, administering this referendum in a neutral way. The member can certainly be assured that when it comes to deciding if groups receive funding….

First of all, if groups receive funding, it will come from British Columbians, their recommendations in the consultation process. There will be a report. The member will be able to see the feedback from British Columbians and the recommendation based on that.

[2:45 p.m.]

Cabinet will not be deciding who gets the funding, given the fact that they have a position in the referendum. So whether it’s the Chief-Electoral-Officer model or the referendum-funding-decision-maker model…. As I’ve advised the member, the preference is the Chief Electoral Officer, subject to consultations with that office and British Columbians. That is our preferred approach.

J. Martin: There’s been a fair bit of commentary and coverage in the last ten days regarding four academics from four different universities in Canada that will be advising the government through the process. The commentary has suggested that three of them are strongly in favour of proportional representation and one of them is a proponent of the status quo.

There’s a 3-to-1 ratio in the advice coming in to the government. Can we have some assurance that we will not have a skewed opponent and proponent lineup and that there will be an equal amount of funding for both sides?

Hon. D. Eby: The simple answer to the member’s question is that if proponent and opponent groups are funded, they would be funded equally.

In relation to the experts, the member is right. There is a member who’s explicitly in favour of a first-past-the-post system. Other members have made statements in favour of different proportional systems, but the unifying characteristic of all these experts is that they have experience with these kinds of consultative processes with large groups of citizens, around ensuring that we get feedback from a large group of people on how to prepare that.

They are not designing the referendum. They helped us to prepare for the questionnaire that’s on line now at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. I encourage people to log on and share their feedback.

I note that in some ways — it’s a bit of the paradox — we are being criticized by both the first-past-the-post side and the proportional supporter side for the questionnaire. So I think that, in the nature of politics, we have achieved the goal of everybody being grudgingly accepting of the questionnaire, and no one side being overwhelmingly happy and one side being overwhelmingly unhappy. To the extent possible, I think we have achieved the goal of having a questionnaire that elicits from British Columbians their feedback about this process.

J. Martin: Will there be an appeal process for a group that has applied for recognition as an opponent or a proponent and been denied?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Previously, in 2009, in the referendum regulations, there were criteria for whether or not groups might be funded. There were criteria that set out certain positive requirements. You had to be a not-for-profit, members and directors couldn’t be compensated, membership had to be voluntary and open to all and at least two-thirds of the directors of the organization had to have been residents of B.C. for at least six months.

There were negative requirements. You weren’t eligible for funding if you were a political party or a constituency association, if any of the directors were candidates in the general election or were election officials, or if more than one-third of members were not ordinarily residents of British Columbia.

While I think that people who are interested in this level of detail about who is eligible for funding…. It would be a good idea to look at the 2009 regulation and provide comments on whether they thought that that was an appropriate structuring of who receives funding — assuming that British Columbians are, in fact, in favour of these groups receiving funding, which is not a foregone conclusion.

J. Martin: To the minister, is he prepared today to give — or, at least, speculate — to the House the funding amount that will be available?

Hon. D. Eby: Unfortunately, no. Even the decision about whether or not proponent groups should be funded has not been taken yet. It’s based on feedback from British Columbians. It will be in the regulations. If they provide the feedback that, yes, they think these groups should receive funding, there will be allocation of funding.

I would encourage the member and any interested British Columbians to provide submissions on that issue if they think that there should be funding and the amounts of funding, similar to previous referenda — additional money to increase outreach. That would be helpful information.

J. Martin: Moving, in the definitions, to the “voting package.” Some of the models of proportional representation would dramatically change the map of B.C. in terms of where the boundaries are today. There may be ridings still kept intact, but those ridings would also be identified by a particular region.

If the question on the ballot, or one of the questions on the ballot, is a reference to a system that would change the electoral map, as a voter, I think I would like to see what that actually looks like and where the government has decided what they’re going to call my jurisdiction or my region.

To the minister: can you tell us…? Will Elections B.C. be willing to provide such a map in that voting package?

Hon. D. Eby: Depending on the voting system or systems that are put forward by British Columbians, in terms of what they want to see on the ballot, there may be no change to existing boundaries or there might be significant changes, as the member says.

If there is a need for a redrawing of boundaries, as always, that wouldn’t be done by cabinet or by Elections B.C. It would be done by an electoral boundaries commission, independent of government, in order to avoid some of the excesses we’ve seen in the United States and ensure fairness to rural communities, and so on.

It will be very much dependent on which systems British Columbians want to see on the ballot, and then, ultimately, if they do choose a system that requires revisiting some or a significant number of boundaries, that would be done by an electoral commission. But we wouldn’t do that work in advance.

J. Martin: I raise that with some concern. I do recall the federal government, at one point, deciding to simply lump British Columbia into the west, while giving Quebec and Ontario and the Maritimes their own particular regions. It wasn’t particularly well received.

[2:55 p.m.]

I know that a lot of the polling that goes on in British Columbia has me in Chilliwack and everyone else in the Fraser Valley lumped in with the Lower Mainland. Them’s fightin’ words from time to time. I would encourage the minister to be very cognizant that this would be something that, particularly outside of the more populated areas of the province, would be of considerable concern to many. And my colleague has some inquiry on this section.

J. Rustad: I just need, if I may, two points of clarity. The first one. If what the minister had just said with regards to maps and if there are changes, obviously, there’d be an electoral boundary commission that would have to be struck to go through a process around that.

Is he really suggesting that he expects people in the province of British Columbia to vote on a potential electoral reform without knowing, seeing or understanding what the ramifications would be for the boundaries and the areas that they would have a representative to be elected to?

Hon. D. Eby: After every second provincial election in British Columbia, the Electoral Boundaries Commission revisits the boundaries of constituencies. They do it by consulting with communities. They do it by looking at major arterials and, sort of, divisions between towns or communities or neighbourhoods, depending on rural or urban areas. This is not an unusual thing, that the Electoral Boundaries Commission would do this kind of work, and especially if there was a change in the voting system that had implications for that, which is not a foregone conclusion.

J. Rustad: Respectfully, that wasn’t the question. I understand the role of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and the work that electoral boundary commissions do.

The question is…. We’re going to be asking people to vote in a referendum no later than November 30, assuming this piece of legislation passes. There may be one or multiple options. We don’t know that at this particular point. Those options, obviously, have ramifications in terms of riding boundaries, in terms of not just the way people vote but the way people will be represented in this Legislature.

Once again to the minister, is he honestly going to go forward asking people to be able to vote and decide on a voting system without understanding or seeing the ramifications of any particular boundary changes for a particular voting system?

Hon. D. Eby: The member understands, I know, that there are different proportional systems that may or may not require a change in electoral boundaries. The voting package that will be provided to British Columbians will have information about the implications of any particular voting system with respect to, for example, boundaries — how people would be represented in the Legislature and so on.

The goal is to get clear information to British Columbians about the systems so that they can vote in an informed way. So they will have that information.

J. Rustad: Will the minister ask Elections B.C. to draft tentative electoral maps that would then be distributed as part of the electoral package so that people can see the difference between the various voting systems as to what it would mean for their representation within a particular area?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s not the responsibility of Elections B.C. to draw boundaries for electoral districts in the province. It’s the responsibility of the Boundaries Commission. Any individual that receives a voting package will understand very clearly whether a particular option or options on the ballot requires the convening of an electoral boundaries commission to redraw boundaries.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m not sure how else I can assist the member on this line of inquiry.

J. Rustad: Depending on the system, in the case of Surrey, it could be the entire community that is one electoral region. It could be several. For a case of the north, it could be one across the whole north. It could be multiple.

Many people are visual. They like to be able to see things as opposed to just reading what a description is. Once again, given that this change, particularly for large geographic areas, has potential significant impact — as well as for urban areas — in terms of how people relate to their representative, will the minister commit to making sure that there is a visual representation of what the proportional representation options will look like for them?

Hon. D. Eby: There are many different considerations that go into determining electoral boundaries, and the Electoral Boundaries Commission has served British Columbians very well in trying to strike a balance on what is a very fraught issue for some communities. I don’t think, frankly, that it would be of assistance to people to put together a map that did not go through that process, especially knowing that it would have to go through that process if a system was chosen that required redrawing.

I do take the member’s point, though, that people need to have this important information, and the member should be assured that the comments and questions during this session, as well as the second reading speeches and so on, will be incorporated as part of the consultation process. So we’ll take that back. I have the member’s point.

J. Rustad: I hope that the minister will take that seriously. It is a very important component, especially for many people throughout the province.

A quick question to the comment that the minister made earlier with regards to potential funding to both the yes and the no side of various campaigns. The minister seemed to indicate that it may or, potentially, may not be provided. I’m wondering if the minister can provide some clarity. Is the minister honestly considering not funding a yes and a no campaign to be able to get independent or prospective positions and information out to the public?

Hon. D. Eby: This is one of the questions that we’re asking British Columbians: should proponent and opponent groups be funded? I definitely take from the member’s question that he believes that they should. There may be individuals who believe that they shouldn’t.

There are benefits to funding these kinds of groups. They can help advance the debate and discussion in communities. There are disadvantages in that public money is expended, and people might not feel that that’s the best use of expenditure of public money. We’ll hear what people have to say about that, and we’ll make a decision based on that feedback.

J. Rustad: That’s a very troubling statement that I’ve just heard. To think that we will be asking people to make a decision on changing the way democracy works in British Columbia…. We’re not going to necessarily be able to provide them with a map or a visual as to what that may look like, and there won’t be, potentially, public resources available to campaigns on the both the yes and no side to be able to get information out to people.

I know that the minister has said that he is going to remain neutral, although it’s pretty clear, through the answers of the Premier and others, that that is not the case in the desires of government. Does the minister honestly believe that…?

In the last go-round of the electoral reform that happened through the citizens’ assembly, there was an extensive process that went out and, even with all that extensive process, only 15 percent of the people were aware of what the option meant. Does the minister honestly believe that people will be able to make an informed decision without the kinds of resources made available by the government so that people can learn both the pros and the cons of any particular option that’s available?

Hon. D. Eby: I take the member’s point. I think we can agree that there are ways to improve on previous processes that have taken place. One of the ways is to ask British Columbians how they feel that this should be held, and that is what we are committed to do. I take the member’s point that he has a position on this. I encourage him to provide that feedback. I’m not sure what else I can say.

[3:05 p.m.]

This bill that’s in front of the Legislature does not require funding. It enables the possibility of funding if British Columbians want to see that happen.

J. Rustad: One last question — potentially one last question, I suppose. It depends on the minister’s answer. Does the minister believe that if public funds are not made available to the yes and no side of the campaign, his expectation is that third-party groups will be left with the entire burden to be able to inform the public with regards to the virtues and values of proportional representation versus single-member plurality or the first-past-the-post?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s our intention that British Columbians will be receiving factual information about different voting systems so that they understand what they are, they understand what the implications are of choosing them and they’re able to make an informed decision. That will be part of a voting package, which is here in this definitions section, and it will be funded by government to ensure that that information is available to British Columbians as part of the overall referendum funding process.

I don’t know. I feel that the member is trying to get to the conclusion of a process that has just started, which is consulting with British Columbians about how this referendum should be run — what the financing rules should be, whether a group should be funded, what the questions should be, what systems should be put forward, and so on. This is enabling legislation that creates the possibility of regulations that set out those matters through a public consultation process that’s currently underway.

J. Rustad: He’s expecting the members of this Legislature to vote on a package that may or may not include funding, that may or may not include information and that may or may not include biased information It’s pretty hard for us to be able to make an informed choice in here, let alone being able to go out and explain it to our constituents.

With regards to this, the minister has stated that a package will be put together. I’m assuming that’s a package that will be put together by government — a government where the Premier has said that he is in favour of electoral reform going to proportional representation — and through a partnership, obviously, with the lesser party with regards to the agreement that they have, which is in support of proportional representation going forward.

How can the minister ensure that there will be a neutral or fair prospective on the package of information that would be out and available to voters in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his question. He does need to understand that materials will be assembled by public servants in the Ministry of Attorney General — government lawyers who do not have a dog in this fight and will be putting together a package to inform British Columbians.

The member can vote for the bill or not vote for the bill. That is his choice. The policy decision that was made here was enabling legislation to assist in a consultation process and then regulations based on that consultation process that inform the voting process.

The member should also know that it’s not a foregone conclusion in referenda in B.C. that proponent and opponent groups are funded. In the TransLink referendum, for example, the government did not fund proponent and opponent groups and, similarly, in the 2002 referendum on First Nation treaty rights. So it’s not automatic that that happens in British Columbia under the previous government, and we didn’t think it should be automatic here. We wanted to hear from British Columbians.

J. Rustad: The difference, of course, being vastly different between funding of a project or asking of opinion, as opposed to changing the electoral system and the way democracy works in the province of British Columbia. So I would argue that those two examples are not fair or relevant to this debate that we’re having in the Legislature here today.

[3:10 p.m.]

With regards once again to this, can the minister commit to…? Or maybe I should just take one quick step back. Obviously, this material will be produced by a professional civil service that does the job at the direction of ministers, at the direction of government. They will then provide that information, I’m sure, to the minister — or to cabinet, depending on which it is — to approve that information before it would be sent out.

To at least bring in some level of unbiased and neutral perspective to what the minister is proposing, will the minister commit to having an independent officer, or a number of independent officers, of the Legislature review this information and provide commentary prior to it going out, to assure the public that the information to be provided is truly neutral and is truly unbiased in the package that is put together?

Hon. D. Eby: In 2005, the proportional representation referendum proponent and opponent groups were not funded, just to correct the member on the record. It’s not unusual for government to produce neutral material, non-partisan material.

I mean, there were some issues, frankly, with the previous administration that the Auditor General identified. But generally speaking, government, all the time, produces neutral information for British Columbians to inform them about their rights, obligations, and so on. This is not an unusual thing, and I have confidence our public servants will be able to do this this.

J. Rustad: Given the significance of what is being proposed here through this, is it something that the minister would consider, to add that layer of neutrality and independence to information being provided — that the independent officers of the Legislature be provided with an opportunity to review and comment, particularly the Chief Electoral Officer, but also, potentially, others in the suite of independent officers that we have?

By doing so, it would provide a layer of independence and quality to the people and reassure the people of British Columbia that this government is serious about being able to provide neutral and unbiased information with regards to such an important decision for the future of democracy in this province.

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member has a suggestion that is definitely worthy of bringing forward in terms of making recommendations about how the referendum should be held. I encourage him to do so through the consultation process.

J. Rustad: I’m assuming that this debate is part of that consultation process. I’m assuming that when the minister says that, it wouldn’t be required to re-record or rewrite all of these things that I brought forward but that this information that’s being brought forward as part of this debate will be part of the package that the minister will consider in terms of what’s being brought forward.

Hon. D. Eby: Just to put it on the record, yes, the member is correct. Also, I’m joined by members of the Ministry of Attorney General staff who are taking notes and keeping track as well. So on two levels.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Minister. We’ve got a few questions here around the public consultation aspect of this bill. I’m just wondering…. I’ll try to burn through them fairly quickly. You answer right back nice and quick, as well, so that’s nice to see.

I do notice this Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act…. I know it’s a mouthful, and in government, we like to get down to acronyms. I notice that it comes down to ERRA. That seems to be a fitting bit of slang there, I think, towards some of these things. But I digress.

To the minister, prior to the confidence and supply agreement, which was signed at the end of May, when did the government consult the public, if at all, on Bill 6?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’s an interesting question. When you’re talking about that kind of proximity to an election where proportional representation in a referendum was part of the discourse and debate among the public, generally speaking, the election would be considered quite a definitive process around that. This bill, though, I should note for the member, is enabling — recognizing that there is more consultation work to be done.

We have a consultation process that’s underway right now at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. I encourage members, political parties in and outside of the Legislature, and British Columbians to participate in that to inform, for example, section 2 here that we’re talking about. That is: what should the question or the questions be?

P. Milobar: Thank you for that, Minister. I do recognize that there’s ongoing consultation, but this is really meant to try to find out the consultation that’s taken place between the election and where we are today, so bear with me.

I’m wondering: who did the government consult with, if at all, before the confidence and supply agreement?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member about consultations that were done in preparing this legislation for the House.

Elections B.C. was consulted. The Chief Electoral Officer. Staff in Municipal Affairs and Housing were consulted because initially we had been thinking about holding this at the same time as the municipal election.

Actually, I understand it was in 2009 when the previous government, on their proportional representation vote, had the same idea — that it should be held with the municipal election — and moved away from it for the same reason that we did. The costs were huge, and the turnout was less. That consultation assisted us in informing the decision to do a mail-in ballot as opposed to pairing up with the municipal election.

Ministry of the Attorney General staff were also consulted on administration and legal issues to ensure that the legislation conformed with laws in British Columbia and Canada.

P. Milobar: Back to the minister, was that consultation that was just listed off done prior to the confidence and supply agreement, or was it done post the confidence and supply agreement?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is testing my chronology here, but I understand that the confidence and supply agreement was key to the government forming government. It was a prerequisite to forming government, so by definition, any activities that were undertaken by me as minister or by our government were after the confidence and supply agreement negotiation, because before that we were not in government.

The member might remember that there was a limbo period of an extended period there where there were Liberal ministers and Liberal government, still, and a throne speech that ultimately was voted down. I’m not sure if that helps the member. I don’t quite know what information he’s seeking here, but if that’s helpful.

P. Milobar: I guess, based on the previous answers, what I’m looking for is…. Recognizing that you were in opposition officially at the time, as the minister and now government colleagues were trying to form an agreement with the confidence and supply agreement…. Were there discussions with any of those departments — the Elections B.C. staff, others that you referenced — while the negotiations around the confidence and supply agreement were being negotiated?

Hon. D. Eby: There were a lot of times in opposition when I wished I could’ve gone and spoken to staff from the Ministry of Attorney General or Municipal Affairs and Housing or Elections B.C. to get the straight goods on what was going on, but unfortunately, opposition members did not have that kind of access. The member will realize that now.

[3:20 p.m.]

The ministries report to ministers, to the executive committee, to cabinet, so by definition, no, these consultations couldn’t take place because we didn’t have access to these staff until we formed government.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. Yes, I do recognize that. It’s been made abundantly clear that it’s a little bit harder, even in my short time in this House. It was a very strange time of transition back in the spring, so you never know what conversations were enabled that maybe wouldn’t normally happen.

We’ve covered off pretty good what happened up until the signing of the confidence and supply agreement. I’m wondering. Could the minister could let me know: once they became government, who did they consult before introducing Bill 6? Is it more than that previous list?

Hon. D. Eby: As a side note, I would encourage the member that if there’s ever a briefing that he requires that he’d like to talk to staff about, I don’t believe that there’s a single case where we’ve turned down a briefing for a member. To the credit of the opposition, it’s my recollection, actually — and I spoke too quickly — that whenever I asked for a briefing, I did get a briefing from staff. I can’t remember a time when I was turned down. It’s a good tradition, and we should encourage it.

After we formed government and we had access to staff, we consulted with Elections B.C. and with Municipal Affairs and Housing in relation to particularly tying this in, potentially, with the municipal election cycle. And we consulted with the Ministry of Attorney General on administration and legal obligations.

P. Milobar: It sounds like there was a fair amount, understandably, of interdepartmental governmental conversations and discussions that started to take place between the confidence and supply agreement and the introduction of Bill 6. Were there any stakeholders that were consulted that would have been maybe considered more outside of government between the confidence and the supply agreement and the introduction of Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re racking our brains over here, but Elections B.C. is the only group, and they’re arm’s length from government but would still probably be considered part of government broadly. So, no.

P. Milobar: Just to make it abundantly clear with the minister, then. So other than the NDP and the Green parties, was there anyone else, other than the previously mentioned governmental agencies, that would have been assisting in the drafting of Bill 6 in terms of comments and assists there?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t believe there are any. If the member could give me examples of what he’s thinking of. I’m not sure, aside from the groups that I’ve already listed here, how I can assist.

P. Milobar: Well, it would have been groups like Fair Voting B.C. or any of those, but it doesn’t sound like that. I’m sure that the minister could wrap that into the next answer, too, then, on this next question, so I’ll move forward a little bit here.

We know that there have been quite a few of the civil servants in different departments, as well as the Green Party and, one would assume, the secretariat assisting in the drafting of Bill 6. Will the government be willing to provide to the public a full listing of all the civil service departments and others that assisted in the drafting of Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for clarifying. I can read for the member from a November 29, 2017, release to their membership from Fair Voting B.C. “The bad news: because of ambiguities or misleading assumptions built into the survey, there are some potential traps that could cause reform supporters to inadvertently give opponents ammunition to use against reform.” So this is not a group that was…. They, like some of the first-past-the-post proponents, have some concerns and questions about the survey, because it’s balanced between the two different systems.

[3:25 p.m.]

But, no, Fair Voting B.C. was not consulted by the government before, in the drafting of the legislation. I can also advise the member that the Greens were not involved in the drafting of this bill. The drafting is done by Ministry of Attorney General staff, and it goes through a legislative process within government.

P. Milobar: Maybe just to seek some clarification, then, if there was not direct help in drafting of the bill from the Green Party, our understanding from this side of the House is that within the confidence and supply agreement, there’s supposed to be a no surprises rule discussion ahead of time, making sure that things are lining up within the bill. Is the minister saying that those discussions did not take place with the Green Party prior to the introduction of Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that staff gave a briefing to the Greens on the bill, but staff took direction from me and from cabinet in preparing the bill.

P. Milobar: I’m wondering, then, if the list is not going to be made public, or if it will be, but more around that, then…. Is there the opportunity for the draft of that brief, which was presented to the Green Party, to compare and contrast it versus the bill that we now see in front of us so that the public can fully understand whether or not there were any changes post-briefing before it became a public document in the House?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there were no changes resulting from that briefing. The process of briefing is…. Generally, I know that the members on the other side have taken advantage of briefings before. I know that I have, when I was in opposition. It’s not a written document. It’s a Q and A with staff about issues.

P. Milobar: I fully understand what a briefing is and how they work. However, I also understand that when they take place under the provisions of a confidence and supply agreement in a secretariat office, we don’t necessarily have the assurance, without asking, that changes aren’t made post-briefing based on the questions that may have been presented or concerns expressed by members within that secretariat, either by the Greens or by the NDP.

As perhaps…. I won’t say “annoying.” As much as these questions maybe don’t seem to make a lot of sense — or maybe make one question whether or not we even understand how the process of government works — I think the public is wanting to get a good sense of the process that’s been used to develop this legislation within the context of a supply and confidence agreement that was designed and predicated greatly, one could argue, on this whole piece of legislation around proportional representation and the need for a vote or not the need for a vote and the shifting sands that we’re seeing from the Premier in terms of the statements he’s made.

That’s really the goal here — to try to find out what exact consultation was done and what changes may have been made based on that consultation. To that end, I’m just wondering: can the minister let us know if there was any public consultation whatsoever from the time that they became government to the introduction of Bill 6 around Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: The public consultation process is going on right now. If people are interested, they can go to engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote and participate in that consultation process. There’ll be a report prepared from that with recommendations that will inform regulations around how this will be held.

[3:30 p.m.]

The public consultations were not in relation to this bill. The consultations were with Municipal Affairs and Housing, which informed our decision to do a mail-in ballot instead of tying it in with the municipal election, with Elections B.C. to ensure that they were in the loop of what was going on, and the Ministry of Attorney General staff on the administration and legal obligations with respect to the bill.

P. Milobar: Given that there was some consultation that happened from the time that this government took office to the introduction of Bill 6, will the government be providing a list of all of the public and private consultation meetings that took place prior to the introduction of Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has the list. He can print the Hansard if he wants. It’s a very short list: Elections B.C., Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Attorney General staff.

P. Milobar: By that answer…. I appreciate that, and yes, we will make sure we jot it down out of Hansard. I must admit we were somewhat hoping that maybe the answer would be a little bit lengthier and that there was actually, perhaps, a bit more consultation undertaken by this government to even get us to where we are today.

I’m just wondering…. One last question that I have around the whole consultation mandate of this bill and moving forward with the consultation. Is the intention, as we move forward, to make sure that all of those consultation pieces will be provided and make sure that everyone can have access to see what the final consultation submissions were throughout this next process being undertaken by the province?

Hon. D. Eby: A report will be prepared from the consultation materials. There will be recommendations in the report. This will be a public report, available to the public to see, for all to see, and it will go in to the cabinet. They will make regulations based on those recommendations, and the public and the opposition will be able to evaluate whether the regulations reflect the recommendations of the report.

D. Clovechok: To the minister: thank you for your time. I can see that you’re not feeling well, so I won’t be that long. It shows, and that’s not a good thing. All the best with that.

Just a quick question.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: You should have.

Your leader had, at one point, promised, on the referendum…. My question is more about process. Your leader had promised a yes or no on proportional representation, on the referendum itself.

To the minister: could you confirm that there will be a yes-or-no question on that?

Hon. D. Eby: To the member and to all the members who are asking questions about what the question will be on the ballot, there’s a consultation process that’s underway right now. If people are interested, they can go to engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote and provide their submissions about what they think the question should be. It’ll be considered with the other submissions from other political parties in British Columbia and people from across the province. The member may be interested to know that we had 1,700 submissions on the first day. So it’s been well taken up by British Columbians.

D. Clovechok: To the minister: thank you very much for that answer. It didn’t really answer my question, though. Is the referendum itself going to be a yes-or-no question? Not the content….

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’s not clear to me what the member’s submission to the consultation process would be — that it should be a yes-or-no question or that it should be something else — but it doesn’t particularly matter if he doesn’t provide a submission. If he wants to influence the question on the ballot, he should provide a submission at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. That will be the process by which recommendations are solicited from political parties and people from across British Columbia, and the question will be based on those consultations. So I encourage the member and all political parties, both inside and outside the House, to participate in that process.

The Chair: Columbia River–Revelstoke.

D. Clovechok: Welcome. Good to see you.

The Chair: Thank you.

D. Clovechok: It’s an unfortunate answer, and it’s an answer that I personally have to disagree…. What I’d like to do is propose an amendment to Bill 6:

[SECTION 2 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(2) For the referendum to be conducted, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must, by regulation,

(a) state the question or questions that will be put to the electorate at the referendum,

(a) state the yes or no question that will be put to the electorate at the referendum,

(b) specify the date on which distribution of the voting packages must commence, and

(c) specify the date on which voting in the referendum closes, which must be no later than November 30, 2018.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll wait to see a copy of the member’s proposed amendment.

The Chair: We’ll take a moment while they’re distributed.

On the amendment.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll be opposing the proposed amendment for the simple reason that we’re engaged in a consultation process with British Columbians about what the question should look like. The member wants to substitute his view for the view of British Columbians about what the question should look like.

We have 8,328 questionnaires complete as of today, and 6,522 have done the full questionnaire and 1,806 have done part 1 only. So with all due respect to the intent behind the member’s proposal, and I understand it, there is a consultation process with British Columbians going on. I don’t understand why the member wishes to short-circuit that consultation process with his own personal view.

Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order.

D. Clovechok: I’m certainly not trying to shortchange anything. I think it’s admirable that British Columbians are already responding, and that’s a good thing, But my point to this amendment is it’s not through the consultation process to British Columbians. It’s actually that the leader, the Premier, actually stated before that there would be a yes-or-no question on this. So what I’m saying to the minister is: is that statement that was made by the Premier false?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s challenging. If the member’s proposal had been in the bill, he’d be proposing an amendment to remove it to say we shouldn’t predetermine what the question should be. We should base it on the consultation.

There are 8,328 British Columbians who, in good faith, participated, to date, in a questionnaire and a feedback process on line. I don’t agree with the member that he should substitute his own views. Or with respect, he says that he’s substituting someone else’s view on their behalf. I don’t agree with that. I think British Columbians should be the ones who have the say about their voting system, about the ballot and that that’s a preferable process. That’s what this bill reflects in its current state.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for your answer. It’s not that I’m inserting my personal opinion. Actually, just as a sidebar, the neutrality that he spoke of…. I believe I just heard the word “we.” That’s not so neutral, but I just put that onto the record. I’m not inputting my own personal opinion into this. I believe that British Columbians should have the opportunity to make choices. But what I’m saying is that the leader himself said that. A yes-no vote was what he wanted. I’m just looking to the minister to see if that still is holding.

Hon. D. Eby: Just for the record, this is a government bill. This is bill that I understand is supported by the government. So I’m not sure what the member’s point was about suggesting that there might be more than one member in this House that supports this bill. The intent behind the bill is to talk to British Columbians about what they’d like to see on the ballot. I oppose it. I won’t be making any more comment on it.

J. Rustad: I just want to pursue this one more time, if I may. During the previous election campaign, the party in power, the NDP, and the leader of the NDP promised very clearly in the platform and in public that there would be a vote on a referendum and that it would be a clear yes-or-no question. Is that promise and is that campaign platform irrelevant to the confidence and supply agreement that formed this? Or does the minister believe that a party should put forward their ideas and stick to their ideas that come out of an election?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I encourage the member and all members and also parties both in and outside of this House to provide submissions through engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote in particular, because that is the consultation process that 8,328 British Columbians have participated in to date to provide us with their advice about what they think the ballot question should be. I’m not sure how else I can help the member in terms of getting what he thinks the question should be on the ballot.

A. Olsen: I think that it’s important to also state that what this amendment is proposing is to actually circumvent a public consultation process, which is underway. It seems like a rather silly amendment, one that should have been put on the order paper. Perhaps we could have had a discussion about how it is, in fact, circumventing a process which is underway and one which I, personally, and my Green colleagues are not going to support because it’s important for the people of British Columbia….

Consistency doesn’t seem to be a principle which is guiding here at all. It’s kind of shocking — this amendment. But anyway, it’s not something that we can support.

[3:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Hon. Members, the division is on section 2 of Bill 6, as proposed by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 37
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	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

The Chair: Members, we’ll await the arrival of staff for the reconsideration of section 2.

[3:50 p.m.]

D. Barnett: To the minister, does the government agree that rural communities and their ridings will be impacted in a PR system?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s not necessary that rural voices be impacted. Over 8,000 people have participated in the survey. I can almost guarantee the member, based on what I’m hearing, that one of the concerns of British Columbians is ensuring that rural voice is protected. I certainly heard that in the second reading speeches. That will be part of the information going into the consultation process around the question and the process related to the referendum.

For the member’s constituents that are interested…. They should visit engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote if they’re interested in providing feedback on systems that they feel should be put on the ballot that might better represent and enhance the rural voice in the Legislature.

D. Barnett: Does the government agree that rural communities may lose representation in a PR system?

Hon. D. Eby: Just to the member and to any other members that are advocating particular systems or have concerns about safeguards in relation to any systems that are put forward on the ballot…. Their constituents should visit engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote to provide that feedback to the government to inform what system or systems are put forward to British Columbians on the ballot and what values in particular they would like to see reflected in those systems for the debate and the vote.

D. Barnett: Is it not government’s responsibility in a democratic society that all members of this province and country have fair and equal representation?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a very interesting question. I’m not sure quite the connection to this enabling legislation that creates the ability to set a question on the referendum ballot.

If the member feels that there is a system or systems that more accurately reflect the value that she’s putting forward there, which is a very good value, then she should participate in the consultation process at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote and encourage her constituents to do the same.

D. Barnett: Can the government provide a list of all the stakeholders in meetings that took place in rural communities prior to Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: For the member, there is a short list of consultations in preparing Bill 6, which is enabling legislation. The consultation is taking place right now, and if the member has constituents that want to participate, they should visit engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote.

The internal consultations that were done were with Municipal Affairs and Housing, and that was about whether we should pair it up with municipal elections or do a freestanding mail ballot.

I went through this earlier, but for the member, the advice that we got was roughly the same that the government must have gotten in 2009, when they were doing a similar process, when they thought they would tie in with the municipal election. The costs were significantly higher and turnout was lower than a mail-in ballot.

We consulted with Elections B.C., with Municipal Affairs and Housing on that municipal election issue, and with the Ministry of Attorney General on administration and legal obligations in preparing this legislation.

D. Barnett: Minister, some rural and remote communities and citizens do not have Internet. So my question is: how can these people participate and get the information should they wish to participate in this process?

N. Simons: On a point of order, Madame Chair. I’ve scoured the bill, and I don’t see reference to the consultation process herein. I believe questions around the consultation process are not part of the bill, and I wonder if the Chair agrees.

The Chair: Hon. Members, in the opinion of the Chair, the questions are on point.

Please continue.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple different ways for the member’s constituents to become involved. The website is engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. For those that don’t have Internet access…. I’m very excited about the work of my colleague, the minister for citizenship and technology. She’s looking at how we increase Internet access in rural communities across the province. But for those who don’t have Internet access, they can send their feedback to PO Box 9049, Station Provincial Government, Victoria, B.C. V8W 9V1.

In addition, packages will be distributed to libraries across British Columbia. The member can advise her constituents that if they seek to access that information, they can do it through their local public library in the new year. I’ll make sure the member gets notice of that when it’s available.

A. Weaver: To follow up on that, I have a question with respect to the availability of questionnaires on paper. There are constituents not only in rural B.C. but in my riding and others where people have sought access to fill in the questionnaire on paper. Will that be available to constituency offices, or is it available already for constituency offices across British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: To the extent that members can make Internet access available to constituents, perhaps in their constituency offices, to complete it on line, I’d really be grateful if they did that, because paper copies take a significant amount of staff time and labour to compile and put together.

It’s a necessary thing that we offer paper copies as well, as the member notes, for good and clear reasons, but if there’s a way for people to do it on line, we really encourage them to do that. Paper copies will be made available as part of a larger package at local libraries in the new year. I’ll make sure all members have notice of that so they can advise their constituents about how to get paper copies at a local library.

J. Rustad: The minister has talked about consultation in many of his answers, and the process. Out of curiosity, a simple question. This particular referendum that’s being proposed here has the potential to change democracy, or change the way we vote, for all the people of British Columbia. Can the minister please confirm that?

Hon. D. Eby: This is a referendum on whether to keep our current system or move to a more proportional system. That is the core of the bill that’s in front of the Legislature, and it would be a subjective measure whether someone feels that that’s an improvement or that is not an improvement.

That is why we’re encouraging feedback from people of all different perspectives on this issue at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote if they have feedback on particular systems that they feel would have more impact or less impact, depending on whether they feel that more impact or less impact on our current system is needed.

J. Rustad: Sorry. Maybe the minister didn’t understand the intent of the question. I’m just simply asking if the electoral system changes, is that a change for all the people equally in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: There is no decision yet on the system or systems that will be put forward on the ballot. I direct the member’s attention to the bill that’s in front of us. Section 2(2) talks about “state the question or questions that will be put to the electorate at the referendum” and that there must be “a referendum” — sub (1) — “respecting a proportional representation voting system throughout British Columbia.” Those are the requirements.

In terms of which system is put forward in the ballot, not decided yet. There is a consultation process going on. In terms of whether or not that vote will be successful or that British Columbians will vote in favour of keeping our current system, that has not been determined. There will be a vote across British Columbia on that.

The member’s question, though important, is but one aspect of the system or systems that might be put forward. What is the level of impact this change would have on the current system? I’d encourage the member and his constituents to provide feedback through the feedback system.

J. Rustad: I’m sorry. I mean, I’m just asking a simple question. The reason why I’m asking…. Obviously, if there’s a change in the way of votes, it changes…. It doesn’t change the fact that somebody is eligible to vote. It doesn’t change the fact that they participate in democracy.

[4:00 p.m.]

It changes the fact — potentially, if the electoral system changes — the way in which they can access or receive services through representation — whether it’s that suddenly the boundaries change, the ridings are larger, they’re smaller, it’s all from lists, or it’s all direct.

The reason for the question is just to confirm that if the electoral system changes, it would be a change that would impact, to whatever degree is relevant, various people that live in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is asking me to go down a road of speculation. The bill that’s in front of us is a very straightforward bill. It is enabling legislation that enables, following public consultation through engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote, a question or questions to be put forward to British Columbians with good and helpful information to assist them in deciding whether to keep our current system or change to a proportional representation voting system.

The system or systems that’ll be put forward have not been decided, the ballot question has not been decided, and the member’s question is just four steps down the road further than that.

J. Rustad: To the point, did the minister or any members of government or any members of the professional civil service engage with First Nations prior to the writing of Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: The member raises a very important question. In terms of the bill itself, which is enabling legislation, which will be informed by public consultation with the member, with his party, with the NDP party, with the Green Party, with parties in and outside the Legislature…. That consultation process that’s underway right now has an Indigenous component to it. My colleague the minister is currently in the process of designing the engagement with First Nations, and when I have more information about that, I’ll share it with the member. It’s an important question, and we should absolutely be engaging First Nations on this important question.

J. Rustad: I seem to recall reading — and perhaps I’ve got this wrong in terms of the precise wording of this — in the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, which this government has put, I believe, in every minister’s mandate letter…. One of the clauses in there refers to the fact that any legislation brought forward that would have an impact or potentially affect First Nations, whether it be their rights or title or otherwise…. They have the obligation to be consulted and engage and seek consent or consensus with regards to it.

I can look up the precise chapter of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, if the minister would like. But given that, that’s why I’m asking the question as to whether or not, prior to writing this legislation that potentially has an impact on First Nations, First Nations were consulted.

Hon. D. Eby: As I’ve advised the member and several members on the other side, this is enabling legislation. This section, in particular, enables the writing of a question, the date of the distribution of voting packages, the date on which the referendum closes, which must be no later than November 30, 2018 — and that there must be a referendum. That’s it.

The member and other parties and other individuals can go to engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote if they want to provide feedback on what the question should be, and so on. But I agree with the member that it’s not enough, with respect to First Nations. So that is why we will have a separate process where First Nations communities are directly engaged.

These are very important obligations that are put on us by our mandate letters and our commitments around UNDRIP and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and we will honour those, and we will talk with First Nations and get their feedback on this process.

J. Rustad: I am happy to hear that there will be engagement with First Nations after this bill is passed, assuming this bill passes this Legislature. However, that is not the intent of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in terms of being consulted prior to legislation that may have an impact on First Nations people.

[4:05 p.m.]

Was this issue raised at all during the gathering of all chiefs in early September as part of comments or speeches made by either the minister or the Premier or others to that assembly?

Hon. D. Eby: To the extent that I recall, various conversations with First Nations on critical issues around infrastructure, housing, economic opportunity for various First Nations, legal issues related to over-representation in the criminal justice system and the child and youth system came up, but I don’t recall that proportional representation was high on the list of the First Nations communities who set the agenda for those conversations.

J. Rustad: Over the past number of many years, we have had the fortune of signing a number of treaties. Clearly, in those treaties, whether it’s the Nisga’a treaty or the Tsawwassen treaty or Maa-nulth treaty or now the Tla’amin treaty, there is a requirement in there to consult with regards to legislation that may impact on their rights. Were those treaty nations consulted prior to Bill 6 being introduced into Legislature?

Hon. D. Eby: With all due respect to the member, it’s a bit difficult to sit here and take this from this member, when his party held a referendum on whether or not First Nations people have treaty rights. And that process was described as “one of the most amateurish one-sided attempts” to engage the public will that I’ve seen in my professional career. Native and church leaders called it “stupid, immoral, amateurish and racist.” It’s a bit much to hear from this member that he doesn’t think the consultation is adequate.

I’ll leave it at that. We will be engaging with First Nations communities on this process, and we will be engaging across British Columbia. Members who are interested, parties inside and outside the Legislature and people in the community can go to engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote to provide feedback.

First Nations will be engaged according to a process that my colleague the minister is working on as we speak.

J. Rustad: Although I appreciate the minister’s lecture on the follies of former processes, the reality is that there is legislation. There are laws that need to be followed. There are commitments under UNDRIP today, not 15 years ago under many different iterations of governments.

The reality is that there are obligations to do that work, to consult. I take it from the minister — and maybe he can just answer it as a simple yes-or-no question — that there was no consultation with treaty nations and that the spirit of UNDRIP was not upheld prior to the introduction of Bill 6 in this Legislature.

Hon. D. Eby: We are following a process that will not result in ballots being burned, turned into paper airplanes, cut into snowflakes, even toilet paper, which is how the CBC described that particular referendum.

We’re following a process. We’re engaging with British Columbians across the province, parties inside and outside the Legislature, members of the public at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. In addition, we are also engaging directly with First Nations. I hope that assists the member in understanding what we’re doing.

J. Rustad: It’s very disappointing to hear that the minister dismisses this important obligation and requirement that was signed in good faith between governments.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and his heckling — the heckling, which is not very parliamentary and standard or acceptable in the committee process.

Having said that, it is welcome to have a fulsome debate with regards to this. Now, having pointed that out….

Interjections.

J. Rustad: I respect that the member would like to get up, and he has an opportunity to stand up and ask some questions of this process, as opposed to just heckling and not being very democratic on something important….

The Chair: Members.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: To the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast: I am doing my job, and it’s unfortunate that you’re not.

The challenge here, of course, is that there are those obligations, and that is why I raise them. They are serious, and having been the former minister for what was then Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, which is now Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, we took those commitments that we made under those agreements very seriously.

[4:10 p.m.]

It was an important component of what was required to be done when we passed any kind of legislation. With any legislation that did come forward, we had to make sure, before it was brought to the floor — and I made sure of that — that those consultation components were undertaken if they were required to be brought forward. It’s unfortunate to hear that the minister hasn’t undergone that.

Can the minister please now explain the process that they’ll go through in terms of the consultation and engagement with the treaty nations as well as all nations across British Columbia in regards to this Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: Ministry of Attorney General staff reviewed the bill to ensure that it complies with our legal obligations. But I really do want to take the member back to the actual text of the section that we are looking at here. It says: “For the referendum to be conducted, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must, by regulation, (a) state the question or questions that will be put to the electorate at the referendum.” That is the core of the referendum — what question is put to British Columbians. It’s not determined.

This is enabling legislation. If we’re going to consult, that’s the way it’s got to be written. In fact, we just had an amendment from the other side that tried to restrict what the consultation could be by requiring it to be yes or no, based on the whim of a member on the other side and not through the consultation process.

With respect, we’ll be consulting with First Nations and consulting with British Columbians on what the question should be, what the system or systems should be that are put forward to British Columbians. We look forward to doing that. I hope the member will support the bill in that spirit.

J. Rustad: It’s a simple question in terms of what the engagement process will be with First Nations. The minister has stood up on many occasions, gave a website that people across the province can go….

Does the minister believe that that process of consultation meets the test and requirements of engagement and UNDRIP through the treaty nations as well as non-treaty nations in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: I feel like a broken record here. There is a process that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is engaged in right now around consulting with First Nations on this very question, which is additional to the website at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. It is an additional process to engage First Nations. I’m not sure how much clearer I can be on that point.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that answer from the minister. It’s very helpful. Can the minister explain what that process is that is being undertaken by his colleague?

Hon. D. Eby: I should note that this is separate. The consultation with First Nations is a separate piece, which is additional to our engagement with First Nations across the province through the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

It’s a separate and additional component, and First Nations will be consulted. Here I am, saying the same thing.

M. Morris: Just a couple of basic questions before I get into some of the detail on section 2 here as well. I just want to go to the statement that the Premier made with respect to the government supporting this proportional representation. Both he and the government support proportional representation. In fact, the Attorney is supposed to be neutral on this.

Did the Attorney have the option to recuse himself from introducing this bill and from participating at the committee stage here? Why did he choose to take the route that he’s taking if he is to remain neutral in this whole conversation?

Hon. D. Eby: The bill is a Ministry of Attorney General bill that came through the bill approval process. All government bills do. It is supported by the government, and it is enabling legislation. What it does is…. I feel like I’m saying that, and maybe the members don’t know what I mean.

Enabling legislation means that it creates a regulation-making power. The specific regulation-making power that’s created by this section, which I’m sure the member’s question relates to, is what the question should be on the ballot that’s put to the electorate at the referendum.

[4:15 p.m.]

There is a consultation process underway across the province. Over 8,300 people have participated in that process. We expect more to complete that before it closes on February 28. I encourage the member and all members and people across B.C. to participate at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote and inform what the question should be, what the system or systems that are put forward to British Columbians are. I look forward to those submissions.

M. Morris: Again, I ask the question: did the Attorney have the option of recusing himself from the process and having some other minister take up the role in presenting this bill and going through the committee stage?

Hon. D. Eby: I just literally have no idea what that has to do with section 2. Beyond that, what that process would look…. How would that even work?

M. Morris: I’m trying to get to the point that the Attorney and the Premier have stated that the Attorney will remain neutral on this particular issue, and I’m saying that it doesn’t appear to be neutral to me, to have the Attorney present this bill and to answer the questions at the committee stage. But we’ll go beyond that. I do believe that the Attorney did have the option of recusing himself in the process and appointing somebody else.

Another question I have, just prior to getting into the detail for section 2, is: why did the Attorney choose to proceed with Bill 6, versus using the existing Referendum Act? He said this is enabling legislation, but the existing Referendum Act provides the option for the Lieutenant-Governor to develop regulations to go through this process.

It seems to me that this is putting the cart before the horse. This is saying that this is exactly what we’re going to do. We’re going to be going into this referendum on a specific date, which we’ll get into shortly. But why did he choose to develop a brand-new bill instead of using the existing Referendum Act that we have on the books already?

Hon. D. Eby: Just to the member’s earlier question, it’s not actually possible for me to delegate legislative authority. Again, I have no idea what system he’s proposing except that I would recuse myself from the bill and somebody else would take it. But if his concern is neutrality, wouldn’t that just amplify…? It makes no sense to me.

In any event, the 2009 referendum used freestanding legislation, and we can guess why. We received advice from the legislative drafters that it was preferable, from a drafting perspective, to have freestanding legislation, rather than amending multiple sections of the other act to achieve what we wanted to here, which is enabling legislation, and going to the public, getting their feedback and incorporating it into the ballot question, the process itself, through regulation.

The member, his political party, members from any party, both inside and outside the House, and British Columbians across the province are encouraged to go to engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote if they want to have feedback into what that question should be, what the system or systems put forward to British Columbians should be.

M. Morris: I disagree with the Attorney’s position that he can’t give up the authority of his…. I’m not talking about the authority as minister. All it is, is presenting the bill in the House and debating the provisions at the committee stage. There’s no real authority required there. A minister can do it. Any minister of the government can present that on his behalf.

Getting back to…. We’ve had two previous referendums under the Referendum Act. The regulations were developed specifically for those referendums that were held.

[4:20 p.m.]

Is the Attorney saying that because they didn’t get the results they want in this specific situation, they want to narrow the parameters down and develop a specific piece of legislation that will direct the public into a channel that we didn’t see before with the referendums in 2005, 2009?

Hon. D. Eby: As a complete answer to the member’s question, I will direct him to the Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act. That’s where government in 2009 — the member’s party, when they were in government — set up freestanding legislation to achieve the same intentions and goals in relation and in, specifically, section 3, which says “The Referendum Act does not apply to the referendum” that his party held.

I guess if he’s critical of his party’s previous activities around 2009 — not what I’ve heard from the members, but if he is — then he should put it in a submission to engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. And the member’s submission, submissions from other members on the other side, members across B.C. and individuals across B.C. will be considered in the consultation process and will inform the question or questions that are put forward in the referendum which is what this section is about.

M. Morris: I guess that the existing Referendum Act probably didn’t confine things enough for government. So we’ll go with…. We’re debating this bill right now. Looking at Section 2: why did the government decide to hold a referendum on electoral reform before November 30, 2018?

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve been advised that we should prepare for about 30 months of preparation, if there is a vote to change the voting system, for the necessary preparatory work to take place to hold that election. That leads you to a November 30, 2018 date for instructions that are binding on government about what should happen through this referendum process.

I note that there are a number of pieces. We talked about Electoral Boundaries Commission. If there’s a system chosen that has some impact on boundaries and Elections B.C., it could have implications for them, depending on what system is chosen. The member should know that it’s just as likely that people will decide to keep the same system. In either result, it will be binding on government, and it will be done by November 30, 2018.

M. Morris: Again, this is a significant issue to change the electoral system within the province here. It seems a little bit irresponsible, perhaps, on my part, or on government’s part, to have such tight timelines invoked upon the people of British Columbia on something that is going to fundamentally change how we elect our officials across the province here.

Again, you said that you’ve been advised to have the timeline such as it is — November 30, 2018. Would the minister consider a longer time frame on such a fundamental change to the electoral system in B.C.? Would you look at extending the timeline?

Hon. D. Eby: We engaged in consultations with Elections B.C. in part to inform this decision about when the referendum would have to be held by in order for the intentions of British Columbians to be realized by the next election. So if they do decide to change the voting system in British Columbia, in order to realize that intention of the people that’s put to them by a vote, it has to be done by November 30, 2018.

[4:25 p.m.]

M. Morris: If it doesn’t, I guess it just extends to the next election. Would the minister agree that in the previous attempts on electoral reform here in British Columbia, there was considerable public consultation done in both those events prior to the referendums being held?

Would he consider that the consultation he’s contemplating under this act is going to be adequate with respect to the consultation that was done with the previous two referendums on this and the group that was put together to conduct those public consultations?

Hon. D. Eby: I can’t answer the member’s question with respect to what took place in previous referenda around consultation. I can tell you that I’ve been told — I wasn’t there — that in 2009, there was a commitment in the throne speech to hold a second referendum, that proponent and opponent groups were funded and that there was a referendum but there was not a similar consultation process to what we’re doing here.

This consultation process, I agree with the member, is different from what was done in 2005. It is different than what was done in 2009. But then again, we do have a different government. What we’re putting forward here is a consultation with people from across B.C. about what they’d like to see on the ballot, how they’d like to see this happen.

This section, in particular, talks about the question or questions that will be put to the electorate and is informed by the fact that we need to — if British Columbians want to, if they vote to change the voting system — have that binding result by November 30, 2018 to implement it. It is binding on government. So if we are to bind ourselves and oblige the government to change it, if that’s the will of British Columbians, then it has to be no later than November 30, 2018.

M. Morris: Does the government agree that Bill 6’s referendum schedule was set by the NDP and Green parties?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. The referendum question will be set by consultation with British Columbians. If they wish to participate in that, they should go to engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. I encourage the member to do that and all members — on the other side, their political party, the Third Party, the governing party — and any parties that aren’t in the Legislature to provide those kinds of submissions to participate in that. I note that there has been very significant takeup already in that consultation process.

M. Morris: I guess I’ll clarify it a little bit more perhaps. Was the date for September 2018 determined by consultation between the Green Party and the NDP?

Hon. D. Eby: The November 30, 2018 date is a logistical date. The goal of that date is to give government time, if British Columbians vote to change our voting system, so that we will be able to hold an election with that new system in the 2021 election. I hope that helps the member understand where that date came from.

M. Morris: Just to clarify, was the Green Party involved in the determination of that logistical date?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is fascinated by the Green Party. The issue in section (c) is the date when we have to have the binding result from British Columbians in order to hold the election. Thirty months sounds like a long time. But depending on the system or systems that are chosen, there are a number of different revisions that follow from that.

There’s legislation that’s required. It may be that Elections B.C needs to reform processes. It may be, depending on the system that’s chosen, boundaries. The Electoral Boundaries Commission needs to be struck and established.

[4:30 p.m.]

I know that 30 months sounds like a long time. It is not a long time for this kind of change. That’s why we set the date for November 30, 2018 — to make sure that when we say it’s binding on the government for the next election that we can actually achieve that.

M. Morris: I guess I didn’t hear the answer to the question I asked. Was the Green Party involved in the determination of the date for September 2018?

Hon. D. Eby: I refer the member to Hansard for my answers on this question.

M. Morris: Does the government agree that its accord with the Green Party is set to last until the next B.C. provincial election?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m looking at section 2 here. I don’t see that issue canvassed in section 2.

M. Morris: It goes back to my original question with respect to the involvement of the Green Party in the determination of the September 2018 date.

I ask the question again. Does the government agree that its accord with the Green Party is set to last until the next B.C. provincial election?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is asking a member of the wrong party that question. He should ask the Green Party what their intentions are.

M. Morris: It’s my understanding that government has an accord with the Green Party, so the Attorney should be aware of the terms of that accord. Surely the Attorney should be aware of what the terms are with respect to that question.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: This is politics, Member. It’s up to the Green Party what their decisions are. We’re in a minority parliament, as the member well knows.

M. Morris: Does the government agree that if the Green Party withdraws its support for government, the next election will be contested under the current first-past-the-post system?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of missing facts in the question that’s put forward, the scenario.

I can tell the member that if we haven’t conducted the binding referendum, then obviously, the election would go ahead under first-past-the-post. If the result of the referendum is to keep the existing voting system, then it will go ahead under first-past-the-post. If there is a binding result to change the voting system, from the voters of British Columbia, and the parliament dissolves with insufficient time to pass legislation that would actually fulfil that binding obligation, then the election would be held under first-past-the-post.

There are a number of different possibilities that could result in the next election in B.C. being held under a first-past-the-post system.

M. Morris: Does the government agree that if it’s defeated in a confidence motion prior to July 1, 2021, the next provincial election will be contested under first-past-the-post even if voters approve PR under Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a very challenging question in that it’s quite speculative. So the question is, obviously: how much time has passed between the binding result on government and the holding of an election based on the loss of a confidence vote? We don’t have those variables, and we don’t have a chart that sets out these kinds of things.

I’ll check with staff if there’s any expert advice on that. You know what? I have a tendency to stand up too quickly before consulting with staff.

Section 9 of the bill talks about what the duty is on government if the referendum is binding. If the result of the referendum is binding on the government in that it will have to change and the ballots are in favour of a new voting system, the government needs to take steps.

If the legislation is passed that establishes the new voting system, it would be for a general election called on or after July 1, 2021. But if the election is called before July 1, 2021, then it would be held under the first-past-the-post system.

J. Martin: I would respectfully request a brief recess.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:35 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. We look forward to a series of questions here.

Despite the member opposite reflecting on the questions about the relationship with the Green Party, that is absolutely relevant to this discussion because there is an agreement in place. Ironically, I was just in the estimates of the Premier, and I was advised to come and ask questions in this chamber. I am certain that the Attorney General is going to be willing to have a conversation about matters that are incredibly important to British Columbians. I sense his impatience with our questions. Having said that, it is his job to assure British Columbians that this is going to be a fair process.

I want to reflect for a moment on the comment that the Attorney General just made to my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie. He actually referenced the conversation between the Green Party and the government. He called it a political matter. In fact, I’ve been advised just the opposite in terms of the Premier’s estimates, reflecting on the agreement made between the two parties, that it was not a political agreement. It’s a management agreement. In fact, there will be discussions about these issues.

To go back to that question to the Attorney, was this issue discussed with the Green Party through the non-political secretariat and agreement?

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve canvassed this extensively. I refer the member to my answers in Hansard. But I do regret very much her mischaracterization of my remarks. The question was: will the Green Party take down the NDP in a confidence vote before the date and the bill or before certain dates? That is a political decision of the Green Party. It is not one that I can comment on in committee stage on a bill.

S. Bond: Well, then, perhaps the Attorney would consider answering a question on this question. Considering that on page 3 of the confidence and supply agreement between the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. New Democrat caucus, the question…. This section, for the Attorney’s reference, actually talks about the question, the date. The question is an important discussion. In the supply agreement, there is reference to the form of proportional representation.

Can the Attorney General describe to us how there is a divergence from the agreement and the legislation, which points to the possibility of having more than one form of representation on the ballot?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Just for the member, again, she can hypothesize different situations about how a question might come to be, but the answer about how it will come to be is quite straightforward. There’s a consultation process happening with British Columbians right now on line at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote.

In addition, members in rural areas can vote through a PO box. I refer the member to my answer earlier. We’ll have materials in libraries across British Columbia so people can get paper copies if they need, although we encourage them, if they can, to fill it out on line to ease the burden on staff, to the extent possible. We recognize that paper copies are necessary.

That is how the question will be determined. That is how the system or the systems that go ahead will be determined. I thank the member for her question.

S. Bond: To the Attorney General, in the agreement — which was signed, I believe, in the summer at some point in time — the date of the referendum is actually included. The minister refused to simply answer the question — were the Green Party consulted on the date of the potential referendum? — when, in fact, the agreement says it will take place in the fall of 2018. Would the Attorney General comment on that, please?

Hon. D. Eby: I have commented extensively on how the date was set, and I refer the member to Hansard.

The Chair: Does the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head have a point of order?

A. Weaver: No, just a quick question on this line of questioning. I just wanted to ask the minister if he received a letter from the B.C. Green caucus saying that we will participate in the public consultation process, just like every other citizen of British Columbia, through submitting to his office and will not have any interaction with his office on this topic.

Hon. D. Eby: For the consultation process that’s ongoing, staff are collecting submissions from political parties and individuals across B.C. I am not receiving those currently. They’re being compiled by staff. So if the member has sent it, I’m happy to look into it and advise him whether staff have received that letter.

A. Weaver: Sorry. I think I didn’t frame my question very well. What the question was is…. We submitted a letter to specifically state that we would not want to be consulting directly with the Attorney General’s office. Rather, we — like the B.C. NDP and, presumably, the B.C. Liberals and everyone else in British Columbia — will exclusively participate in the consultation process through the website that was put together under his office.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for that clarification.

S. Bond: I want to return, again, to the confidence and supply agreement, which actually clearly articulates that the parties — the parties, as I would note, that we all know — the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. New Democrat caucus, “agree to both campaign actively in support of the agreed-upon form of proportional representation.”

Can the Attorney General describe for this House what has caused the change — that the government would actually be contemplating putting on the ballot more than one form of proportional representation?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve recused myself from any discussions between the Green Party and the NDP about what their submission will be or what they’ll be campaigning in favour of or against, so I can’t answer that member’s question.

S. Bond: Well, that may be a convenient answer for the Attorney because he wants to repeat the same one over and over. I’m simply reading to him an agreement signed by both parties in the coalition, and I’ve just discussed this matter in the Premier’s estimates as well.

It would be interesting to hear the Attorney General’s perspective of how an agreement signed by two parties…. And this is absolutely relevant to the discussion today, because there was a reference for British Columbians that talked about, first of all, a simple yes-no vote. Then we have an agreement signed by two parties that talks about an agreed-upon form of proportional representation, yet the legislation, and this section of the bill, allows for multiple forms of proportional representation. It allows for ranking.

The question is a simple one to the Attorney. What changed?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This legislation is enabling legislation. It creates the possibility for British Columbians to weigh in on what the question should be on the ballot. The government has put this bill forward, and I’m the representative of the government putting this bill forward. The commitment of the government, through me, is to consult with British Columbians about what the question should be.

I’m not sure how much plainer I can be than the black and white here on the page, section 2. People can provide feedback at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote about what they think the question should be, about the system or the systems that should be put forward to British Columbians in this referendum process. We want a referendum where there is a clear decision, binding on government, and we’re asking British Columbians to help in designing that process.

A. Weaver: I’d like to help to answer the question, because the minister has recused himself from any discussions with respect to this issue between the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens.

The question will go through…. There would be a question here. The reality is we have written a letter saying that we respect the process that was brought forward by government and that we will participate like everyone else. The fact that CASA said there would be agreed-upon…. We stood back, and we agreed that the process, articulated by the Attorney General and the government, is one that we will buy into and participate like every other person in this province, as an individual submitting.

That, hopefully, will answer the question. I recognize it’s odd for me to have to answer, but the minister has recused himself from this discussion that we’ve had with the B.C. NDP.

S. Bond: Well, thank you very much. It is indeed unusual to actually have the junior partner in the coalition answering the questions on behalf of the Attorney, who just recently, several minutes ago, suggested that no one else could carry this bill or answer the questions other than him because it was a bill of the Attorney General’s Ministry.

Let’s just be clear about this….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, let’s have some order, please.

S. Bond: I can hardly wait to read the tweet of the member this afternoon describe in a very inaccurate way, to the leader of the Green Party….

This is an important debate where all of the voices of British Columbians need to be heard. In fact, when the Premier has stated that the question would be a yes-no question, it’s pretty obvious that we should be asking in this House why the legislation is permitting the opportunity to have multiple models put on the ballot. We’re simply asking what changed in terms of the Premier’s comments to British Columbians that this would be a yes-no vote?

Hon. D. Eby: I hesitate to continually refer the member back to Hansard, so I’ll say it again. The bill is really straightforward. It’s right here, section 2. The question is not set. There’s a consultation process going on with British Columbians.

The member has a lot of questions for the Green Party. The Leader of the Third Party has indicated that he’s glad to stand up and answer any question the member has on that, but really, I think that she should just ask them to him directly. I don’t know that it’s helpful in terms of the bill and this section that is in front of us here, which is really clear.

There’s an on-line consultation process with the question or questions that should be put forward to British Columbians at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. I encourage the member to put forward her suggestions about the question because — I’m just guessing — they may be different than the member from the Third Party’s suggestions.

S. Bond: Well, with all due respect to the Attorney General, this is important. He wants to describe this bill as 14 sections with words on paper. This is about to potentially change the democratic process for all British Columbians, yet in the ministry’s own words, they have hard-wired in circumstances that will potentially impact the voices of a large percentage of British Columbians. That is simply not fair, and it is our job and our right to ask those questions and have them answered with respect in this Legislature.

Let’s talk about the date, because what the member pointed out was that the date, which is also in section 2, so it is relevant…. The date was chosen because they counted backwards from the next election, the upcoming election at the end of a term, and figured out the math. “How soon would we need to get this done so that we could put it into effect?”

[4:55 p.m.]

It’s not about good decision-making. It’s not about making sure British Columbians have the time necessary. And we know from the last two examples that this is a complicated issue for British Columbians. If it is so important that we get this right, why was the date of November 30 locked in?

Hon. D. Eby: I hear the member, from the question, is very upset that the question is not written here in the legislation. “Why isn’t it written down? It was very clear what it should be.” But then, when the date is chosen: “Why is this written in? Why is it written down?” The member can’t have it both ways.

If she thinks that we should be going to British Columbians to consult on the date of implementation, she’s welcome to make an amendment, but there are certain logistical matters that have to be dealt with.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: The member put forward an amendment that had nothing to do with this section. It wasn’t even that member.

In any event, the issue here is there are a certain amount of logistical steps that have to be taken. If the question is intended to be legally binding on government that they have to follow the directions of British Columbians, this is the time that is required. I’m not sure how else I can help out the member on that.

S. Bond: Well, once again to the Attorney, actually, this is an issue of passion and concern and emotion for people. I am one of those people. To his point, this side of the House actually tabled an amendment to delay the passage of this bill so that we could get the details right for those people who feel they will be disenfranchised by this process.

While I understand that the NDP-Green coalition doesn’t believe that people think this is unfair, I think that voice will become much louder and much more clear in the days that lie ahead.

Let’s talk about the binding nature. I will make it relevant by referring to subsection (c). We’re told that the reason that this date is in here and that we require a binding result is so that we can get this ramped up in time for the next election. Why, then, is there not a consideration of voter turnout?

Hon. D. Eby: The member, I believe, was around the cabinet table when at least one of the previous referenda on proportional representation was held by her administration. There was no threshold in that bill.

I point that out in the context that we have chosen a method of voting that consistently has provided — well, almost consistently, except in 2002 — higher electoral turnout than municipal elections because we want British Columbians to weigh in on this. We want them to vote.

I understand that the members on the other side don’t know if they want people to vote. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena said: “We don’t see a need for referendum.” The member for Kamloops–South Thompson said: “We’re okay with asking British Columbians to vote on our electoral system.”

I don’t know where they stand on that. I do know, though, that every single leadership candidate for that party committed to one particular side of this referendum, and the member will not be able to achieve the result that that party wants by delaying this bill because there are timelines here.

If we want to have a referendum that is meaningful in terms of the sense of binding on government, there are timelines that have to be met. When we say to people, “This is binding on government. This is a serious thing. This is important,” I’m not criticizing the member’s passion. I think that’s great. What I’m criticizing is the inconsistency of the message — in one situation, very unhappy that the date’s there; in another, very unhappy that the question’s not there.

These are inconsistent positions. If you think the question should be in the legislation, that’s fine, but then why are you criticizing the fact that the date is in the legislation? I don’t get it.

I’m doing my best to assist the member in terms of how this bill was constructed and why the decisions were made in terms of how it’s structured.

S. Bond: Well, I don’t think there’s much inconsistency in us believing that this is a flawed process and that it is designed to determine a particular outcome. In fact, the Attorney General has actually just proved his own point by pointing out that by putting this date in legislation, he is binding the government. No matter what the electoral turnout is….

Well, the Attorney General can roll his eyes and sigh all he wants, but this is a matter of utmost importance to people who believe…. Talk about disrespectful.

[5:00 p.m.]

These issues matter to British Columbians, and it is our legitimate right to bring these questions, as uncomfortable as they might be for the Attorney General, to the floor.

Let’s talk a little bit more about the fact that this date is captured here in the bill and the reason that the date is in the bill, unlike many other details which are not…. This is not an inconsistent argument to the Attorney General. This is about: some things are in and some things are out. That’s inconsistent. My asking questions about them is hardly inconsistent.

What issues are in the bill? This issue binds the government to whatever outcome occurs with voter turnout. Does the Attorney General believe that a 10 percent voter turnout makes this a valid outcome?

Hon. D. Eby: I was turning around to speak to a colleague. I thank the member for her patience on that.

The issue here is quite straightforward. We as a government have committed to a referendum on proportional representation. In order for that result to achieve what the bill says, which is that it is binding on government, that referendum has to be held by November 30, 2018.

The member seems to be suggesting that there is low electoral interest in this — that there will be a low turnout. There has never been a threshold in any of the referenda on proportional representation. And in fact there has been very significant turnout from British Columbians on this question.

I thank the member for her question. I guess I would wonder why, if it was such a point of principle, the previous government didn’t include it in their referenda on proportional representation. But I suspect they came to the same conclusion that we did when we looked at the results from referenda in the past — that British Columbians are very engaged politically and that they vote in significant numbers on mail-in ballots, with one notable exception in 2002.

We expect them to participate. As the member says, it’s an issue around which she’s quite passionate, and we think a lot of people are. That is why we’re having a vote with British Columbians, so they can decide which direction they’d like to go. I hope that helps the member understand the bill a little bit better.

S. Bond: Just for the Attorney General’s reference, it’s not about my ability to understand the issue or the question. It’s about asking the tough questions. When the Attorney General and the Premier continue to say they want all British Columbians’ voices to be heard and they want to do this right, it seems a little surprising to me that the Attorney General…. For one thing, I am not suggesting there will be a 10 percent or a 20 percent or a 30 percent voter turnout. But what is acceptable in terms of changing the democratic system for the future of British Columbia?

The minister knows full well that an exercise that was conducted in PEI recently…. There was 38 percent voter turnout, and guess what that government said. Thirty-eight percent with a 50-percent-plus-one margin was not good enough. Yet this minister and this ministry has confirmed that even if it’s 10 percent, which by my calculations means 5 percent of British Columbians, we will change the democratic process because we have a date which binds this government.

Well, from my perspective — considering the Attorney has talked endlessly about getting it right, doing it right…. I would suggest that there needs to be some consideration of the fact that binding the government to any outcome so that they can meet a timeline somewhere down the road for the next election, without thinking about how to do that properly, is…. There are better ways to do that.

I’d like to ask the Attorney General: did the government conduct a constitutional review of Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve referred to the groups that were consulted in preparing this bill — Elections B.C., Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Ministry of Attorney General staff, on administration and legal matters. Constitutionality is certainly close to my heart, and it is one of the matters that is considered by the Ministry of Attorney General in evaluating bills when they’re drafted and put forward.

S. Bond: Specifically, did the ministry conduct a constitutional review looking particularly at section 3, substantive voting rights?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve advised the member that there was a constitutional review done. That doesn’t mean just one section. That means that the bill’s constitutionality as a whole, as compared to the constitution’s obligations on government as a whole, were compared. We have not been advised, and I can advise the House, that there are no issues that have been identified around constitutionality with this legislation.

S. Bond: Is the Attorney General prepared to provide the public with the legal opinion prior to the referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member was Attorney General at one point. I am recalling that properly. She would know that by releasing legal opinions, we’d waive privilege over a broad swath of materials. It’s not something that we’d do. I am providing a legal opinion to the member that I received by staff that this bill raises no constitutional issues.

Now, the member is welcome to go out and retain counsel or get advice on this. I have to confess to having difficulty understanding what the issue might be. But in any event, it’s a serious thing when an Attorney General stands up and advises the House that the bill is constitutional, and that is what I’m doing right now.

S. Bond: The member is correct. I have served as the Attorney General of British Columbia, so I am fairly familiar with the process.

I’m wondering if the Attorney General can actually provide any sort of expert reports, advice. He knows full well that section 3 of the charter talks about substantive voting rights. In fact, there have been challenges to that issue, based on electoral discussions in other jurisdictions. So the fact of the matter is that it is an issue. While the Attorney may want to simply assure me that everything is hunky-dory, what we’d really want to know is what experts feel. Has the government looked at the impact of proportional representation and section 3 of the charter?

Hon. D. Eby: Like many of her colleagues, the member is putting the cart squarely in front of the horse. No model or models of voting, will be put forward to the public that is unconstitutional. That would be quite something.

The consultation that’s going on right now is on what systems people think we should be engaging in. Any system that’s put forward on the ballot will be vetted to ensure that it will pass constitutional muster. I have complete confidence in our legal counsel to advise me on these questions, and I rely on that advice on a regular basis.

S. Bond: I can assure the member that I relied on an exceptional staff in the ministry as well. They are incredibly good at what they do, and I appreciate that. My question is simply: has the Attorney General and his staff begun to look at the potential impacts and making sure…? I fully understand that….

Part of the challenge today is that we don’t know the question. We look forward to British Columbians having their input into what that question will look like. Sadly, we now hear that it may have multiple options for their choice, which was certainly not what British Columbians were told.

When it comes to proportional representation and section 3 of the charter, I would assume — and I’ll wait to hear from the Attorney — that he does acknowledge that section 3 of the charter does require that there are principles of effective representation.

Hon. D. Eby: Section 2 of this bill talks about an enabling power to state a question or questions that will be put to the electorate at the referendum. Referenda in British Columbia have been conducted multiple times, including by the previous government, where the member sat around the cabinet table. So if there were issues of constitutionality then, which I don’t think there were, then they would still be present now, which they aren’t.

I can advise the member, if it puts her mind at ease, that I’ve received advice that this bill is constitutional and that no model that is believed to be unconstitutional will be put forward to British Columbians. This is the commitment of the role of Attorney General. It’s an important role, Attorney General, and I take it seriously.

[5:10 p.m.]

S. Bond: When it comes to the model of proportional representation or models that will be presented to British Columbians, does the Attorney General agree or recognize that effective representation…? We do require a look at rural representation and what is effective. Will that be considered as the question is created?

Hon. D. Eby: As I have advised many members during this session, their comments and questions will be incorporated. I have two ministry staff with me here. The Hansard is recording. Their remarks will be incorporated in part of the overall consultation process.

One thing that I’ve heard clearly and very definitely in the speeches of the members opposite around this bill in second reading was concern around ensuring that rural voice is protected. I’ve heard that very definitely. I think it’s an important value that the members have articulated very clearly.

S. Bond: I appreciate that comment from the Attorney, and I do respect the fact that he listened to the majority of speeches. I am hopeful that the comments that have been provided….

So often I listen to some of the members of this House who simply dismiss the views that are expressing deep concern about the people who live in parts of British Columbia whose voices, frankly, under the current formula will not be heard in the referendum when you do the math. That is a deep concern. And we can be as dismissive as we want in this House about that, but for those of us who live in those parts of British Columbia, it is our job to bring those concerns to this House.

I wanted to pursue for another moment or two…. Then I have a colleague who is probably going to move into the next section. But I want to follow up on the question about legal opinions. I am familiar with how they are used.

Did the government, looking at the…? For the Attorney General to suggest that, “Well, we did it, and it was done this way,” this is this government’s and coalition’s choice of how to conduct this referendum. There was a very different process with the citizens’ assembly for sure.

Did the government obtain a legal opinion on whether political representation based on party lists under a PR system would be a charter violation?

Hon. D. Eby: Any model of proportional representation that is put forward to British Columbians will be vetted for constitutionality. We will not be putting forward any models that violate the Constitution of Canada or any law in British Columbia.

S. Bond: I guess I’m just a bit surprised that that work, in terms of looking at whether or not the implications of having multiple models on a ballot, hasn’t begun. It’s not about…. The Attorney has stood in this House all afternoon and told us how compressed the time frame was.

At this point, we’re looking at having the consultation period. I’m sure he’s prepared to repeat the website one more time. But we know that that is a very crunched time frame. In fact, that’s what the Attorney has said. Wouldn’t it be important, and a thoughtful process, to actually engage in some conversation about the impacts of a potential proportional representation model in British Columbia and the potential violations or the alignment with the charter?

Hon. D. Eby: Again, the challenge here is that there has not been a decision made about a model or models that should be put forward to British Columbians. There’s a consultation process that’s underway. To the member’s question, it’s engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. People interested in influencing which models or model are on the ballot and what the question should be — they should participate on line there.

I can assure the member that no model or models would be put forward to British Columbians that are unconstitutional and that work will be done based on the feedback from British Columbians. It would be prejudging matters to do it the other way around. And we’re not going to do that. We’re asking British Columbians what they want to see on the ballot, and that’s what the ballot will reflect.

[5:15 p.m.]

S. Bond: Does the Attorney General agree that voters should be entitled to vote for a particular candidate?

Hon. D. Eby: The beauty about a referendum and this consultation process is that it’s British Columbians who will decide, first of all, the model or models that are put forward on the ballot, the systems that are on the ballot. Then we’ll vote to decide whether that is the kind of system that they want to change to or whether they want to keep the existing system.

I hear the member…. I could take from the member’s question that she’s in favour of a certain model of electoral system — either proportional representation or first-past-the-post — that would contain those values that she’s talking about. I encourage her to provide feedback to that point through the consultation process at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. That will inform which model or models are put forward to British Columbians and what the ballot question will be.

S. Bond: The member would be correct about the values that I have. But the most important value for me is that every British Columbian’s voice matters in this process. I think that what we have certainly discovered is that when the government hard-wires in a binding result not dependent at all on voter turnout and when they decide to have a 50-plus-one-percent threshold without any consideration for the regional voices that exist….

My questions come from the heart of a region that very much feels like they are going to be excluded from this process because of geography and mathematics. I actually think those are issues that have been discussed in light of the charter. In fact, there have been cases brought by Saskatchewan and others that actually looked at those very questions about the equality of the vote. I think that these questions are important, and they’re meaningful. It is important for the Attorney General to hear from those of us who carry those views.

I will end my questions with some thoughts from the Attorney General, I’m hoping, about how a question that might be brought, which is part of section 2 — “state the question or questions that will be put to the electorate….” Does the Attorney General agree…? Or what are his thoughts about a question that might potentially eliminate representation by region?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t know what the member means, but the intent of this is to consult with British Columbians about the model or the models that should be put forward on the ballot question and to get a sense of the values of British Columbians. I have a hard time believing that there is anyone in British Columbia that believes that they shouldn’t be represented.

I’m not quite sure what the member is getting at, but in any event, there is a consultation at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote about this. I encourage the member to participate and convey her views about what she thinks that the ballot question should be and how the referendum should be conducted. She raises issues on behalf of her constituents, and that’s why we’re all here. So I thank her for that.

S. Bond: Sorry, I can’t resist my final comment after the Attorney General made the comment that we all agree that everyone’s voice should be heard. Simply put, without an inclusion of a regional threshold…. If the Attorney General simply does the math, for any question that is put forward, based on the geography and the population of British Columbia, there is a disproportionate weighting to people who live in urban British Columbia. That is a very serious issue, and it is something that every member of this House should be concerned about.

With that, I thank the Attorney General for his time.

J. Martin: In the opening remarks — particularly, in section 2 — and much of the commentary and the debate that’s taken place around Bill 6, one of the contentious issues has been that this is going to be a process that is determined by cabinet.

[5:20 p.m.]

That’s the controversial aspect of it, and that’s sort of why there are the types of editorials that are going on right now and there’s skepticism about the neutrality of the process and the fairness of the process.

This is kind of open-ended, but I would like to ask: what was the decision to politicize this by putting it to cabinet as opposed to an independent group? That has been done before. It would just seem that politically, the government would have been able to spare itself an awful lot of tension that is not going to go away over the next 12 months.

Hon. D. Eby: There’s no body, other than cabinet, that can pass regulations.

J. Martin: This is getting a bit…. If the government has said it’s going to pursue this process on behalf of proportional representation, along with the Third Party — and the NDP has declared as well — what precautions are going to be taken to ensure that the government resources are not used here?

When we talk about the B.C. Liberals or the NDP going out and about to oppose or to support proportional representation, what comes to mind is social media, going to Rotary, speaking to the chamber, etc. But obviously, the government has at its availability an awful lot more resources than that.

Would the Attorney comment?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s been no decision about allocation of resources, in part because we’re engaged in a consultation process with British Columbians where we’re asking them how this referendum should be conducted — what the spending rules should be, for example; what the donation rules should be; whether proponent and opponent groups should be publicly funded. Based on that feedback from British Columbians, decisions will be made about allocating resources. But it doesn’t happen the other way.

J. Martin: With the government having declared it is going to campaign in support of proportional representation, with the Attorney staying neutral and not being involved in it, can the Attorney assure the House that public funds will not be used in that process?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple different pieces where public funds could be used — for example, the funding of proponent or opponent groups, the funding of Elections B.C., the funding of Ministry of Attorney General staff to prepare neutral materials. I understand that the Premier and the NDP caucus and the Green caucus have committed to campaigning in favour of change of the voting system. That is their decision to do so.

J. Martin: Will government staff in any way be involved in the campaign in support of proportional representation?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can tell the member a couple things. One is: these are very good budget estimates questions. The second is: I’ve recused myself from any discussions related to this involving cabinet or my caucus. So I’m struggling a little bit with how to answer the member’s questions, because the simple answer is I haven’t been part of any of those discussions.

What I can tell the member is that staff of the Ministry of Attorney General are going to be preparing neutral materials for voters to provide them with information that they need to vote. That will come out of the budget of the Ministry of Attorney General.

J. Martin: Can the Attorney speak to the precautions that are generally taken during a general election against government staff while they’re on the clock being involved in any political activity — that there will be precautions to ensure this doesn’t take place during the referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m trying to help him get an answer that he’s looking for, but I can refer the member to code of conduct for public servants, which does set out obligations on public servants in relation to elections. I hope that that information might be of assistance to him.

Ministry staff are going to be providing neutral and factual information so British Columbians can have their say in the democratic process. Aside from that, I’m not sure how much additional assistance I can offer the member.

J. Martin: I have no more questions on section 2, unless anyone else in the House does.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Martin: Thank you very much, Attorney, for all of your activity in response so far.

On section 3, can you please explain to the House, basically, why section 5 of the Offence Act will not be in use here?

Hon. D. Eby: Just because it’s a bit technical, I’m going to read to the member the advice of staff, and then I’ll attempt to provide a little detail.

Section 5 of the Offence Act establishes a general offence for contravening an enactment by doing something it forbids or not doing something it requires. This section is disapplied because the applicable obligations in the act are on the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, Chief Electoral Officer and government, and it would not be appropriate for them to commit an offence if they contravene this act by omitting to do an act that it requires to be done. The regulations will prescribe offences and penalties for failure to comply with the regulations.

A little bit more plain language, I think…. Because this is enabling legislation that puts obligations on government, if you had the Offence Act apply and government didn’t follow one of the requirements, you would have a situation where the government or the Chief Electoral Officer or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, cabinet, would be violating the Offence Act.

The goal of the Offence Act and the goal of penalties around the regulations will be if someone makes an illegal campaign donation, for example — if there are such things, depending on the feedback of British Columbians around this particular referendum — or will be if they misuse funds that are provided from the public to proponent groups, for example — if, in fact, proponent groups are funded.

Those penalties will be in the regulations themselves. Because it’s binding on government, because it applies to government, it’s standard to disapply this section to avoid the situation where the Chief Electoral Officer, for example, is violating the Offence Act.

J. Martin: With excluding section 5 of the Offence Act, does this make it less restrictive for the government to work its way through this process? Does it give it more flexibility?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that this is fairly standard drafting for legislation that applies to government or to government officials.

The remedy for people who feel that government is not following the provisions of the act is judicial review, usually, rather than the Offence Act, where you could take the government to court on failing to follow the obligations under statute, potentially. Not that I’m providing legal advice to anybody, but that is one potential remedy that’s available when government doesn’t fulfil obligations, like the Chief Electoral Officer or so on.

J. Martin: To the Attorney: can you please give us some background and maybe summarize the decision-making process to basically remove this referendum process from the Referendum Act?

Hon. D. Eby: This is the same process that the government used in 2009 around the proportional representation referendum. They created a freestanding act rather than using the Referendum Act. If you don’t put this clearly in the statute, then people might think…. They might be confused about which act applies. So it’s put in there for clarity, for people to understand where the obligations, rights and responsibilities and so on are contained. That’s it.

J. Martin: I’m well aware the Referendum Act has not always been used in referendums. But specifically with Bill 6, why not use the Referendum Act?

Hon. D. Eby: We were advised by the drafters that there were two potential approaches to achieve this particular legislation with its enabling powers. One is: you can create a law that refers back to the Referendum Act so that people have to have two laws in front of them, flipping back and forth to try to find out what their rights and obligations are. Or you can put it in a freestanding act.

The previous government, in 2009, reached the same conclusion that we did, which was that based on the advice of the drafters, it’s preferable to have a freestanding act. Many of the applicable sections of the Referendum Act are replicated in this act. But it’s intended to provide an easier reference for people, especially when you’re dealing with election-related matters like a referendum, so that people can have a look and understand what their rights and responsibilities are in one place, as opposed to having to flip back and forth between two separate acts.

J. Martin: Does this new act provide the government more flexibility in negotiating the Referendum Act process than it would have under the previous legislation?

Hon. D. Eby: No, it doesn’t.

J. Martin: Unless anyone else wishes to speak to that section….

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. Martin: Clearly, we did speak somewhat to the issue of the opponent and the proponent groups during section 1, when we were looking at definitions.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

One scenario that I’ve been thinking about is: if there are more than two, three, four different organizations, groups that are applying for funding to be an opponent or to be a proponent of this particular legislation, obviously, the pie is going to be divvied up significantly to where the funding, if there is funding, is negligible, or there are going to be winners and losers out of it.

What would the Attorney say are the types of qualities or the types of skill sets or the attributes of an organization that would justify this particular group being funded?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: These will be set by regulation. But it can be a bit abstract for people, if they’re thinking about providing feedback to us about who should and shouldn’t be funded and so on, so it might be useful for people to refer to the Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act regulations.

In those regulations, there were positive requirements on an obligation to qualify for funding and negative prohibitions that excluded organizations from qualifying for funding. Those are in section 4 of that act’s regulations.

For example, in order to qualify, you’d have to be a not-for-profit group, the members and directors not be compensated for being members or directors of the organization, that membership in the organization is voluntary and open to everybody and that at least two-thirds of the directors have been residents of B.C. for at least six months immediately before general voting day for the referendum.

Specifically excluded from receiving funding: political parties; constituency associations; if any of the directors of the organization are candidates in the general election, including an individual who intends to be a candidate in the general election; is an election official, voter registration official, or a member of the staff of the Chief Electoral Officer; or has been convicted of an offence under the Election Act, Recall and Initiative Act or similar regulations; and where more than one-third of members of the organization are not ordinarily residents of B.C.

This is not determinative. I provide that only by way of illustration of the kinds of requirements that have been there in the past around hurdles that groups would have to clear in order to be potentially funded should British Columbians believe that that should happen this this referendum.

J. Martin: Will the legislation around the funding and recognition of opponents and proponents…? Will there be a distinction between a non-profit group and a society?

Hon. D. Eby: The member stumped us a little bit. The section here creates a regulation-making power where these kinds of rules could be set out.

In the 2009 act, there was a specific requirement that the organization be a not-for-profit. It didn’t prescribe a particular type of corporate structure. It just said the organization must be a not-for-profit — period.

It makes sense to me that you would have a not-for-profit organization as opposed to a for-profit organization receiving funding for this kind of thing, but it’s not up to me. We’re asking British Columbians to make these recommendations to us about, if we do provide funding, whether they have any recommendations about who should qualify for this funding to do this advocacy, and we encourage people to participate in the consultation process.

J. Martin: In the act, Attorney, the section refers to the possibility that a financial agent can be acting on behalf of more than one organization. Is that something that is deliberate?

Hon. D. Eby: I advise the member that that wording was taken directly from the Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act, and it’s to be, I assume, inclusive of the possibility that two groups might have the same financial agent. So you wouldn’t want the section not to apply to financial agents that represented more than one group. It’s not prescribed, but you can imagine a situation where an accountant, for example, is providing accounting services as a financial agent for multiple proponent groups. So it’s meant to capture that kind of activity. I imagine that was the original intent.

In any event, what we did is take this from that because it seemed to work well in the 2009 requirements for financial agents.

[5:40 p.m.]

J. Martin: In the recent campaign financing reform legislation, there’s still some grey area there around what type of third-party activities will or will not be permitted within a certain deadline of the election. I’m wondering about these opponent and proponent groups, if they’ll be on some type of timetable when they will have to slow down their activity or maybe cease it altogether, or perhaps there’ll be restrictions. Can the minister please speak to this?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s possible to imagine scenarios where the referendum process overlaps with municipal elections, for example, or there’s a snap federal election called or another electoral process. So you would want to make specific rules around third-party activities that are reflective of those circumstances.

In addition, the rules around the activities of third parties will be informed by our consultation with British Columbians. It’s one of the questions that we’re going to them to ask. I don’t imagine that everybody wakes up in the morning thinking about the activity of third parties in relation to this kind of referendum, but there are some people who do, do that. We want to get their advice on how they think we can appropriately regulate that kind of activity around third parties.

J. Martin: What about the timeline of this? Are we looking at the possibility that we will have established a group that is already organizing and strategizing, prior to knowledge of what activities and the extent of the activities that they can engage in?

Hon. D. Eby: There are certainly groups that are active on these matters already. I know Fair Voting B.C. is one example and some of the B.C. Liberal leadership candidates, for example. Those are on opposite sides of the issue, so there are groups that are active right now. But when the rules come into effect, they will all have to come into line with these rules.

The member is right, right now. People, if they want to engage in this kind of activity…. There’s no bill in place. There are no regulations in place, but as soon as those come into force, then everyone has got to fall in line and adhere to those obligations.

J. Martin: I know we’re getting a little bit ahead of ourselves. It comes up later on in a section, but there are some pretty substantive penalties that are associated with opponent and proponent groups. I’m concerned that — I mean, it’s so easy to make a mistake during a campaign — that might scare off some people that would like to get involved in this exercise.

Hon. D. Eby: These are penalties similar to those that were proposed and passed into law in the 2009 referendum act. They’re intended to be severe for a reason. These are groups that are receiving public funds, and it’s intended to provide real incentive to groups not to misuse public funds and to ensure that their reporting to government is accurate about how those funds are used.

J. Martin: In the aftermath of the general election, all candidates, successful and otherwise, were well aware that there was going to be a spot auditing of campaigns. Is this something that’s been taken into account of the opponent and proponent groups at the conclusion of this process?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: In 2009, there was a requirement for an audit, and that would be set in the regulations. It makes eminent sense to me — I thank the member for that recommendation — that these kinds of audits take place, and generally they do in elections.

I do want to note that I misspoke on the answer to the last question. I suggested that it was likely that the financial reporting would be “to government.” What I should have said and what is far more likely — I don’t want to mislead the member — is that the reporting of financial agents will be to Elections B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer, not to government itself.

J. Martin: What about oversight during the actual campaign? I raise this because we found out after the federal election that there were undue attempts to influence the outcome by organizations from outside of Canada. To go through this process and get a result that is tainted by the activities of an opponent or a proponent group and only find out about it after the fact and penalize them doesn’t really help us with the fact that we got a result we might not have otherwise if there was that level of scrutiny.

Hon. D. Eby: Both the 2005 and 2009 referenda acts had regulations around this kind of sponsored activity. As well as proponent and opponent transparency, there was also intended transparency around sponsored organizations. Any obligations under this bill would be set by regulation and would be set under the regulation-making authority in section 12.

J. Martin: Clearly, this will be a different process than we saw in 2009 and 2005, where social media was not nearly the player in activities such as this. What consideration is going to be given to the restrictions and the regulations, if any, around the use of social media during this campaign?

Hon. D. Eby: Any rules about this would be determined following consultation with the public, but I think it’s reasonable to expect that they’re going to be very similar to the rules that are in place for elections in B.C., without prejudging matters. I look forward to hearing what British Columbians have to say about this.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

J. Martin: We’re having a mail-in ballot. We saw this during, I believe, the HST referendum, where, all of a sudden, there was a postal strike in the middle of it.

To begin, can the Attorney tell us why this particular method was selected when it tends to be a process that is being used less and less for such vital exercises?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There were a number of reasons why a mail-in ballot was chosen. The initial thinking was we’ll save money by pairing it up with the municipal election. On receiving advice from the ministry responsible for municipalities…. They advised us of the complications around this. It seems that a similar thing happened in 2009 with the government, which also thought they’d pair up with a municipal election. But it looked like a cost that was significantly higher, and lower voter turnout, compared with a mail-in ballot.

Mail-in ballots are quite common in recent times in British Columbia. The 2011 HST referendum was a mail-in ballot. The 2015 TransLink referendum was a mail-in ballot. It provides the very rare virtues of a combination of increased turnout and cost-effectiveness, which is kind of a nice thing for them both to be there together.

In terms of the mail strike in 2011, and generally, it’s important for the Chief Electoral Officer to have the ability to deal with these types of unanticipated interruptions in mail service. There was a regulation in the 2011 HST Act — it’s reasonable to expect that there would be one here too — that gave him the ability to address a mail strike or other unanticipated interruption in mail service in order to ensure that British Columbians get their say.

J. Martin: What is the source or the sources of the claim that the mail-in ballot will get a superior turnout?

Hon. D. Eby: The history, for the member. The 2014 general municipal election turnout across the province was 33.3 percent — which excludes school board elections in terms of a proportion of eligible voters — whereas the 2015 transit plebiscite was 48.62 percent turnout of registered voters. That was a mail-in ballot. The 2011 HST referendum was 52.66 percent of registered voters, and that was also a mail-in ballot.

Those are just the most recent municipal and mail-in ballots for the member to be able to compare. Obviously, past performance is no indication of future performance, but British Columbians have a very good track record of turning out on mail-in ballots.

J. Martin: When arriving at the decision, making the choice to go with the mail-in ballot, what consideration or what analysis did the government do to look at the differences in demographics with respect to age and to jurisdiction in the province that would return mail more or less than people of other demographics or in other jurisdictions?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of mechanisms that are put in place on mail-in ballots to assist people in being able to vote. They can attend at physical locations that Elections B.C. sets up, to pick up a ballot, or they can have one sent separately to them. They can also vote…. There are limited opportunities for this, but they can vote in person at Elections B.C. offices.

There is an attempt to catch different demographics that may not…. If someone moves a lot, they might not have gotten their ballot mailed and these kinds of things.

[5:55 p.m.]

In terms of the member’s statistical analysis of the breakdown of demographics — who are more likely to mail in a mail-in ballot, versus not — we did not do that analysis. Staff have advised me that they don’t believe that Elections B.C. has that information compiled either.

J. Martin: There is plenty of both anecdotal and published research that shows that snail mail is something that…. Many people in their mid-20s have never mailed a letter in their life and are unlikely to start using the post box around the corner any time soon. So there’s a concern around getting the participation of younger people in this process, who tend to have a myriad of ways to communicate and express themselves. That inventory generally doesn’t include mail.

What consideration is given to the possibility that this particular process may accidentally and unintentionally exclude them?

Hon. D. Eby: I mistakenly said that people could vote at Elections B.C. offices. Staff have corrected me. They can drop off their ballot at Elections B.C. So they don’t vote in the traditional way. There’s not a box there, but they can drop off their ballot at Elections B.C. or arrange to have a ballot sent to them through Elections B.C.

The member asks — you know, concern — about young people participating and voting. I think we all share that concern. I don’t think the concern is as much around the method of voting. It seems to be a fairly consistent dismal turnout on behalf of young people in elections of all different types and modes.

The reason why we chose the mail-in ballot, though, was that it has a consistently high turnout in British Columbia. It’s a proven model that works. People understand it. Elections B.C. understands it. We were looking for a model that would encourage voter turnout.

Certainly, if the member has suggestions about increasing voter turnout among young people and how we might do that, I encourage him to participate in the consultation process around the referendum at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote and provide those suggestions. I agree with him. We do need to increase young people’s voter turnout in British Columbia.

J. Martin: Like every other member on both sides of this House, very shortly I’m going to be getting a cramped wrist signing hundreds and hundreds of Christmas cards. Inevitably, when I open up my office after the break, there’s a couple hundred of them that have been returned from the wrong address. It’s very difficult to maintain that type of data in this day and age.

What can the government do to increase the likelihood that we’re not going to see the ballots going to wrong addresses and being returned unopened and unused?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that Elections B.C., in these situations, takes a few different measures to encourage that people have their addresses updated with Elections B.C. First of all, they do targeted outreach to encourage people, especially more transient groups like students or workers on certain sites…. They will do a targeted push to ensure that addresses are up to date. They do more broad advertising to British Columbians about the need to have addresses up to date with Elections B.C. They also establish ballot package locations where people can go and pick up a ballot package from these locations across the province.

Through these mechanisms, they hope to minimize these issues of people not being able to vote because they haven’t received a ballot.

J. Martin: What measures can be done to minimize the probability of theft, fraud and vandalism?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of measures that Elections B.C. puts in place to minimize the risk of mail theft and fraud. The first is that they do a statistical survey of a large group of people to see if people who they have listed as submitting a ballot actually did submit the ballot. In the 2011 HST referendum, they did this survey, and 99.7 percent of people who they received ballots from confirmed that they had been sent by the person whose name was on the ballot. So a 99.7 percent confidence level there.

In addition, to prevent mail theft of multiple ballots of strangers, for example, there is a shared secret on the package that’s sent in. That is typically a birthday. The person signs and puts in their birthday, and the birthday is compared to the birthday on record with Elections B.C. to confirm that the person submitting the ballot is, in fact, the same person who is signing for the ballot.

J. Martin: Is there an expectation that the voters list is going to be updated before this process commences?

Hon. D. Eby: The Chief Electoral Officer continually updates B.C.’s election list but, in addition to that, in the lead-up to elections and referenda, does additional outreach that I outlined earlier — targeted outreach to groups that are quite transient in their activities, like students, and advertising across the province to encourage people to update their address with Elections B.C. They also provide ballot package locations for people to pick up ballots from Elections B.C.

J. Rustad: We talked about this a little bit earlier, under section 2, but I just saw a quote from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip this afternoon on CKNW. He said: “It is a concern that the lack of Internet access in some First Nations communities is leaving their voice out of the proportional rep consultation survey.” I know that the minister said there would be a separate process. But along with that, I’m also concerned that there are many First Nations people, as well as others, of course, that may not have fixed addresses, and it may be challenging to get a ballot to them.

What provisions would the minister be making with regards to the concern that Grand Chief Stewart Phillip raised and, also, with regards to being able to get mail-in access so that all people in British Columbia would have equal opportunity to be able to participate in this referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: The Chief Electoral Officer is aware of these issues for all elections and does targeted outreach to First Nations communities and groups like students and so on to ensure that the list is up to date.

[6:05 p.m.]

This is exactly the kind of feedback that we’re hoping to hear from leaders in the community like the Grand Chief — about how we can ensure that we best reach out to and reflect the voices of First Nations people in this process. That is why we’re doing a separate consultation process.

In terms of a lack of Internet access, this is consistent with some of the other issues that members have raised during this committee stage. I’ve advised that physical copies of the consultation materials will be available at libraries across B.C. In addition, people can send materials into a post office box, which I read into the record.

There are mechanisms in place for people to provide feedback. Certainly, there are challenges to come with remote and rural communities. But they aren’t unique to this referendum. They are the obligation of the Chief Electoral Officer and the government to take the measures appropriate to ensure that voices are heard and votes are counted.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

J. Martin: Section 8. The voting requirements and restrictions in the referendum — do they deviate in any way from the requirements of a general election?

Hon. D. Eby: They mirror the requirements in the Election Act entirely.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 9 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 9, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Duty if referendum is binding

9 (1) The result of the referendum is binding on the government only if more than 50% of the validly cast ballots

(a) vote the same way on a question stated, if the question has the option of 2 answers, or

(b) are in favour of the same voting system, if a question has the option of more than 2 answers.

(2) If the result of the referendum

(a) the result of the referendum is binding on the government in accordance with subsection (1), and

(b) the ballots referred to in that subsection are in favour of adopting a proportional representation voting system,

the government must take steps that the government considers necessary or advisable to implement the result of the referendum, including introducing the legislation needed to implement the proportional representation voting system in sufficient time for that voting system to be in place for a general election called on or after July 1, 2021.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment fixes a minor drafting error to ensure that section 9(2)(b) is grammatically correct. The words “the result of the referendum” are moved from the start of subsection (2) to paragraph (a).

J. Martin: My understanding is that there has been a technical amendment to section 9, and we’re now prepared to speak to section 9?

The Chair: Correct. Hon. Member, are you speaking to the amendment or to the main section?

D. Davies: Is it possible to get eyes on the amendment? Could I get a copy of that, please?

The Chair: Thank you. Do you need a moment?

D. Davies: Madame Speaker, could I have just a moment?

The Chair: The member for Peace River North. Are you speaking, Member, to the amendment on section 9?

D. Davies: I’ll be speaking on section 9, in general. I guess we have to vote on the amendment first.

The Chair: Let’s do that first.

Amendment approved.

On section 9 as amended.

D. Davies: A question to the Attorney General…. Of course, lots of discussion this past week in our debates around the threshold. I’ll be asking some questions regarding that.

My first question is: what was the precedent that was used by the government in establishing, first of all, this dual question-answer process under the bill?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This is to enable British Columbians to provide feedback to us on what the question should look like. They may have a vision for a question that is a single question, multiple questions. We want to be open to that feedback from British Columbians. The consultation is underway about what the question should be at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote.

This section enables the possibility of people providing feedback, that it should be cast in one way or the other. It makes it possible for government to actually give weight to that recommendation, if that’s what people would like to see in terms of questions.

D. Davies: Is the government aware — I assume they are — that this multi-question, double-barrelled questioning process is confusing to the public? I’m wondering if this was taken into consideration before this.

Hon. D. Eby: The goal is a question or questions that are clear and easy for British Columbians to understand. This is enabling legislation that doesn’t require a multipart question and enables the possibility of it, if that’s what British Columbians would like to see, in the feedback that we receive from the consultation process that’s underway.

D. Davies: Would the minister agree, then, regardless, that initially leading up to all of this, we were told…? The Premier is on record numerous times about a yes-or-no question. Is the government aware, though, that this double-barrelled, multi-questionnaire process is going to create confusion concerning the public’s expectations around the referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: It sounds like the member is in the process of drafting a submission on the consultation process in favour of a single question. I encourage him to do that, as well as I encourage all British Columbians to provide feedback to us about what the question should look like and what they feel would be the best way to ask British Columbians this important question about the future of how we vote.

D. Davies: What were the government’s considerations in lowering the electoral change threshold from 60 percent plus one down to 50 percent plus one? What was the reasoning behind that?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a few different parts to this. The first is that the previous government took an approach to favour the existing system by having a 60 percent threshold. That was their policy decision.

The policy decision that’s made in this bill, which I hope passes, is that the existing system should be put up against a system or systems, depending on how British Columbians provide feedback about the question, but that there shouldn’t be an incumbent advantage. There should be 50 percent to determine whether the system should change.

It’s been used in other referenda on electoral reform: P.E.I.’s referendum in 2016; New Zealand, 1993 and 2011. I note that since 1928, there’s only been one provincial election where a single party received over 50 percent of the vote. That’s for responsibility for the entire province and the direction of the province.

We think it’s an appropriate threshold. It’s one that’s been used in other jurisdictions. We think it’s one that doesn’t favour the incumbent system and gives British Columbians a true chance to weigh in on whether we should keep the existing system or move to a new one. That is the reason for the 50-percent-plus-one threshold.

J. Martin: Clearly, while not binding, there’s a certain persuasive quality to the federal Clarity Act. Should the referendum ballot question end up being something that is multi-headed and very difficult to explain in a few words, is there some concern about the impact of the Clarity Act, if not on the legality, then certainly on the moral legitimacy of a complex, confusing question?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The goal of this process is to ensure a clear question or questions for British Columbians so that they understand, they have the information they need to vote, and that there is a clear and binding response to government on the question.

I know that the member knows that the Clarity Act is not binding on us, and he’s advocating the principles of that act be incorporated here. Certainly, I encourage the member to provide submissions if there are aspects of that act that he thinks should be incorporated here, through the regulations. But in any event, I hope that information answers his question.

D. Davies: I appreciate the Attorney General making reference, a moment ago, to my last question regarding Prince Edward Island’s fairly recent referendum.

My question, then: does this government agree with the province of Prince Edward Island’s decision that a bare majority and lower voter turnout were not sufficient enough mandate to implement PR?

Hon. D. Eby: I can’t comment on the government of P.E.I.’s decision-making process about their plebiscite. There is a distinction that staff have advised me. They held a plebiscite, not a referendum, and typically, referenda are binding on government. It’s one of the significant differences between the two.

I can also advise the member that we canvassed this a couple times in different ways. Typically, turnout for mail-in ballots for British Columbians is quite high — certainly higher than municipal elections. It’s why we chose that.

We’re going to do everything we can to ensure as many people vote as possible. We think they will. I heard the member from Prince George say he’s quite passionate about it. I think there are a number of people who are quite passionate about it. They’re going to be out there encouraging people to go out and vote. I think we’ll have a very good turnout.

I note, just out of interest, that the 2005 and 2009 referenda on proportional representation did not have a threshold either.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister.

We’ve had, again, much talk in regards to the voter turnout. Again, recently the member for Prince George–Valemount had mentioned previously in her comments about the 10 percent, the 20 percent.

I guess my question is: as we move forward and should this referendum move forward, will the results be binding regardless of any voter turnout?

Hon. D. Eby: Similar to the 2005 and 2009 referenda on electoral reform, the approach here — I assume this was the approach there — is to maximize voter turnout, to engage British Columbians on this important question.

That’s why we chose a mail-in ballot. It’s why we’re going to be going to these lengths of providing information around the consultation process. Very exciting — 8,328 people already have weighed in on the consultation process. The turnout’s going to be very high on this.

I note that there was no threshold in either of the previous referenda on electoral reform, and this one is the same as the previous government’s approach.

D. Davies: Can the government provide the public with some basis to justify the lowering of the threshold, speaking specifically to the 50 percent plus one? How is that justified and being supported by the government?

Hon. D. Eby: I provided a list of rationales for 50 percent plus one. I also add to that list, for the member’s assistance, that this is also the default threshold in the Referendum Act that was passed by the previous administration. “If more than 50% of the validly cast ballots vote the same way on a question stated, that result is binding on the government that initiated the referendum.”

[6:20 p.m.]

D. Davies: Similar to that…. I guess this was kind of touched on, but a little different answer given. Regarding the previous referendums that have been done in this province, there was a look at making sure that at least 50 percent of the ridings were represented in the referendum. Now, this is not in Bill 6, here, that we’re talking about today. I’m just wondering what the basis is for not having the individual electoral ridings included into this threshold?

Hon. D. Eby: The threshold that’s set out in the bill here in section 9 is that if more than 50 percent of the validly cast ballots favour a certain direction, then that’s binding on government. I note that since the 1920s, we haven’t seen a government elected in British Columbia, except one time, with more than 50 percent of the vote.

I note that the 50 percent threshold is significant. The idea behind selecting a 50 percent threshold, for either staying with the current system or moving to a new one, is not to favour the incumbent system. Now, the previous government chose to favour the incumbent system with a 60 percent threshold. That was their policy decision. That is not the case here in section 9.

D. Davies: I don’t think that…. Well, that doesn’t answer my question. We’re not talking an election here. We’re not talking about electing people into the role of MLA or whatever. We’re talking about changing one of our fundamental pieces of government, and that’s our electoral system. So when we’re talking about electing incumbent people and such, that is apples and oranges.

I want to know and British Columbians want to know: what is the reason why, on such an important piece of legislation…? How do you justify 50 percent plus one?

Hon. D. Eby: Fifty percent plus one is the default in the Referendum Act that was written by the B.C. Liberals, 50 percent plus one was used in referenda in PEI and New Zealand, 50 percent plus one does not favour the incumbent voting system over a change to a new voting system, and 50 percent plus one is a significant threshold that is very rarely reached in this province by governing political parties. I note, just to add to my list of jurisdictions, that the U.K. in 2011 had an electoral reform referendum that was 50 percent plus one.

D. Davies: I guess, just to have on the record…. Does the government agree, then, that a 50-percent-plus-one result would provide an adequate public consent to fundamentally change the electoral process?

Hon. D. Eby: The bill that’s before the House proposes a 50-percent-plus-one threshold for all the reasons that I set out. I recommend, to all members, support for the bill, but I know they’ll vote their own direction on this. I hope they support it, but I guess we’ll see.

J. Martin: Still speaking to the threshold, despite 50 percent plus one being an actual majority, we’ve got a tradition in this country where we’re very careful of minority rights, and we’re very careful of — excuse the metaphor — the tyranny of the majority.

We see this in terms of, particularly, the smaller, sparsely populated Atlantic provinces having more than their mathematical share of senators and representation. We see it with minority rights. We see measures throughout the workforce, particularly in government hiring, basically to make sure that certain groups of people are not simply overwhelmed because the majority are thinking a different way or a particular way.

The concern that’s been expressed over and over in this House is that 50 percent plus one would allow certain parts of the province to be absolutely drowned out. They would have no voice. It wouldn’t matter how they voted. They would be overwhelmed by densely populated urban centres.

[6:25 p.m.]

I’m just curious. With the NDP’s tradition of always speaking of looking out for the underdog, looking at protecting minority rights and not succumbing to the will of the majority, this kind of seems odd — if not mathematically — with the tradition of this government and where its gotten its legacy and inspiration from over the years. I’d ask the Attorney to please comment.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve outlined for the member the reasons why 50 percent plus one was chosen as the threshold. This is not a threshold for electing members themselves. This is about the voting system as a whole.

There are first-past-the-post proponents who will advocate that first-past-the-post better protects minority rights. There are proportional representation proponents that say that proportional representation better protects minority rights. It is up to British Columbians to decide, with 50 percent plus one, whether they want to keep our current system or whether they want to move to a new system. We’ll give them a clear question to do that, and I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

D. Davies: I guess, at the end of the day, and along similar questioning, it’s a matter of doing what’s right. In 2009 and ’05, we did a 60 percent threshold for a very specific reason — to make sure that we had a mandate, to make sure that there was a decisive desire by the citizens of British Columbians to change the electoral process. What I see in this bill is anything but that.

I guess my question to the Attorney General is: if the government wants to have a mandate, if the government wants to make sure that they are listening to the most British Columbians possible and doing what is right for the province…. So setting aside…. There’s a big push and a rush for these timelines. Shouldn’t we be really doing this properly and maybe putting this on to the next provincial election? Would the government ever entertain doing this properly?

Hon. D. Eby: The bill that’s in front of the House, which I support, is an enabling piece of legislation which facilitates consultation with the public about the question, about the process. I encourage the member and his constituents to visit engage.gov.bc.ca./howwevote and to provide their feedback about how this referendum should be conducted to ensure that their voices and values are represented in the process.

The member has lots of ideas about how this should happen. I’m sure he could prepare quite a fulsome submission, and I encourage him to do that.

J. Rustad: The 50 percent plus one. I’m actually just curious to ask for the minister’s opinion, if he may be willing to venture it.

The two referendums. The first one was in 2005, after an election in 1996 that a government formed a majority with only 38 percent of the vote and losing the popular vote — significantly losing the popular vote; and of course, in 2001, with 57 percent of the vote producing 77 out of 79 MLAs. There was a huge appetite for electoral reform because the electoral system, the one we have in the province, obviously produced two extremes.

Through that referendum, there was obviously a precautionary approach, setting a threshold that was reasonable, knowing that there was a lot of angst but making sure that it was the will of a significant majority of the people, with a 60 percent threshold. It failed to meet that threshold, obviously. It was around 56 or 54 percent. I can’t remember exactly what the number was. Maybe it was 57. But it was so tight that it was important that we give it another try, which is why the referendum was called in 2009 as well.

The referendum in 2009, of course, only had 39 percent as a result, because in 2005, we went back to what was considered to be a more normal result in the province of British Columbia.

[6:30 p.m.]

The question I’ve got to the minister, in terms of speculation, because we’re talking here once again about changing the electoral system: why do you think there was such a drop of desire for electoral change between 2005 and 2009 on the same question?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t know the answer to that question.

J. Rustad: Speculation is what I was asking, obviously, with regards to it. No one knows for sure, of course, why people…. Clearly, all it took was a short period of time, between 2005 and 2009, for people to decide that electoral reform wasn’t their top priority. My concern here, of course, with a 50 percent plus one, is we’re talking about potentially changing the electoral system with a single majority without taking into consideration regional concerns. You may end up with the same situation in a few years where a significant number of people are not happy or decide that maybe they didn’t want electoral change.

The reason why I ask that is when you go back and look at the electoral system in Ireland, which used that STV system, back in the ’90s, they had, once again, the same sort of thing — a couple of back-to-back elections. It happened quickly. The election results were skewed. They didn’t like the results, so there were two referendums there to get rid of the system. They set the same threshold of 60 percent. Both times it received more than 50 percent, in my understanding, and both times, failed to get rid of the system.

Ireland, of course, even though they had the same problem that British Columbia had, saw the importance of setting a threshold that made people, a significant number of people — more than just the 50 percent — able to change systems, so they kept the system, and it’s in place.

I won’t ask the minister to speculate once again on why that is, but I wanted to make that point, because it’s significant in terms of what we are doing here. We’re here talking about changing the electoral system in the province of British Columbia. Obviously, there’s a lot of angst. There’s a lot of interest — particularly from fringe groups like the Green Party that have that desire to be able to entrench their place in democracy by promoting the idea of proportional representation.

The concern I also have is when I think about Canada and how Canada was formed and how our system was set up for democracy and for electing people. We moved to a system that recognized that there are sparse areas, vast areas, with lower ranges of population that needed to have a voice, that needed to have the balance in our democracy. That is why it was put in there that there was the room to be able to move the percentage to plus and minus 25 percent so that not every riding had to be exactly the equal number of population.

That variance was put in specifically for the recognition that we are not Germany. We are not in the Netherlands. We are not Denmark. We’re not France, which has, yes, large population areas, but the population is quite distributed throughout the whole area. We have that challenge with our geography. I know the members opposite — the NDP — most of their people are elected from large urban areas.

They don’t have that experience or knowledge or understanding of what those rural areas are like, but I can tell you that it is challenging when you have an area like mine that’s 72,000 square kilometres. The member for North Island has a fraction of the size of mine by comparison, although she’s wanting to chime in here in terms of this debate.

However, when you have these very large areas, our democracy was set up to be able to protect those very issues, to be able to protect the fact and recognize that you have that uniqueness. So I’m wondering….

Oh yes, and of course I forgot to mention, there’s also the very special circumstances that were also put in there, to be able to recognize that even with that, there’s still the ability to be able to have some variance to recognize that. Saskatchewan and all other provinces, of course, utilize this system.

What I’m wondering is, as part of this 50 percent plus one, why the minister and this government did not take into consideration the requirement to balance the need of plurality — not only of votes but also of regions?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has a lot of ideas about different systems or suggestions around ensuring rural voice is represented in the Legislature.

[6:35 p.m.]

I think that’s a really important value, and I welcome that. I encourage him to provide a submission to engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote, in terms of ensuring that models are put forward to British Columbians that reflect the values the member has just articulated.

This particular section that’s in front of us is an important one, as are all of them, but this is enabling legislation. The question that is going to go forward to the people is going to be determined through consultation, and I hope the member participates in that.

J. Rustad: I know it’s getting late in the day, but I have to ask the minister. I mean, his answer, quite frankly, is unacceptable. The minister has set, in this binding legislation, and I will read it: “The result of the referendum is binding on the government only if more than 50% of the validly cast ballots” meet those conditions.

The minister has set that in there. Government has set that in there. Yet, with a valid question with regards to the reason for why there shouldn’t be a balance in terms of also having a requirement around the ridings, the minister just casts it off to: “It’s a great idea. Suggest it.”

This is legislation that is passing. There is no chance to change it. That piece of legislation, and that particular threshold, is something that should be thought of and needs to be considered as part of this, which is why it’s a very valid question to ask and why I’m asking why the minister intentionally did not include the requirement for a majority of ridings in this province to also support this referendum.

Hon. D. Eby: Fifty percent plus one is a very high threshold. Only one time since the 1920s has a government been elected with a result greater than 50 percent. That’s to govern the entire province. So I don’t know why the member is suggesting that that’s not a significant threshold, that that wouldn’t include the voices of many, many British Columbians.

We chose mail-in ballot to facilitate the participation of people across the province, to encourage high voter turnout. We want to see that. Every vote will count in the referendum, and we want to see what British Columbians would like to see in their voting system. That’s why we’re doing this.

J. Rustad: I don’t disagree that 50 percent is a significant threshold. I prefer 60 percent, given the magnitude of the change. But it still doesn’t answer the question why there wasn’t a consideration of regional concerns, particularly rural concerns, in this referendum.

The reality is that a very small area of the province with a large area of the population could decide the fate for the entire province — totally disregarding the foundations of what created this country and the foundations of the electoral system that we have currently in this country, which has those variances and recognizes those differences for rural B.C.

Why is this minister and this government refusing to recognize the significance of rural areas of this province and ignoring those concerns as part of this legislation?

Hon. D. Eby: We are getting close to the end of the day.

The government is not ignoring — certainly, I’m not ignoring — the voices of rural communities in this process. We’re doing a consultation process that’s engaging the entire province. We have a panel of a thousand people that are selected from across B.C., from rural and urban areas, all different demographics that are assisting us in this process, in the consultation that’s taking place. So I don’t know why the member would suggest that. It’s simply not accurate.

J. Rustad: I fundamentally disagree with the answer that the minister has given with regards to that. It is ignoring the voices and the balance that has created this great province and that has created this great country. We are one of the leading economies in the world. We’re certainly one of the strongest financial situations in Canada. Our electoral system has served us well. It has had that balance, and it put that balance in there intentionally.

It is unfortunate, but I am going to move an amendment to section 9. I’m feeling that need because I do not see that respect or recognition of the values of all of this province.

The amendment that I move is:

[SECTION 9 by adding the underlined text as shown:

(2) If the result of the referendum

(a) is binding on the government in accordance with subsection (1), and

(b) the ballots referred to in that subsection are in favour of adopting a proportional representation voting system, and

(c) the ballots in favour of adopting a proportional respresentation voting system comprise a majority from more than 50% of the electoral districts,

the government must take steps that the government considers necessary or advisable to implement the result of the referendum, including introducing the legislation needed to implement the proportional representation voting system in sufficient time for that voting system to be in place for a general election called on or after July 1, 2021.]

I’ll provide an opportunity for that to be distributed to the members that are interested in that. I’m sure there will be a few others that would like to speak to it. I will also have a little more to say shortly.

[6:40 p.m.]

The Chair: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

M. Bernier: I appreciate my colleague putting forward this amendment. Coming from a rural part of British Columbia myself, I can tell you that there’s a lot of angst and a lot of concern that I’m hearing from people around B.C. We all talk about “every voice matters” and “every vote matters,” and in this case here, this is an important amendment to ensure that that actually takes place.

I would almost bet that the minister, who has been listening to these questions all day and doing what he can to stay inside his message box…. I appreciate that, but I think that even he would appreciate….

You can imagine if Ottawa was to put forward a bill or a referendum or a question to all of Canada that says: “We want to make sure that every voice matters. But wait a second. It is actually about population, so we’re not going to worry about British Columbia. Maybe listen a little bit to Alberta.” We know, because of the population, that actually Quebec and Ontario will have the entire say of what happens, and they will end up voting on something that would affect British Columbia.

I guarantee you that every single person in this House would stand up and say that’s not fair, that our voice should be weighted and our voice should be equal. Whether Ontario or Quebec has more of a population or not should be irrelevant. In fact, our voice should be heard. That’s all we’re asking for — something similar like that here in British Columbia.

In a riding like mine presently — that is, about 30,000 people…. My riding is the size of Belgium. My riding should have the opportunity — because of that geographical size, because of the difference in opinions and views…. They should have an opportunity to ensure that their voice is equally heard and weighted in a way that they will know that when they vote….

I don’t know how they’re all going to vote, but I am sure that a majority of the people right now, the way that this bill is being put forward, are not going to be in favour. But right now their voice is not going to be heard, and that’s really troubling for myself and, I know, a lot of people on this side of the House. I hope that it’s actually equally as troubling for the government that has put that forward.

We want to make sure, at the end of the day, if there is going to be a referendum — which this government seems very eager, with their Green members, to pass — that at least it’s fair. We’re seeing right now that the question being considered and the opportunities for people to discuss this…. It’s not going through that fair process. It seems very skewed. At least last time when we did these referendums, we actually had the citizens’ assembly — people right across the province who sat down and made sure that we had a question that people could understand and people could vote on.

In this case here, it sounds like it’s going to be a backroom, regardless of what happens. You know, the minister and the government are trying to say that everybody has an opportunity to have feedback. But it sure sounds like that information…. Albeit it’s going to be an exercise for the public to make it look like they’re listening, but it looks like the decision has already been made. That’s what makes it really troubling for us on this side of the House. It’s not something that we want going forward with a predetermined outcome.

It’s also concerning when you hear 50 percent plus one. The minister and government had, and has, the opportunity to change that. Why they went 50 percent plus one? You know, it’s for them to decide. There is nowhere in legislation or in policy that says they had to do that. The minister and government could have chosen any number higher than that. And as my colleague who got up and who has been doing a great job during this committee stage said earlier, we want to ensure, at the very end, that it is something where we know that there’s a mandate.

[6:45 p.m.]

The member for Peace River North said the same thing. You would assume that the government would want to know that they have a mandate. I mean, we know right now they technically don’t have a mandate, because they’re only in government because of the three members from the Green Party. But you would think that, for something as important as this, they would want to secure a mandate and ensure that the people of British Columbia have given clear direction and given a clear signal that this is the direction they want to go. That’s not one part of the province. That’s a clear direction and signal from every geographical location in the province.

We have this amendment in front of us to ensure that at least we’re trying to, again, make a bill better — one that we can support and one that we know the people of British Columbia will be proud to support as well.

With that, I really appreciate the opportunity to say why I support this amendment, and I’m hoping the members opposite will do the same.

D. Davies: Certainly, I want to echo some of the comments and certainly support the amendment increasing that threshold. As we’ve been hearing, I think, when this bill was first introduced…. I can’t even remember when. September some time. We’ve heard in this House numerous discussions regarding this point alone, regarding having the 50 percent plus one and looking at if that is a true mandate for the government of British Columbia to change, again, one of the most fundamental pieces of our democracy that we share here in British Columbia — that is, how to vote.

British Columbia is 146 years old, I believe, and when I look at pieces that are missing out of this bill — the 50 percent plus one, no minimum voter turnout as part of it, removal of having the majority of ridings represented — it scares me that we’re going down this path to change a piece of our democracy that will forever be changed. This isn’t try-sies. We’re not going to have the opportunity to go back and undo this — this error, in my opinion.

Going back to my colleague from Peace River South speaking about the size of our ridings. Throughout our debates on both sides, we often used comparables, looking at different countries and looking at countries that currently have the proportional representation type of electoral system. You know, I have to say that my riding is quite large, as I’ve mentioned in this place before. I can fit numerous small European countries into my riding, and when you combine these different countries, we’re looking at 30 million, 40 million, 50 million people.

My riding, which, again, is 161,000 square kilometres, has just over 35,000 people in it. And when I look at these thresholds that aren’t being made…. There are, again, numerous ones of them. The 50 plus one is the piece that we’re talking about now for the amendment, but there’s the turnout and not having ridings represented. It really bothers me and certainly has raised much debate in my own riding.

I’ve talked about this on social media — going home for the weekend and talking to my local media and having people come up to me in the coffee shops. They are concerned that, first and foremost, they’re not going to have a say in how this referendum goes. When we look at…. A majority of the population is located here in the Lower Mainland. We can certainly and quite easily lose the voice of rural B.C.

[6:50 p.m.]

Another piece that was talked about is this whole mandate and truly looking at having a decisive mandate — that we can say: “Yes, a majority of British Columbians actually want electoral change.” Unless some of these thresholds are put in place, we can never say that. We can never say…. If 10 percent or 15 percent of the population comes out and votes 51 percent, how can we honestly say that we have a decisive answer to change the way that we vote?

Well, we can’t, and that is what is flawed in this bill. That’s one of the pieces that is flawed in this bill.

If we just look at the Quebec referendum. There’s a good example of having a 50 plus one. That was a number of years ago now, and even today we are still sitting and looking at problems….

I’m feeling extra eyes on me here. The pressure is coming on me to wrap it up. With that, noting the hour, I ask that the committee report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.