Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate, committee stage, Bill 6.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On the amendment to section 9 (continued).

J. Thornthwaite: I wanted to continue with my remarks on the actual amendment. You do recall the last series of referendums that we had. You needed 60 percent of the popular vote provincewide and majority support in 60 percent of B.C.’s electoral districts. These supermajority thresholds indicated the significance of the decision and were designed so that a change of this magnitude would have wide support.

We know now that not everybody actually votes that’s eligible. If there’s a 50 percent turnout on referendum day and just 51 percent vote, it means only one-quarter of the eligible voters will decide the outcome for everyone. However, the Attorney General himself has confirmed that a result will be binding even if voter turnout is as low as 10 percent.

You don’t need to listen to me. I’m quoting Mike Smyth in the Province: “In both earlier votes, the government required a 60 percent yes vote for the referendum to pass. That’s all been thrown out the window, along with any requirement for a minimum voter turnout for the referendum result to be binding and carved into law. It’s a political version of the three-card monte game. And the coming NDP-Green ‘engagement about democracy’ looks like nothing but a phoney public relations exercise to make the game look fair.”

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to the amendment on Bill 6, section 9. Really, I feel that the importance of this amendment is around making sure we have a clear indication from the public as to their preferred outcome of an electoral reform referendum.

No one on this side of the House is saying we should not have an electoral reform referendum. What we are saying is it needs to be a fairly run process that results in a fair result which actually demonstrates very clearly what the direction of the will of the largest possible portion of the population can be.

This amendment, taking into account the averaging of the last three election voter turnouts for the provincial government, is sending a clear message that we, both sides of this House, expect there to be a high level of engagement from the public within a referendum and to make sure that as a threshold of being met, we’re capturing, based on what we’ve seen for historic turnouts for general elections, that same type of turnout expectation for the referendum.

The reason that a double majority is typically built into referendums is because that’s that firewall safeguard to make sure that we do have, indeed, a clear direction for something as fundamentally important as changing the way we may elect governments moving forward. It’s to make sure that that system is well protected and that there’s a very clear indication from the public around that.

[1:40 p.m.]

Going to the average of the three voter turnout results of the last three provincial elections, which this amendment would do, enables both sides of this House to be able to say with confidence that the results of the election are in keeping with the voter turnouts we’ve seen in past provincial elections. It’s not relying on the chronically low voter turnout levels of a municipal campaign that we typically see in this province.

It’s not trying to reach to the levels of what we sometimes see in a federal campaign that comes out. It’s relying on the electorate that typically sends 87 of us to this House to represent them and saying if that same basic number of people over the last three elections shows up in this referendum, then whatever the result is, it’s binding. People will understand that and move forward.

Simply thinking that a 10 percent voter turnout is a good enough threshold speaks volumes, I think, to the lack of respect towards the overall voting process that we’re seeing in this bill when it relates to trying to make sure that people have a fair opportunity to be able to effect change but, also, and just as importantly, a fair opportunity to say that they’re comfortable with the way the current system runs.

If you have an electoral system, an electoral reform act, which is heavily slated towards guaranteeing a change in the way that we elect people into this House, you’re essentially saying that the people who may very much want to keep the current system have to fight twice as hard to try to see a desired outcome that they would like to see and their wishes respected.

I find that very interesting. There’s a lot of conversation throughout this bill and out in the public that somehow the proportional system better represents people’s wishes in a vote. Yet here we are trying to make sure that we do not have a fair system to try to make sure that people who want to maintain the first-past-the-post system have a fair way to make sure that their voice is heard within this vote.

This amendment would enable that. It would enable a second threshold to be met within this referendum, which would put the onus onto the government, who have very clearly said that they are going to campaign strongly in favour of this, in the way of their confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party. The Green Party, obviously, has said that they are going to campaign very hard in favour of it, and they’re fully within their rights to do that.

If they’re that confident that so many people want to see this change, and they’re that confident that they can influence people and make sure that they get out and vote, this amendment simply says that they need to put their money where their mouth is. Well, I guess they put the taxpayers’ money where their election debts are lately. But this really does make them stand up, and say: “Okay, we’re confident that not only is this the right system moving forward for the public, but we’re confident that the vast majority of people in this province — an average of the last three municipal campaign election turnouts — will step forward and the majority of them will think that this is a good system.”

One would think that if you were confident enough in the system that you’re proposing as a government, you would have no problem with this amendment. The only reason I can see a government not wanting to support this amendment is because you are worried that, in fact, what you are trying to foist upon people is somewhat of a shell game, a rigged game. The three-card monte reference is very fitting. In fact, on Twitter last week, I tweeted out something similar — that they’re playing three-card monte, but they’re playing three-card monte with five cards. That’s as rigged as this election, this referendum act, is right now, in my opinion.

This amendment goes a long way to try to make sure that we get back to a balance, a level playing field, which sends a very clear message, a very clear result to all of British Columbia. Let’s remember we’ve already voted on this twice. It has been rejected twice. Now we see a lowering of the thresholds to a point to try to get a desired outcome that the members opposite have been very clear is the result they want to see, by virtue of them campaigning so hard and saying they’re going to campaign so hard for a desired outcome in terms of a positive proportional representation system and first-past-the-post being gone.

They are so bent on changing the democracy and the way we elect people in this province that they’re willing to waive any semblance of a fair fight. I think Canadians in general and British Columbians in general can accept the results of competition — good, hard-spirited competition — but they expect the rules of the game to be a fair game, a fair fight. I think this goes totally contrary to those Canadian and British Columbian ideals that we all share, in terms of trying to make sure that things are done in a fair fashion.

I fully support this amendment of making sure that the minimum threshold of voter turnout is the average of the last three provincial elections, as well as the 50-plus-one percent for whichever side happens to vote.

[1:45 p.m.]

R. Sultan: Let me add my voice of support to the passage of this amendment to the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act and point out that the somewhat stiffer hurdle being offered here — being the average of the turnout in the last three provincial general elections — would give a hurdle rate in the general vicinity of 60 percent. I believe that would be a convincing demonstration of voter support for some very, very significant changes which are being proposed in our democratic system, changes which the Attorney himself has conceded are important, significant and generate a great deal of passion.

Given the significance of the changes being proposed, it certainly should not be trivialized by artificially low turnouts or no particular turnout hurdle whatsoever. The legislation is more important than that, I would suggest to the Attorney.

The other compelling argument that has great meaning to me, ironically, is the argument made by one of the stalwarts of the New Democratic Party, Bill Tieleman. He suggests that this proposed legislation is tantamount to a confession of surrender on the part of the governing party of the day, giving up on the idea that they would ever actually achieve a majority government in British Columbia.

Bill — who I admire, even though I don’t buy into all of his political philosophies — points out if we had not had majority NDP governments from time to time in Canada, we would probably not have universal health care, we would probably not have the agricultural land reserve, and we probably would not have public automobile insurance.

Interjections.

R. Sultan: I hope my brethren on this side of the House don’t feel I’m being treacherous by pointing out that these, in fact, were very important advances in public policy in Canada, and we’re proud of them very much, on both sides of the House, today.

Do not surrender, which is Bill Tieleman’s view, saying: “Well, we’re never going to get there, so I guess we’ll have to patch together some sort of shaky coalition from the odds and sods who show up at election time and we form a convenient coalition with.”

The other reality that you’ve probably been reminded of endlessly — I have not heard every word of the debate, of course — is the rather bizarre results in such proponents of proportional representation as Italy.

What struck me was the statistic that in the last four years in Italy, fully one-third of the legislative assembly has either changed sides, changed political affiliation, withdrew from the party that they were elected under and so on — pure chaos and hardly a structure, if it were to migrate into Canada, that would encourage the peace, order and good government of which we are so proud in this country.

Finally, I would like to parse the government’s November 4 news release entitled “Government Takes Action to Modernize Democracy.” “To modernize democracy” — that’s a chilling phrase. Who writes this stuff — George Orwell?

Their first point: “The government of British Columbia is taking action to modernize democratic institutions and make government work for the people.” No, no, no, no, no. That’s not what is being proposed. What’s actually being proposed is taking action to make government work for the NDP party and their coalition partners, the Greens.

The second point in the press release says they will give “people the power to decide the future of our most fundamental democratic institution.” No, no, no. That’s not really what this is all about. It’s a far-reaching plan to divvy up fundamental changes into little slices of salami and selling them piece by piece rather than as a complete meal.

The third point of the news release says, “The Attorney General will act as an independent official and recuse himself from cabinet discussions” at critically sensitive moments. No, no, no, no.

[1:50 p.m.]

If you believe the Attorney General can overnight join the ranks of independent officers of the Legislature and be relied upon for independent advice, just like Elections B.C., making sure everything is fair and square…. Well, if you believe that, I’ve got a tunnel under the Fraser River that I’d like to sell to you.

To wrap up, the Attorney has referred to the restructuring at the very front end of this debate, as he probably will recall. I noticed — my ears perked up — that he certainly referred to the restructuring of British Columbia’s political system as building on the traditions of the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster.

Regrettably, with this bill unamended — certainly, once NDP surgery has been completed — the mother will not recognize her child.

T. Shypitka: It gives me great pleasure to speak today on the amendment to Bill 6 — that is, that the number of votes returned be equal to, or greater than, the number of votes returned in the average of the last three provincial general elections.

As a first-time MLA, I told myself, when I was first elected, that the fall session was going to be a tenure in which I was going to listen more than I was going to speak. I wanted to be committed to this position for the long haul. I decided that it would serve myself and my constituents best if I made no real, hard decisions on anyone or anything and that observation for the fall session would give me the best foundation to build a long life here in the Legislature.

When I was first given the honour to represent Kootenay East, I had a lot of aspirations to work hard, listen to my constituents and work collaboratively within my own party, as well as with whomever sat on the other side. When my party was faced with the situation we have now, as opposition, my spirit did not die. In fact, it was regained when I saw what was perceived to be a collaborative approach to government with the inclusion of the now Green Party.

I have heard from day one how this arrangement was going to work for all British Columbians and that this coalition would always consider the voices of all. We now sit at a crossroads on a bill that will radically change the way we elect our representatives. The foundation of our constitution has been in place — has been working quite well, I might say — for over 100 years.

The amendment we have in place right now is one that will ensure that all, or at least the majority, of British Columbians are heard. Once again, the number of votes returned is equal to, or greater than, the number of votes returned in the average of the last three provincial general elections. This amendment will ensure that a fair, inclusive threshold is put in place in order to validate such an important vote.

I now find myself reaching out to those on the other side — that they deliver on their commitment to be fair and have collaborative government be upheld. I look to those on the other side to deliver their vote on this amendment to be one not of party politics and toeing the party line but, rather, to look at the very fundamental principles they say they believe in and to allow a proper threshold of voter turnout to validate this very important vote that changes our democratic system.

Surely a 10 percent, or even 5 percent, voter turnout is not including all British Columbians and is simply not fair. The member for Saanich North and the Islands gives his default answer that he does not support an amendment that is done on the fly, while the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head clearly stated that he recognized that amendments on the fly are done all the time in the Legislature, and it’s true.

This default answer from the member for Saanich North and the Islands is covering up a deal that is already made by this fringe party that is totally calling the shots here for their own political gain, pure and simple. It is obviously apparent that he is fooling no one. Amendments are commonly brought forward from deliberation during committee stage as flaws or omissions are discovered. Amendments on the fly are not new, and this amendment presented is not complicated. This amendment brings forward a commonsense approach to ensure that a respectable, fair and collaborative model is used.

On this, our last day before we conclude the fall session, as we all head home for Christmas break, I reach out to those that represent fairness and equality to their constituencies to do the right thing for all British Columbians and join me and those on this side of the House to allow fair representation in our vote on electoral reform — a game changer for our democracy. With that, I strongly support this amendment.

A merry Christmas to all.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I spoke out of frustration the last time, before lunch. It was probably a factor that it was right before lunch — the annoyance in my voice.

The reality is that the government has provided drafting services to the opposition. It’s confidential drafting services. They can use the legislative drafters. The amendment that’s in front of us amends the wrong subsection. It amends subsection (2). It should amend subsection (1). It uses language that is not consistent with the Election Act.

I know that the member feels that amendments on the fly are a regular part of government. It wasn’t ever my experience in opposition, but if there were to be amendments on the fly, if the member wants that to happen, the key is to have an amendment that actually achieves the intended effect, which means it’s properly drafted and amends the right subsection.

The way to do that is to use the legislative drafting services. I will underline that for the members on the other side. That is a very key and important thing.

The average turnout of the last three elections was 58.38 percent. To the members opposite who are speaking in favour of this, I know that this must be the number that they’re endorsing. But there were 12 B.C. Liberal MLAs that did not have that kind of voter turnout in their constituencies when they were elected to this place. I don’t think anybody is suggesting that those elections are somehow illegitimate or that they’re not properly here.

The way that our system works is we give people the opportunity to vote. They decide whether or not they want to vote. They decide how they want to vote. That’s how it works. In fact, that’s how it worked in 2005, when the government held a referendum on proportional representation. That’s how it worked in 2009, when the government held a proportional representation referendum.

I do understand that the members clearly have a position with respect to whether to keep the existing system or change to a new one. My job, as the member from the North Shore mentioned, is to make sure that all voices are heard, that there’s a fair referendum process conducted, that British Columbians have the information that they need and that there is a fair question or questions put to them that they understand. We will make sure that happens.

This amendment creates a standard that in elections that elected B.C. Liberal MLAs was not met, and I will not be supporting it.

The Chair: Hon. Members, the question is the amendment to section 9, put forward by the member for Langley.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[2:00 p.m.]

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: Returning to consideration of section 9, I’ll allow a minute for the chamber….

[2:05 p.m.]

D. Davies: I’ll resume a few questions on section 9, unamended.

Of course, recently the panel has been announced and talked about. I think it’s no secret that it is somewhat lopsided. I’m sure most of the public is aware of that. I’m wondering if the government has any consideration, moving forward, to look at reviewing that panel and either adding members to it or changing the panel.

Hon. D. Eby: Two points to the member’s question. The first is that although that amendment failed, this is section 9 as amended. There was a minor drafting error that was corrected.

The second is that there was a group of four academics who were consulted in preparing the survey, a survey which has been criticized alike by first-past-the-post fans and proportional representation fans. I think we struck a happy balance there.

In any event, this bill is not about that consultation. This is the enabling legislation that puts into law the ability for regulations to be set based on that consultation process, which is underway right now. British Columbians who are interested in participating can go to engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote to participate. I encourage them to do so.

The work of that panel was voluntary, and it’s complete. I thank them very much for their assistance, which they did on a pro bono basis. All four are experts in this type of participatory consultation, and their advice was invaluable to government, so I appreciate it.

D. Davies: In section 9(2) and throughout, there certainly is reference to the proportional representation piece being looked at following the referendum, but there’s no mention of a mechanism to uphold the first-past-the-point if voters do indeed choose the status quo. Does the government agree with that?

Hon. D. Eby: The current electoral system in B.C., the first-past-the-post system that the member describes, would just continue. In the event that people vote in favour of maintaining the current system, then it just continues on.

The only reason that you would need to bind government to action is if, in fact, people voted to change the system. This provision says that government would be bound to act if people voted to change the system. Otherwise, it just carries on.

[2:10 p.m.]

D. Davies: So just to make absolute certain, then: if the referendum is defeated, the government, then, is committed to the status quo of maintaining first-past-the-point.

Hon. D. Eby: The result is binding either way, just to clarify my earlier remarks. The result is binding either way on government. If it says to keep the existing system, then it’s binding on government to keep the system, but there’s no action that needs to be taken. The system just stays the way it is.

If the result is to change to a new system, then there is action that needs to be taken, which is to implement a proportional system. This section talks about it by a certain date, which is to be “in place for a general election called on or after July 1, 2021.”

D. Davies: I guess, going back to a piece of the amendments that we’ve talked about and much of the debate that we’ve had on this bill in the first reading, as well as the second, we’ve had lots of talk about benchmarks, thresholds and lots of talk about the 10 percent voter turnout, the 20 percent voter turnout — whatever that looks like.

I still have this feeling or perception that there’s a piece missing of this. It’s where we really see that mandate and where government sees that mandate regarding: “This is what the province of British Columbia needs. This is what the province of British Columbia wants.”

Is there — mainly for the record, I guess — a benchmark that the government will use, however low that might be, where the government will concede that maybe they haven’t engaged enough British Columbians to make this choice?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m in agreement with the member for Prince George–Valemount, when she spoke yesterday and said that people have — certainly she had — a great deal of passion about this issue and that she didn’t think that the vote would be 10 percent, 20 percent or 30 percent. She thought it would be higher. I agree.

In fact, that is the history of British Columbians voting in referenda, especially in mail-in ballots, which is the mode we chose for this. The reason we chose that was to encourage a high voter turnout. So 48.6 percent of registered voters in the 2015 transit plebiscite. The 2011 HST referendum, 52.6 percent turnout.

We will be taking all kinds of measures to encourage a high voter turnout. I think people are very engaged on this. When you listen to the speeches of the members on this side of the House and on that side of the House about this issue, you will hear that there is a lot of energy about this referendum on both sides. I think we’ll have a very high voter turnout.

I thank the member for his question, noting simply that in the 2005 and 2009 proportional representation referenda alike, there was not a minimum threshold.

D. Davies: Well, I guess I might have to argue with a high voter turnout. I would suggest — I think I mentioned it in one of my questions yesterday — that if you really want to gauge the public, I think this would be better aligned with a provincial election, as an amendment question, if we really wanted to gauge as many British Columbians as possible.

A question very similar to my last one. I don’t think I got the answer I was hoping for. What is the majority threshold where government can clearly state: “Yes, we have a decisive voice of British Columbians. The province has spoken loudly. The province has spoken clearly. The province has engaged, and engaged the public”? What does that number look like? We’ve heard some off-the-cuff remarks, I think, possibly, in the media. But in this place, what is that minimum threshold?

Hon. D. Eby: An amendment to this bill was just defeated that proposed a threshold of 58.38 percent, and I note that 12 opposition MLAs and six NDP MLAs didn’t hit that threshold of voter turnout in their constituencies. I don’t think we would say that their election was in any sense not legitimate.

The way our system works is that we give people the opportunity to vote. They have a couple of decisions to make. They can decide to vote or not vote, and then they can decide how they vote. It is up to British Columbians to decide that.

[2:15 p.m.]

Now, we are going to take all the measures that we can to encourage a significant and large voter turnout on an important question. If members have suggestions about how to increase voter turnout, we would absolutely welcome them. We believe that there will be a very good voter turnout on this referendum, because it’s an important question. As far as I can tell, all members in this House are very engaged on the question. They’re going to do their best to make sure that constituents get out and vote.

The spirit of the member’s question is an idea that there will be a very low voter turnout in this, that people aren’t interested in this. I disagree. I think there will be a very good turnout, and I think that we will get a clear indication from British Columbians because there will be a clear question put to them, and they’ll have the information they need to vote. That is the spirit of this bill. That is the intent of my actions as Attorney General, as directed by the Premier to administer this process in a fair way. We will do that, and there will be direction that will be binding on government from the public.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. We can all hope, we can all pray, and we can all look into the crystal ball and wish for the best turnout. At the end of the day, that’s all it is. We do not know, and I think, unfortunately, we did not pass an amendment which would have put some checks and balances in place to make sure that there is a mandate.

I would like to believe that all British Columbians will participate in this, just as, I’m sure, the Premier of Prince Edward Island had hoped that he would have a large turnout. But the reality is that that wasn’t the case.

I really don’t believe that this falls as an absolute top priority for the average British Columbian working and playing throughout our province, trying to make a go at day-to-day life. Again, I have grave concerns that, without pieces in place and without a commitment on behalf of government to make sure that there are certain thresholds put in place…. I really worry that such a fundamental change in our democracy could be changed with a very small turnout.

The United Kingdom has a piece in play, and it was used during Brexit — a qualified majority. They have pieces in play to make sure that there are some thresholds made and to make sure that they do have the wishes of people being heard.

My question, I guess, would be, going back to my last question — which, again, I don’t think was answered: is there a clear mandate? Is there a clear piece where this government will state: “I’m sorry. We do not have enough of a mandate to change this piece of our democracy”? Is there a commitment to that?

Hon. D. Eby: The commitment of the government is really clear. The commitment of the government, as will be implemented through my ministry, is that there will be a referendum, that we will do our best to make sure the voter turnout is as high as possible, that every British Columbian that is eligible will have an opportunity to vote on this important question, that they will have the information they need to vote and that there will be a clear question — or questions, depending on the consultation — put to them. So the commitment of the government is very clear.

I note that legally in British Columbia, there’s no obligation to hold a referendum, no obligation to do a consultation about the referendum — none of that.

I do appreciate the member’s suggestion that he’s worried. I think we should all be engaged on the question of how to get voter turnout up, not just on this referendum but generally. I agree with him to that extent.

I point out that the Referendum Act that was put in place by that government has no thresholds. The 2005 referendum on proportional representation put in place by that government had no thresholds. The 2009 referendum put in place by that government had no thresholds.

None of the referenda done by that side of the House had thresholds. The reason for that is the same reason that this bill doesn’t have thresholds. It’s that we have a system in place where people can choose to vote or not vote.

Now, my sincere hope is that people come out and vote in large numbers. We will be taking the measures to encourage as many people to vote as possible, which started with choosing a method that has high voter turnout. We could have paired it up with municipal elections. They have lower voter turnout. We chose mail-in ballot which has, traditionally, a higher voter turnout.

[2:20 p.m.]

If there are measures that members on the other side can suggest to increase voter turnout, I’m glad to hear them, because I think it’s the duty of all of us to encourage a high voter turnout here. I hope that assists the member with his worries.

D. Davies: No, it doesn’t. There are a couple of pieces that arise out of this. And I’ll just make kind of an observation, I guess. If the Attorney General feels and is very confident that we’re going to have an incredible turnout, I’m not sure why he didn’t support our amendment, if that was a worry of his. But if we’re really going to be looking at…. Again, it goes back to the worry that we’re not going to really be representing the public out there. We’ve heard these numbers of 10 or 15 or 20 percent being thrown out as hypothetical numbers. But I really think it’s important that we do have that consideration for a low turnout.

The minister talks about the referendum act. That might be, but it goes back to what I mentioned yesterday. It’s a matter of doing things right, making sure that we are doing things for what is in the best interest of the province. When we look at 2005 and 2009, we went above and beyond what was in the act and what was needed. We had thresholds in place to make sure that we were going to be judging and having a mandate, having a decisive mandate to move forward with.

We had an independent committee, the citizens’ assembly, go out and gather information. I appreciate the minister looking at some of the legislation that the B.C. Liberals have created. We have the opportunity to even go above and beyond to make sure we do what is in the best interests of British Columbians, and that is not happening with Bill 6. In fact, hon. Chair, quite the opposite is happening with this legislation.

Again, if I could even just get a straight-up answer from the Attorney General. If, for whatever reason, this turnout for the upcoming referendum, should Bill 6 pass…? Is there a number…? If it’s 5 percent of the voter turnout, let’s speculatively say, would the government still move forward with this binding referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: There has never been an election or a referendum in the history of British Columbia — I would wager in North America — that has had a 5 percent turnout. So while I appreciate that the member has concerns, I think that the attention of the public and the attention of the members is best turned to: how do we maximize voter turnout? How can we all get together and ensure that as many people vote as possible?

I don’t know how else to assist the member with this, hon. Chair.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.

J. Martin: Thank you once again, Attorney. In section 12(3)(c), perhaps the Attorney could clarify it for me. It looks like cabinet is going to be involved in the referendum count, by the wording, and I’m sure that’s not the intent. But perhaps that can be substantiated?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: No, cabinet won’t be involved in — obviously, perhaps — counting the referendum vote. The member is right. This is a regulatory power that’s established around powers for and rules around the ballot count. It is routine that there are regulations related to counting ballots. This is spelled out explicitly to ensure that there are regulatory powers in order to establish regulations related to the counting of ballots.

J. Martin: Does this suggest that cabinet is going to give direction to Elections B.C. in terms of the methods of counting ballots, something I’m sure they’re already well versed in?

Hon. D. Eby: The Election Act for general elections normally does this. For this referendum act, this is the regulation-making power. It’s possible that this section will point to the Election Act. It’s possible that if there is some sort of a ranked number system as part of the ballot question, based on feedback from British Columbians…. That’s not something that’s in the Election Act, so that would be something that would have to be added — how Elections B.C. does that. But it’s not to direct that it should be counted a certain way. It’s to give Elections B.C. the authority to be able to count the ballots.

J. Martin: In the same section a little further down, subsection (3)(e), cabinet plans on limiting the amount of information that will be voted on?

Hon. D. Eby: Section (e) relates to…. It would be mandated so that the Chief Electoral Officer would have to make available the voting package materials so that voters can make an informed decision. These would be the materials that are being developed by Ministry of Attorney General staff so that voters on voting day have information about each of the different voting systems that might be on the ballot — the system or systems — including the current first-past-the-post system.

This is part of our commitment to ensuring that voters are able to make an informed choice when it comes to completing the ballots.

J. Martin: In subsection (4), I’m curious why this isn’t being left entirely to Elections B.C. I’m sure there are some very capable, learned people among the 22 members of the front bench, but this is something Elections B.C. would appear to and should have complete authority over.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Ordinarily, this would be a reference to the Elections Act, so it’d say it should be counted consistent with the Elections Act. Staff advised that there is currently no regulation or law in place that describes how to count a ballot that has more than two answers — for example, a ranked ballot system.

If that is a component of the ballot question, based on the feedback from British Columbians, it turns out that Elections B.C. actually needs legislative authority to direct them how to count ballots — what’s a valid ballot, what’s a rejected ballot.

I agree with the member that the folks at Elections B.C. are more than capable on their own of doing this, but legally there needs to be an explicit law that directs them on how to count ballots in order for them to have the legislative authority to do that and determine the results of the election.

J. Martin: I have a similar question regarding subsection (5), and perhaps that will be responded to with a similar response, but it would appear that this type of process must be at arm’s length and be the purview of Elections B.C. and not the cabinet.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct in that it’s a similar answer. This is the same as was done in 2009. Elections B.C. needs legislative authority to do the things that are described here, and that is by regulation. So it’s a matchup of what was done in the 2009 referendum.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:33 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

The Chair: The committee on Bill 6 reports the bill complete with amendment.

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

Hon. D. Eby: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 ACT

Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, read a third time and passed.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call for the consideration of the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply.

Supply Motions

REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on October 3, 5, 17, 18, 23, 25, 30, 31; and November 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 27, 29 and 30 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 41 billion, 957 million, 011 thousand dollars towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 2), 2017.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES, LOANS, INVESTMENTS
AND OTHER FINANCING REQUIREMENTS

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 856 million, 616 thousand dollars towards defraying the disbursements for capital, loans, investments and other financing requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 2), 2017.]

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — SUPPLY ACT, 2017-2018

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2017-2018.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 17 be introduced and read a first time now.

This supply bill is introduced to authorize funding for the operation of government programs for the 2017-2018 fiscal year. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of the resolutions from the Committee of Supply after consideration of the main estimates. In addition, the House has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018.

Mr. Speaker, after discussion, it is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I would ask that you remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is being circulated.

Members, in keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 17, Supply Act, 2017-2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

[2:40 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — SUPPLY ACT, 2017-2018

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 17 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 17 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 17, Supply Act, 2017-2018, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — SUPPLY ACT, 2017-2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 17 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — SUPPLY ACT, 2017-2018

Bill 17, Supply Act, 2017-2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

[2:45 p.m. - 2:55 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Election Amendment Act, 2017

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act

Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017

Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017

Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2017

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act, 2017-2018

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Hon. J. Guichon (Lieutenant-Governor): Before I leave, I want to just take advantage of this opportunity to say a few words.

I’m here to give royal assent. I left Kamloops a few hours ago and will return there tonight, but I wanted to come because I presume it will my last opportunity. Some of you may not be present when I say goodbye, so I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to wish you all a great holiday season.

Thank you, all, for your service and for the fact that you all are willing to sacrifice and would be willing to serve the people of British Columbia. I wanted to thank you all for that.

Also, I would like to close as I began, with my favourite quote, by a soil scientist, Charles Kellogg, who in 1938 said: “Do civilizations fall because the soil fails to produce, or does a soil fail only when the people living on it no longer know how to manage their civilization?”

May you all have a wonderful Christmas season. Thank you. [Applause.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[3:00 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, before calling on the House Leader, I would just like to thank you all for your patience this session. I know I’ve made a number of errors, and I promise to make less in the spring.

I’d also like to wish everyone here — very, very sincerely, I mean this — a very merry Christmas, the best of the holiday season and safe travels.

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the work you’ve done, and all members of the House — opposition, Third Party and government — and all of the staff that keep this place going — in the Legislative Library, in the restaurant, keeping the halls available, the security people. This whole place operates like a finely oiled machine. It’s a credit to the people who work here. It’s a credit to British Columbia that we have such an outstanding group of people keeping our Legislature functioning.

In our parliamentary democratic system, we should all be fiercely proud of the work that we do each and every day, and this session, I think, has been exemplary. It’s been an honour to be a part of it.

M. de Jong: I wish to echo, on behalf of the official opposition, the remarks of the Premier with respect to all of the people that we rely upon when we gather here to make this democratic institution function — to thank them as well and wish them the best of the season.

I might also, though, take a moment, in what is perhaps not intended to be a partisan self-serving way, to pay tribute to the individual who usually sits to my left. The Premier was very generous earlier today in commenting upon the years of service, generally, but more particularly the work that the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove has rendered — Langley East; my goodness, I’ve been here a long time — in unique circumstances, as a transition occurs within the ranks of the official opposition.

He is a unique individual. He is dedicated and passionate about not just his community but the province as a whole, the party he represents and the colleagues that he works with. I know it is contrary to the rules, but I hope…. I think all members will join me in paying tribute and saying thank you to MLA Rich Coleman for the service that he has rendered.

[3:05 p.m.]

He’s not gone, but he will not be sitting, necessarily, in this seat when we reconvene, and I think we’d all like to say thank you for the service that he has rendered this chamber. [Applause.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve waited 16 years.

I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the second session of the 41st parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I move the final motion, I am reminded by the staff who so ably keep this place running…. Would members please remove their personal items from their desks before leaving today. They would greatly appreciate it.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 3:07 p.m.