Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates debate for the Ministry of Attorney General, and in Section A, I call the continued estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we go, I have two reports to be tabled today. I have the honour to present a report intituled Promoting Healthy Eating and Physical Activity in K-12: An Independent Audit, from the Office of the Auditor General of B.C. Secondly, I have the honour to present a report intituled 2017-2018 Annual Report from the Office of the Merit Commissioner.

[2:50 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $470,469,000.

M. Lee: I’d just like to start off our session by asking questions relating to electoral reform. As is set out in the mandate letter for the Attorney General from the Premier, could I ask the Attorney General just to confirm what his mandate is in respect of that referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: From the mandate letter dated July 18, 2017: “Introduce legislation to hold a provincewide referendum on proportional representation in the fall of 2018.”

M. Lee: Would it be fair to say, then, to the Attorney General, that his mandate has been substantially complete in respect of this task?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two components to the legislation. One is the legislation itself, which creates, among other things, regulation-making power. The second piece is the regulations. The legislation is passed, so the regulation-making powers exist. The regulations themselves do not yet exist.

We’ve engaged in a consultation engagement process with British Columbians. I look forward to announcing on Wednesday the results of that engagement, a record-setting engagement in our province, which will include my recommendations on these regulations and which will be publicly released and then passed over to cabinet for their deliberations.

M. Lee: As the Attorney General just confirmed, then, what is set out in the electoral reform act, in section 12, is the set of regulation-making powers that cabinet will have. As the Attorney General just confirmed, what will be addressed in his report that he releases on Wednesday will be all of the components that are referred to in that section 12.

[2:55 p.m.]

If I could ask the Attorney General to confirm that those items in respect of voting in a referendum — the counting, the advertising, the availability of the information, all of the other rules relating to financing as well…. All of those subsections are dealt with in section 12. Are those items going to be dealt with in his report to cabinet on Wednesday?

Hon. D. Eby: My report, which will be released to the public along with all of the raw data of the engagement with British Columbians, will include my recommendations, publicly released and passed to cabinet for their deliberations. The substance of those recommendations is the rules around how the referendum will be held, as well as the question or questions for the ballot — things like expenditure limits, what donation rules will apply, these sorts of things. So the member is correct; it is to inform cabinet’s deliberations on those regulations.

M. Lee: I’m curious to ask, just in terms of the arrangement between the NDP and the Green caucus…. In respect of the CASA agreement, there is, of course, reference to agreement between the NDP and the Green caucus on the form of proportional representation that will be proposed in the referendum. Could I ask the Attorney General how that will come about in accordance with the time frame that he just laid out?

Hon. D. Eby: The NDP and the Green Party provided a submission. It was one of more than 30 submissions from organizations across the province related to the referendum process. It was one of the submissions that was considered by my office in preparing this report that will be released on Wednesday. In addition, more than 88,000 British Columbians participated in an on-line survey and questionnaire to assist us in ensuring that, whatever the referendum question or questions, whatever the rules, it reflected the values of British Columbians and the concerns of British Columbians.

As I understand it, the NDP and the Green Party came together to provide that submission together. I recused myself from any caucus or cabinet meetings relating to this. Their submission was one of the many that we received on this, and it was considered in that context.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. I just wanted to go to that agreement, the agreement between the NDP and the Green Party. Subsection 1(b)(ii) says: “The parties agree that they will work together in good faith to consult British Columbians….” That’s one component. The second component is: “…to determine the form of proportional representation that will be put to a referendum.”

I appreciate that the Attorney General made reference to the joint submission by the NDP and Green parties. Could the Attorney General confirm whether, in that joint submission, there is actually a form of PR that is agreed upon between the NDP and the Green Party?

Hon. D. Eby: The NDP-Green submission is publicly available on the Ministry of Attorney General website, along with the submissions of more than 30 organizations and eminent individuals. In addition, we received feedback from more than 88,000 British Columbians.

If the member is asking me if whatever I’m putting forward on Wednesday is a replication of that submission, it is not. What I’m putting forward on Wednesday is not a replication of any submission that I received. It is a product of all of the submissions that my office received in the largest engagement of British Columbians in the province’s history.

M. Lee: If I’m hearing this correctly, it sounds like there isn’t an agreement between the Green Party and the NDP in respect to the form of PR that’s being proposed in this referendum. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: As I read the section the member is quoting, it’s that the NDP and the Greens agreed to consult British Columbians in good faith. That was, at least, what I understood my instructions were from the Premier — to recuse myself from cabinet and caucus discussions related to this; to go out in good faith to British Columbians and ask their opinions; to ask the eminent individuals and organizations, including the members of the opposition, to provide submissions about how they thought the referendum should run; and to provide recommendations in good faith to cabinet, based on that public engagement.

[3:00 p.m.]

I believe that the member will be able to judge for himself whether I’ve achieved that mandate on Wednesday. I hope he does agree. I certainly am confident in the recommendations that I’m putting forward.

M. Lee: Let me, I think for the time being, just park that line of inquiry and go on to ask the Attorney General…. In terms of the actual process under which the Attorney General embarked upon consulting with British Columbians, can I ask what the thinking was around or the rationale behind the timing of the public survey process and the engagement itself? Namely, that process was launched on November 23, the deadline for the survey was the end of February, and the analysis that has taken place has been over the last three months.

I appreciate that in the view of the government, there has been a high level of participation by British Columbians, but the analysis seems to have taken three months. So can I ask the Attorney General what the thought process is to utilize the ten months that the government has had to get to this point in time?

Hon. D. Eby: There were more than 90,000 questionnaires completed in multiple languages. People provided feedback as part of those questionnaires in text fields, comments to us. There were more than 30 organizations that provided written submissions.

The issue is a serious one, so we ensured that this engagement process informed the recommendations that are going forward to cabinet. The member will be able to judge for himself whether 90 days was enough time to review that.

It was both a product of the remarkable success of the engagement, the largest in B.C.’s history, and the depth of interest of British Columbians providing very detailed and thoughtful submissions to us. I’m very grateful for them doing that. It is also informed by the fact that there will be a referendum by November 30. So we are on a timeline for that, absolutely.

I think that in having the success of the largest engagement in the province’s history, taking the necessary time to review those submissions that we received and being able to have an achievable timeline around the referendum, by the end of November, we’ve done very well. But the member can judge for himself when the results are released on Wednesday — and all British Columbians, as well, because it will be released publicly.

M. Lee: Can I, then, ask the Attorney General how much money was budgeted for his ministry’s activities relating to electoral reform?

Hon. D. Eby: Based on past referenda conducted by mail-in ballot, the total estimated cost of the referendum is around $9 million to $10 million. It is a much less expensive method than holding a stand-alone in-person vote, and it also has good voter participation, based on previous results. We had looked at doing it in concert with the municipal election but found that in terms of costs and voter participation, a mail-in ballot was superior on both measures.

On the cost of the engagement that I’ve been talking about, there’s funding of $900,000 in terms of the public engagement in order for me to be able to have the ministry prepare a report on the referendum rules and ballot questions and recommendations.

[3:05 p.m.]

There is $1 million that’s budgeted for an information office to provide neutral information to voters during the referendum campaign. The referendum information office funding is for three full-time employees and public information activities, including developing a household mailer, website information and a toll-free call centre.

M. Lee: If I could just ask the Attorney General…. I didn’t quite hear. How much was the budget for the actual survey itself?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s $900,000, which includes the report.

M. Lee: In terms of the actual survey itself, if I could ask the Attorney General to outline the purpose of the survey in terms of the public engagement aspect of this referendum process. Were there other opportunities or alternatives that were considered by his ministry in terms of how to engage with the public in respect to this referendum, whether it’s cost-effective or otherwise?

Hon. D. Eby: There were a number of processes used. That budget number includes a mailer. Two million people, approximately, received a household mailer informing them about their ability to participate. They were able to participate through public libraries in our communities.

In addition to the on-line process, they could mail in their submissions to us. There was an Indigenous engagement that took place through a contractor to hear their views and opinions as well. There was also a panel of 1,100 British Columbians that was a demographically balanced panel to ensure that we were hearing from groups that might not be participating on line.

As I said, the on-line process was very successful. In fact, I believe it was the mailer that drove a great deal of the traffic to the site — a shocking 180,000 site visits, with over 90,000 questionnaires completed and, ultimately, submissions from 30 organizations. And I didn’t mention to the member that there were actually over 200 written submissions from individuals as well.

M. Lee: In terms of the actual timing of the survey and the public education campaign, back to the question about the approach that’s being utilized here, was there consideration that there should be more of a public education campaign before the survey was actually circulated and asked to be filled out by British Columbians?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. I’m not sure what the member would suggest that we educate people about. The point of the survey, questionnaire, engagement process, the Indigenous engagement process and the demographically balanced panel was to ask British Columbians what their values were, what they wanted to see in terms of rules around the referendum process, what they wanted to see in terms of the question or questions and what they wanted to see in systems that might be part of the discussion.

I think that that process was a very important one, and to go in advance and tell people what they should be telling us is putting the cart a little bit ahead of the horse. But certainly, we did have to educate people that the consultation process was going on. That’s why we sent out two million mailers to doorsteps across British Columbia to let them know that this was happening.

M. Lee: I think, in terms of the detailed questions around the actual survey itself, we’ll get into that in a moment. But just to talk about the circulation of it…. Sometimes we see with on-line surveys that they can be co-opted or taken over by certain special interest groups. For example, we understand that Fair Vote Canada sent out what they call a survey guide to give guidance to how individuals might consider filling out the survey. Is the Attorney General aware of this specific example, which could be seen as an attempt to circumvent the survey from its intended purpose?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We were very alive to concerns about not just one organization taking over the questionnaire process but also the risk of bots or other kinds of on-line activities automatically filling out questionnaires — these kinds of things. So we had a number of safeguards in place.

First of all, we used industry standards in terms of balancing the need to accept multiple entries from locations like libraries but also preventing multiple responses from campaigns attempting to influence the results. There were technical processes that were used to identify multiple submissions from the same place and the same individual, monitoring for repetitive or malicious behaviour on line. The member will understand, I hope, the need to prevent disclosure of the specific ways in which that’s achieved.

Also, the concern was: “Okay, well, we’re going to do this on-line process, but just to be sure, let’s make sure that we have a panel of ….” It might only be a certain group of people who go on line — maybe a younger demographic or a more affluent demographic. So through Ipsos Public Affairs, we administered the questionnaire to a demographically balanced group of 11,000 British Columbians as a check against any possibly skewed results from the website responses.

The details, including any differences between the balanced panel and the on-line panel, are canvassed in the report that we’ll be releasing on Wednesday. In addition, for underrepresented groups particularly, and specifically Indigenous people, First Nations people here in British Columbia, we hired a contractor to go out and solicit those views and opinions as well, directly.

M. Lee: Just to flag this for the Attorney General if they haven’t already looked at this. Fair Vote, specifically, as we understand it, asked its supporters to skew the results for the following questions in the survey: questions 5, 7(c), 8, 9, 18(b), 18(c), 19, 20, 21 and 24, which, as they termed it, were regarded as key questions to shaping the referendum to their specific point of view.

To the Attorney General, will he consider or reconsider the validity of the responses to these questions?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve explained to the member the multiple safeguards that were in place. The member can judge for himself on Wednesday how successful we were.

The Chair: No more questions?

M. Lee: I think we’ll be at this for a little time.

The Chair: Okay, carry on.

M. Lee: When the Attorney General says that we’ll be able to judge for ourselves, presumably that’s going to mean, in the nature of this report, a breakout per question, in trying to identify patterns. But presumably, the ministry has already identified if there’s any skewing of the results that would suggest that there is a pattern of voting behaviour that would suggest that the validity of the responses to that particular question would not be fair or appropriate. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: There will be a number of pieces of information released on Wednesday that will assist the member. One is the raw data, which I know some members opposite are interested in reviewing. That will be released on Wednesday.

In addition, on Wednesday, the results of the questionnaire from the on-line survey process as well as the results of the questionnaire from the demographically balanced panel of British Columbians, 1,100 British Columbians…. The 1,100 British Columbians were not selected from the members particularly interested in Fair Voting B.C. They weren’t selected from the Fair Voting B.C. group; they were selected from Ipsos Public Affairs group of people who participate in these kinds of things.

The member can check the gap between, for example, the demographically balanced group results with the on-line survey results. The member should also know that the public service was monitoring to prevent multiple responses from campaigns attempting to influence the results in one direction or another.

M. Lee: I’d just like to ask why it has taken this long, three months since the end-of-February deadline, to analyze the results.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We took 90 days to not just analyze the results but also prepare a report and recommendations that required consultation with, among others, Elections B.C. We didn’t want to recommend any regulations that were incompatible with Elections B.C.’s view of how things could possibly roll out.

I think you could make a case that we’ve done pretty well here, and I would make that case. For the member, it’s too long. I accept that critique. In any event, the report will be released on Wednesday.

M. Lee: The Attorney General has talked about the participation rate by British Columbians. Can I ask him to outline, in terms of the regions of British Columbia, where the participation was very low and areas where it may have been very high?

Hon. D. Eby: Some communities were underrepresented in terms of their population and where people were providing submissions from. Greater Vancouver was underrepresented. Squamish-Lillooet and Similkameen were underrepresented in proportion to their populations. Others, such as Kootenay-Boundary, Sunshine Coast, Mount Waddington and the capital region were more heavily represented in the on-line survey.

Now, keep in mind that we did do the demographically balanced panel through Ipsos Public Affairs as well. The regional breakdown of responses was Lower Mainland–southwest, 46 percent; Vancouver Island and the coast, 27 percent; Thompson-Okanagan, 11 percent; Kootenay, 5.62 percent; Nechako, 1 percent; northeast, 1 percent; north coast, 0.26 percent; Cariboo, 3.27 percent; and unidentified, 4.77 percent.

In terms of rural regions, there was certainly concern raised, and we were careful to monitor to ensure that rural regions were participating. We ran ad campaigns, dropped mailers on doors. We saw participation levels in the north largely in proportion to their populations. For example, the community of Fraser–Fort George represents 1.9 percent of the province and was 1.8 percent of the questionnaire responses.

Certainly, the participation and the voices of Indigenous people in this process were a priority for government. That’s why we hired an Indigenous liaison to assist with outreach to First Nations and to ensure we heard their preferences and opinions about this important matter, and input from those First Nations will be part of my report released on Wednesday.

M. Lee: Going through that breakdown, it sounds like, of course, a comparison between the level of response for a particular region versus the percentage of voters in that particular region. In matching those two considerations together, was there any rebalancing, in terms of the results of the survey, to ensure that there was an equal voice, so to speak, across the province, based on the population base of a particular region or riding in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: Certainly, the member can be assured — based on the feedback, including second reading debate on the referendum bill — that Ministry of Attorney General staff were very alive to the possibility of a difference in opinion between rural and urban areas, and to ensure that rural voices were heard appropriately in the report.

The member will have full access to all the raw data. So he will be able to compare the responses of rural communities with urban communities to see whether or not we succeeded in our goal of ensuring that all British Columbians have their voices heard, not just in the report but in the recommendations going forward to cabinet.

M. Lee: Initially, we understood that when the survey was first put out there in the province, the response rate was quite low. As we got closer into the month of November, the response rates elevated. It sounds like the government put out, as we talked about, the mailer. But there was digital advertising as well, which increased participation rates. Can the Attorney General confirm that that was the case and where those particular advertising campaigns were targeted?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, there was digital advertising as well as the household mailer. I will get the information for the member about whether there were any sort of demographic search terms or targeting or anything like that in terms of how that advertising was distributed. Certainly, it was all within British Columbia. I’ll find out if there’s any additional information that I can get the member on that. I don’t know the answer to that question.

M. Lee: As we said from the outset, in terms of the way this was structured with the Electoral Reform Referendum Act, there were certain critical questions and thresholds already determined before the survey was launched through public engagement. To the Attorney General, can I ask whether he received any advice and input as to excluding these particular fundamental elements from the consultation process?

Hon. D. Eby: No, I don’t believe I received any. I might not be fully understanding the member’s question, though.

M. Lee: As we looked at the structure of this, the two parties entered into the CASA agreement. They formed government. They agreed that they would agree on a proposed form of proportional representation to be put by a referendum by the end of November 2018. From that point onwards, the government designed a process.

I’m asking: what advice was given to the Attorney General to come forward with a new act that settled the fundamental points, including voting thresholds, for this referendum before going out to British Columbians and consulting with them about this referendum? What level of public engagement was the government thinking they were doing, when they had already settled it in the act?

Hon. D. Eby: The engagement that I was tasked with was to go out to British Columbians and to solicit their feedback about how the referendum should run, what the rules should be, what the question or questions should be. We’ve done the best that I believe we can, and the member will be able to judge the report on Wednesday. Not only will he be able to judge the report on its face, on the summaries and the recommendations. Also, he will have access to the raw data of the engagement process.

Members of the public were invited to write in. They could write whatever they wanted to us. There were feedback forms in the on-line process. Also, you could just send in a written submission. All of those pieces of feedback were received — well, I hope that they were all received; I believe they were all received — by government. They were certainly considered, and there was remarkable participation.

The member was here during the debate around the referendum bill. There was a lively and spirited debate about it, and it passed this minority parliament with a majority vote.

M. Lee: I think we’ll have some further discussion about that in a moment, but just let me continue on with the survey. As we understand it, there were four academic advisers brought on to work on the survey. Can I ask: what was the purpose to hire them? What role did they play in respect to the survey?

Hon. D. Eby: You know what? I brought the wrong staff here. I really did. We’ve got people here who are experts in the money that we’re spending on the court system, on the Ministry of Attorney General and our budgets for the year.

In terms of the referendum bill that was debated in this House and went forward…. The engagement report, which is released Wednesday, will answer, I think, a lot of the member’s questions. It just feels like ill timing, but it is the member’s time.

We retained experts to inform the engagement process, to assist us in developing questions that would inform us about British Columbians’ values in terms of how we should be running this referendum process. We’re very grateful for their participation and the feedback that they provided to us.

M. Lee: Let me just say, to clarify, that last week my office did communicate to the Attorney General’s office the sequence of topics that we would be discussing in estimates today and tomorrow. Just to say it, to hear it directly, our intention was to cover proportional representation this afternoon. Tomorrow morning, following question period, there would be discussion around gaming-related items. The member for Richmond-Steveston will be joining me at that point for that discussion.

[3:25 p.m.]

Following that, we intend to go through what is the member for Richmond-Steveston’s responsibility as the critic as well — ICBC-related items — following lunch. Then we will be getting into liquor and other general Attorney General–related matters. That is the sequence of discussion that my office had communicated to the ministry. Hopefully, that was clear.

Let me just say, though, of course, that — with the opportunity that is provided in this House, with the timing of the Attorney General’s intended announcement on Wednesday being one day before the House rises — this is what may be one of our last opportunities to have this discussion, to ensure that what is a fundamental change, potentially, to our voting system is something that this side of the House can get a better understanding of.

In terms of this number of items that were being reviewed, including the public survey, upon which the government is resting a lot of weight and reliance, that’s the reason why we’re going through more questions. So I appreciate the Attorney General’s patience with that.

If I can go back to our line of questioning here, I’d like to now ask how these four academic advisers were selected.

Hon. D. Eby: They were identified by the public service.

M. Lee: In terms of the identification by the public service, to the knowledge of the Attorney General, was he aware of how the selection process worked in terms of ensuring balance of perspectives?

Hon. D. Eby: I understood these individuals to be experts on deliberative engagement processes.

M. Lee: In terms of these individuals, how many hours did they work, and how were they compensated?

Hon. D. Eby: I believe they all worked for free, but I’ll confirm that.

M. Lee: What was their scope of work? Are they on any current retainer?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s no retainer. The individuals donated their time to assist us in this engagement process.

M. Lee: Do they have a further role in respect of this electoral reform process?

Hon. D. Eby: No, they don’t.

M. Lee: I understand that in respect of the instructions they were provided, they were instructed to abstain from public comment or academic research related to the B.C. government survey methodology, survey results or consultation process. To the Attorney General: why was that instruction provided to these four individuals?

Hon. D. Eby: The questionnaire itself, the design of the questionnaire. The ultimate decision, when the experts had conflicting opinions about what we should be doing, was mine. In fact, the member’s description is not quite right. We asked simply that they not publicly comment on the advice that they gave but that they could feel free to weigh in on the areas of their expertise. Certainly, if they have any research that they wish to do, they may do so.

[3:30 p.m.]

Yeah, they can certainly comment on the referendum process, and they’re welcome to do so.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

M. Lee: I would just like to invite the member for Chilliwack now to continue with this line of questioning regarding the survey.

J. Martin: One thing that just popped up in our question period a little while ago…. One of the issues that was raised was a survey sent out to businesses regarding the new tax. The Finance Minister was immediately dismissive of the survey because it was self-selected. Does the Attorney General agree that the electoral reform survey should similarly be dismissed because it was a self-selection?

Hon. D. Eby: The referendum survey was matched against a panel of 1,100 randomly selected British Columbians put together by Ipsos Public Affairs. If the member has concerns about people who participated in the survey maybe being self-selecting for some reason, he will be able to compare the on-line survey results with the demographically balanced panel that Ipsos put together — through the report and through the raw data that will be available.

J. Martin: Sticking with the general theme around the survey, one of the academic advisers claimed his role was only to provide “feedback on the survey you’ve constructed.” Is this an accurate summary of their role in the process?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand these individuals, who were identified and who came forward and volunteered their time, to be experts in deliberative democratic processes. That’s what we engaged them for — to assist us in engaging with British Columbians on this important issue.

J. Martin: It does appear that the minister’s office held the final pen in accepting and rejecting feedback from these selected academics. Can the Attorney tell us: on what basis his staff were advised to reject academic advice?

Hon. D. Eby: An obvious example would be where there was conflicting advice that we received. I was certainly heavily reliant on the public service to assist in preparing the questionnaire, but ultimately, accountability for the questions and the design of the questionnaire is with me.

I am happy with the questionnaire, and I am proud of the report that I’ll be releasing on Wednesday. The member can be the judge of that when it’s released.

J. Martin: For clarity, we have here a survey that was certainly drafted by the academics. Or is that the case? Did the minister’s office have final say over the editing and the final copy?

Hon. D. Eby: Just a point of clarification. I may have lost the member’s thread there for a sec. The experts provided comment on drafts of the questionnaire. The role was to give advice on it, not to be the authors. The first draft was prepared by the public service. The final draft was approved by me, and I have political accountability for that draft.

J. Martin: An email from the director of strategic initiatives suggests that the academics were chosen for their preferences for different systems. The media were quite pointed in remarking that the balance was 3 to 1 in favour of PR. Can the Attorney tell us: were the academics fully informed of any political nature of this exercise?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure. I’m trying to identify the individual that the member is describing there.

[3:35 p.m.]

Certainly, we were trying to ensure that any expressed preference of any of the experts related to a particular voting system would not unduly colour the feedback that they put forward. But the reason the experts were engaged was to assist us in the deliberative process around getting feedback from British Columbians about the referendum process as a whole.

J. Martin: Has the Attorney General or anyone on his staff received any further communications from the academics expressing some frustration or concern over the controversy that has surrounded the survey — or any further follow-up communications at all that would be worth noting?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not aware of any additional communications. We were just trying to confirm that with staff. But as I confirmed to the member’s colleague, the pro bono retainer that these experts were on is over now.

J. Martin: An email sent by the director of strategic initiatives on November 3 states: “At present, we are scrambling to complete the basic web content, have it reviewed by external experts, then refined.” Can the Attorney General confirm that the survey was a rush job composed in under a month?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, the member should be consulting with his colleague, who just critiqued the process for taking too long. It sounds like we struck the right balance in terms of the diverse perspectives of the opposition.

J. Martin: Despite the length of time it’s going to take us to get to Wednesday and know what we’re facing on the actual ballot, it appears that there was a rather short actual work period from the announcement of the survey — about delays. The extra time provided…. Academics only had two short periods of several days to review the survey, and the bulk of that extension seems to be spent on ministerial revisions.

Can the Attorney confirm that this survey was, in fact, pushed through by political staff and not by the academics themselves?

Hon. D. Eby: If the member has a critique of the survey, it sits with me. I’m a politician, so in that sense, political responsibility is absolutely here.

I’m very grateful for the work of these people who volunteered to provide their services to ensure that our engagement with British Columbians was as effective as it could be. And it was effective — more than 90,000 British Columbians filling out surveys, more than 30 organizations and more than 200 individuals providing written submissions to us, the biggest engagement in British Columbia’s history. I think those results speak for themselves.

In any event, the member will have full opportunity to review not just my report on this and my recommendations but also the raw data of the demographically balanced panel of 1,100 British Columbians, the on-line survey as well as the First Nations engagement process.

J. Martin: An email from one of the academics says that “this can’t be rushed.” The minister’s director of strategic initiatives responded that staff “have been given fairly tight timelines.” So who makes the decision to override these concerns from the academics about the survey being rushed through?

Hon. D. Eby: Again, the member’s colleague just told me it’s taking too long.

We’re engaging in a good-faith exercise with British Columbians to determine their feelings about how the referendum should be held. Multiple organizations are participating in this process, providing detailed, written submissions to us — all of which is fully transparent, all the raw data that the member and his colleagues have asked for, released on Wednesday along with the report. I encourage the member to give it a read.

[3:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just as a follow-up, then. Can I ask: how long did it take to construct the survey?

Hon. D. Eby: Work began on the website in October, and it was live by the 21st of November, when the engagement rolled out. Unfortunately, we don’t have very specific dates about exactly when the work began, but it was at least a month.

M. Lee: I think the questioning that my colleague the member for Chilliwack is laying out here suggests that it was a 30-day period, more or less, for the construction of the survey, this fundamental piece, the foundation for which the government is resting its public engagement exercise for the purpose of this referendum. And it’s taken three months, of course, to analyze what that is. So my earlier comment about delay has been that it’s taken ten months to get us to this point.

In terms of the survey itself, I think it’s a fair comment that the member for Chilliwack is making, that it is rushed. Even internally, the comments that we are seeing from one of these academic advisers would suggest that when you do something of this nature, you can’t rush it. That’s the point that I believe is being made here.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, there’s what the email said, and it’s what the member, I guess, wishes it said. It said: “This can’t be rushed.” It was the one line from an email read out by the member. I take it that he read it accurately, and the member who just asked the question has now said that that means that this person was providing feedback that the process was rushed and inappropriate. That was not my understanding of the feedback that we received.

In any event, the participation involved the biggest consultation in B.C.’s history, in multiple languages — targeted and focused First Nations consultation, a demographically balanced panel of 1,100 people. The member says the on-line survey is the foundation. It is one piece.

There are more than 30 organizational submissions, more than 200 written submissions by British Columbians that were not based at all on the survey. All the organizational written submissions are published on line, and to the extent that the survey results are available, all the raw data will be available to the members on Wednesday, as well as the Ministry of Attorney General summary of that data and my recommendations to cabinet, which will be publicly released first.

J. Martin: Just to clarify, academics were only given from 5:45 p.m. on Wednesday the 15th to Friday noon that same week to give feedback on the second copy of the survey. Isn’t this pushing us where there may be some compromising the integrity of the survey with such a tight timeline for the second version?

Hon. D. Eby: The member certainly is correct that that was the second time that these individuals had seen the survey. For those British Columbians who participated in the on-line survey, it took them an average of, it looks like, about 16 minutes to complete the questionnaire. So on the second round of edits and suggestions from these experts who were volunteering with us, I accept the member’s timelines, and I’m very grateful for the assistance of these individuals in donating their time to assist us in this process.

[3:45 p.m.]

J. Martin: The Attorney General’s ministerial assistant highlighted the following comment from one of the academics regarding the funding of proponent and opponent groups: “If this is all that the government understands by public engagement, then they will simply be setting fire to the whole process.”

This is pretty powerful and alarming language, and the ministerial assistant said that no changes to the survey were needed. Does the minister’s tight timeline cause staff to ignore serious concerns about the survey, raised by the very people that were brought on board to construct that survey?

Hon. D. Eby: The survey was not the referendum process. It was an informative exercise to help us to design the referendum process itself. The member will see on Wednesday the referendum process, and he will be able to judge it for himself.

J. Martin: We have another email showing the Premier’s office coordinating with the BCGEU’s PR campaign team and attempting to set up a meeting with the minister. Even though this meeting was appropriately declined, if the Premier’s office is coordinating with the pro-PR coalition, is it not possible that information could have been shared by political staff?

Hon. D. Eby: I have no knowledge of that taking place.

J. Martin: “No knowledge,” I heard. Correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I have no knowledge of that taking place. That’s purely speculative on the part of the member. Any notes that the meeting was turned down…. I don’t even recall what he’s talking about. But in any event…. I have no idea what he’s talking about, and I don’t believe it happened.

J. Martin: Many of the questions in the survey have a “prefer not to answer” option. But question 3, “Which, if any, of the following have been barriers that have kept you from voting?” does not have that option. Instead, individuals are forced to choose options which may not be applicable to them whatsoever. Can the Attorney explain the reason for excluding “prefer not to answer” specifically from this question?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s difficult to know which question the member is referring to, because on the one he refers to that I understand is “barriers to voting in provincial elections,” there was a “not applicable/prefer not to answer” option for people.

J. Martin: Question 16 asks individuals to choose between MLAs “who do what their party promised” and MLAs “who do what their constituents want.” One could argue that MLAs are more than capable of doing both. Suggesting otherwise is highly offensive to members who work very hard for their constituents.

This appears to be another example of a skewed question. One answer is an example of the current electoral system. The other is an example of the government’s preference for a new electoral system. Can the minister explain and please tell the House why this type of question was allowed into the questionnaire? Why is a choice being forced to be made in this area?

Hon. D. Eby: Different PR systems…. Some are more party-focused, and some are more MLA-focused. So if you are a person who values the idea that a political party has more influence, then you might choose one PR system or you might prefer that that type of PR system be put forward for consideration. If you are a person who believes more that MLAs should be more independent of party influence, then you might choose another PR system.

That question assists the ministry in knowing, in terms of a question or questions that might be put forward in the referendum process, where British Columbians’ values are in terms of what they would like to see in a proportional representation system.

J. Martin: In British Columbia, we have at the moment 27 registered political parties. Theoretically, each and every one of these could show up on a PR-styled ballot. So I’m wondering why the approved sample ballots for list PR and MMP fail to reflect the total number of political parties in B.C. and foreshadow just how unwieldly and complicated life could become in the election booth.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Different electoral systems on the proportional representation side have different ballots and different ways for voters to express preference. The survey was an attempt to gauge British Columbians’ values in terms of how the referendum process should go forward and what question or questions should be put to them.

I think the fundamental disconnect here is that this is not the referendum. The referendum process will be a vote by British Columbians. The rules and the ballot question or questions — my recommendations, anyway, about that — will be based on this engagement that will be released on Wednesday. The sample ballots that the member is talking about were used as a way to gauge British Columbians’ values in terms of assisting us and ensuring that the referendum process itself reflected British Columbians’ values.

Just as a purely logistical matter in terms of the 27 parties, many of those parties won’t run a single candidate anywhere. I take the member’s point as a sort of campaign point that he would raise against PR and in favour of the first-past-the-post system, one assumes, although there is nothing to stop 27 parties from showing up on a first-past-the-post ballot either.

In any event, this survey process is not the referendum. There are arguments in favour of and against a number of proportional representation systems, and British Columbians’ values in terms of what they would like to see were a key part of the consideration in the design of the survey and why we did it.

J. Martin: Has the ministry taken the time to examine the actual impact on ballot length and ballot complexity — what this might mean for costs of management at Elections B.C. with the process?

Hon. D. Eby: An interesting discussion with the staff here.

The major cost of elections, as I understand them, are the people running the polls, the staff required to do that. It would be, certainly, difficult to know — in terms, maybe, of a lengthier ballot increasing printing costs. But it’s difficult for me to know specifically what the member is referring to in terms of increased costs.

In terms of the referendum process itself, the member, on Wednesday, will have the question or questions. He’ll have my recommendations around rules based on the engagement with British Columbians, based on the submissions from all these organizations, the First Nations engagement, the balanced panel of British Columbians.

[3:55 p.m.]

He’ll be able to use that information — and, ultimately, the regulations that are promulgated by cabinet — to advocate in whichever direction he chooses for whichever system he chooses. That may include raising issues of cost. It may include raising issues of ballot complexity and arguments for or against proportional representation or first-past-the-post systems. It sounds like it will be a lively campaign on all sides of the issue. The member will surely be raising issues like that on whichever side he ultimately chooses.

J. Martin: Has the Attorney given consideration to the potential for a significant heightening of spoiled ballots on election day if we were indeed to move to a lengthier, more complex, convoluted ballot?

Hon. D. Eby: The member can raise any number of issues in his campaigning on the side that he chooses in relation to election ballots or system complexity, the risk of spoiled ballots, costs — you name it. That is not the role that I’ve been given. The role that I’ve been given by the Premier is to engage with British Columbians and to provide recommendations to cabinet on the rules around the referendum process. Then the campaign will be officially underway in terms of people campaigning either for our current first-past-the-post system or for a proportional representation system.

J. Martin: We’re going to know a lot more about this on Wednesday. I anxiously look forward to that moment of opportunity. We’ll have some clarity on the ballot question or questions.

What about rewriting the electoral boundaries? Unless the ballot question was simply, “Do you want to move to a ranked ballot?” in the way most political parties run their leadership campaigns, there would be some significant revisiting of the electoral boundaries. I think people, before they cast a vote, would probably like to know what’s going to happen to their boundary and whether they’re going to be shrunk or cast in with a much larger geographic entity.

I would like to get some clarity from the Attorney on how specifically and how soon we’ll know what the proposed riding boundary changes would be.

Hon. D. Eby: All my recommendations to cabinet around the referendum process will be released on Wednesday.

J. Martin: Can the Attorney tell us what rules, stipulations and guidelines may come into effect with proportional representation candidate lists?

Hon. D. Eby: All my recommendations around regulations related to the referendum will be released on Wednesday, based on this engagement with British Columbians — the on-line survey; the direct engagement with First Nations communities; the balanced demographic panel of British Columbians, the 1,100 people that Ipsos Public Affairs put together; the written submissions by more than 30 organizations and by more than 200 individuals. It will be released on Wednesday.

J. Martin: How much detail are parties going to have with advance notice of the timeline for the terms and the specifics of the referendum? I’m concerned about this. If there’s any compromising of the process, what measures are going to be taken in place to protect the integrity of the procedure?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t fully understand the member’s question.

J. Martin: There’s significant potential for compromise in this particular process. One is that we’re doing it by a mail-in ballot, for starters. Anyone that lives in an apartment or a condominium complex can come down in the morning and see that blue bin just stuffed with every type of letter and advertising and form mail. Very likely, a referendum ballot on proportional representation would, in many cases, be quickly visiting that blue bin.

[4:00 p.m.]

They’re there for the taking. People can collect those. What are we going to learn about fraud prevention and protecting the integrity of the process on Wednesday?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for clarifying the question. Elections B.C. has a number of measures that they use to ensure the security of the mail-in ballot process. British Columbia has used that process successfully on several plebiscites now.

J. Martin: Not too long ago in this House, we raised the issue of an email sent by the B.C. NDP party executive containing a call to action on the PR referendums to the rank and file. One could fairly read into this that the NDP party executive may have advance notice of its details, engaging in a call to action.

What steps can the minister take to assure this House of the integrity of the referendum process and to ensure that one side doesn’t have a leg up on the other?

Hon. D. Eby: I remember the member asking me about this in question period. I reminded the member then, and I’ll remind him again now that actually, as far as I can tell, the source for that was my answer to the member in question period when I assured him that I would have my report and recommendations to him before barbecue season, and as quickly as possible. I remember that exchange because I remember the member’s reputation for barbecue skills.

To my knowledge, there has been absolutely no disclosure. We’ve taken significant steps to prevent disclosure of the contents of the report that’ll be released publicly on Wednesday — to any party. The member has the same level of information, to my knowledge, as any member in this place.

J. Martin: Thank you. Those are all the questions on the survey that I have at this point. I know some of my colleagues would like to explore some other areas. I thank the Attorney, and I wish him all the luck being as calm, cool, collected at his town hall as he’s been here for the last little while.

M. Lee: Well, I think the member for Chilliwack had a fine day yesterday by the judge of social media on the various cook-offs and competitions. That’s great, that we’re all recognizing the excellence and the skills that we all have here.

Let me just come back to the public engagement process, if I may. The Attorney General was referencing the consultation process with the panel. If I could ask the Attorney General to outline in more detail what that panel looked like and whether that is the same term as what…. We’ve also understood that there was some sort of citizen engagement team as well.

Hon. D. Eby: The teams the member was talking about are another name for the on-line staff at GCPE who put together the technical pieces of the coded — or whatever the correct term is for publishing — on-line survey so that it worked. They’re the on-line computer folks.

[4:05 p.m.]

Then the Ipsos Public Affairs panel was a group of 1,100 British Columbians demographically balanced to assist us in doing a couple of things. One was in ensuring that we weren’t capturing a group that’s participating on line disproportionately. For example, perhaps younger people or more affluent people are more likely to be participating on line. The second piece was to ensure that if the on-line system were somehow compromised, we would have a way to check it against a demographically balanced group of people to make sure that we were seeing fairly consistent results.

The member, on Wednesday, will see information published in the report that compares this demographically balanced panel with the on-line survey results, and then we’ll be able to identify any issues. He raised questions about this particular proportional representation group advocating for certain answers on certain questions, which, it was his concern, may have skewed some portion of the survey.

He’ll be able to compare those questions with the demographically balanced panel that was put together for us by this third party, Ipsos Public Affairs, to ensure that the responses — and our understanding of the results we got from British Columbians about what their values are — in designing this referendum process are as valid as possible.

M. Lee: Can I ask the Attorney General how that Ipsos panel was selected or compiled?

Hon. D. Eby: Ipsos Public Affairs — this is what they do. They assemble demographically representative panels. The goal of this, and the service that this company provides, is providing to companies, or governments in our case, or others, the ability to go to a panel of a certain group — in our case, British Columbians, demographically balanced, balanced geographically — to provide feedback.

What happened was that the questionnaire went to this group that was assembled by Ipsos to be representative in this way. So the member will be able to use that as a point of comparison.

M. Lee: As I understand it, there will be a full report included in the material that will be released to public in respect of that panel. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Not only is that correct, but the raw data will be released as well — for the member.

M. Lee: I just wanted to go to something that the Attorney General mentioned earlier, in terms of the stakeholder submissions available on the ministry website. By my quick count, it looks like there are 44 organizations on that website, including the BCGEU; the B.C. NDP; the Broadbent Institute; Citizens Vote Empowerment; CUPE; Dogwood; Elizabeth May, MP; Dennis Pilon, York University; Fair Vote, about six or seven different Fair Vote entities. You get the point that they seem to be pro-PR.

Is that the case? When you look at the list, would the Attorney General agree that the list of 44 organizations can be viewed — I haven’t done the analysis — for the most part, to be pro–proportional representation. Is that correct?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yeah, I was certainly disappointed that the B.C. Liberal caucus did not provide a submission, but we did use second reading debate speeches in consideration in the report, as I committed to the members that I would do.

The member is correct. There were a lot of groups that have an interest in proportional representation, which is perhaps not surprising, given that that is the topic of the referendum. I note, also, that there was the No B.C. Proportional Representation Society. I’m not sure, actually, what the Fraser Institute’s leanings are specifically with respect to pro-first-past-the-post or pro-PR — but in any event, more conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute participating as well.

We also, as I’ve outlined a couple times now, ensured that we had a group of 1,100 British Columbians that were not self-selecting that were part of this panel to check results against. I agree with the member that it would’ve been nice to have some more submissions from people in favour of maintaining the current first-past-the-post system. But I do know that the representative panel ensured a check for us, and the member as well, in terms of the values of British Columbians.

M. Lee: Can I please ask: when did the panel work? When was it in the field surveying other British Columbians?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand it was done in January.

M. Lee: Was the plan, in terms of public engagement…? When was it decided to do that panel?

Hon. D. Eby: The decision was made right away, at the beginning of the planning process, to ensure that we had a representative submission from British Columbia in terms of our workaround, making recommendations in the design of the referendum process.

M. Lee: I appreciate that the report is coming out on Wednesday, but just for the purpose of this discussion, was it effective in terms of the input it provided to the ministry to balance off the survey results versus what was seen by the panel result? Was there a re-rating of responses that way?

Hon. D. Eby: The member will see the report on Wednesday. He will have side-by-side data of the demographically representative panel versus the on-line feedback. But I have to underline for the member that the questionnaire is one piece, and there were a lot of thoughtful written submissions received as well. I have to say that from the opposition there were a lot of thoughtful second reading speeches that are included in the considerations and form the basis of the report.

Not to take away at all from the questionnaire process, which was a very successful engagement process, but it was not a poll. It was one piece of many constructive pieces. And I have to point out that the First Nations engagement process informed this as well.

M. Lee: I’d like to just come back to a discussion we were having at the outset regarding the mandate for the Attorney General. As he described earlier in the session, the mandate from the letter from the Premier was to introduce legislation which, of course, includes the regulation-making powers. As we heard from the Attorney General, there’ll be recommendations that are being made.

Can I ask, then: after Wednesday, does the Attorney General have any ongoing role in respect to this referendum?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The process will be as follows. The report will be publicly released on Wednesday. The report will be considered, and whatever regulations cabinet — I’ll recuse myself from their deliberations — promulgates, whether they accept my recommendations or modify them, I will be the minister responsible for ensuring that the regulations are drafted and back in front of cabinet for approval.

Ultimately, the regulations are approved by cabinet, not by me. I’m making recommendations to cabinet and to government about what, based on the engagement, I am recommending the cabinet put forward in terms of regulations.

M. Lee: Just to stand back from this process and look at the role that the Attorney General has in this process from the outset. Would it be fair to say that the design of the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, as it was presented, was formulated by the Attorney General and tabled in this House for approval? Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The member can check Hansard. I was the minister who tabled the bill in the House. It was debated and passed the minority parliament.

M. Lee: In terms of the design of the referendum process. Because of the fundamental provisions that are under that act — including the voting threshold and the regulation-making power, for example — the overall framework of this referendum was set by the Attorney General.

That just begs the question: in terms of the nature of being someone who is suggesting that British Columbians recognize as someone who is neutral in this, is there a concern that the Attorney General would share that British Columbians do not perceive that to be the case?

Hon. D. Eby: For any bill that comes before this House, there is a cabinet process that takes place, and for any referendum that the government is going to have, there needs to be a bill. Someone needs to stand up and table the bill. Otherwise, you don’t get the bill. It needs to be someone in government, and the responsibility for this portfolio sits within the Ministry of Attorney General. As minister responsible, that’s my job. So I stood up. I tabled the bill. It was debated. But ultimately, it needs to be passed by the Legislature, and it was passed.

M. Lee: I think this is where the heart of it is, of course. The mandate letter itself gives the mandate and the task to the Attorney General — to introduce that legislation into the House — from a Premier and a cabinet whose sole reason for being in government is premised on the CASA agreement, which inside of it contains the agreement that there would be a form of proportional representation proposed to British Columbians in a referendum.

I would suggest that part of the reason why we continue to have this level of concern, as we saw again this morning, in this House is the way that this has been positioned. When I say that…. When we look at the way that the survey results are being formulated and reviewed by the Attorney General…. First of all, we heard in the session that the Attorney General ultimately signed off on the survey itself as his responsibility. In itself — as from the member for Chilliwack, who was here talking about the way that the survey was constructed — there are concerns and considerations around that.

So I say again: with the way that the survey is coming back and the way the regulations are being presented to the cabinet, does the Attorney General have any concern regarding any perception of bias in his role in the context of this referendum process?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll feel a lot more comfortable with the member’s speculation and criticism after he’s read the report on Wednesday.

[4:20 p.m.]

M. Lee: Well, I would like to now invite the member for Vancouver–False Creek to ask some questions regarding best practices and international standards.

S. Sullivan: Thank you, Minister. My questions are really about legitimacy. The only way that government exists is because people consider the government legitimate. That’s because they believe that the process by which they became government is legitimate, and they have credibility. It’s very important that people see this as legitimate.

There are, especially in the past few years, a number of developments regarding referenda in which we’ve developed an international best practice. We see that some of the most advanced democracies in the world have created clear rules and processes that must be adhered to in order to have a referendum.

For example, the United Kingdom mandates that a multiparty committee of nine or ten be established and that stakeholders could be given a chance to bring all of their concerns forward. The European Union has developed some pretty great guidelines, and the Canadian government, through the Clarity Act, lays out minimum standards for a fair referendum.

The process being used by government for this important referendum would contravene the law in many other jurisdictions. My first question would be: why has the government not accepted this body of practice that has been developed to ensure that this referendum is legitimate?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for his question. This referendum won’t be decided by the member. It won’t be decided by me. There will be a vote of British Columbians who will make the decision about how we send members to this place.

I appreciate the member’s support for the Clarity Act, and other proposals around, to hold this, but the bill that passed this Legislature sets out the referendum process. We’ve wrapped up the engagement with British Columbians — the largest engagement in British Columbia’s history, with more than 88,000 people filling out questionnaires, more than 30 organizations participating. I’ll be releasing a report on Wednesday with my recommendations about how I believe, based on the feedback that we’ve received, the referendum should be held.

The member, I’m sure — it sounds like — will be one of the people reading this report quite carefully. I certainly recommend it to him, and I’ll be glad to hear his questions about it once it’s released.

S. Sullivan: The minister has mentioned the act and also the public consultation process. One of the great concerns is that the act, which lays out and makes decisions on very, very important parts of the referendum process, was passed before consultation was completed. So key decisions were made before the consultation actually was received. This is an example of bad process.

I would ask: has the minister, at any point, considered asking Elections B.C. to recommend a legitimate process based on international best practices?

Hon. D. Eby: Elections B.C. ran a process. They ran an election in which a majority of members in this place were sent here committing to hold a referendum on proportional representation or to maintain the current first-past-the-post system. The members on the other side actually had a throne speech that committed to do the same.

[4:25 p.m.]

That’s what’s happening. There is a bill that passed the minority parliament that sets out regulation-making powers. In terms of the design of those regulations, we’ve done this engagement process I’ve described to the member. The report with recommendations based on that engagement process will be released on Wednesday. I look forward to hearing the member’s feedback about those recommendations.

S. Sullivan: I don’t have any issue with holding a referendum. Actually, I look forward to it. I’m curious about the statements and the position of citizens. I’ve got to say I’ve never heard electoral reform brought up on the doorstep while campaigning. I am very interested to see this process go forward. I have no problem with that.

I very much agree that Elections B.C. did a great job on holding the election. I think Elections B.C. would do a great job in managing a referendum. We hold our elections using international best practices. For example, if the government should decide that we’re going to go back to elections by a show of hands, which is what we used to do 100 or so years ago, Elections B.C., I think, would take issue with that.

Has the minister received any advice from Elections B.C. on best practices, the process and the rules of the referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m happy to tell the member that we have engaged with Elections B.C. around the conduct of the vote. I’m not sure where we lost the member, but the vote process will be conducted by Elections B.C. It’s a mail-in ballot, absolutely. But it’s a mail-in ballot process conducted by Elections B.C.

S. Sullivan: I understand that Elections B.C. will operate the process, but Elections B.C. is also very familiar with international best practices and the new developments of a code of practice and a code of conduct and principles that should be adhered to, that are in international best practices.

I’d ask: why has the government not sought advice on international best practices from Elections B.C. to ensure good process, to ensure the question is clear?

Hon. D. Eby: I think, maybe as a short answer to the member…. Elections B.C. doesn’t advise on policy. I guess that really says it all. That’s not what Elections B.C. does.

S. Sullivan: Well, Elections B.C. is aware of international best practices and could advise on the processes that are used internationally.

I know that the minister is a strong advocate of proportional representation. He has stated so in the past. He also claims that he is neutral and that he’s able to design the process and write a question impartially. Now, does the Attorney General believe that his declared bias and the declared bias of his cabinet colleagues to what outcome he wants from this process…? Does that not disqualify him from making key decisions on this referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is going to see my report on Wednesday. I welcome his feedback on the recommendations that I’m putting forward to government. Ultimately, it’s not the report, it’s not the member and it’s not me that will make this decision. It’s British Columbians in a vote. I have confidence in the democratic process, and I have confidence in British Columbians — in their ability to vote in this process and make the decision that is best for British Columbians.

[4:30 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: Given that the minister’s colleagues will be campaigning in favour of proportional representation, why not have Elections B.C. recommend a good process, a fair process, and draft a question to avoid perceived conflict of interest?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not aware of any precedent for what the member is suggesting, which is to have Elections B.C. draft referendum questions in British Columbia.

S. Sullivan: I’m sorry. What I meant is that Elections B.C. would recommend the process by which the question would be drafted.

Hon. D. Eby: In 2005, in the referendum, the citizens’ assembly drafted the question. There was some criticism that the question drafted by the citizens’ assembly was not a neutral question. In 2009, the previous government amended that question and put it forward in a ballot process.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

There have been different processes in B.C. on this very issue for how the question is designed and put forward. The question or questions will be put forward for the member’s consideration on Wednesday, and I’d be glad to hear his feedback on that on Wednesday.

S. Sullivan: I believe that this referendum…. It depends on which way it goes. The government would much prefer, I’m sure, that people consider the process legitimate so the outcome will be accepted. I note that almost all of the major journalists who make commentary on the provincial government — Bill Good, Vaughn Palmer, Les Leyne, etc. — have weighed in and been very critical about this process. It really does bring into question the whole legitimacy of the outcome.

I would think it would be in the interest of the government to ask Elections B.C. to recommend a legitimate process based on international best practices. I believe that the minister would be aware of a poll that has suggested almost nine out of ten British Columbians believe that is the way we should go.

Will the minister consider asking Elections B.C. to recommend a fair referendum based on international best practices?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s been a lot of speculation — the member is correct — in the media about the referendum process, which is what he is talking about. Now, there’s also an unfortunate tendency to conflate the survey with the referendum — the engagement process with British Columbians with the referendum.

[4:35 p.m.]

The referendum is a vote that will be conducted by Elections B.C. It’s a mail-in ballot process. The question or questions that are going to British Columbians will be released on Wednesday. They’re my recommendations, so I look forward to the member’s feedback on that.

The survey and the consultation and the engagement and all of that are not the referendum. The referendum is the ballot that will go to British Columbians, and they will make a decision about how they send members to this place.

I have confidence in British Columbians to do that, I have confidence in Elections B.C. to run that process fairly, and I have confidence in my ministry to put forward recommendations to cabinet around that process to ensure that it is held fairly in accordance with the best practice.

S. Sullivan: Delaying the implementation of a successful proportional representation vote until 2021 strongly coincides with the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party, despite assertions to the contrary. How can the Attorney General proclaim to be immune from the political requirements of having the Green Party onside while it appears that their need for rushing the PR referendum through is resulting in a flawed process? Has the minister considered asking the Green Party if they would agree to a delay so that we could have a proper process using international best practices?

Hon. D. Eby: The member’s question includes a suggestion of delay as well as a suggestion that there’s a rush taking place. It might help the member to know that in 2005, in the citizens’ assembly process, the question was released by the citizens’ assembly in December of 2004. The referendum was held in May of 2005. That’s a period of five months. In PEI, the question was released in April. They had their vote in October — again, a period of five months.

Our process, no matter how this rolls out, will be longer than both of those processes, including a three-month engagement process with British Columbians. And the member will remember, I’m sure, as we all in this place do, that the provincial general election period is a month. So the suggestion that this is being rushed — I’m going to have to disagree with the member on that. We might have to agree to disagree on that.

S. Sullivan: My problem isn’t the delay between a question and a vote. My question is about a legitimate question and a vote, that the process that will bring about a question on Wednesday is flawed. It is illegitimate in the eyes of many, including many of the most astute commentators.

I guess I’ll just ask a final question. Are there any circumstances in which the minister would ask Elections B.C. to recommend a legitimate process based on international best practices?

Hon. D. Eby: The member doesn’t even know what the question is before he calls it illegitimate, which might colour his commentary when the report is actually released on Wednesday that actually contains the question or questions that are going to go forward to British Columbians.

[4:40 p.m.]

I would encourage the member to keep an open mind until he actually reads the question or questions, and then I’m happy to hear the member’s feedback about the appropriateness of what British Columbians are being asked to vote on.

M. Lee: I’d just like to come back to a question I was asking earlier about the confidence and supply agreement between the B.C. NDP and the Green Party. We were talking earlier that: “The parties agree that they will work together in good faith to consult British Columbians to determine the form of proportional representation that will be put to a referendum.”

When the report is released on Wednesday…. Can I ask the Attorney General whether there will be a specific form of PR that will be included in that release?

Hon. D. Eby: The ballot question or questions will be released with my recommendations and the basis for that, which is the public engagement, on Wednesday.

M. Lee: In terms of the process in which the question is being developed…. Just to reconfirm, the Attorney General and the ministry are drafting that question. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The report that will be released on Wednesday will include recommendations from me about a whole array of regulations related to the referendum. One of those will be the question or questions. Those referendum questions are being put forward, absolutely, by my ministry, and my name will be on that report.

M. Lee: In terms of the responses that we’re receiving, obviously we’re having some challenge in terms of getting the kinds of responses that the members for Chilliwack and Vancouver–False Creek would like to receive respective of the referendum deferral to the release of the report on Wednesday. But it does sound, in terms of the way that the Attorney General is responding to our questions in this House, that there may well be a series of recommendations that are being put to cabinet. So is it the case that cabinet will be deciding on whether there’s going to be one question or two questions or more than two questions for this referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: There is a whole array of regulations that need to be in place for this referendum to be held — regulations about political donations, around spending, around the writ period, and so on. So there will be all kinds of regulations on a whole wide array of issues, as the member asked me about earlier. Would I have recommendations for all of those different regulation-making powers? The member knows that. One of those recommendations will be a specific question or questions to go to British Columbians.

M. Lee: I suppose, of course, in the context of what happens in the cabinet room, that the cabinet and the Premier will be given the opportunity to go through the series of recommendations that the Attorney General is bringing forward and determine how to proceed with the referendum. If that’s the case, I fail to understand how that is a neutral arbiter situation. Am I hearing this correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure how much clearer I can be about the process, whether the member agrees with it or not. We engaged with British Columbians. We’ve got recommendations coming from that engagement process — the largest in B.C.’s history, multiple organizations participating.

I will release that report with my recommendations, along with all the raw data, on Wednesday. That report will go with my recommendations about what, based on that engagement, I am recommending that cabinet adopt as regulations around the referendum process. Cabinet will consider that. I will recuse myself from that discussion, and they will promulgate some regulations that my ministry will have responsibility for drafting and bringing into force.

The member will know if there is a difference between the report that is released publicly and the final regulations. The member can put them side by side, and he will know if there was a change that took place at some point. He’ll be able to compare those two things.

I don’t believe that I’ll be able to convince the member of something that he so firmly believes, even before he’s read the report, which is that the report is based and the recommendations are based on the feedback and recommendations of British Columbians. Regardless, that is the process that will unfold, and the member and the public will have the report and the recommendations first.

[4:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: If I can just turn to the area of foreign funding. To the Attorney General, is he aware of any direct or indirect foreign source of funding which is influencing any pro-PR campaign activity in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: We will have regulations about that.

M. Lee: Well, I think at this point I’d like to invite the member from Mackenzie to ask a series of questions, thank you.

M. Morris: I’ve been listening to the responses from the Attorney throughout the afternoon. I’m going to focus on a couple of different areas here. I’m glad to hear that the Attorney has been paying attention or focusing on the importance of the voters of British Columbia and the democratic rights that voters in British Columbia have. It goes back to the Charter and the Constitution of Canada, which is the binding force that we have in this province, to keep everything together, and across this country.

It revolves around section 3 of the Charter, where every citizen has a right to vote in election of officials or Members of the House of Commons and of the Legislative Assembly. On its face, when you read that section, there doesn’t appear to be much to that, other than everybody’s got the right to vote. But there was a case back in British Columbia, in 1989. It was a B.C. Court of Appeal case, Dixon, that was one of the first Charter challenges against section 3 in Canada. Of course, Beverley McLachlin was the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal at that time. She went on, of course, to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The petitioner for that, Mr. Dixon, had said that electoral boundaries really have no place under the constitution in British Columbia. And the court found that indeed they did. B.C.’s legislation needed to be amended at the time. The electoral districts had to reflect representation by population. It also had to take into consideration the geographical and regional differences that we have across British Columbia.

The court came to the conclusion or made the conclusion that relative equality of voting power is fundamental to the right to vote enshrined in section 3 of the Charter. The court also supported a list of core values or rights that form part of section 3 of the guarantee of the right to vote. One of those core values is the right to sufficient information about public policies to permit an informed decision. There were about ten of those rights that were included in that. The court even added a last core value in there, as well, that I’ll talk about a little bit later on.

The question that I have, bearing in mind that one of these core values is the right to sufficient information…. Why hasn’t a new Electoral Boundaries Commission been assigned by government to the task of preparing electoral boundaries for the proposed proportional representation systems the government outlined in its public engagement process — specifically, mixed-member proportional, single transferable vote, list proportional representation and mixed-member majority?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is…. I’ll try to help the member. The consultation, the engagement process with British Columbians, is not the referendum. There were some systems that were listed in the on-line questionnaire that the member just rhymed off.

The reason why the Electoral Boundaries Commission has not been struck in order to start drawing boundaries for these various systems is because…. The reason those systems were on the ballot were to ask British Columbians for their feedback on those different systems. In addition, there were more than 30 submissions from organizations that had additional systems, above and beyond those systems, that they thought were the best system. Some were very creative. I have to say that there’s no shortage of thought that goes into these kinds of things.

[4:50 p.m.]

The consultation process, that engagement process, was to ensure that we’re holding a referendum process that’s relevant to British Columbians and reflects their values and that we’re putting a question or questions to British Columbians that actually reflect the values that they have.

In terms of why we haven’t struck the Electoral Boundaries Commission to start drawing out various systems based on the questionnaire…. It’s because the questionnaire was not the referendum. The referendum process will be a vote by British Columbians on a question or questions going forward. My recommendations about what those should be will be released on Wednesday, and I look forward to the member’s feedback about that.

M. Morris: I understand the difference between the consultation process and the report that’s coming out. My question to the Attorney is: how is he going to adhere to one of the core values of that constitutional right — that citizens need sufficient information about public policies to permit an informed decision? There’s a referendum coming up. There was your consultation process; 88,000 individuals responded to that. But how can anybody vote on something as fundamental as electoral reform unless they know what the possible outcomes might be?

One of the defining moments in the 2009 referendum, in my view — it’s just my own personal opinion — is that Elections B.C. provided a map of what the new electoral boundaries might look like under the proportional representation system that was being recommended at that particular time. Once the public had an idea of what that looked like, they voted accordingly, having received that information.

What kind of system is the minister proposing right now to ensure that this core value, the right of every citizen to vote, is satisfied?

Hon. D. Eby: I will reassure the member that I would not put forward any recommendations to cabinet that ran afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I wanted to say, in response to my last question, that John Dixon, who was the named applicant or plaintiff — I can’t recall — in that action…. I was very pleased to be reminded of him. He was the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association for many years and a great advocate for rights and freedoms. A very important case that Mr. Dixon participated in with that organization.

Just as a moment of reflection, it’s a pleasure to hear both sides of the House. Both have people who are involved with the Civil Liberties Association and also advocating the positions of the Civil Liberties Association, because these rights and freedoms are critically important — which, again, underlines my commitment to the member and to this place that I would not put forward recommendations to cabinet that ran afoul of the law or the Charter.

M. Morris: Is the government going to commit to getting the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission organized right after the question is presented this week in order to provide the citizens with the information they need for the referendum vote?

Hon. D. Eby: On Wednesday, there’ll be a report released with a number of recommendations.

I will note, though, just to the member’s question, that there’s a safeguard built in. His concern is that there won’t be enough information available to British Columbians to be able to vote. The safeguard is that this is, actually, a vote. If British Columbians believe they don’t have enough information in this referendum process, they will be able to vote accordingly. That’s why it’s so important, I believe, that we have a referendum process. It’s not the member’s decision. It’s not my decision. It’s British Columbians’ decision about how we send members to this place. It’s a very important safeguard.

I note that in Quebec, the opposition parties got together and said that if they’re elected, they’ll do a proportional representation system without a referendum. I don’t agree with that. I think that safeguard of having British Columbians vote is very important.

[4:55 p.m.]

My recommendations around how that process should go — based on the feedback of British Columbians in a very successful engagement that was the largest in British Columbia’s history and all of these different safeguards that I’ve outlined to the member and to his colleagues — will be released on Wednesday.

M. Lee: I find it striking to hear that the view of the Attorney General will be that a safeguard for this referendum process is that if British Columbians don’t fully appreciate what they’re voting on, then they’ll just either not vote or they’ll vote no. So what was the reason for us to go forward with this referendum in the first place?

Surely, when the Green Party came into the confidence and supply agreement and, before that, took the view that, well, “we should just actually implement PR without a vote….” Surely they wouldn’t be thinking that we’re going to put in front of British Columbians something that British Columbians won’t have a full opportunity to understand — the nature and the change to the riding boundaries that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie is speaking to. Surely that is not what this government is suggesting.

Can I ask the Attorney General to clarify his statement, please?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two ways to interpret what I said.

One is that my recommendations will be to not give British Columbians enough information to make a decision. Then I’d agree with the member, yes, absolutely. What is the point of holding a referendum like that?

The other possibility is what the state of affairs is, which is that I have confidence in the engagement process we participated in with British Columbians, and their feedback and the recommendations that I’m putting to cabinet on that to make sure that British Columbians will have the information they need to make an informed decision to participate in this referendum process.

It is something that I have been very honoured to take on and that I feel a huge weight of responsibility around. I look forward to the member’s feedback on Wednesday when he reviews the report. That might be an appropriate time for him to evaluate — and for British Columbians to consider — the process that’s laid out, and the suggestions and recommendations that are made about how the process should go, to ensure that British Columbians have that information that they need.

M. Lee: Just to ask the question. The Attorney General has said time and time again in this House that there was a record level of participation in respect of this survey on PR. Could I ask the Attorney General to clarify for this House, in what other circumstances did we have a similar level of participation and survey using an on-line mechanism, in terms of…? What is the comparison point, in his view?

Hon. D. Eby: There have been a number of on-line engagement processes engaged in by the previous administration and by our government.

The cannabis one was an engagement process very heavily participated in. When you think about the issues that we face across British Columbia — with unlicensed dispensaries, the interest in the federal government’s legalization of recreational cannabis, the impacts on policing, impaired driving, youth access, mental health, and so on — it’s a good measure of an interest of broad public concern that people would be motivated to fill out a survey about, and so on. There was more participation in the engagement on proportional representation.

There are some very unanalogous — I don’t know if that’s a word or not — inappropriate comparisons. The previous government did an on-line consultation on report cards, and something like 5,000 people, or fewer than 10,000 people, participated in it — not a fair comparison. One is a comparison of an issue of public importance, to kind of gauge the level of British Columbians’ interest. And I have to say, I was very pleasantly surprised.

[5:00 p.m.]

When we started the engagement process, I said: “Not everyone gets out of bed thinking about electoral systems and how we send legislators to parliament.” So I was very pleasantly surprised that British Columbians were so engaged on this topic.

M. Lee: I appreciate that.

Just as a point of reference, can I ask how many respondents there were to the cannabis on-line survey?

Hon. D. Eby: The cannabis public engagement had 127,952 site visits and 48,151 completed questionnaires. The Human Rights Commission engagement had 13,253 site visits and 511 discussion comments. Distracted driving had 24,051 site visits and 1,932 on-line comments. Your Kid’s Progress, which was a report card — one I unfairly maligned the previous administration on, by saying it was fewer than 10,000 completed site visits — had 28,557 site visits and 5,435 feedback forms.

You can see that there are some there in that list that are more indicative of an issue that would have broad public engagement, like cannabis. With some, it might be harder for people to immediately see why they would spend time filling out an on-line comment form related to it, like distracted driving, when there seems to be a broad public perspective on the harms of that type of activity, and people know where government stands on it.

So there are a couple of examples for the member, in terms of gauging the more than 180,000 site visits and the more than 88,000 questionnaires that were completed.

M. Lee: Well, thank you for that detail. I would like to just come back to a statement that was made earlier about the chicken-and-egg situation. In terms of information that is provided to British Columbians about proportional representation, which does relate, in part, to the question from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie…. When a survey was done of this nature, of this complexity, did the Attorney General receive advice and input as to the nature of the public engagement?

My sense of this is that the government is relying on the quantity over the quality of the engagement. Is there a concern that the reliance here is merely on something where the details of what is being considered haven’t been fully laid out for the public? As much as this may not be a poll, it is something that the government, from what we’re hearing, is relying on to design its report that is now going to cabinet. Is there a concern about the quality of this public engagement that the Attorney General might see?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. It’s not simply a numbers game of how many people completed the questionnaire or how many people visited the site. Although we were very pleasantly surprised by the level of participation, that’s not enough in itself. We looked at the data: “Okay, how long are people spending on the site?” They spent an average of 14 minutes on the site, reading and learning about different things. Then they went and filled out the questionnaire, and they spent an additional average of about 16 minutes filling out the questionnaire.

[5:05 p.m.]

They spent half an hour on the site, on average, for those people who filled out that questionnaire. That’s more than 88,000 people. There was some time spent and some thought put into it, by people who were participating.

I can’t emphasize enough that the on-line survey was one piece. The panel of British Columbians, the thoughtful written submissions by organizations that are very engaged on these issues, the members’ speeches in second reading of the referendum bill — all were key considerations that influenced the recommendations that’ll be coming forward on Wednesday.

M. Morris: It’s still not clear as to what steps the Attorney is taking to ensure that core value, that fundamental core value, is addressed to ensure that citizens have sufficient information about public policies to permit them to make that decision at the end of the day. That’s a requirement of our Charter. The answers that the minister is giving don’t instil a lot of confidence in me that that information is going to be available.

We’re not talking about giving a person the right to smoke cannabis. We’re not talking about giving people a say on whether you should be using a cellphone when you drive. We’re talking about a fundamental core piece of our democratic process in Canada. So this is a very important piece. It’s a Charter argument here that if it’s not fulfilled, if it’s not satisfied, it’s going to taint the process as we move forward from here.

Can the minister outline exactly what steps he’s taking to ensure that that core value of section 3 of the Charter is satisfied?

Hon. D. Eby: I agree with the member. We didn’t run this process to decide how British Columbians send members to this place. We ran this process, and not just this process — I’ve run through all the different processes we ran — to gather information about how to design the process in which British Columbians will vote to decide on how we send members to this place.

I point it out merely as a technical matter, because I agree with the member on principle that we need to provide British Columbians with sufficient information to be able to vote. But the Charter section that the member references relates to election of legislators to the House of Assembly. It doesn’t relate to plebiscites. But that is merely a technical point, because I agree with the member that British Columbians need information in order to be able to vote.

In fact, I don’t feel that I’m letting the cat out of the bag by saying that that is something that was very consistent in the feedback, in the written submissions and generally — that people wanted the information. So I don’t think that we’re at odds here. I think that the member will hopefully read the report on Wednesday with an open mind and with his concerns in mind. I look forward to hearing his feedback once he’s done that.

M. Morris: Does the minister disagree with the fact that if citizens are going to be voting in favour of going to a PR system, they fully understand how that decision is going to affect their representation, how that decision is going to affect electoral boundaries, where their representatives are going to come from, how that’s going to change the fundamental requirement under the Charter that they be represented in the Legislature or the House of Commons?

Hon. D. Eby: I look forward to the member’s feedback on the report that’s coming out on Wednesday with recommendations to the government about regulations, including the question or questions going to British Columbians, how they’re provided with the information, and so on. I hope to hear from him once he’s had a chance to have a look.

M. Morris: Oh, you will be. No question about that, Minister.

You made a comment that…. We were talking about voting in a referendum, in a plebiscite, and that section 3 of the Charter is designed for voting in a general election, a provincial election or a federal election. Could the minister explain that?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: If the member could just give us a second, we’ll find the case for him.

The case is Haig v. Canada. It’s the 1993 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

M. Morris: Does the minister believe that voting in a referendum requires the same principles as voting in a general election?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes. I apologize if I didn’t make it clear in my answer to the member. I was just pointing it out as a merely technical matter. I agree with him on principle that British Columbians, whether it’s a referendum or a vote to send an elector to represent them in a Legislature, need to have the information necessary in order to make an informed decision. So it was merely a technical point that I was making with the member. It wasn’t to disagree with his sentiment.

M. Morris: I’m aware of that case that you quoted. I’m also aware of another case, Libman v. Quebec, 1997. I’ll quote from paragraph 46 of that decision: “Although the referendum system is different from the electoral system…the people vote to elect their political representatives for a specific mandate. The same principles underlying election legislation should in general be applicable to the referendum legislation…. In both elections and referendums, voters can freely express their choice after being informed of the issues during the election or referendum campaign, as the case may be.”

This is a binding referendum, so I’m curious as to…. The minister has talked about the question that’s coming out on Wednesday. But I’m referencing this as: the same importance as any general election needs to be applied to a referendum as well.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m glad to have a look, and I thank the member for bringing that case to my attention. But it doesn’t address the issue. The member says that people need enough information to vote. I agree with him. People need enough information to vote, whether it’s a referendum or otherwise. I’ll have a look at the case that the member recommends to me.

I appreciate him bringing that to my attention, but it doesn’t change a single thing about the recommendations that I’ll be putting forward, because the recommendations are designed keeping in mind that British Columbians have been very clear — in the written submissions, certainly — that in an engagement process, they need the information necessary to make a decision. And I would not recommend otherwise.

M. Morris: I’m getting a different impression with respect to this referendum — that it’s not afforded the same importance and the same level of consideration that a general election would hold. So I’m going to ask a couple of questions and probably get back to the technical side, as the minister refers to it.

[5:15 p.m.]

Does the minister know if there will be a campaign period for the proponents and opponents to campaign for their cause prior to the referendum being held?

Hon. D. Eby: Just as a merely technical matter — I’m not sure how it could be otherwise — I can tell the member that in a general election, the writ period is a month. There will be a longer writ period recommended here.

In any event, the writ period, the rules around spending and donations, and so on, will all be — my recommendations, anyway — released on Wednesday, and they’ll all be based on the feedback we received from British Columbians from across the province.

M. Morris: In the referendum act 2018, there’s reference to holding the referendum by the end of November of this year. How was that date determined, particularly when we’re looking at holding municipal or local elections just a month earlier than that?

Hon. D. Eby: If British Columbians decide to change the way we send people to this place through a vote, a free vote, then the new voting system will be in place by 2021. So the November date is related to the timing necessary in order to ensure that there’s adequate time. It’s a fairly…. If British Columbians send us in that direction, it’s a lengthy and time-consuming process for Elections B.C. to prepare for that, and we need to make sure that they have the time necessary to be prepared for any change of that significance.

M. Morris: Is the minister concerned that the campaign period for the referendum will overlap with the campaign period for the local government elections?

Hon. D. Eby: We actually looked, quite seriously, at trying to hold the referendum in the same polling stations as the municipal elections as a mechanism to save money and encourage voter turnout. Then when we looked at it, we realized that, actually, it would be not only more expensive, but it looked like it might have a lower voter turnout than a mail-in ballot process when we looked at the numbers in comparison to other votes. So we went ahead with the mail-in ballot.

There was a possibility, at least at one stage, of actually having people vote for their municipal candidates and vote in the referendum at the same time. It’s not unusual in many jurisdictions to have referendum questions as part of a general election process.

The exact recommendations around timing, and so on, will be coming forward in the report on Wednesday. I look forward to the member’s feedback on that.

M. Morris: I didn’t really get an answer to my question. Are you concerned that the campaign period for the referendum will overlap with the campaign period for the local elections?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, we considered, and we thought that there might actually be some benefit from having the election at the same time as the municipal elections — that municipal candidates would actually encourage people to come out to be voting for the referendum as well. In that sense, in terms of the recommendations that come forward on Wednesday, if there’s overlap there, that may be a beneficial impact.

The member will have to be more specific about concerns that he may have, obviously, related to overlap. In any event, the recommendations…. It might be more appropriate for him to raise any concerns after he sees what the recommendations are about the campaign period and the voting period, and so on, on Wednesday.

M. Morris: I’ll just go back to the 2009 referendum that was held. I went on the Elections B.C. website, and I did notice…. Of course, I also looked at some Hansard transcripts from that particular time.

[5:20 p.m.]

The 2009 referendum was initially proposed to run with the 2009 municipal elections in that year. Because of the advice received from the Chief Electoral Officer saying that the criteria to vote in a municipal election is different than the criteria to vote in a provincial election, he recommended that that not take place at that particular time. That was the fundamental reason why the referendum didn’t take place at the same time.

I’m sure that same criteria still applies in today’s world. I’m just wondering whether the minister has received any advice from the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to that.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is absolutely correct. I was remiss in not mentioning that that was one of the other additional factors — more costly and potentially less voter participation.

One of the reasons why it was more costly was because there were different voters lists for the municipal election versus the referendum. Essentially, you need a duplicate set of staff. There are two separate lists. It’s a complicated process. So what seemed intuitive — that people showing up to vote for a municipal election could also vote for the referendum — turned out not to make sense when we kicked the tires on it and did the necessary research. That was not something that I came up with. Somebody did some research on that, within the ministry somewhere, and I was glad that it was flagged.

The member will note that we are not proceeding with that direction. We’re doing a mail-in ballot that is separate from the municipal process.

M. Morris: Section 23(3) of the Constitution Act instructs the LG to change the date of a provincial general election if the campaign period overlaps with a local government election or a federal election. We’ve just confirmed with Libman and Haig that these same principles that apply to a general election also need to be applicable to a referendum.

Is the minister concerned at all that there’s going to be an overlap in this? Is he going to ensure that that changes?

Hon. D. Eby: I think that I’m looking at the same section as the member, which talks about the campaign period for a general election to the Legislative Assembly overlapping with a municipal election. That is not what is proposed by the member in terms of his concern. The member is concerned that the referendum might overlap with the municipal election. I don’t see that that is an issue, on the plain wording of section 23.

In any event, he might be well advised to review the report on Wednesday with this lens and bring forward any concerns he might have.

M. Morris: I take it that the minister is disagreeing with the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to that the same principles underlying election legislation should in general be applicable to the referendum legislation.

Hon. D. Eby: I advise the member…. I take it quite seriously, in my role as Attorney General, that decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, which have the binding effect of law on us here in this place and in the importance of the rule of law in the province…. I would not bring forward recommendations that recommended to cabinet or anybody else that they break the law or violate the laws set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

M. Morris: Is the minister prepared to change the date of the referendum so that it doesn’t conflict with the campaign period for local elections in B.C.?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member will be well placed to review the report and the recommendations about the voting period and the campaign period and to satisfy himself that the recommendations are compliant with the law.

M. Morris: Talk about the voting period and the campaign period. I’m waiting with bated breath to have a look at that report the minister is referring to.

I go back to the principle that a referendum must follow the same general principles as a general election, provincial or federal. If that’s the case…. I look at the referendum act itself, 2018, and the fact that there are no regional thresholds. There is a 50 percent plus one of eligible votes cast.

[5:25 p.m.]

The minister just finished telling us that they adhere to the federal constitution and to the laws of Canada when they look at developing the legislation for the province and the regulations that stem from that. The Constitution of Canada, for electoral reform, basically says that we need regional buy-in as well as the 50 percent of the population voting in favour of that.

Is the minister satisfied that the referendum act, 2018, doesn’t violate the Charter and the fundamental values that the Charter holds in guiding legislation right across this country, including all of the provinces?

Hon. D. Eby: As an interesting point of trivia, the 2005 and 2009 electoral referenda were both held in conjunction with the provincial general election, and they appeared to be able to coexist quite nicely without any issues.

To the member’s point, we’ll commit to him and to the members here and to the record, again, that as Attorney General, I would not put forward legislation in this place that is not compliant with the Charter, with the constitution, with the law in British Columbia or Canada. I would not do that. I was the member who put forward the bill. It is my belief and understanding, based on the best legal advice that I can receive, that the bill that is now law complies with the constitution and all of the applicable laws in British Columbia.

M. Morris: If I understand the minister, he’s saying that he disagrees with the regional thresholds that the federal constitution has in place for electoral reform, that it doesn’t apply to the laws in British Columbia. We can just go ahead and hold a vote with 50 percent of the eligible votes cast, with no regard for the equality of votes that the Supreme Court of Canada has said is fundamental in the democracy of Canada, and British Columbia is included in that.

Hon. D. Eby: I think the summary might suffice that I disagree with the member’s interpretation of the law.

M. Morris: So the minister is saying he disagrees with the application of the federal Charter on British Columbia laws with respect to the regional representation? You know, we go back to Dixon, and it’s been upheld in several Supreme Court decisions since Dixon that equality of voting is paramount in democracy in Canada.

Equality of voting not only takes in population, representation by population, but it also needs to look at regional and geographical differences in our country and in our province. That was one of the reasons why the legislation was changed in 1989 to reflect the electoral districts that we have in British Columbia — so that they reflected that decision from the Supreme Court of Canada at that particular time.

Now the minister is saying with this referendum that “I hope we’re in agreement that the general provisions that apply to a general election or a federal election also apply to a referendum.” If that is the case, then also the equality of voting…. The system that we have in place with our electoral districts and the value of those votes in the various different regions of Canada are also equally important.

Hon. D. Eby: One of the things that was very clear in feedback from people across British Columbia, from the members’ second reading debate speeches, was concern about having a unique situation in British Columbia, which is the rural-urban groups, and ensuring that rural communities are heard, that their voices are heard in the process and in the referendum, that their interests are protected, that their democratic rights are protected, and so on.

I’m happy to advise the member that I heard that loud and clear. The member can evaluate the recommendations that are going forward on Wednesday and determine whether the recommendations meet with his approval in that respect or otherwise.

[5:30 p.m.]

To the extent that the member is suggesting that I put forward legislation that is unconstitutional or illegal, I simply disagree with the member. It’s not the case. I appreciate his legal argument. I don’t agree with it, and I’m not sure how else I can say it.

M. Morris: If I understand the minister correctly, the minister is devaluing the regional vote in British Columbia when he talks about the threshold being 50 percent of all eligible votes cast in the province for this referendum. If we use the same criteria in the referendum as we do in general elections, we need to look at the regional value of all the votes that we have. The courts have been very clear on the importance of making the votes equal right across the land.

British Columbia is very diversified. It’s one of the most urbanized provinces that we have in Canada. The majority of our population lives in less than 0.5 percent of the land mass of the province, so regional representation is extremely important. How is the minister going to reconcile that difference and make sure that all the votes in this referendum are going to be equal?

Hon. D. Eby: In terms of the recommendations that I’m putting forward, the member will have a chance to review those and make his assessment on that. In terms of the bill that was put forward that became law, it was passed a number of months ago now. The member argues that it’s illegal, and it’s unconstitutional. He had the opportunity to challenge it in court. He still has the opportunity to challenge it in court. I can tell him that — to the best of my knowledge, the best legal advice that I’ve received — the bill is constitutional and legal.

What also is true is that I hear the member’s comments now. I heard the member’s comments during second reading of the debate. I heard the comments of British Columbians around the value that they have in terms of ensuring that rural voices are protected.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The member can review the recommendations that I made based on that feedback that I received, and he can provide his assessment of that. Then, with any regulations that are put forward based on that, he also has the opportunity to challenge those in court if he believes them to be illegal. I simply do not believe them to be illegal.

M. Morris: I appreciate the minister’s answer on this, but he still hasn’t advised me and advised this House how he’s going to reconcile this apparent difference by recognizing regional differences for our votes to make sure all votes are equal across Canada and across British Columbia. Recognizing that definition that the Supreme Court of Canada has reinforced several times — that it’s based on population but geographical and regional differences as well — the referendum act of 2018 does not reflect that. So I’m wondering how the minister plans on reconciling that constitutional value that we need to adhere to in B.C.

Hon. D. Eby: Every British Columbian of eligible voting age who meets the requirements to be able to vote in British Columbia will get one vote on this. They will be able to vote their conscience, and they will be able to make a decision about how we send members to this place. The administration of that process will be by a non-partisan, independent third body — Elections B.C. — that I think every member of this House has confidence in to be able to do that and engage in that process.

There is an underlying assumption, I think, that the member has, that people in rural communities have one particular point of view on electoral systems and people in urban communities have one particular point of view on electoral systems. I’m not sure that’s the case. One of the merits of the process that’s going forward and the 50-percent-plus-one vote is that it doesn’t favour any existing system. It doesn’t give any existing system an advantage. It says 50 percent plus one to keep the system or to change the system.

I appreciate the member’s feedback, and I look forward to his feedback on the report on Wednesday.

M. Morris: I just want to disagree with the minister’s statement about rural British Columbians — how they vote and the value of their vote with respect to the 2009 referendum. If you look at the results from the 2009 referendum that took place, basically 60 percent voted to maintain the current first-past-the-post system and 40 percent voted to change it to go to proportional representation.

[5:35 p.m.]

If you look at where those votes resulted, the majority of them were in the capital regional district, a very small part of British Columbia, and three or four ridings in Vancouver. That was it. The rest of the province voted hugely in favour of maintaining the current system that we have.

That’s where I’m saying that the importance of recognizing the regional input into this, not just 50 percent plus one…. If we look at that, the GVRD and the capital regional district have 60 percent of B.C.’s population. They could outvote rural B.C. in a flash. That’s one of the reasons why the Supreme Court has recognized that the equality of voting is one of the most fundamental democratic rights that we have in Canada and British Columbia.

You must recognize that there’s the population base, and they’ve allowed us to deviate by plus or minus 25 percent, but also the regional and geographical differences. Our federal constitution says that as well — that in order to change electoral reform in Canada, you need to have 60 or 70 percent of the provinces on board as well as 50 percent of the population. So I’m curious as to where the minister sits with this from a constitutional perspective.

Hon. D. Eby: I keep hearing the member’s question, which is: “Do you believe that the legislation that you put forward in this place that was voted on by representatives here is unconstitutional or illegal?” The answer to the member’s question, no matter how he phrases it, is the same. I stood up. I presented that legislation in this place. I would not put forward legislation in this place that I believe to be unconstitutional or illegal. If there was a member in this place, another member of cabinet, that stood up and presented a bill that I knew to be unconstitutional or illegal, I would advise this House. I would tell them that, because that is the role of the Attorney General.

The member can ask the question ten different ways. The answer will be the same. The bill, in my opinion, based on the best legal advice I can receive, is not illegal or unconstitutional and provides every British Columbian with a vote. It is their decision, British Columbians’ decision, about whether we keep the current system or whether we change to a different system.

M. Morris: It sounds to me like the minister is saying that, in his opinion, this meets the constitutional challenge that we have with the federal constitution. I don’t see that. You know, I haven’t seen anything in that particular bill that recognizes the regional differences in our province, which is fundamental to the equality of voting in Canada and British Columbia.

If the minister becomes aware that this might be a constitutional issue, would he be willing to pull that bill and cancel the referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s easy to lose track of the fact that we’re in estimates. The referendum bill was presented in this place. It was voted on by the majority of members. I’ve advised the member several times, based on the best legal advice, that it’s legal and constitutional and, I would argue, entirely appropriate that each British Columbian gets one vote about how we send members to this place.

The underlying assumption of the member’s question, continually, is that rural voters have the same perspective which is different from urban voters when it comes to the question or questions that will be put forward in the referendum process. I appreciate the member’s confidence about his knowledge of voter intention in these times we live in, but I think that is speculative.

Each person who is eligible to vote in British Columbia will get one vote. They will have the opportunity, and they will be the ones who make the decision — not that member, not me — about how we send members to this place.

M. Morris: What I’m understanding the minister saying is that the requirement for regional representation, as provided by the Constitution Act, 1982, has no bearing in British Columbia on this referendum, that we don’t need to pay attention to the regional representation in British Columbia. We only need to pay attention to the 50-percent-plus-one requirement.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I said no such thing. What I did say was that I disagreed with the member’s interpretation of that law.

Obviously, the Charter applies to us. If we said of an identifiable group of people, “These people are not allowed to vote in the referendum,” we could certainly be challenged. The law would apply, and appropriately so, to challenge the discrimination of saying that an identifiable group of people are not permitted to participate in the election.

I certainly did not suggest that the law doesn’t apply to the referendum. What I did say, and what I’ll say again, is that I do not agree with the member’s interpretation of that law — how it applies to the bill that was in front of this place and that eventually became the law. And I will be putting forward recommendations on Wednesday for regulations around how this process will be held.

I welcome the member’s feedback on that as well. But I would not put forward either a bill or recommendations or anything else in front of this House that counselled or encouraged the members of this House to pass a bill that was illegal, unconstitutional or otherwise improper. That’s the role of the Attorney General. I take it seriously.

M. Morris: I hope the minister and his counsel have a look at some of these issues, because I do see some merit in the discussions that we’ve been having here. I go back to the Supreme Court, in Haig and Libman, with respect to the referendum having the same importance and application as a general election does.

I don’t know what the minister is finding humorous about the discussion that we’re having. This is critical. This is about the democratic rights of British Columbians, to make sure that everybody in British Columbia receives the protection of the federal Charter that we must adhere to.

Going back to my question, how does the minister plan on holding the referendum now that he’s in agreement that it requires that the same general principles that apply to a general election need to be applied to a referendum? Is he still intent on proceeding with the referendum, based on the discussions that we’ve had to this point?

Hon. D. Eby: With apologies to the member, I was laughing about something totally unrelated. I was speaking with staff here briefly.

The member assigns to me a certain understanding of the law that I’ve said now, several times, that I disagree with and then suggests that I should, therefore, not proceed with something that the majority of the members in this place were elected to proceed with, which is to hold a referendum on keeping the existing electoral system or changing to a new electoral system.

I try to respond to the member’s questions in different ways, but after a while, it starts to get quite repetitive. I disagree with the member’s interpretation of the law. I do not agree with him that the bill or the law that was put forward is illegal or unconstitutional. The recommendations I’ll put forward on Wednesday — based on the engagement process with British Columbians across the province, lengthy written submissions by organizations and individuals, survey results from people — will be recommendations in compliance with Canadian and British Columbia law and constitution. I look forward to hearing the member’s feedback on that.

M. Morris: Here we have a piece of legislation that could very well fundamentally change the electoral process in British Columbia. Now, under the federal constitution, it says that we need that regional portion of Canada in agreement with that as well as the population. I say that applies to British Columbia. The minister disagrees with that. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what comes out at the end of the day.

The minister is in agreement that the general principles that apply to a general election also apply to a referendum. Is he going to ask that the date for the referendum change so the campaign periods don’t overlap with the municipal or the local elections that take place just shortly before that?

Hon. D. Eby: I advised the member that his government — or, at least, his predecessors in that party — held a referendum on electoral reform in 2005 and 2009 not just near the provincial general election but literally in concert with the provincial general election, the campaign period and the vote.

[5:45 p.m.]

Unless he is suggesting that his predecessors acted illegally by having an entirely overlapping campaign and voting period for referendums with a general provincial election, then surely he must agree with me that although it is a creative legal understanding that he has come to about overlap here, it is just that. It is not actually the state of the law.

In any event, on Wednesday, I will be releasing my recommendations about when the writ period should be and when the campaign period should be for this referendum. Then the member can evaluate it at that point, and I look forward to hearing his feedback.

M. Morris: Again, I have to go back to the recognition that a referendum follows the same general principles as a general provincial election. I go back to section 23(3) of the Constitution Act, which says that the LG must change the date of a provincial general election if the campaign period overlaps with a local government election or a federal election. If we’re going to be using the same principles that apply to a provincial general election, then I would suggest that section 23(3) of the Constitution Act also applies in this case. Is the minister in agreement with that, or does he disagree with that?

Hon. D. Eby: I highly recommend to the member a reading of the Haig decision that I mentioned to him earlier. We clearly have a different understanding of the law, and that’s okay. What’s not okay is for the Attorney General to put forward legislation that’s unconstitutional or illegal. And inconsistent with the constitution would be an example of that.

Based on the best legal advice I’ve received, based on my own understanding of the law, I can advise the member and every member of this House that the legislation is, to the best of anyone’s knowledge that I’ve been able to consult, consistent with the law. Also, the recommendations around regulations coming forward on Wednesday will be the same, because that is a responsibility of the Attorney General. Again, I disagree with the member’s interpretation and recommend the Haig case to him. It draws a very clear distinction around referenda.

I’m grateful to the member bringing this other case to my attention as well, and I will definitely have a read of it, but I have to say that I don’t believe we have the same understanding of the constitution.

M. Morris: Section 12(2) of the Election Act states: “The chief electoral officer has the following powers in addition to all others given by this Act: (a) to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly respecting amendments to this Act or other enactments affecting election matters.” Can the minister tell us if he has received any recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to holding this referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: I can tell the member that there haven’t been any formal recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, but staff in the Ministry of Attorney General have been engaged with staff at Elections B.C. around issues related to the mailout and return of the ballot — timelines and those kinds of things. But in terms of formal recommendations, there have been none that fall within that category.

M. Morris: Could the minister explain to me what this mail-in ballot system looks like?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll advise the member that this is not something that we’ve confirmed with Elections B.C., in terms of how they’ll be holding this specific mail-in ballot. This is entirely within the realm of their process.

I can tell the member that typically, mail-in ballots work as follows. There is an addressed envelope that is received by the registered voter. Inside that envelope, there are two envelopes. There is a secrecy envelope and a certification envelope. There is also a ballot, and there are also instructions.

The instructions advise the voter how to complete the ballot and submit the ballot. In the two-envelope system, the ballot goes into the secrecy envelope, which has no identifying information on it. The secrecy envelope goes inside the certification envelope, which has the voter’s details on it, identification to ensure the validity of the vote and that the person voting is actually the voter. Then the ballot is mailed to the Elections B.C. processing facility, where the ballot is counted, and the election is complete.

M. Morris: From my understanding of the Election Act, mail-in ballots are used in special circumstances. I’m suggesting that if we are to follow the Supreme Court’s advice that the general principles that apply to a general provincial election also pertain to a referendum, is the minister concerned that mail-in ballots would be used outside of the requirements of the Election Act for a general election and that he’s forging new grounds here?

Hon. D. Eby: No.

M. Morris: So no, the same requirements that apply to a provincial general election aren’t applicable to a referendum.

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked if I was concerned, and the answer was no.

The reason the mail-in ballot was chosen, as I told the member and as I’ve told this House a number of times — and I’ve told the media, and I’ll tell everyone who will listen — is it has a higher voter participation rate. That’s why we decided to, among other reasons, not proceed with a concurrent election with the municipal election process. It saved money, it had a higher voter turnout rate, and it avoided this issue of confusion with the two different voters lists.

M. Morris: If I understand, the minister is saying that he would rather save money than apply the general principles of a general election to this referendum.

Hon. D. Eby: I know it’s the end of the day, hon. Chair, but the member is stretching. The member may or may not know that someone who is unable to attend in person during a general election may fill out a mail-in ballot — for any election. Not only do we accept mail-in ballots for referenda, as has been done on many different occasions under the previous administration, but also we accept mail-in ballots to elect members to this place already, directly. So I’m not quite sure what the member’s objection is.

Also, I do disagree. I’m not sure how it gets us further ahead for him to suggest that the reason the mail-in ballot was chosen was to save money. It had a number of features that recommended it to government. One was that it had a higher voter turnout, and that was the dominant consideration. Another benefit is it actually saves money as well. So the choice was quite obvious.

I do appreciate the member has concerns and objections. I’m just not sure why a mail-in ballot is one of them, given that we use them to elect members to this place anyway.

M. Morris: The only concern I have is that the same rules that apply to a general election apply to a referendum.

Who made the recommendation to the minister that he follow the mail-in ballot regime?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can tell the member that there were two main options on the table, looking at the timelines. One was to hold the vote concurrent with the municipal election. That option was rejected for a number of reasons.

First of all, municipal elections have had lower voter turnout than mail-in ballots in the past. Secondly, there were two separate voter lists. One was for municipal elections, and one was for the referendum — different people eligible to vote in different elections. So there was some risk of confusion. The third was that it was significantly more expensive.

When those factors were evaluated against a mail-in ballot that had higher voter turnout — mail-in ballots, which are used to not just elect people to the Legislature but also for previous referenda in the past, which is how we know that the voter turnout numbers are better — and is actually cheaper, the choice was quite obvious.

The decision was mine. It was based on the best information provided to me by staff — public servants who did the research about voter turnout, cost, logistics, all these issues.

I have to tell the member that my initial impression was that it would be best to do the vote consistent with a municipal election. It was the research and information that was done by the public service to advise me on the options that led me to recommend to cabinet and, ultimately, to this place that the way forward is the mail-in ballot — to put forward legislation suggesting a mail-in ballot in this minority parliament. It passed with a vote, and that is the system that’s going forward.

M. Morris: Did the minister, when he was determining how he was going to hold a referendum and when he was going to hold a referendum, give any significance to the advice that the Chief Electoral Officer had given to the previous government in 2009 — to not to hold it in conjunction with the municipal election because the voting criteria were different?

Hon. D. Eby: I wasn’t privy to that advice, but I was advised that the voting criteria were different, and it was a factor.

M. Morris: I will go on to, and we talked a little bit about it earlier, the equality of voting. The courts have confirmed that the right to a high degree of equality of voting power is one of great importance. “It is one of the most fundamental freedoms granted by the Charter, upon which all other rights and freedoms guaranteed ultimately depend. Therefore, it cannot lightly be undermined.” That, again, is McLachlin in the Dixon decision.

The Premier recognized this when he stated: “The amending formula for our constitution, for example, requires approval by seven provinces with 50 percent of Canada’s population. So it’s an absolute 50 percent, but it includes seven provinces…. This amending formula is similar to the kind of formula we’d need for a plebiscite on changing how we elect people in B.C.” The Premier’s statement appears contradictory, as now we see just a simple majority of 50 percent of eligible votes cast being acceptable.

Considering that over 60 percent of B.C.’s population is concentrated in the capital regional district and the GVRD — 0.53 percent of B.C.’s land base — is the minister concerned that the equality of voting power in the rest of British Columbia may be compromised and thus offend section 3 of the Charter by not taking into consideration the geographic and regional differences?

Hon. D. Eby: The member started by reading that the relative parity of voter power is a key consideration. The Dixon case talks about, well, how one British Columbian gets one vote. That is the parity of voting power.

The member is repeatedly suggesting that the legislation put forward is unconstitutional, that the law says this. I simply disagree with the member, and that’s okay. We can have disagreements about that.

If the member is truly convinced that he’s correct, he can take that legislation…. The courts have this superintending jurisdiction to review legislation to ensure its constitutionality. The member, I’m sure, knows that well.

I can tell the member that, based on the best legal advice, there is absolutely no issue here. I appreciate the member’s submissions on it; I just don’t agree with him.

[6:00 p.m.]

M. Morris: How does the minister reconcile the differences, then, with what the Premier has said, where he recognizes that we need 70 percent of the province’s voting in favour of it as well? He recognizes the regional importance, as the federal constitution dictates. How does the minister rationalize not using that in British Columbia for the referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m sorry. Rationalize not using what?

M. Morris: Rationalize regional representation. So rationalize the fact that to change electoral systems in Canada requires a majority of the province to be on board, in addition to the 50 percent of the province. That also requires that the majority of regions, electoral districts in British Columbia, also need to vote in favour of it, in addition to the 50 percent of the population. Does the minister disagree with that statement?

Hon. D. Eby: I will put forward recommendations to cabinet around regulations around holding the referendum, around the question or questions to go to British Columbians — where every British Columbian gets one vote to decide how we send members to this place. That is what is passed by this Legislature. That is what I have been tasked to do.

I do appreciate the member’s suggestions, I guess I can describe them as. I thank him for them, but I…. It’s a strange estimates process.

M. Morris: Strange or not, it falls under the minister’s portfolio. We just want some clarification on what this whole episode looks like, particularly as fundamental as electoral reform.

Prince Edward Island held a referendum in 2016 where the government rejected the referendum results because voter turnout was uncharacteristically low for the province. How low does the voter turnout have to be for government to reject the results here in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s no threshold prescribed in the legislation. I can tell the member, though, that I have been pleasantly surprised by the level of engagement of British Columbians with this process to date. I am very hopeful of a very significant voter turnout, and there are a number of factors that point in that direction.

First if all, the mail-in ballot process was selected to maximize voter turnout, as it has had success in the past in maximizing voter turnout. The second is that we had the biggest engagement in the history of the province in relation to this process. The third is, I understand, that parties on all sides, the three parties representing the Legislature, will be out there campaigning, which is something different than has happened in the past. There is a lot of interest from established organizations, as the member will see, that provided written submissions about how this should go forward.

I think that when you put all these factors together…. Although I understand the member’s question — I heard it during the second reading debate on the bill that passed in this place — I’m very hopeful about voter turnout being good on this question. I think British Columbians are very interested in weighing in on one side or another of how we send people to this place.

M. Morris: I still haven’t received a fulsome answer with respect to how the minister reconciles the difference between the requirement of the Constitution Act, 1982 to have that regional threshold in place for electoral reform, yet he’s decided that that is not applicable to British Columbia.

Hon. D. Eby: The member won’t receive an answer because I don’t agree with his interpretation of law. It’s as simple as that.

The member’s remedy around this disagreement is to go to court. If you believe that this legislation is illegal, then you challenge that. You go ahead and challenge that in the court. But I’ll tell you this: there is no issue here.

I do appreciate the member’s legal submissions on this, and I’m prepared to be wrong. But I do need to say that simply because the member says the law is X does not necessarily mean that it is X.

[6:05 p.m.]

M. Morris: The minister is prepared to be wrong. He’s suggesting that I raise a challenge in court if we’ve got some concerns over the constitutionality of the referendum itself and the process. This government seems to have a real propensity to go to court and get some answers.

Here we have the Supreme Court of Canada saying that the general principles applicable to general elections also apply to referendum. We’ve got the constitution saying that there are regional thresholds that need to be kept in mind during any electoral change that we have in Canada or British Columbia.

The minister disagrees with that, feels he’s on solid constitutional ground. Of course, we’re agreeing to disagree in this House right now, but that’s an issue that, if the referendum does come about, I think is going to be flawed because of the issues I’ve surfaced here in the House today that I don’t think have received the serious consideration of the government.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is advancing an argument that I’ve heard the courts describe before using the word “novel.” It is a novel argument. He is at odds with Peter Hogg, who is the author of the leading textbook on the constitution.

He’s at odds with the Supreme Court of Canada in the Haig decision. I’m going to read to him from that decision, discussing section 3. The wording of the section, as is immediately apparent, is quite narrow, guaranteeing only “the right to vote in elections of representatives of the federal and the provincial legislative assemblies.” As Prof. Peter Hogg notes in Constitutional Law of Canada — the citation is 3rd edition, 1992, volume 2 at pages 42-2 — “the right does not extend to municipal elections or referenda.”

Now, the member, rightly, raises the issue of: how much information will voters have? Will they have enough information to make an informed decision? The recommendations that I am putting forward on Wednesday are aimed at ensuring that voters have enough information to make an informed decision when they’re voting.

Otherwise, I think it was the member for Vancouver-Langara who said: “Why else hold a referendum?” I agree. Why else hold a referendum if people feel that they don’t have enough information to vote? We can agree on that. Let’s find some points of agreement. We can agree on that — that voters require necessary information in order to vote — and my recommendations on Wednesday will be aimed at that.

M. Lee: In the course of what was being presented to British Columbians, there were multiple forms of proportional representation that were presented. Three of those potential PR electoral systems proposed on the government consultation website included provisions for list candidates: mixed-member proportional, list proportional representation and mixed-member majoritarian.

To the Attorney General, could he please tell us if he has ruled out consideration of closed lists?

Hon. D. Eby: The consultation engagement process that we engaged with British Columbians about raised this issue of open lists and closed lists. The merit of an open list is reduced party control. The merit of a closed list is a simplified ballot.

There were a number of values questions, including one raised by the member for Chilliwack, about: why would you ask if you favour a system that gives more control to an MLA or more control to a party? That’s an example of why we asked questions like that. That question was raised in the engagement. The member will see the feedback from British Columbians about that on Wednesday.

It is definitely one of the issues around putting forward a particular system or systems for British Columbians for consideration or considerations, generally, about the values of British Columbians as they vote in this process. I think the member is going to find the reading of this report on Wednesday very interesting and instructive, as it is based on the feelings and the values of British Columbians around these, frankly, technical questions that reflect values that British Columbians have about how we send people to this place.

[6:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity here in estimates to go over the amount of technical detail that we have. I think it demonstrates to British Columbians how much there is to consider here. With the discussion that has been held with the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, along that same vein: does the Attorney General believe that a closed list PR system is constitutional under section 3 of the Charter?

Hon. D. Eby: The point of holding the engagement, the point of soliciting feedback from groups that took the time to provide written submissions, was to ensure that the recommendations that went forward weren’t based on my opinions. The recommendations that went forward were based on the feedback of British Columbians. Ultimately, the vote will be on whether we keep the existing system or whether we change to a different system. The vote will be British Columbians’ — not the member’s, not mine. That is the benefit of the referendum process.

I appreciate the member’s questions in terms of any recommendations that I’m going to put forward in relation to the ballot question or questions. The rules around the referendum, the information available to voters, all these kinds of things, will be released on Wednesday. It is based on this engagement process that we’ve been talking about in some detail in which the questionnaire is one part, the long-form answer is another, the panel another and the Indigenous consultation another.

M. Lee: This being one of our last opportunities to have a discussion about proportional representation and the referendum in this House before the House breaks, I’d like to ask a few more questions about this. In a PR electoral system with a candidates list…. Typically between 35 percent and 100 percent of the candidates are chosen by political parties. Would the Attorney General please explain how any kind of local representation for communities across British Columbia could possibly be guaranteed or ensured when political parties choose the candidates on the PR list?

Hon. D. Eby: Two points to the member’s question. One is that instead of a provincewide list, you could potentially have regional lists that could address that concern. But I note that every member in this place currently is affiliated with a political party. So really, the engagement was meant to get at British Columbians’ values around what they wanted to see going forward — concerns they had.

One of the concerns that I’ve talked about I heard in the member’s…. I can’t recall the particular member, whether it was the member for Vancouver-Langara, but certainly a number of his colleagues. It was this concern around ensuring that in any system or systems that might come from the referendum process, rural voices be protected, that rural representation be protected. These are the kinds of considerations the engagement process was meant to solicit and identify to inform the recommendations about how the referendum process should be held, the question or questions going forward and the rules around the referendum process. That’s why we engaged in that process.

M. Lee: In respect of regional representation on party candidate lists, could the Attorney General advise this House as to whether there is any ongoing consideration of introducing legislation before the referendum that would enforce or require local representation on party candidate lists in any form of proposed PR system?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll recommend my report on Wednesday to the member. I look forward to his feedback on this and any other issues that he identifies in that review process.

M. Lee: In addition to the form of PR electoral system, can the Attorney General advise whether this government will require parties to create candidate lists that would require mandatory gender, sexual orientation, ethnic heritage or any other qualifications?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I recommend my report on Wednesday to the member to address this and any other issues.

I will note that we did specific engagement with First Nations people because there has been an issue in this place of underrepresentation of Indigenous people, though we are fortunate to have a number of representatives currently who represent the communities very well. We wanted to make sure that we were getting those voices. So just in terms of the spirit of the recommendations that are coming forward — to make sure that voices that can be overlooked or missed out or excluded were able to participate. That’s one of the reasons why we did this specific outreach with that particular community.

I’ll also note that the Ipsos Public Affairs demographic group is selected on the basis of identifying individuals who represent the diversity of British Columbia. So the member can have confidence, for the Ipsos panel and for the First Nations consultation, that…. When these matters are canvassed in the report that goes forward on Wednesday, he’ll know where that feedback came from.

M. Lee: Just in respect of the PR system itself, and understanding what might be dealt with in the report or not, can there be a situation where political parties would expel PR list MLAs from the Legislature if they quit their party to join another party or to sit as independents?

Hon. D. Eby: I recommend to the member my report on Wednesday. The member’s feedback on the recommendations that came forward about matters of the ballot question, or questions, and the rules around the referendum process…. I’m sure I’ll have some feedback from you based on these questions.

M. Lee: This next set of questions might be a little topical, but I just wanted to get them on the record here. Can the Attorney General advise this House as to whether any of British Columbia’s recall initiative legislation will be impacted by this referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: There may be a number of amendments required to bring existing legislation into concert with any changes, should British Columbians vote to change the voting system.

Recall is a good example. How would you address recall around someone, if British Columbians had voted in a system that had a regional or provincewide list, resulted from it…? How would you recall someone in that kind of situation?

The Election Act and the Electoral Districts Act and the Constitution Act — there are a number of acts that might be implicated, depending on the system that’s chosen, depending on the direction that British Columbians send us in, in this referendum process. There might be no changes at all, if British Columbians vote to keep the existing system.

[6:20 p.m.]

M. Morris: One follow-up question to my colleague. The minister is responding to a question regarding closed lists and party lists, where representatives in this House will be chosen from those lists by party members. Does the minister feel that that’s in compliance with section 3 of the Charter, where every citizen in Canada has the right to vote in an election for members of the House of Commons or a legislative assembly, or is he suggesting that we need to change our federal constitution in order to accommodate PR?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m sure the member understands that in the current system that we have, in an electoral district, it is a closed-list system of one, where the party puts forward one candidate and then people vote on that candidate that the party has put forward. It is in compliance with the constitution and with the law in British Columbia.

There is definitely a live issue. There was feedback around it in the consultation process, around closed lists or open lists. One of the merits of the first-past-the-post system that its proponents advocate is it’s a very simple ballot. Closed-list systems have a more simple ballot. Open-list ballots — its proponents say this is a more democratic process, and it has more complicated ballots.

There are values at play in both systems. But in terms of the member’s specific question about the lawfulness of it, the existing system is a closed-list system. It is fully lawful, and I see no reason why that wouldn’t be the case for a proportional system on the same basis.

M. Lee: That completes our questions for today on AG estimates, on proportional representation. We propose to continue tomorrow with questions relating to gaming, followed by ICBC and then liquor. Then AG general matters will complete our session tomorrow.

Hon. D. Eby: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:22 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, 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. Tuesday morning.

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.