Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, further to the agreement announced yesterday and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 35, I call debate on the matter regarding the report and recommendations of the Attorney General on the 2018 electoral reform referendum.

[11:00 a.m.]

Motions Without Notice

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

A. Wilkinson: By leave, I move:

[That the Attorney General’s Report and Recommendations on the 2018 Electoral Reform Referendum be referred to a parliamentary committee on or before October 1, 2018.]

Now, the reason for this debate to occur is that yesterday the Attorney General revealed a report on electoral reform that was developed entirely in secret. It goes to the basis….

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt you, please? You had requested leave.

Leave granted.

A. Wilkinson: The basis for this is electoral reform, and that goes to the very heart of this institution — the room we sit in, which has endured for 120 years in this room and, before that, for another 40 years in the Birdcages around the corner. That has been the essence of governing British Columbia — electoral democracy. The fundamental basis of it could be changed by this report and the referendum to be counted on November 30 this year.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This process occurred in secret. The Attorney General has absented himself from the room now. He is the man who orchestrated this.

Deputy Speaker: The absence or presence of members is not commented upon.

A. Wilkinson: I appreciate that, Madame Speaker.

The Attorney General said moments ago that he rejected the Green-NDP submission to his office on electoral reform. This appears to be a one-man show. The Attorney General is deciding these matters in private.

The academics who are involved in consultations with the Attorney General, we have found out, wrote to the Attorney General’s office on November 17 of last year and said: “Will there be a citizens’ assembly?” The response was: “There’s no time.” There’s only a year before the vote, but there’s no time for a citizens’ assembly.

The role of the Legislature has been completely dismissed. There has been no opportunity for debate until this was forced upon the government yesterday, hence the call for a parliamentary committee to review this in public.

Why do we have a legislature? It’s to scrutinize legislation, the process of government, the spending endorsed by government — as this government takes on the role of spending about 20 percent of the GDP of this province. That’s a big, major, important role. The whole process for bringing us here is now being questioned and subject to change, and this Legislature has been cut out of the process.

There’s a critically important factor here that’s often ignored, and that’s the role of the media. The Victoria-based media gallery has shrunk in recent years. Their budgets are smaller. We all know this. They don’t get the chance to travel, so they depend upon us, the elected members convening here and being subject to questions. The experts in this field are in the media gallery.

This attempt yesterday to simply put out this report and then we all disperse from this place 24 hours later is an attempt to evade media scrutiny. I do hope that it will not work, because it is the media who will hold this government to account. The activities in this chamber get limited coverage, limited exposure — there are few people in the gallery — so we count upon media exposure to get the message out. What this government is cynically and cunningly doing is trying to avoid media scrutiny.

The questions that have been developed are not simple. They are extraordinarily complicated, advocating two brand-new systems that aren’t used anywhere in the world, that were apparently gathered and concocted and mixed together for the purpose of a manipulative referendum question. These are entirely unknown systems that haven’t been used anywhere in the world. The third one is so complicated that it was rejected completely by the Citizens’ Assembly in 2004.

Yet this government shamelessly puts these three options on the table and says: “Don’t worry about it. The public will learn about it, but you won’t, because you folks in the Legislature won’t have a chance to scrutinize it.”

This is a sad day when we have to force debate on the government about a fundamental issue in the operation of our democracy. It flies in the face of why we come to this chamber to deliberate the matters of state in this province.

This government seeks to evade legislative scrutiny. It seeks to evade media scrutiny. It seeks to evade public scrutiny by launching this just before the summer holidays when the public will not be paying attention. This is an entirely cynical effort, and the fact that this government is not prepared to tell people what riding they’ll be voting in speaks volumes about just how cynical and manipulative this government has become in a very short time.

[11:05 a.m.]

It took an emergency debate request to the Speaker — a request for a ruling — before this government capitulated and said: “Okay. It’s all right to talk about it for an hour, and that’s all.”

This goes to the fundamental essence of our democracy. It’s time for this government to accept that public scrutiny is what this institution exists for. I would be deeply disappointed if they do not acknowledge the need for a parliamentary committee on this before the vote occurs.

Hon. J. Horgan: It is a pleasure and privilege to rise and participate in this debate that was agreed to by all members, all three parties in the Legislature. It’s an opportunity for us to have a discussion of a report that was tabled just yesterday, a report that will allow British Columbians to have a say in how their democracy works.

I don’t know what could be more open and transparent than saying to citizens, saying to British Columbians: “Do you want to keep the system you have, or do you want to opt for a proportional system? Yes or no is the answer to the first question. If you say yes, which of these options would you prefer?” I believe that’s clear. It’s open. It’s plain. It’s simple for people to understand. I believe that British Columbians will support that.

We have had for too long an outdated system that has served the interests of the minority, not the interests of the majority. It’s time we changed that. We campaigned on that matter. We’re putting it before the Legislature. We did put it before the Legislature. Cabinet now has a report prepared by the Attorney General with the largest opportunity for people to participate ever in terms of those who engaged with the website, those who engaged directly with the Attorney General and his staff to put in place the report that we have before us today.

Now, I appreciate that those on the other side of the House like what we’ve got. It’s worked well for them. Since Confederation, only one time has a majority of voters voted for the government in power — only once in that time. I believe that’s not a very decent batting average. A better course of action for the citizens of British Columbia, to ensure that we all work together cooperatively after the campaign is over, is to have a proportional system where the ideas in the marketplace out there in the province can be reflected and represented here evenly and equally so that debate can be honest, sincere and genuine, as I believe all members want it to be.

At the end of the day, it will be the citizens of British Columbia who make the decision on whether they keep what they have or opt for something else. Now, I know members on the other side…. The Leader of the Opposition just said we couldn’t possibly contemplate something new. That would be bad. Something that has been untried — that would be bad.

That’s his opinion, and he’ll be able to exercise that opinion in a ballot this fall. I think that’s appropriate. Citizens will also have that opportunity. They may differ from the Leader of the Opposition; they may differ from me and my colleagues. I believe that’s democracy. It’s open, it’s transparent and it’s right out there for people to make those choices.

I want to touch briefly on the notion of maps, because that seems to be something that the opposition has glommed onto. I was elected in 2005 in a place called Malahat–Juan de Fuca. There was a map before the election so citizens knew where they lived and where they were going to vote. A whole infrastructure gets put in place on election day. People get cards in the mail saying: “You vote here. This is the place that you live. This is your electoral boundary for the coming election.” It’s not carved in stone for all time. It is for that election.

If the citizens of British Columbia decide to change their electoral system, there will be a redistribution committee established. It will be independent. It will hear submissions from citizens, members on that side of the House, members on this side of the House. People from all over B.C. are entitled to participate in the formulation of the maps that govern where they vote and who they want to vote for.

It happens all the time. In fact, it’s happened three times since I was first elected. I was secondarily elected in a place called Juan de Fuca, which didn’t resemble Malahat–Juan de Fuca any way at all, except for the name Juan de Fuca. Then, in the last election, there was another redistribution, a new map, and people discovered that they were voting somewhere else. They were no longer voting for Langford–Juan de Fuca; they were voting for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

It happens all the time. New maps are created, and the public engages in that process. If they don’t like where the lines are drawn by the independent panel, they can make submissions, and if the submissions are compelling, the maps are changed. That’s what we’ve been doing in British Columbia for a long, long time. That’s what we’ll be doing in this instance. It’s pretty straightforward. I don’t understand why the members on that side of the House don’t get it.

However, the member for Langley…. Fort Langley? Just Langley?

Interjections.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Because they change all the time, Member. That’s why.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for making my point. We have two very capable members in this place, one from Langley and one from Langley East. They have represented different constituencies in the time I’ve been colleagues with them. It is what we do when population grows and population decreases.

In this report, the Attorney General listened to second reading debate from members on that side of the House. He has ensured in the report that regional representation is maintained. There is not a diminishment of seats in rural British Columbia. In fact, there’s an opportunity to grow that. That means that people will be represented, as they are now, with one unique difference. If they choose a proportional representation system, they will know with absolute certainty that when they cast their ballot it will mean something in this Legislature. It will mean something. It’s not a thrown-away vote as it is now, after first-past-the-post.

I will have ample opportunity to speak about this issue over the coming months. I know other members want to have their say. I will conclude by saying that we campaigned to give people a clear choice, to keep what they have or opt for something different, potentially something new. Imagine that. How revolutionary is that — saying to the public: “Do you want to try something new”?

It will improve the outcomes in this place, as we’ve demonstrated by having a coalition in a minority parliament for the first time in generations. It’s working effectively. It’s stable, and it’s providing good government for British Columbians. That’s what we’re all wanting to see here, on both sides of the House. I believe what we’ve done and what’s before the public, before this House, will make that a certainty going forward.

S. Furstenau: I’m very happy to take my place in this critical debate about our democracy. In just less than six months, British Columbians will be asked whether they believe we should modernize the way we elect MLAs to office in our province. They will be asked to consider whether we want to keep our single-member-plurality system, better known as first-past-the-post, or whether we want to join the majority of western democracies around the world and start using a system of proportional representation.

For me, the choice is clear. I want every vote to count for more than they do in our current system. I want to end the practice of governments getting 100 percent of the power with only 40 percent of the vote. More than anything, I want to end the exhausting practice of strategic voting that we are forced to go through every election.

I want citizens to be empowered to vote for what they actually want, not against what they don’t want. The process that will play out this fall will give every voter in British Columbia the chance to ask themselves similar questions about what they value in their democracy, to ask themselves what they want their government to look like.

The Attorney General’s recommendations have started this process. And 91,725 surveys were filled out on line, 1,101 additional questionnaires by selected panel, 208 written submissions from individuals, and another 46 from organizations. I’m hoping I got the numbers right with the Attorney General.

The cynics will cry: “It is not enough.” Yet the truth is that this is the most engagement that a government consultation has ever received on any issue. And we should be proud of that. We should be happy that the citizens of B.C. care this much about their democracy. It’s a sign of healthy democracy.

The Attorney General and his staff should be commended for the work they have done. They have taken an immense volume of feedback and ideas and thoughts from British Columbians and what they have wanted their referendum to look like, and they have struck a balance in their recommendations.

We have a report that addresses the fundamental values that people wanted to see in a referendum, reflecting both the distinct nature of B.C. and its different regions and the core values that we all share across this province.

I’m a historian. As a history teacher, it is interesting to note the history of electoral system change in our province. Our system has actually changed twice, including when we switched to the system that we use now. In both instances, there was no referendum. There were no choices put before B.C. voters. The system was imposed on citizens in back rooms, based purely on political calculation.

[11:15 a.m.]

By contrast, the referendum we have in the fall offers a truly novel opportunity for British Columbians to shape their system, and indeed, it is a very rare opportunity for any citizen in any country to be asked to have a say in the future of their electoral systems.

I fully believe in British Columbians’ ability to look at the choices in front of them and to tell their politicians what they want. It is no greater a challenge than what plays out every election, when voters have to decide what their parties stand for and which one has earned their vote.

There are few conversations that are more important than those about our democratic institutions, because the way we shape them affects every issue in our lives. Thinking about and engaging in our democracy is vital to ensuring the health of it.

In this conversation, more than most, truth and honesty will be critical. No matter what side of the issue you fall on, whether you want to keep our existing first-past-the-post system or whether you favour updating our system to a form of proportional representation, we owe it to voters to base our arguments for and against in fact, not fiction. If we use fear and conspiracy theories to advance our case, we cheapen the discussion and risk lasting damage to voters faith in our democratic institutions.

The reliance on fear-based rhetoric is actually the primary reason I want to see British Columbia lead Canada in modernizing our electoral system, adopting a form of proportional representation. I believe that our current system of first-past-the-post is a big part of what drives this fear-based rhetoric.

In our system, you can receive 100 percent of the power with a small percentage of the vote. Parties are pushed to escalate their rhetoric and launch accusations of others, because the goal isn’t to appeal to the most people possible. It incentivizes us to appeal to the minimum number that we need to win a seat and to win the minimum number of seats to win a majority.

It creates a winner-take-all mentality, because after most elections with less than the majority of votes, what generally happens is the winner does take all. Majoritarian governments are able to pass any legislation without the need for support from any other parties in the House, and ultimately, the disconnect from the other parties can also become a disconnect from the citizens we are here to represent.

If politics is a numbers game about winning a few swing ridings in order to have all the power, we lose sight of our higher purpose here. We forget that we owe future generations a debt. Minority governments force us to do what the rest of the world must do as a matter of course. They force us to find agreement, to overcome conflict, to work from a place of common values, to listen, to recognize that no one party, no one person has all the answers, and this is a good thing.

Voters can see this, and it drives the disengagement and the downward trend of voter turnout when we force our parties to work in a fear-based, winner-take-all system. It also breeds cynicism, which is so detrimental to democracy. Elections are often reduced to exercises of strategic voting, as we try to figure out who is most likely to beat our least favourite choice, rather than who we actually think deserves to be elected.

I believe that proportional representation offers our province a very different future for our democracy. As I said last fall, imagine an election campaign where ideas and policy are what we’re debating, rather than who the strategic vote is in your area. Imagine an election campaign where parties put forward their vision for the future, rather than putting out attack ads against each other’s leaders.

So let’s get to work and have an honest and open conversation with British Columbians about this referendum. Let’s raise the level of debate in a way that recognizes the importance of what we are discussing. The best outcomes will come from honest debate.

The Attorney General has provided us with his recommendation. Government needs to adopt these as quickly as possible, and British Columbians will ultimately be the ones making the decision. I look forward to this important conversation in the months ahead.

S. Bond: I want to begin by thanking the three House Leaders for the cooperative approach that allowed this brief but critically important debate to take place. Having said that, I also want to express my disappointment that a matter of this significance required a request for an extraordinary debate to be squeezed into the final hours of this session.

[11:20 a.m.]

I want to thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to speak, knowing full well that every single one of them wants to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the constituents that sent them here.

Any discussion about electoral reform will likely elicit strong personal and emotional reactions. That’s exactly how I react, and I make no apologies for that. There are few things more important than the right to participate in the democratic process.

Yesterday we were provided with the recommendations that the government will consider as they finalize the process that has the potential to change the electoral process for today and for years to come. As I started to grapple with the contents of 100-plus-page report and the recommendations provided by the Attorney General, I simply could not dismiss a comment that, in my view, characterizes the attitude and the approach that this government has taken with regard to this process from the very beginning.

“Let them draw their own maps,” they said. I admit that my response to that comment was and remains an emotional and a personal one. You see, I represent a riding that is about 31,467 kilometres or so. It is a provincial electoral district that is larger than Belgium, represented by a single MLA, and there are ridings in this House that are substantially larger than mine.

I take the responsibility to represent my constituents very seriously. To serve them effectively, I need to know each and every one of my communities. I need to build relationships with communities, whether they have 50 people, 500 people or 75,000 people. I think about my constituency — Dunster, Dome Creek, Crescent Spur, McBride, Valemount, Prince George — and I want their voices to be heard in this referendum and in this Legislature.

Why did I have such an immediate and strong reaction to a comment about maps that might seem trivial to some? Because any outcome in the upcoming referendum that has the potential to diminish the ability for a constituent to be properly served by their elected representative or for an MLA to effectively represent the people who elected them is simply unacceptable.

It is not British Columbians’ responsibility to do the basic work that is essential when making a decision of this magnitude. My constituents deserve to know if the boundaries of our riding will change. In fact, every single riding should know whether they will be impacted by boundary changes. That responsibility lies squarely with the government.

To be told that there simply wasn’t enough time speaks volumes about the process and about the outcomes it will generate. It also reflects a basic lack of understanding about the things that matter to my constituents and many others in this province.

That’s not the only way that some British Columbians will be unfairly impacted. With the elimination of a regional threshold, the outcome of this referendum could be determined by Metro Vancouver. Just do the math. The painful irony of that circumstance is that the premise being used to sell the referendum is that we need to make sure that every vote counts. Well, for my constituents and others who live in the rest of British Columbia, apparently their vote counts less than others.

This government made the conscious decision to remove the regional threshold, sending a clear message to those of us who choose to live outside of the Lower Mainland that our electoral future will be decided beyond where we live. By any measure, how can that be considered fair?

During previous discussion in this House, I asked both the Attorney General and the Premier about the importance of a threshold related to voter participation in the referendum. In both cases, there was little concern expressed, and my concerns were simply dismissed.

I would challenge the Attorney General and the Premier today to provide an example, some example, where decisions as significant as this one would be considered valid if supported by 10 percent or 15 percent or even 20 percent of eligible voters. It simply wouldn’t happen.

In recent responses in the House, the Attorney General cited the example of Prince Edward Island and their experience with electoral reform. I think he forgot to mention the fact that low voter turnout was a significant factor.

[11:25 a.m.]

In fact, it caused Premier Wade MacLauchlan to say that the poor showing at the polls, when compared with the 80 percent turnout recorded in nine of the ten last provincial elections, meant there was no real mandate for change.

It is inconceivable that this government would not set a threshold that would provide a legitimate mandate for any contemplated changes. So today British Columbians have no idea whether their electoral boundaries will change. There are no thresholds for regions or voter participation, and the cabinet has yet to make the final decision about the questions. Gone is the promise of a truly independent process, with the government again making the claim there simply wasn’t enough time to engage properly with citizens.

Perhaps my greatest concern is the fact that this government abandoned a critical promise to British Columbians. When asked about the ballot question and the format, the Premier said it would be a yes-or-no proposition, simple, straightforward. Instead, what do we have? We have a two-ballot question with three models of proportional representation being considered, two of which are not in place anywhere in the world. Yes, you heard that right. They just made it up.

How could this have become so complicated and confusing? The most disrespectful part? We are just months away from this referendum, and citizens are somehow expected to educate themselves. So today I want to ask the Premier to demonstrate the kind of leadership that British Columbians expect from a Premier. He continually repeats in this chamber that he trusts British Columbians to do the right thing. Well, today he has the opportunity to demonstrate that they can trust him to do the right thing.

He promised a simple, straightforward process. No one in this House can argue, with an ounce of credibility, that the recommendations reflect that commitment. He promised to engage British Columbians and ensure that there was an independent process. I’m not sure how any member of the government can make that claim when the cabinet will determine the question. No wonder the editorial in the Prince George Citizen today reads: “The NDP Brings Gerrymandering to British Columbians.” That’s how my constituents feel.

Gone is the promise of a truly independent process. The excuse offered by the government is that there simply wasn’t time to engage properly. The Premier has shown little concern about the lack of regional thresholds or about our electoral future being decided by a very small number of British Columbians. Despite the belief that boundary changes are technical matters and that they can draw their own maps, British Columbians have no idea how the proposed models will impact their electoral boundaries. And from the comments of the Attorney General, he has no intention of providing them with that information.

I can only imagine what British Columbians will think when they discover that their votes won’t be the end of the process. No, because, in fact, there are still design decisions to be made after the fact, without the involvement of citizens. Simply put, this process has been designed to deliver a particular outcome that has little to do with my constituents or British Columbians. It’s time to set aside the promise made to the Green Party through the confidence and supply agreement and put the interests of British Columbians first.

If the Premier insists on proceeding with this referendum, my question is: what’s the hurry? The only deadlines that have driven this flawed and unfair process that have emerged are those set by the government itself. My constituents deserve better than this. British Columbians deserve better than this. It is time for the Premier to admit the process is flawed and unfair and needs to change to have any semblance of credibility.

The question remains. Will the Premier do the right thing and keep his promises to British Columbians on a matter as fundamental as this? My constituents and I certainly hope so.

Hon. R. Fleming: My thanks to the Attorney General for his thoughtful, considered work engaging British Columbians about their voting system. He delivered a comprehensive report yesterday that was informed by national and provincial experts and, most importantly, ordinary British Columbians in large numbers — 90,000 participants in the consultation on the future of British Columbia’s voting system, the largest public engagement ever conducted in the history of British Columbia and, in this case, about the future of our democracy.

[11:30 a.m.]

Politicians in this chamber extensively debated legislation on the referendum last year. You wouldn’t know it by what you hear from the opposition today. But the vastly most important part of the debate on what our voting system looks like in British Columbia is yet to come, and it will occur over an unprecedented five-month-long campaign. It is the people’s referendum, and they will have five months to decide what their voting future looks like.

This is an exciting prospect and one that builds upon the positive momentum that our government has been able to build to restore the democratic health of this province. British Columbians already, under our government’s leadership, have modernized their system of financing elections in ten short months. We’ve moved from the spectacle of being an international pariah on campaign finance reform with the most unrestricted, unreformed system of political party financing in North America to a place where today we can proudly say to our citizens that we have restored ordinary citizens back to the centre of politics by banning the corrosive influence of big money in our politics.

We have also brought in strict reforms that regulate and bring unprecedented transparency to the activity of lobbyists and special interests in our political system. Now is the time for British Columbians to decide on a further bold reform to make our democracy more representative, more respectful of the wishes of voters by making each vote count in the composition of our provincial parliament.

That is the proposition that is now part of a referendum process that will unfold and be decided by B.C. voters next November. It is a proposition that gives voters several options to make B.C.’s parliament more respectful of their voting intent in every region of British Columbia or, if they wish, to retain the current system.

But make no mistake. No matter what the hyperbole is of the opposition here today or over the next five months, it will be the people of British Columbia that decide the future of their voting system, not the Liberal Party of British Columbia.

Judging by their instantaneous, ridiculously negative reaction to the report yesterday, it’s sad that the B.C. Liberals have already closed their minds to the prospect of reforming our democracy and moving towards a more modern voting system. But they’ve made it clear. They’ve tied themselves to politics of naked self-interest and entitlement that for 16 years gave them 100 percent of the unchecked power with a shade over 40 percent of the vote.

That’s why they oppose the prospect of voting system change in British Columbia. That’s their core message. They want to prevent change. They want to go backwards. And it comes from a party that profited more than any from big money in B.C. politics.

They resisted reform to ban big money. They resisted more oversight of the lobbyist sector, and now they adamantly oppose a more representative voting system. They prefer the disproportionate voting system that we have that gave them artificial majorities for 16 long years, until they were finally ousted from power. And now we know that….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Hon. R. Fleming: We know their time in office is over because we’re having this very debate here this afternoon. We know their time in office is over because we have spent this legislative session debating a budget that invests in building affordable housing, invests in schools, helps people get out of poverty and is improving health care services in every community of British Columbia.

The sad reality of a party that feels so long entitled to power is demonstrated by what they will say to try and keep it. Eleven months ago the opposition, with not enough seats to carry on, adopted a different position than the one they’ve espoused today. In their 2017 throne speech in June, they committed to — guess what — a referendum on proportional representation.

Eleven months ago the Leader of the Opposition said something different too. He said: “Minority governments are routine through the English-speaking world. They function reasonably well. Some people think they function very well because of this kind of compromise, because of this kind of joint position that absorbs information, ideas from all parties for the betterment of British Columbia.” I couldn’t agree more. I wish he still held that position today.

[11:35 a.m.]

While he gave a supportive nod to Commonwealth countries like New Zealand and Australia and their voting system, or three-quarters of the parliaments in Great Britain, he could have also included non-English-speaking success stories, like Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands and all of those countries that were liberated by the Allied forces and, through their own efforts, have become…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: …the most prosperous, successful, democratic governments in the world. But now they’ve taken a different position.

Now that they are adamantly opposed to any discussion and move toward proportional representation, the opposition will spend the five months glossing over some things. They will gloss over the fact that the Brexit disaster was caused by a first-past-the-post government and parliamentary result. They will gloss over the fact that Donald Trump won in a winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post system and is now harming our trade in Canada.

They will gloss over the fact that we had decades of near-death experiences because first-past-the-post gave the separatist movement more seats than they should have had in the Parliament of Canada, and we came to the brink of breaking up our country. Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition will gloss over the fact that 11 months ago…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: …he supported a referendum on proportional representation. And the Leader of the Opposition will gloss over another thing. He’ll gloss over the fact that if the B.C. Liberal Party had used first-past-the-post in choosing its leader, we’d be talking to Dianne Watts today, not him. Perhaps that’s why his back bench is having second thoughts about an alternative voting system. They’re having buyer’s remorse over there.

Let’s try and understand the B.C. Liberal position. They held two referendums on reforming the voting system, but now no other government is allowed to. They promised a referendum 11 long months ago when they were trying to cling to power, and now they attack a government that’s actually fulfilling an election promise to hold that very same referendum. I’m confused.

We’re proud to be giving voters a choice on modernizing our voting system. We’re proud to offer a new, democratic proportional electoral system that can engage voters and reverse the worrying trends of declining voter participation rates. That should be every party’s concern in British Columbia: the appallingly low voter turnout rates of young people and their disengagement from politics. That’s one of the reasons we’re offering a chance to vote on the future of what the system looks like in British Columbia, and the people will decide.

The evidence all around the world shows that proportional representation reverses that decline. It increases participation rates in democratic society. That’s what this referendum is about. It’s about reinvigorating our democracy.

This is a generational opportunity that British Columbians have before them. They will have five months to discuss in public, in their communities, amongst themselves, with their families what the voting system that they prefer is. And it is the people who will decide.

In conclusion, we’re proposing something that the B.C. Liberals once supported, once opposed, supported again and now oppose once more. But the reality is, it isn’t about them. It’s about the voters of B.C. and what they want. It’s not about the B.C. Liberals. It is the people of British Columbia who will ultimately decide, and thank goodness for that.

M. Lee: I would like to, first, acknowledge the end conclusion of the member for Victoria–Swan Lake. We agree that this is about British Columbians. This is about the vote that each of them will make in this referendum.

[11:40 a.m.]

We supported a third referendum on proportional representation in this House, as the member said, 11 months ago, but we expected it to be a fair, clear and transparent referendum. This is not what this is. This is what our concern has been.

The immediate response we have been…. The instantaneous response the member suggests we had to make on this was because the members on the other side, this government, had 11 months, ten months since the date of their agreement with the Green Party, to get this process right. They provided a report yesterday — yesterday, Madame Speaker — with one day left in this House to discuss that report. And now we have less than one hour to discuss this.

What’s the tragedy? The tragedy is that we are talking about fundamentally changing our democratic process in this province. This is not just another election. This is not something that voters can digest in 30 days.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Yes, they have five months. But they don’t have the details in this referendum. We don’t know what we’re voting on here.

There are over 24 items that have been identified in this report that need to be turned over to an all-party committee, an all-party committee that will be dominated by the NDP and Green Party members. That’s the nature of this arrangement.

Coming back to this, the member for Prince George–Valemount spoke about the importance of this, the importance to her constituents. Each member in this House knows the importance to all of our constituents about how we get elected to this House. It is so fundamentally important. As you can see with this debate, in the short period of time that we’ve had, it’s not something for partisan politics. It’s not something that parties are capable of doing. That’s the reason why we’ve been asking for independence, the independent review of this referendum process.

We talk about the largest engagement in the history of the province — this survey. I appreciate the number of responses, as we have talked about with the AG in estimates.

It’s the quality of the responses. It was benchmarked against 1,100 respondents by Ipsos-Reid. But when you look at the survey results, they are skewed. There are many responses that are very different from the baseline. This baseline was intended to represent the geographic, gender and age diversity of this province, to name three types of diversity. Those results are very different. It suggests, of course, that when proponents are active in this, they will fill out the survey.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Well, I think people should be engaged, but when they’re engaged, they should be voting and responding on things that are being put forward in this survey. The two forms of PR, dual-member and rural-urban, were not even included in the survey. We’re talking about consulting with 90,000 British Columbians. They didn’t have the opportunity to even think about these two forms of PR that have been derived. One of which, of course, was responded to in a submission — I think it says 22 different submissions — to this survey. They put it forward.

It’s Fair Vote. Fair Vote, of course, is going to be an active proponent in this referendum. I appreciate that they’re part of this debate. They’re part of this great democratic exercise that we’re about to embark on, in a flawed way.

They are the ones who designed this rural-urban model. They are the ones who will be campaigning in favour of that. And they are the ones who are about to launch in a few days, as we understand. After a few days, this PR system that nobody has ever seen, that is not in place anywhere else in this world, all of a sudden is going to be able to launch. What is that about? It suggests, of course, that this process has been rigged.

We come back to the timing of this. As the member for Prince George–Valemount talked about at the end of her statements, the confidence and supply agreement…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Lee: …between the Green Party and the NDP said: “We’ll take this to a referendum in the fall of 2018, coincident with the municipal elections.” There are two things wrong with that. What’s the rush? The fall.

[11:45 a.m.]

Of course, we passed, and we did debate, legislation in this House, tabled by the government, that set the deadline for the end of November. What’s the rush? Whose timing are we dealing with?

Interjections.

M. Lee: Yes, it was last year, and this government has wasted the time. You have wasted this time.

With the CASA arrangement, it said: “Let’s hold the referendum in connection with the municipal elections.” That’s terrific. We’re going to have this discussion, this important voting process…. The voting period will start on October 22, two days after the municipal elections. The Premier, of course, in his comments previously to the media has indicated: “Well, you know, British Columbians won’t be that focused during barbecue season.”

This is the challenge, Madame Speaker. The challenge is, of course, that just when British Columbians, after the summer, will be focused on municipal campaigns all over this province for local government, voting on that on October 20, we flip over into this referendum. This leaves very little time for British Columbians to really know the details and to get their heads around what will be a fundamental change to our democratic system.

Both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Prince George–Valemount talked repeatedly about the kinds of broken trust that the Premier and this government have had with British Columbians. I think all members of this House want to ensure that British Columbians have confidence in the result of the vote. I don’t see how British Columbians can possibly vote on forms of PR that have not been defined, and 24 different items need to be sent to this committee or to Elections B.C., after the vote, to be defined. So how does a British Columbian vote on this? How do they know the ramifications of what they’re voting on?

Any one of these three choices…. Two of them are in theory. They don’t exist anywhere in the world — dual-member and rural-urban. British Columbians need more than theories. They need more than things that will be determined in the future. They need to know, when they vote, what they’re voting on, what the implications are. Therefore, as members on this side of the House have talked about….

We’ve talked about the riding maps. Riding maps are not just about electoral redistribution, as the Premier tried to indicate this morning. We’re talking about changing our process of electoral voting in this province. We need to know the implications.

Under a dual-member system, the number of ridings will be halved, divided in two. Ridings will get larger. We need to know the implications of all of that. British Columbians need to understand that. They understood it in 2009. Why can’t they understand it here? That is a flaw in this process. This is the reason why, as the Leader of the Opposition and the House Leader here on our side have indicated, this must go to a parliamentary committee.

There hasn’t been a consensus reached by British Columbians on this. The results of this survey indicate that there was not one form of PR that British Columbians could have consensus on. It’s not what the NDP and the Green Party had agreed to. They had agreed that one form of proportional representation would be put to British Columbians, and that’s not the case.

What the Attorney General has done is received this survey result. He received 46 different submissions, two of which might be, arguably, in favour of the current system. At least 44, by my look through the list, are not in favour of our current system. It’s a skewed input.

I think that what we are seeing here today are systems of proportional representation being raised that raise concerns, including about the equality of voting power. When you look at the rural-urban proportional representation model, there is an indication that that would treat rural and urban voters differently, when under section 3 of the Charter, every Canadian, every British Columbian, has an equal right to vote.

[11:50 a.m.]

There are serious flaws with what’s being presented to this, and as I’ve said, I urge strongly the Premier to reconsider moving forward with that report, to bring this to an all-party committee, because we need to have the discussion in this House of the types of issues of concern that I’ve just outlined.

M. Polak: At the closing of this debate, I want to bring it back to the motion that we’re discussing. We’re talking about whether or not this should be referred to a parliamentary committee and having that done prior to the referendum vote. Why?

Well, one of the reasons why has been displayed here quite evidently — the scrutiny that’s required to actually have an effective presentation to British Columbian voters so that they can make an informed choice. What have we heard today in this House? Well, to be honest, I made notes of a whole bunch of things we’ve heard — of people describing the current system who don’t understand the current system.

For example, the way we represent British Columbians in this chamber and have for, lo, these many years isn’t about parties representing constituents. I’ve heard a number of members mention that. It actually isn’t. To believe that parties represent constituents is one of the reasons people think: “Well, then I want my party in the House, or I want this party in the House.” It’s actually individual members. The only people who are part of government are cabinet.

There is also this recurring statement that when a government gets a majority, they have 100 percent of the power. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way our chamber functions and the way governments function.

I can tell you, and I’m sure the members on the other side…. There are a number of them who know how impactful individual members of their caucus can be. Any time — and especially now with the construct of that government — one of those members or more decide that they no longer support the government of the day, that government can be changed. It is one of the most powerful features of our Westminster system, of our form of democracy.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

All of this points to the fact that we need to have that additional scrutiny. Was the report presented to this House? No. It was presented steps away from this chamber. It could have been brought here. It could have been presented here for debate. No. That was something that we had to force and negotiate.

Here we have the opportunity to send this report, the recommendations, to a parliamentary committee prior to the vote to make sure there’s the appropriate scrutiny, to make sure British Columbians are provided with the appropriate information so they can make an informed choice — not one based on misrepresentations of our current system and literally no representation of at least two of the forms that they are being asked to consider.

This is such an important question that is being put before British Columbians. I can only imagine that the reason the scrutiny is not desired, the reason the information, like the maps, is not being put forward is because they know that if British Columbians got all the information, British Columbians would do what they’ve done twice already. They would reject the proposition, and it would lose.

I really do hope that the government changes its mind and decides that it’s time for some scrutiny, independent scrutiny, on this process.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, noting the hour and pursuant to the general provisions of Standing Order 35, I invite the Government House Leader to adjourn the House.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank all members for participating in this debate under Standing Order 35.

With that, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.