Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

J. Rice: I’m just going to back up a bit. We had a really important debate yesterday on climate change, so I’m going to just start from the beginning.

I’m honoured today to rise and speak in favour of electoral reform in British Columbia. For too long, our old and outdated voting system has put too much power in the hands of too few. This fall we’ll have a provincewide referendum that gives British Columbians a chance to replace the status quo with proportional representation — a way of voting that puts people at the centre of politics.

Pro rep, used by democracies around the world, provides choice for voters, more accountability, more collaboration between parties to get things done for people. It’s a system used by countries around the world to ensure that everyone’s vote counts. A party that gets 25 percent of the votes gets 25 percent of the seats in the Legislature.

The B.C. Liberal opposition and their rich friends are desperate to keep the old way of voting because it makes it easier for them to control government with a minority of votes. Made-in-B.C. proportional representation means that we can elect governments that work for everyone.

Here are some words of wisdom about voting systems from the former Premier, Christy Clark. In 2009, when Christy Clark hosted her own radio show on CKNW, she gave a measured and thoughtful argument as to why our province should drop the first-past-the-post system and adopt a proportional representation system.

[2:35 p.m.]

In a video filmed in her radio studio, an ever-exuberant Clark talked about why she preferred the voting system of first-past-the-post, but once she got out of politics, as a regular citizen, she felt differently. At the time, voters were about to determine whether a form of pro rep, STV, should be considered. She stated:

“First up, let’s talk about the single most important vote that you are going to cast when you go to the polls on Tuesday. I have a confession to make — that I voted against STV in the last election. I even campaigned against it in the last election. It was an idea that was spawned by an assembly of non-partisan, everyday citizens, and at the time, I have to say, it didn’t appeal to me. At the time, I believed that my vote was right because I liked our first-past-the-post system. Our current system served my personal interests as a politician very well, thank you. I, like many of our entrenched interests, who are today fighting proportional representation, didn’t see a need to change a system that worked well for me.”

What about considering an electoral system that works well for everyone? Clark goes on to say: “I hear that people are sick to death of the way that our political system works.” Increasingly, fewer and fewer young people are going to the polls every single year. They say there’s just no point in exercising their franchise because their vote doesn’t matter.

These sentiments still ring true today. I heard this on the doorstep in the last election, and I heard it on the doorstep in the previous election.

Clark elaborates to say that while lack of representation and a feeling of not having a voice are things that frustrate voters, she confirms that first-past-the-post doesn’t bother people who it benefits: “I can guarantee you that they are not things that bother the hacks and the backroom boys and politicians who are served by our first-past-the-post system.”

That speaks to who’s fighting proportional representation right now, such as the friends of the B.C. Liberals buying full-page ads to whip up fear and mislead voters; former B.C. Liberal cabinet ministers writing op-eds in newspapers, doing the same; rhetoric attempting to divide rural and urban voters by stating that rural MLAs will suddenly disappear; or my favourite, the full-page ad I saw where my riding of North Coast was redrawn into the entire northern half of the province.

These are misleading statements by the B.C. Liberals, who attempt to instil a fear into northern and rural voters that life will be dictated by the cities.

Let’s get the record straight. Proportional representation is good for all voters, rural and urban. No matter where you live or who you vote for, you deserve to help elect an MLA who shares your values. That’s the basic principle of proportional representation.

All models of proportional representation have strong local and regional representation. Voters will retain their local representatives, and no seats will move to the cities. Every model will be tailored to the geography of each region, and riding boundaries will continue to be determined by community of interest, community of identity, historical patterns and the need to keep the geographic size of ridings manageable.

It gets better. By legislating a confirming referendum after two general election cycles, our government is giving voters a safety valve to revert to the previous voting system. The confirming referendum would allow British Columbians, not politicians, to have the final say on their voting system. All that to say: if people don’t like pro rep, they don’t have to keep it. We can go back to the old way if that’s the people’s choice.

People are telling me that they don’t like 37 percent of the vote equalling 100 percent of the power, like the outcome produced most recently with the Quebec election and first-past-the-post. People tell me that they don’t think 40 percent of the vote should equal 100 percent of the power, like the outcome most recently in the Ontario election with first-past-the-post. They’re telling me that they can’t afford another B.C. Liberal false majority.

What else are they telling me? They’re telling me that the last year of our collaboration with the B.C. Green Party has been a success. We have accomplished a lot together. They’re telling me that they understand how a collaborative government can represent the will of the people in our province. Who’s will? The will of British Columbians. It’s time to join the majority of countries around the world that now use some form of proportional representation.

[2:40 p.m.]

Proportional governments that reflect the will of all voters are more stable and have higher voter turnout, especially among young people. Studies have shown that there’s a greater sense of satisfaction in democracy when someone feels like their vote counted. The political theatre and partisanship fostered through the winner-takes-all nature of our current system unquestionably affects the way that parties govern. On the other hand, governments with proportional representation are by their very nature more collaborative. This has the potential to lead to more diversity and less partisanship in our political system.

I believe that a government should be comprised of a diversity of people and a diversity of ideas, in order to reflect the many and varied people who build and sustain this province. It’s time the people of B.C. elect a government that’s accountable to all voters, not just a select few. It’s time for more collaboration to solve the complex problems facing people. It’s time to tell the hacks and the backroom boys and girls and politicians that they will no longer have the ability to rule the majority with a minority of support.

The B.C. Liberals still think that people with money should be able to buy elections. Banning big money was a first step in giving British Columbians more power in elections. Proportional representation is the next step forward.

Let’s make sure that a government elected by a minority of voters can’t cut services and make your life more expensive while they do favours for their rich friends, like the B.C. Liberals did for years and want to do again. The only way to fix the problem is to give people a new way to vote. Pro rep puts power in the hands of regular people, not just the wealthy and the well-connected, not just temporarily but for good.

I will vote for proportional representation in the upcoming referendum, and I encourage others who want a government that works for everyone to do the same.

S. Sullivan: First of all, I’d like to let you know that I will be moving an amendment toward the end of my presentation.

The question is about Bill 40 and why this bill is being introduced right now. This is, in my mind, a blatant violation of the spirit of the Referendum Act, in which it was made clear that there should be fairness about who should be able to influence the direction. There was a “yes” committee and a “no” committee and rules about funding. Instead, in the middle of the referendum campaign, the government chooses to introduce a bill. And what is the purpose of this bill? There’s really only one purpose. It’s to get a yes vote. It is to influence voters to vote yes.

Why is it happening now? Well, about a year ago, there was a poll that showed that those who wanted proportional representation were about more than 2½ times the number of people that wanted first-past-the-post. A recent poll has shown that there’s just a few percentage points difference.

Enter Bill 40, a desperate bill, an effort to try to shore up what is clearly losing momentum. The pro-PR people are losing momentum, and this has a serious chance of losing. How can that possibly be, with the government in control controlling the entire process, controlling the question?

I very much object to what’s going on here at all, which is why I’m going to move a motion later on.

The goal of this is to interfere in the election and to say, basically, “Hey, give us your old system, and we’ll give you a new one. If you don’t like this new one, bring it back, and we’ll give you your money back. You can go back to the way it was” — trying to make people feel that this is not a bad direction that they’re going in.

[2:45 p.m.]

Now, how did we get to this point, where the support for proportional representation has dropped so precipitously? Is it because the offerings by the government are so bad? Each of the three systems has serious questions around them. The citizens are saying: “This is not what we anticipated. These are not the forms of proportional representation, for example, that the citizens’ assembly recommended many years ago.”

One hundred and sixty average citizens were chosen randomly. They got together, and they looked at all of the forms of proportional representation. They preferred voter systems, systems in which voters choose all of their own MLAs. They rejected the party systems, where parties get to have a major influence on who chooses the MLAs.

The citizens’ assembly firmly rejected the MMP system that is the favourite of the current government. They rejected it because they did not want to move power from voters to parties. Each of the three systems has party lists, lists in which the parties influence, in a very great degree, who gets chosen to be MLAs.

Now, given that this is a bill that’s been introduced, we have a conflict here on the issues of who can advertise, who can speak and promote their ideas. We have the Referendum Act, which says that only certain people can pay for advertising, etc. and what kind of money they can use to do that. Yet we also have this conflicting with a higher principle, the principle of a legislator to do whatever they feel is necessary to do their job to make laws.

There are three classic definitions of what a legislator does: (1) makes laws, (2) provides for money for government to function and (3) determines when a government should fall. One of the most important jobs of a legislator is to make laws, and that legislator needs to be completely free to do whatever they feel they need to, to reach out to constituents and to communicate with stakeholders.

I have been told by the government that I am not allowed to, for example, do what I would normally do in reaching out to my constituents, boosting a Facebook post. I’ve been told that a $50 boost to a message that I want to send to my constituents on Bill 40 is not acceptable. It’s illegal. It’s against the legislation that is in the Referendum Act. My response to them was: “What is more important? My duty, my obligation, as a legislator is to communicate with my constituents, to talk to my stakeholders, to receive their ideas.” And I’ve been told that that has been made invalid by the Referendum Act.

Now, this is going straight to the heart of what we do here. If the government can make a law that restricts a legislator’s ability to do their job in one instance, what makes it a problem for them to make another law to suspend the rights and duties of a legislator? So I take great issue with what is going on here.

[2:50 p.m.]

The fact that this is a desperate move to try to get a win, to try to convince the citizens that these systems…. “They may look bad. They may deliver great power to political parties. You may feel uncomfortable with this. But hey, don’t worry about it. You can bring it back after two elections, and we’ll give you your old system back.” I don’t think the public is going to buy that, quite frankly. I think this is a blatant violation of the spirit of the Referendum Act and the idea of fairness that the government should be able to use its resources to bring this bill forward.

I, as a legislator, am not able to put $50 on a Facebook post to communicate to my constituents about my concern about what this is. Now, it is impossible for me to speak to my constituents about Bill 40 without talking about the referendum. That’s what this is about.

I think one of the biggest casualties of this whole rushed process is Elections B.C. They’re being put under tremendous pressure, and I do not envy their job. It seems from the case that…. We see them now heavily advertising for people to get out and vote. That makes them appear that they are actually taking a position. There is more money being put into this referendum right now than previous referendums. I’d like to see a comparison of how much money has been put into this referendum by Elections B.C. I don’t believe that to be the case, but it certainly looks challenging to some citizens.

There have been so many communications, certainly to me, telling me that I am not allowed to do my job as a legislator. The last person who told legislators that they could not do their job and communicate as they saw fit was a guy named Charles I, and he got his head cut off for that.

This is going very deeply to the very nature of what we do in this House. No one — no government, no piece of legislation — should be able to tell me that I cannot communicate with my constituents by boosting a Facebook post or taking a billboard ad out if I want when a bill has been brought before this House with the sole purpose of influencing the outcome. As I said, the highest duty of a legislator is to pass laws, and they should not be fettered in any way in doing this. For example, myself, I live in an urban riding. We don’t do door-to-door. We don’t drop off pamphlets. What we do is use social media. We often have to pay for that social media. This is now not possible, apparently, according to the government.

Some proponents of proportional representation…. I’m sure many of you have heard them. When you talk to the people who are in favour of proportional representation, they are pretty upset about how this is going. Who designed this process? Was this process designed to lose? This is what I’ve heard from several people. How badly has this been managed? Is there an actual attempt by the government to lose this referendum? That is what is being asked.

It’s so badly done. The process has been so badly managed. The offerings to the public are three systems that are probably some of the worst systems on offer. There’s not a single voter choice system being offered in which voters choose all of their own MLAs. I don’t actually even think this is a real referendum. Yes, there are ballots. There are questions. There are campaigns. But I don’t think it’s a referendum.

[2:55 p.m.]

Referendums ask voters questions they can answer. This referendum has a ballot which people can manage, but the questions are impossible for most of us to answer. Now, we had a citizens’ assembly that rejected the systems that are on offer right here. They especially formally rejected MMP, which is a favourite of the governing party. The citizens’ assembly had 11 months to learn about the different systems. They consulted with the public, customized different systems for B.C. and ran computer models to choose between them. The B.C. citizens’ assembly wisely chose to focus on electoral systems which were in use and had been studied and written about for decades.

This referendum is asking the impossible of voters. If the ballot information package is anything like the Elections B.C. website information, voters will be getting about a single page of information about each system. If a voter googles dual-member proportional or urban-rural proportional, they will find out almost nothing. These systems have never been used before.

How are we to expect voters to make a rational, real decision? And how is a voter supposed to answer the second question? Voters will be able to manage this ballot, but they won’t be able to answer the second question. If a voter cannot answer the second question, then how will they be able to answer the first question?

The wording of the first question is completely misleading. It asks if voters want a proportional electoral system. There are many more than the three proportional electoral systems on offer. The first question isn’t logically connected to the second question. The first question is really asking voters: “Do you prefer all of the three proportional systems in question two over FPTP?” The first question, in other words, is a trick question.

In the 2005 and 2009 referendums, a major criticism of BC-STV was that it was too complex. Voters asked: “How can we vote for something we don’t understand?” In the 2005 referendum, voters knew they had an authority they could trust to give them advice about a complicated issue: the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. In 2005, voters trusted the B.C. assembly, and almost 58 percent of the voters supported their recommendation, which would have passed with today’s threshold.

By the time the 2009 referendum came about, the B.C. assembly had been forgotten about, and the referendum failed, even by today’s threshold. In the current referendum, the government has decided to engage in very risky behaviour that I feel is putting our democracy at risk. The dual-member proportional is a complete unknown. The government has been grossly negligent in putting our fundamental democratic institutions at risk by even putting this option on the table. The government is relying on voters with no expertise about electoral systems to vet the systems. This is complete madness.

The MMP on offer is what? Nobody knows, because even the most basic details haven’t been decided. I encourage everyone to go on Elections B.C.’s videos on YouTube and look and listen to each of them being described. Especially, listen to the last minute of each video. You will hear them say the standard: “Many of these decisions will be made after the referendum.” Then they go on to list all of the things.

I believe there are 29 issues in total that have to be decided after the referendum. By who? Not by a B.C. citizen assem­bly, not by independent experts but by a multiparty process. Politicians and political parties will get together and decide what they think is best for the citizens.

[3:00 p.m.]

Urban-rural is a conglomeration of three systems. Really. Some say it’s two systems. In fact, I know that FPTP would be considered for even some areas. The effect of having three different systems glommed together is completely unknowable. It’s kind of like Frankenstein. It might be a nice guy; it might not be a nice guy.

Now, there’s been a lot of chatter. I put a video out recently that takes issue and gives some details. I’ve got a lot of feedback from people who are in favour of pro rep but, also, have made comments that there are, in fact, no party lists and all these things that are untrue.

They need to read the Attorney General’s recommendations to cabinet. There are many people misrepresenting what the Attorney General recommended and cabinet accepted and what is apparently binding on the government. In that document, both dual-member proportional and mixed-member proportional have party lists. Many people are saying: “No, there are no party lists. Don’t worry. Everybody can just vote for their own MLA.”

In dual-member proportional, each district has a two-person closed list determined by the party. It’s a two-person list. It’s a list. Voters can’t vote for individual candidates. This is a party system. This is not a voter system. Only parties. They can only vote for parties. The party determines who is at the top of the list. They’re the primary candidate. Being first on the party list is critical for the dual-member proportional candidates. Because of this, these candidates will have to have their loyalty to the party. Their loyalty goes to the party first, not to the voters.

In dual-member proportional, the election of the compensating MLAs is even more troubling. A straightforward calculation is made to determine the number of compensating candidates from each party. That sounds reasonable. So far, so good. But with dual-member proportional, an algorithm looks at the results in all the local elections. Who chooses? The algorithm chooses which of the candidates will get elected as compensating MLAs for each party. You know, any party that gets 5 percent of the vote has to be given a riding. The secondary compensating MLAs have to be given a riding somewhere.

So 5 percent. You could easily imagine the Marijuana Party or some other party getting 5 percent of the vote. Who is going to be given the MLA from that party? It’s an algorithm that chooses. Parties don’t determine who these winners will be, unlike in local races.

Voters also won’t be determining who these compensating MLAs will be. There is no venue for these candidates to compete in. There’s no possibility of compensating candidates from the same party to compete against each other. In effect, dual-member proportional candidates, the MLAs, are randomly selected by a very complex and obscure algorithm.

Let’s give an example. Say you have a riding that’s a strong NDP riding next to a riding which is a strong B.C. Liberal riding. Those two ridings go together. Now, say the B.C. Liberal actually gets to win. Wins by just a small amount but wins, comes in first place. Now, clearly the riding with the NDP MLA wants an NDP MLA.

[3:05 p.m.]

What would happen with that NDP candidate who just barely came in second? Now that person goes into the candidate pool. It should be obvious that both the party and NDP voters would want that person to be elected.

Unfortunately for them, there is no way to vote for this candidate or select them to be the compensating MLA. The winner is essentially selected by an algorithm, which doesn’t look at anything important about that candidate and about the voters. The winners of the compensating seats for each party will be determined by the peculiarities of the various local elections — how strong the candidates from other parties are in that district, whether there are few parties running, many parties running.

After the election, who do these MLAs represent? Who do they turn to for their success? The party? No, actually, not even that. The voters? Certainly not. They owe their success to the algorithm. The algorithm is running this province.

In the multi-member party proportional and the multi-member proportional part of the urban-rural, there are party lists. The exact form is decided by a legislative committee — i.e., the NDP — after a successful referendum.

Interjection.

S. Sullivan: Oh, sorry. The NDP and the Green Party will choose. Thank you to the hon. member from Oak Bay for correcting me.

The options are a closed list or an open list. A careful reading of the Attorney General’s recommendations shows that both closed and open lists start as party-ordered lists. This is important, because with any kind of party-ordered list, the candidates and MLAs have to try to get high up on the list. This is where their real election takes place. That’s the most important thing to determine whether they get elected or not — how well they manage their relations and be in the good books of the political party.

The boss of these candidates becomes the political party, not the voters, who don’t really matter when a candidate is trying to climb a party list. The voters aren’t the ones that determine who climbs that party list. So even an open list that’s party ordered is like a closed list. The party puts people at the top, and typically, voters will often go and just tick off the top of the list.

Forty percent of the mixed-member proportional MLAs are list MLAs. These 40 percent of the MLAs will see the party as who they represent. Not the voters. This reduces local representation in the province by 40 or 50 percent, replaces it with party representation. Now, the Elections B.C. video on MMP said these ridings could increase by up to 100 percent. That’s twice the size on an MMP.

One of the Attorney General’s options is to have dual candidacy, where a candidate can run locally and also be on the party list just in case they lose a local election. With a party-ordered list, these candidates and MLAs will try to work their way up the list to have a better chance of being elected.

This option will result in many more than 40 percent of MLAs and candidates owing their loyalty to the party and not the voter. This is a further diminution of local representation. So actually a bigger threat to voter sovereignty is dual candidacy, and that’s on the table. The political parties could decide that after the referendum. So now even the voters that would be running in a type of first-past-the-post would still have a second eye on that opportunity. Just in case they lose, they would want to be up that list.

With closed lists, the parties will be choosing who 40 percent of the MLAs will be, not the voters. Not only won’t these MLAs be local; their loyalty will be to the party in Victoria and, subsequently, to behind-the-scene backers of the party. This is a major power shift from voters to political parties to political operatives and special interests.

[3:10 p.m.]

With the open list, because they start out as a party-ordered list, there is only a possibility that voters might be able to change the order of this list. This is not guaranteed. It all depends on the exact variables used to mesh what the voters want and what the party starts out with.

Another MMP option the AG is keeping open is the possibility of what they call above-the-line voting with the open list. Above-the-line voting means that the voter accepts the party ordering of the list. Above-the-line voting virtually guarantees that the voters won’t be able to affect the order of candidates in the party-ordered list. It might be more honestly referred to as a closed list.

I know that my time is running out here, so I would like to move a motion, move an amendment, as I say, for all of the reasons I’ve stated before. I believe that we need to take a break from this. This needs to be brought off the table, and we need to get on with the referendum. There should be no interference through the use of this bill.

I move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 40) intituled Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”]

Deputy Speaker: Would the member like to speak on the amendment?

S. Sullivan: Sure.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m just advised that when you moved the motion, it’s understood that you have spoken to the amendment. So the member is not obliged to speak on it again. If you wish to….

S. Sullivan: Well, yeah. I’d like to say a few words.

Deputy Speaker: That’s fine. Proceed.

On the amendment.

S. Sullivan: I’m not going to speak for two hours. But I will be happy to say….

I think it’s important. This bill is a blatant interference….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just hold it, please.

The member will continue.

S. Sullivan: Okay. I’m not going to speak for very long.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver–False Creek will have the floor.

[3:15 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: Yeah. I’m not going to say much about this. I think I’ve said my piece.

I know there are a number of my colleagues who want to speak to this. I just want to say that the main reason for this is I believe that Bill 40 is a blatant and unfair interference in the referendum campaign that has been brought as a desperate measure to try to shore up the positive votes.

Clearly, the momentum is not in favour of proportional representation, because they’ve been offered very bad options, and the citizens are starting to figure that out. These are party options. These are options that will strengthen political parties and reduce the power of the citizen. That is why I think the whole House should support this hoist motion.

I will cede the floor to my other colleagues, who have a lot to say about that as well.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Kootenay East, on the amendment.

T. Shypitka: On the amendment. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to speak today. First of all, a little bit of a disclaimer on the bill. I’ve told this House, and I’ve told my constituents in Kootenay East, that I don’t have any reservation. I’ve never been opposed to any system that’ll make my riding or my province better. Why would I? I live here. I have young children. I have aging parents. And believe it or not, I have a few friends…

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: …most of them on the other side, it seems right now. Thank you. They all depend on me in this House to do what is right and to make our voices heard in the region.

Before I speak to this bill and the amendment, I’ll do a little background to the point where we are right now today. In the fall session, on October 4 of 2017, Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, was read a first time, and it received royal assent on November 30.

This bill was drafted in order to satisfy the number one priority the Green Party had with the NDP, so that they would prop them up in government. This is undisputed. It is written in black and white in section 3, entitled “Policy Initiatives,” in the confidence and supply agreement. The confidence and supply agreement is the bonding glue that currently holds these two parties together to form a razor-thin minority government.

We’ve seen some waffling from the Green leader on Site C. We’ve seen him kick and scream a bit on the recent announcement of LNG and the export terminal in Kitimat. He said a year ago he would bring down government if LNG was given the green light — or, should I say, maybe the orange light.

GHG climate targets will not be met, but he will not do what his constituents asked of him because he’s holding out for more seats in this House if this referendum passes. I guess who could blame him? I don’t blame him. This is about self-preservation, and he has forced the NDP to do the dance with him.

Now we understand that this referendum has been party-driven from the onset, not politically driven. I say that because, yes, the NDP did hint at putting forward a vote on changing our electoral system and asking for a form of proportional representation. But the leader of the NDP, now the Premier, also said he would do three fundamental things if that referendum were to happen.

First, the Premier promised that the question on the referendum ballot would be a simple yes-or-no question. That is now not happening. Instead, we have a convoluted ballot on two questions, on three options of PR, two of which have never been used anywhere in the world before. It’s confusing, and I have a lot of concerns with that.

The No. 2 thing the Premier also said was that the referendum would come off the heels of an all-party committee to ensure fairness and input from all parties in the House — kind of like what we did in 2005 and 2009 with the citizens’ assembly, made up of around 160 citizens, academia and government. This was rejected as well and replaced by a behind-doors committee.

The third thing the Premier alluded to recognized regional thresholds that would ensure that at least 50 percent of the jurisdictions would need to approve any change to our electoral system. In other words, with 87 ridings in the province, we’d need at least 44 ridings to agree with a major change such as this. This was also thrown out the door.

[3:20 p.m.]

To stack the deck some more, the committee also took the voter threshold from 60 percent plus one, which is regionally and globally recognized as a standard for anything major changing our electoral system, and they reduced that down to 50 percent plus one, and no minimum voter turnout. You can simply not lower the bar any more for this referendum than has already been set by this committee. This is why this referendum is politically driven and not driven by the public.

As we’ve heard here earlier today, we’ve been handcuffed and gag-ordered on how we can outreach to our constituents — some, I debate, constitutionally challenging. I think we have an obligation to our constituents to reach out any way we can. We’re talking about a bill on the referendum, and somehow I can’t get that across the way I would intend to my constituents.

The way we choose our regional representatives is a big deal. It’s the way we get our local voice heard in this vast, diverse province of ours. To treat this vote with this level of disregard is disturbing, and to be brutally honest, it’s insulting.

Now, to get to where we are here today, to speak to a bill that essentially brings forward a referendum for the upcoming referendum…. I staunchly oppose this bill due to a few reasons.

The bill we have here today, in the immortal words of a former member of this House, is a bit of jiggery-pokery.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, the Chair will request that you assist the Chair to understand why this motion should pass or not pass. So if you could speak to the amendment, that would be very helpful. Thank you.

T. Shypitka: Well, hon. Speaker, the whole idea, quite honestly, has been not very seriously thought out. We are not being allowed to do what we were intended to do through….

Deputy Speaker: Just give us the reasons as to why or why it should not be. Just give us the reasons. That’ll help.

T. Shypitka: I’m not too sure how much more to expand on that.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: That’s what I’m doing. That’s what I thought I was doing. Sorry, hon. Speaker.

I do support the amendment for several reasons. The bill originally tries to qualify a bogus first referendum by giving us a flawed second referendum.

If I can provide another quote — we already heard jiggery-pokery — this time a quote from the immortal Winston Churchill in his 1939 radio address best describes this bill: “It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” This is just one botched move after the other, so the second bill I’m talking to is the second botched part.

I have given talks on this subject since last summer. I’ve been to the Fernie Rod and Gun Club, the Kootenay Livestock Association, the Sparwood Causeway Bay Hotel, Joseph Creek Care Village, Western Financial Place, door to door and many coffee shops across Kootenay East. I can tell you that in my area, not many are even aware of this referendum, let alone that they know the details on the three options of PR that are presented.

I don’t blame them, because complete details are not available. No maps on electoral boundaries. Will there be closed party lists or open party lists? What are party lists? What constitutes a rural, semi-urban or urban riding? Am I in a rural or semi-urban or urban riding? Why are we having two voting systems in one province? What does first-past-the-post mean? If I don’t vote, does that mean that this is a vote to keep things the same? Do I have to give an answer to the second question on the ballot? These may sound like ridiculous questions, but these are seriously some of the questions I get from intelligent people in my riding and in others as well.

Hon. Speaker, I’m not sure if you have ever noticed or the members ever notice that we live in a bit of a bubble here in the Legislature. We go through our day educating ourselves on legislation and the bills presented, like this one I’m speaking to today. We debate and do our share in understanding those issues.

[3:25 p.m.]

The understanding that we have here on this topic certainly does not reflect the general public that goes about making British Columbia the best it can be. This bill gives the public the impression that there’s a way out.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: The amendment. On the amendment to this bill…. It gives us the impression that there is a way out if the referendum goes to a model of proportional representation. I’ve heard “escape valve” and “exit ramp.” What it really does is give the public more smoke and mirrors on this Houdini act that the government is trying to trick us with.

My colleague here yesterday mentioned the old song, Bobby McFerrin’s “Don’t Worry, Be Happy.” That’s what this bill actually speaks to. “Don’t worry; be happy. If we don’t get it right the first time, we can just go back and redo it all over again.” But I don’t think that’s the way that it’s going to be. This is a leap of faith, as the Premier has stated. And that’s another quote. Now the Premier is asking the people of this province to take another leap of faith in supporting a bill that really has no teeth to implement and lacks a connection to the realities that would likely play out.

Quite honestly, it’s an outrage. It’s unbelievable that this government would have us believe that this is a viable option. We can’t legislate the actions of government two cycles down the road when this House will look completely different. We won’t, most likely, have majority governments. We’ll have maybe three or four, five, six different parties here, and for them to vote against something that will actually keep them in the place that they’re in there is almost impossible. It won’t happen. Realistically, it’s just not fathomable.

The other thing I wanted to talk about was the mail-in ballot. This is 2018. We just heard yesterday that Canada Post may be on a strike. I think that the original reason why we have a mail-in ballot is because the government said that it was going to save us money. It was going to cost us $9 million, they said. Now it appears closer to $15 million. Now, with the second referendum, it will cost taxpayers closer to $30 million.

We have a municipal election in a couple of days. Why could this not have been added to the referendum, to the civic slate? Wouldn’t this provide a better voter turnout? I would say that it would. My colleagues tell me it wouldn’t cost that much — maybe $1 million, maybe $2 million.

Something smells at the Legislature, and it isn’t the horse carriages outside. This has been a rigged, stacked referendum. And now the second referendum that we speak of is rigged to cover up the first one.

Let’s talk about some of the signature trademarks of the pro-PR side, how 40 percent gets 100 percent of the power. We hear this all the time. The other side would have you believe that somehow, with PR — and we heard a real passionate speech yesterday from the Premier — this “40 percent of the vote gets 100 percent of the power” would be totally eliminated, and magically we will be working together and maybe perhaps 100 percent of the vote would get 100 percent of the power.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This is not real-life stuff. We see it across the world. What they’re speaking of is the land of unicorns and rainbows and, as my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano says, the big rock candy mountain. He says it all the time. I love him. It’s a beautiful world they paint out, “with tangerine trees and marmalade skies,” “rocking-horse people eating marshmallow pies.” Another quote, from John Lennon, a famous song that we all know.

But that’s not what happens. In every government, there’s an opposition, plain and simple. What happens is that working together is misunderstood for power-sharing.

Now that you get two, three or four platforms, they get behind closed doors and hammer out some sweet deals for one another. Cabinet positions are handed to those small groups that are holding balance of power, and what comes out reflects nothing of what was promised in their collective campaigns. It’s unrecognizable. It doesn’t look anything like the way it looks when it was first started.

[3:30 p.m.]

The author Mary Shelley comes to mind when I think of these new governments. Mary was 18 in the year 1818, when she wrote the timeless classic Frankenstein. The novel tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a beautiful sapient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: He wants to know the definition of sapient. Sapient is a word — wise or attempting to be wise. I hope that satisfied the member.

In the story, Frankenstein’s monster tries to adapt, and although the creature learns how to imitate certain characteristics that keep him functioning, it is the unnatural piecing together of his body parts that does not allow him to fit into his environment.

To be sapient, the monster is pieced together with knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, insight — kind of what PR tries to present us. However, this is forced in an unnatural way, and like the monster in Mary Shelley’s novel, he ends up killing himself because of the destruction he has left behind.

The reader is saddened by the plight of the monster because the intentions are good ones, but they are unnatural, unrealistic and ultimately ruinous. The reason I say unnatural is because this notion that our current first-past-the-post system is not collaborative is utter twaddle and prattle.

I can use two major parties to give an example. The NDP party is a fine coalition. I’ll admit it. On the left of centre, it incorporates labour, socialism, some environmental concerns, fiscal liberalism, First Nations values, a bigger government. It’s a coalition of ideas.

The party on this side, the B.C. Liberals…. We’re right of centre. We’re a coalition as well. We are fiscally conservative, socially liberal, pro small and large business as well as holding First Nations values, and there’s many more.

We’ve evolved over time. We are a coalition on this side. The party on the other side is a coalition as well. They’ve evolved. Now, there’s some overlap between the parties, and that’s a good thing. But under our current system, we are accountable to our platform. We essentially live and die by what we support and how we perform.

Now, to the delight of the other side, right now our government is in opposition — I expected to hear some slamming or fist-bumping — and we’re okay with that. We’ve been told that we need to up our game to get the confidence of the people back in B.C. We’re good with that. That’s what we signed up for. That’s what keeps us accountable.

Our government is retooling — our side, sorry. We hope to be government. Our side of the House, because we’re in the penalty box, we’re retooling right now. We’re realigning ourselves to adjust to the constantly changing environment around us. We’re incorporating new strategies, new partners, new awareness. This will evolve us naturally, with a big tent of ideas that will satisfy the needs of British Columbians, just like the other side, just like government. They sat in the penalty box for 16 years. They retooled themselves. They got better, right? I think they would agree. That’s a natural process. That’s an evolution of a coalition of ideas that come together — both sides of the House, three sides of the House.

The Green Party is getting stronger. You guys have done some great stuff, and because you’ve listened to British Columbians, you’ve evolved within your party, and you’ve brought a coalition of ideas and a bigger tent. You’re doing a fine job.

The notion that somehow every person in B.C. will be happy once PR is in is more hogwash. Let’s debunk a few PR myths.

Every vote counts. We hear that all the time. I’ve illustrated this above a little bit. No matter what happens, what system is in play, there will always be a government, and there will always be an opposition. This is a good thing. Otherwise, it’s a dictatorship. So there will always be someone not happy on how things are being run. We have seen this in this sad example of a coalition right now in this House. We’ve had a group of Greens that want everyone to believe that they’re only wanting to work with everyone. They want to have a more inclusive government where all sides work together in one big, blissful way.

Interjection.

[3:35 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Yeah, absolutely. That’s what is said. All voices are heard. Collaboration will be joined by all, and all voices will be heard. What rubbish. In the entire 16 months that this collaborative government has been in place, do you know how many times the Greens have sided with us on any issue, bill or amendment — anything? If you said once, you’ve been way too high. Zero. Not once.

The Greens didn’t even show collaboration on an amendment that would have eliminated taxpayers footing the bill for political campaigns. You know that, people in British Columbia? Does the Green side even know that? It’s unbelievable.

Greens have to stick with government. They’ve written a confidence and supply agreement. These are the backdoor deals that we’ll see in minority governments. These are the things that British Columbians won’t see. They won’t recognize the people and the parties that they vote for.

This vote, that every vote counts, is nonsense. Also, there’s a 5 percent threshold on parties that will be eligible to sit in this place. We’ve got 26 parties in British Columbia right now. We could literally have seven or eight or nine parties running for their constituencies, their ridings, that get 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 or 4 percent of the vote that won’t meet the threshold of 5 percent. Those votes will be thrown out. Those people’s voices will be eliminated. This could equal 10 or 20 percent of the voting public. That’s not every vote counts. They’re eliminated.

Back to the bill at hand. The bill says that in a couple of election cycles, B.C. will go back to the polls on another referendum to see if everyone is happy and to revote on electoral reform. This is about as likely as being hit by lightning and winning the lottery in the same day. This will never happen, especially in the two cycles from now that we were under proportional representation with a minority government in place. You simply can’t evoke legislation to a government in the future. The other side knows this. This is not going to happen.

Once PR gets in, then we will never get it out. The other side seems to think this is a great selling feature for PR. It’s been enjoyed by countries all over the world. Once PR is in, nobody ever goes back. That troubles me a bit. Is it because it’s so awesome that places like Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Belgium, Italy and Israel are all doing the happy dance because their government is so stable and efficient? Not a chance. Maybe it’s just because — maybe, just maybe — once minority governments are in, they will never vote for a referendum because they would be eliminating their own jobs. It’s plain and simple — self-preservation. Does that makes sense?

It’s disturbing that no country has gone back. It’s a definite warning sign.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Did they like it? The leader from the Greens says it’s because they like it. I argue, I debate, that it’s not because they like it. It’s because no government in a minority situation would ever vote against the seats that they represent. They would be eliminated, plain and simple.

I got a letter here just recently from the Williams Lake Chamber of Commerce. I think we can all understand that the chambers of commerce across British Columbia are important to our economy and what we do in the province to make us as good as we are. They’ve sent a letter. They’re concerned about this referendum — absolutely about the referendum. It’s entitled: “2018 Referendum on Electoral Reform.”

They only want a few things. They want clarity on this referendum. They want transparency. They want legitimacy. They have a conclusion. They’ve got some recommendations as well. I’ll table this if anybody wants to read it. But I’ll go through some of the recommendations they’ve provided. I think they’re good ones.

[3:40 p.m.]

The first recommendation is: appoint a non-partisan examination of the likely outcomes of an alternative system prior to issuing a referendum, comparable to the previous citizens’ assembly, examining the implications of proportional representation being considered, particularly its implication on rural-urban divide. That’s one of the systems proposed that’s never been implemented anywhere in the world before, so I understand their concern in the first recommendation.

The second recommendation is: clearly define the system of proportional representation that is being considered well in advance of any referendum.

The third recommendation is: adopt the same threshold required for approval as was used in the referendum in 2005 and 2009.

I can tell you…. I’m from a rural riding. People are very concerned and very upset that these thresholds have been taken out. We’re supposed to be bridging the divide in British Columbia between rural and urban. We’re doing nothing like that with this referendum. We’re further fragmenting our province.

Our province is so diverse — I would argue that it’s probably one of the most diverse jurisdictions anywhere in the world — and we’ve got a referendum that is on populace voting and not represented equally throughout the ridings that this province represents. So I totally understand that one.

The last recommendation they have is: delay the referendum until such time as the government has properly engaged the electorate and provided adequate time for question, review and program definition. I think that’s what we’re talking to in this amendment. We have not had any time. I don’t understand the rush. Well, I do understand the rush, but most people in British Columbia don’t understand the rush.

The rush is that the Greens made it their number one priority in the confidence and supply agreement to get this done. This is their last stab. This is their last chance to get this done. We tried this in 2005. We tried it in 2009. Now we’re trying it in 2018. They know that this is their best chance to bring them more power, to get them more seats and to have a party-based elected system in B.C. than it was….

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: We can look at Prince Edward Island. They had a referendum on this. The voter turnout was so bad…. The government had all their wits, and they said: “That’s not good enough.” I think that’s what we’re going to see here.

The government has taken those thresholds away. That’s what these recommendations stand for. They want a fair, representative process. I don’t think that’s too hard to understand or wrap yourself around. I don’t understand the rush. People don’t get it. We don’t know what rural and urban ridings are going to look like. We have no maps. We have no details on any of this stuff.

My constituents are concerned. I think most people in British Columbia are concerned. We see the trend lines on what’s happening on this. The jig is up. People in British Columbia may not be as passive or asleep at the wheel as the government may think they are. They’re actually getting educated on this system. What seemed like a pretty good deal….

I could go to a car lot tomorrow. My car right now is dependable. It gets me around. It’s a little old. It still packs my lawn clippings when I do the lawn or anything like that. I might be looking for a new vehicle. I can go down to the car lot tomorrow. I can talk to the used-car dealer there. He can say to me: “Look at this vehicle. It’s brand-new. Looks great. Shiny. Everybody’s driving it. It’s great. Gets great gas mileage. Pulls a lot of weight. Comfortable.” All of those kinds of things.

I would be interested. Absolutely, I’d be interested. But if I asked the used-car salesman: “Can I look under the hood?” He says: “No, no. You can look after you buy it. Then you can take a ride in it. Then you can check it out.” This is the situation. This is a fairly simple analogy, but this is exactly what the people of British Columbia are starting to figure out. They want to check under the hood, and the car salesman is saying: “Not a chance until after you buy it.”

That’s why people right now are sending letters like this in from Williams Lake Chamber of Commerce.

[3:45 p.m.]

People are wising up, and the government doesn’t like it. So they’ve put this new amendment in, this second referendum that makes people feel all fuzzy inside. “Well, you know what? It doesn’t matter. We’ll take a chance. We’ll buy the car, and if it breaks down, then I can get a warranty.” Well, guess what. There is no warranty on the vehicle. None. It’s not going to happen. It’s a sham.

I just want what’s right for the province. I just want what’s right for my riding. That’s all I’m here for. Pretty simple guy, really.

I’m getting pretty close here, but I think the points I’ve illustrated are pretty popular around the province. People are wanting these processes in place. We don’t want to just take a leap of faith like the Premier says. We’ve heard responses to the Premier on actually activating or engaging the population on having a public debate. He won’t go there. He won’t have a public debate, because he knows more education on this is a bad thing.

Anyway, I will not be supporting this bill.

S. Gibson: What a pleasure it is for me to join the discourse here regarding proportional representation. Particularly, I’m referring to the amendment, which I support. I think the spirit in which it was presented is laudable. I endorse it, and I believe all of my colleagues will endorse the amendment — needing more time and representing my constituents of Abbotsford-Mission. My riding is urban-rural, which gives me, I think, the right to speak with a little more depth on the subject.

Just to begin, I have always been thinking that a good way to speak to proportional representation would be to talk about it in terms of thought-provoking movies. These are some ideas I have for some movie titles to deal with proportional representation. These are genres of movies and the titles.

The first one is a romance movie, and the title I’m coming up with is: “I’m in love with an appointed MLA.” The next one, a western: “Riding across my new riding takes two weeks.” How about a fantasy movie about proportional representation: “Selecting a Government in Belgium.” How about a film noir movie about proportional representation: “The Explaining PR Mystery.”

How about a musical about proportional representation. Are you ready for this one? “The Sound of Green Orchestration.” A documentary about proportional representation: “How B.C. came close to being sucked into the PR vortex.” How about a blockbuster about proportional representation: “Indiana Jones and the $15 Million Riddle.” The last one my list…. I’m sorry; this is the last one, the comedy category. I call this one “The Droop Quota.” This concludes my….

My riding is urban and rural which, I think, allows me to speak to some of the challenges that have been represented today as we talk about this amendment, which I endorse.

I want to acknowledge the good presentation made by my colleague from Kootenay East right now. Good job. I think you did some good work there. I appreciate it.

This is my 37th year in elected office, locally and provincially. I would say this vote is the most troubling and the most vexatious to my heart. I’m alarmed by it, and I think the public is increasingly becoming very, very concerned.

[3:50 p.m.]

As I talk to people in my riding, I’ll have folks come up to me and say: “You know, I haven’t really decided on this yet. Tell me a little bit about it.” When I elaborate, they’re shocked. They say: “Are you kidding me? I didn’t know about that.”

The tide is turning away from proportional representation dramatically provincewide.

We had a debate a few weeks ago in Abbotsford, and I had the pleasure of joining that. It was well done. The advocates for PR did quite a good job, and those who were opposed to it did an equally good job. The lady beside me asked this question to the advocate for PR: “Could you please explain those three models?” They were up on the board. You could see he was a little nervous about it. He didn’t really want to do it. He started to explain them, and the lady beside me said: “I don’t get it.” The whole room was in turmoil, because they didn’t understand the models.

It’s very easy to explain our current system. The person with the most votes gets to be elected. How clean and simple is that? No Droop quota comedy. It’s very simple. It’s so clear and classy.

I want to share something with you. Many of us in this room had parents that fought during World War II. My mom and dad were both in World War II. My mom was involved in breaking codes, and my dad was in submarines. Six submarines went out in the flotilla; only one came back. My dad was on that one. I’m glad he was frankly. You’d have a different MLA here right now.

Here’s the point I’m making. I don’t want to get too melancholy, but you know what? Those folks went out and fought for freedom. They fought for the democracy that we have right now, not some tainted, twisted new system. They went out and fought for democracy. And you know what? I’m so thankful they did — pretty special that those folks went out and put their lives on the lines to protect us for the democracy that we enjoy in this beautiful room right here in Victoria, B.C., Canada.

Back to my story about this vote discussion in Abbotsford. As soon as the guy explained some of the models, people were in turmoil. They said: “We don’t get it.” The room changed its heart dramatically. When they left, they said: “We’re not with that proportional representation. We don’t get it. It’s too complicated.”

Last week in Mission, we had a delightful meeting to discuss proportional representation. The Leader of the Opposition came out to speak there. It was very well attended — delightful crowd. The people in Mission are very friendly. It’s a very nice, small, welcoming community. I’m very fortunate to represent the people of Mission.

I’m going to tell you something quite shocking. When you hear this, you’ll be quite surprised. Probably one of the strongest promoters of proportional representation in Mission came to the meeting. Super guy, really a nice guy. In fact, he’s a supporter of mine. But he’s also a supporter of proportional representation.

Here’s what he told the crowd. You’re going to be shocked by this, and I encourage our government members to reflect on this. He said: “Yes, I’m in support of proportional representation. But I’m sure not supporting this vote.” You know why? Because he found it to be manipulative, not like the other two votes, which were done in a non-partisan way with a citizens’ assembly, which is a great way to do it. People arrived, and they knew the process wasn’t flawed. It wasn’t manipulated from the start.

This fellow — he’s a very good guy. You’d enjoy meeting him. He’s a delightful person. He said: “I’m not supporting this. I’m going to vote against it.” There’s a tipoff there. When somebody that strong for proportional representation says, “I’m not going to support it,” I think that should trouble this government. I think it should make you feel very worried.

[3:55 p.m.]

What’s the problem with a complicated system? Well, we have folks from all walks of life. We have folks that are working in just average kinds of jobs. We have fancy people. We have simple people — educated, not so educated. We want our democracy to be welcoming.

I have a special needs daughter. I hope that she can vote. She’s not going to understand that ballot. Two elections back, she voted for me. Yeah, my special needs daughter voted for me. Somebody asked her this question, jokingly. My daughter’s name is Alisa. Somebody said to Alisa: “Did you vote NDP?” She said: “No, I voted D-A-D.” Right? Ah, yeah. It’s a true story. That’s a true story.

You see, when you complicate things, you scare people off. That’s what you’re doing right now. That guy at that meeting in Abbotsford, he could hardly explain the models. And you know that two of those models on the list are science fiction. They’re fantasy. Why are they on the list? We don’t know. Never been explained.

I like the system we have right now. We fought for it. We believe in it. Look around this room. Do you realize that if PR is adopted, some of you folks in government aren’t going to be back after those election cycles? Some of you will go back to the car wash.

Interjections.

S. Gibson: Some of you will go back…. No, I’m teasing. I don’t know. I’m just going to tease.

Some of you will go back to where you used to be, right? That’s going to be kind of sad. You’re supporting a system to prop up the alliance. We get it. We understand it. It’s pretty transparent. People come up to me in the street and say: “Is that true? Is that the reason behind this?” I say: “Yeah, you’re right.”

The average person on the street gets it. Some of you think that they’re deluded. They’re not deluded. Never, ever underestimate the intelligence of voters. Never do that. You know what, you’re underestimating the intelligence of the voter. You think they’ll just get the envelope. They’ll start filling everything out.

That’s why you’re mailing it out. We get it. You are not going through a proper, traditional, modern system. You’re going through the post office system. We understand why. We get it. We’re not deluded over here. We get it. The public gets it. We know what’s going on.

You’ll remember the two votes that we had in ’05 and ’09. There were regional accountabilities. You’ve got to have so much, 50 percent, regional. That was what made people feel good about it. Now it’s going to be metro-based. Isn’t that right? It’s going to be metro-based. So if the metro people pull this off, it’s in. I worry about that.

We’ve got just a few hundred thousand people up north. They deserve recognition. Actually, they deserve special treatment. They’re not going to get it with this vote, not at all.

We have members and you’ve got members, government members, throughout the north, in Skeena and other areas like that, Stikine. We’ve got lots of wonderful members from the north. They’re going to be shut out of the process. We know those ridings are going to be huge. You’re going to have to take a Learjet to go and meet your MLA. How tragic is that?

You know one of the things that people like about their current system? The MLA is not overtly partisan. Yes, the member over here for Nanaimo–North Cowichan…. Yeah, good to have you here today. This MLA represents all his people. If I lived in your riding, hon. Member, you would look after me. You’d take care of me. Same with you if you lived in my riding.

This system says: “No, no. We’re going to make every­thing partisan, super partisan. We’re going to have lists — check, check, check — lists of people.” So I’ll go to my partisan MLA. That’s a shame. What a shame, to turn the whole system partisan. It wasn’t that long ago, in this Legislature, everybody ran as independents. Maybe that’s a good idea. Maybe.

[4:00 p.m.]

Do you know what? I want to tell you something kind of personal. I try to be an independent MLA in my riding. I’m a B.C. Liberal. I’m proud of being a B.C. Liberal. We’ve got a great leader. I’ve got great colleagues. But I’m independent in the sense that I look after everybody in my riding.

If somebody comes in and happens to mention, “Oh yeah, I didn’t vote for you,” I don’t care. It’s all right. Maybe they’ll vote for me next time, when they get to know me. To know me is to love me, right?

This system, speaking to the amendment, is going the wrong direction. It’s going to make it more partisan. We don’t want that.

When that fellow in Abbotsford was asked about the different system, he had little coloured dots up there. This is a green dot MLA. This is an orange dot MLA. This is a blue dot MLA, all in the same kind of area. People are going: “I don’t….” They just want to come and talk to me. “I don’t want to talk to a whole bunch of other partisan people.” What a shame.

People have been talking on our side about maps. Members of the government side: have you talked to your team about maps yet? Just a little nod is all…. Okay, I’m not even getting a nod here, hon. Speaker.

Maps are critical, because when we see those maps, we’re going to suddenly realize those ridings are going to be the size of France — gigantic ridings, huge, colossal, right from the Alberta border to Alaska. Why? What’s the advantage of that?

You see, those folks up there have a lot more provincial government services — highways, hospitals, all kinds of services. In Metro, you don’t get the same percentage of provincial services. Those folks need better representation. Big ridings are not a benefit.

I’m noticing people are getting really worried about that up north. They’re getting terrified. They’re going to lose representation. It’s so sad.

Let’s have a look at some maps. I’m begging today. For the record, we want to see maps. Isn’t that right, colleagues?

We want to see maps. We’re begging for maps. Whoever takes this on over there will be my hero. Come back next meeting with maps. Yep, this is your big chance.

Interjection.

S. Gibson: The hon. member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, get some maps for us, and we will love you.

From time to time, people ask me: “Whose idea was this?” Have you noticed that nobody has been pressing you? Before this came up — proportional representation — nobody had ever phoned me and said: “Why don’t we’ve a vote on proportional representation?” I didn’t get those calls: “Line 3, go ahead.” I didn’t get one call requesting a proportional representation vote. Did you?

Interjections.

S. Gibson: Nobody ever phoned me and said: “Oh, man, I’m desperate for a third vote on that.” Never happened. Here it is $15 million later, and a mailer that’ll be mixed up with pizza menus — right? — and real estate cards and stuff. What is this? The kids will throw it in the recycling as they head out to a movie.

Come on. Is there something wrong here? People are asking me to question the motives. Well, these three seats here are the motives. It’s obvious. This is not very complicated.

Now, one of the concerns that we have is that it costs more. It costs more to the taxpayers. This side of the House is extremely sensitive to the taxpayers. I don’t know how it’s working right now, but we had the lowest tax rate for middle-income earners in the entire country. Isn’t that right, colleagues? The lowest.

I want to draw something to your attention. It’s a little bit of reading here. “The economic effects of constitutions,” noted economists….

Interjection.

[4:05 p.m.]

S. Gibson: Economists never make mistakes. Per day. Okay.

Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini examined the impact of electoral rules on government spending in 85 countries — speaking to the amendment, hon. Speaker. Their research found that…. Watch. This is very interesting. Feel free. I can get this to the government members, if you want to circulate this in your caucus.

Their research found that spending was almost 6 percent of GDP lower in countries with majoritarian, plurality systems than in countries with PR elections. That’s pretty powerful. That’s why this motion is very timely. It’s very propitious. Now, the higher government spending in PR countries is financed, to a greater extent, with deficits, borrowing. This is extremely troubling. I’m surprised that you folks didn’t look at this before you moved this.

Put differently, countries with PR election rules tend to not only spend more….

Interjections.

S. Gibson: Now watch. This is very profound. You’ll like to hear this. Countries with PR election rules tend not only to spend more than other countries — we’re already spending $15 million just to see what’s happening here, just to test the waters — but also tend to borrow more to finance such spending.

Here’s another quote. Again, feel free to take this back to your caucus. I can get this to government members. I think you’ll enjoy circulating this. It might increase your popularity with some of the people there.

“The tendency of PR electoral systems to elect coalition governments drives up government” — what do you guess or think the next word is? — “spending” — you’re right; good guess — “and deficits, not because voters necessarily want such policies but because the power structure of the parliament has been realigned by changing the way politicians are elected.” When I read that, I suddenly realized one more reason why the public is going to just see the darkness, the dark side of proportional representation.

There’s a lot more that can be said about this, but I want to make a couple of comments about why we’re here today and maybe just elaborate a little more. If you look around this House, our parties are already, in a sense, coalitions, aren’t they?

Right now the NDP government is a coalition of three or four kinds of MLAs. I don’t have to speak about what they are, but you know who you are. There are different kinds of MLAs that represent different kinds of perspectives on government, on life. That’s a good thing. I’m saying that’s a good thing. It’s positive about this government. You have three or four of what I would call political cadres embedded in your government. It’s a good thing. I’m speaking to the amendment, hon. Speaker.

On our side of the House as well, we are, I think it’s fair to say, an umbrella party. We have people with different kinds of perspectives, but what draws us together? Look across here right now. What draws us together? Whether it’s Surrey, Langley, Parksville-Qualicum, the north, the Okanagan or the Kootenays, wherever you look — what do we have in common? We’re bound by an affection for free enterprise and, really, grassroots democracy.

We’ve got a powerful force here. That’s why we won the last election, with more seats and more votes — until things changed over there. That’s profound. Now, the reason I mention that is because coalitions are forming here right now. There’s a coalescing here, the same as on your side. Here’s what’s going to happen with proportional representation. How many parties do we have registered? I think somebody told me.

Interjection.

S. Gibson: It’s 27 — thank you, hon. member from Surrey — parties.

Supposing that four or five of them get 5 percent of the vote. It could happen. Now we’re down to only two members that we need for a party, right? Only two members.

[4:10 p.m.]

You’re going to get the Vancouver Island Party, maybe a party with a particular viewpoint, maybe the Communist Party. You know from Europe — you are reading the same material I am — that some of those parties are extremists. They embrace extremist values. They will have more credibility under PR. With only two seats, if suddenly the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan gets grumpy and joins up with the member for Vancouver-Kingsway — they get grumpy — they can form their own little grumpy party, right? They can call themselves the Grumpies, and they’d be good at that too. No, I’m just kidding.

I just wonder about how this benefits democracy. It makes it more expensive, as I told you, and it gets away from that great congeniality, that comradery, that we value here. You’re going to have little parties sprinkled throughout here, just like they have in Europe, and you know some of those parties are extreme.

Look at that party in New Zealand. You’ve read about them. Look at the Prime Minister. It’s sad.

In British Columbia, we’re famous for political moderation compared to a lot of places in the world. I’m going to tell you. My wife was born in South America in a country that had civil wars every 18 months. This is a great province, a great country.

By civility, I’m not talking about the arguments that we have. That’s healthy. That’s a good dialectic. We value that. You don’t want to live in Bolivia. When my wife was there 30 years ago, that was a terrible place. Look at Paraguay, some of those countries — Bosnia. We have a wonderful, wonderful democracy here.

My concluding comments, speaking to the amendment — and thank you for it — let’s realize that proportional representation will bring out the dark side of politics. It will create polarization, overpoliticization of our Legislature, and we will look back, if it’s supported, with a tremendous amount of regret.

C. Oakes: I stand today before this House to support the amendment that is currently considered on the floor.

I have repeatedly heard questions from my constituents, as I’m sure every MLA in this House has, that have not yet been answered by the government. Have more time to ensure a thorough education and respect for the questions that are being asked by British Columbians, such as: where are the riding maps, the numbers of MLAs? What do the constituencies look like? What does a rural riding mean? What does an urban riding mean? All are very much questions that deserve to be answered in this House.

I very much appreciate the opportunity, as well, to join other members in the House as we discuss something as fundamental as how we will change the electoral system in British Columbia.

There has been an effort to brand the question of concerns by members on this side of the House as saying that we have been fearmongering. The questions that we raise in the Legislature from citizens from every part of the province are relevant and important, and they are asking for facts.

I support the amendment because I believe British Columbians deserve to have answers to fundamental questions that they are asking members in this House. What I am hearing through this rushed process is that there are still significant questions to be answered from this government. The deflecting response from this government, that the Premier says, “Let’s take a leap of faith,” is disrespectful to British Columbians who are asking legitimate questions. How do you imagine my constituents feel to be dismissed in such a fashion?

[4:15 p.m.]

We are about to make a choice about the future of the electoral system in British Columbia. And what are we debating today? We’re debating a one-page bill that says to British Columbians: “You might be a little uncomfortable about where we’re at and about the unanswered questions that I know you are all asking.”

I cannot imagine that the questions that I have been asked by British Columbians are not being asked to every single MLA in this House. “You may not have all the information you need. But you know what? We’re going to give you a do-over.” On something as central and fundamental as how we elect the people who represent British Columbians, we’re prepared to give them a do-over just in case it doesn’t work out or in case we get challenged because questions, legitimate questions that British Columbians have been asking, have not been answered.

We should all care deeply about how people are chosen to serve in this chamber. While the Premier stands here and tries to assure British Columbians, “Oh yeah, you’ll get to pick the names on the ballot,” he forgets to mention the part about each one of the models making a significant, fundamental shift. Each one of the models gives more authority to parties to choose the names on the ballot. He left that part out of his speech. It is not fearmongering; it is fact-finding.

There are three models being put forward before British Columbians, and the amendment speaks to the questions that are still left unanswered — each of them transferring more power about who chooses the names, who puts the names on the ballot. That is not fearmongering; that is fact-finding. And British Columbians deserve answers.

For anyone, much less the Premier, to suggest in this House that we come to this House and completely ignore issues that do not represent what our party puts forward is simply offensive. I share what my distinguished colleague from Prince George–Valemount had to say — that I take incredible pride in representing all of the constituents in my riding.

I stand in this House as the first woman elected as MLA in the riding of Cariboo North. I’m proud of that. I’m grateful for that, and I never forget the opportunity that it has provided me. I take enormous pride in representing the riding of Cariboo North. I am the fourth generation living in what I believe and know is the most spectacular part of the province of British Columbia. It is, as I have mentioned in the House, 38,000 square kilometres, larger than the size of Vancouver Island. Much of the riding is considered wilderness remote and a riding that consists of mid-sized and very small communities in the heart of the B.C. interior.

I represent incredible people. When they ask me to come to this House and raise questions that they have, I truly respect and take that very seriously. I never ask anyone coming into my office or who will stop me out on the street, when they ask for my help, who they voted for. It is irrelevant. When we are elected as MLAs, we represent all of our constituents, and we work hard to make sure we help solve issues. We make sure that we listen and that we raise their voice here in the Legislature.

[4:20 p.m.]

It is one of the things that upsets me most about the presentations and the leaflets and the posts — the accusations that have been made that MLAs in this House serve only the ones who voted for them. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is one thing that I think every member of this House will agree with. We all represent the constituents that we value.

Once our voters have chosen their MLA, we serve all of our constituents — not our supporters or our members but our constituents, the residents and citizens who live in our riding. If there is an MLA in this House that uses the principle of their public service — I highly doubt that there is — they should be embarrassed and shocked by the statements that have been made. That is not what we have been called to do.

I know we all come to this House proud of the communities that we represent, and we work hard to represent all of our constituents. When this debate sinks to the point that one of the key arguments is: “Well, they just don’t serve everyone….” When I received calls from my constituents affected during both the 2017 wildfire season and the 2018 wildfire season, I never asked my constituents who they voted for. In fact, I know that having a local representative…. It doesn’t matter. You just want somebody that is able to help.

In the wildfire season of 2017, we were very fortunate, and I thank the capable staff that work diligently to support our communities. We were fortunate to have incredible incident command teams that would come in every several weeks to help support the efforts. What I shared in the past estimates are specific examples as a local MLA about how we could help with our knowledge of our constituents and our riding to make sure that our communities were well served.

Take, for example, the 150 placer miners that I knew were out in areas covered by wildfires, with limited access to connectivity — no cell service. I knew that these areas were being affected. I was able to work with the Cariboo Mining Association, as well as the government, to ensure that we were able to support these important constituents.

I don’t ask who they voted for. It doesn’t matter. I serve my constituents, I serve my community, and I’m proud to represent Cariboo North.

In the 2018 wildfire season, again, I would receive calls and emails about people that had been affected, people that were worried, people that were concerned. They needed to know that they had an MLA in their area that understood and knew their area so that we could provide help. I would like to read a post that I received from Jennifer and Aron Toland. “Over and over, our pleas for help are ignored. There are several homesteads out here, and we’re all forced to fight these flames ourselves.” When we received that message, we were immediately able to work with wildfire branch to ensure that we were able to give them the coordinates of where they were located.

You see, my riding is remote. My riding is wilderness. My riding, a significant portion of it, doesn’t have connectivity. It doesn’t have cell service. It doesn’t have the things that other ridings in urban settings have. For that, my constituents rely on a local MLA to make sure that they’re heard, to make sure that they have somebody that they can reach out to, somebody that they know knows the area and can help them. That is why it is important to know that you have local MLAs that are there to help.

[4:25 p.m.]

Once our voters have chosen their MLA, we, like all members in this House, serve all our constituents. Let’s listen to what the Premier said yesterday. This is the Premier: “I hear it every day as I travel around British Columbia. I hear from people who are saying: ‘I’m really glad you guys are working together. I’m really happy to see that. I like the idea that you’re cooperating. You’re putting aside your personal differences, and you’re working in the best interests of British Columbia.’ I hear it over and over again.”

That is a great statement to hear. My question to the Premier is: if it’s working so well and you’ve got collaboration and you’re hearing from British Columbians from across the province that things are working wonderfully and you hear it over and over again as you travel throughout British Columbia…? My question to the Premier and to the government is…. That is under the first-past-the-post system.

Again, the reason I speak to the amendment of why we need more time…. Perhaps the comment should be back to the Premier, based on his own comments from yesterday. Perhaps more time is needed for him to reflect on the fact that first-past-the-post is actually working for British Columbians, as he has heard it time and time again as he has travelled across the province.

I’d also like to comment…. I was really proud yesterday that the Premier talked about Cariboo North several times in his discussion around Bill 40. One of the ones that I actually got a chuckle with: “Of course, when you’re in government” — this is, again, by the Premier — “you have an opportunity to travel around and talk directly to people. When you’re in opposition, you’re looking for a parade to lead, and I’m certain someday a parade will come by that the member for Cariboo North can join into.”

Well, Mr. Premier, I can assure you that as an opposition member, I have been invited to multiple parades, as I have both in government and in opposition, because people in our communities recognize that as MLAs, we serve all our constituents.

Again, to the Premier, I think it’s important that we take time to reflect on what he has heard across British Columbia, what we have heard across British Columbia — that actually, first-past-the-post is working in British Columbia. In fact, why are we going into a very expensive referendum when we are hearing directly from British Columbians that the system that we have is actually working?

Let us talk a little bit about some of the factors that are still unanswered and that British Columbians are asking about the referendum. There are currently 29 different factors that will not be considered until after the referendum. How are voters expected to make an educated choice when they are not being offered relevant information?

I can assure you that in Cariboo North, people take getting educated and informed and asking questions very importantly. They have questions that deserve to be answered. Having 29 different factors that will not be considered until after the referendum is an offence to British Columbians.

There are a number of factors, such as the number of MLAs, the size of the ridings, what constitutes a rural riding or an urban riding, whether we use an open or closed list, or even if we use a list system at all. I don’t think we can fairly say that we’re actually choosing a system. Instead, with the information that has been provided to us at this point, it is a concept.

[4:30 p.m.]

That is why I am speaking in support of the amendment. I feel more time is required to take a concept into considerable educational information so that constituents in my riding have the proper information that they are asking for and that they deserve to receive to make an informed decision on how incredibly important this referendum question that is being asked is on how we elect our representatives.

What we are asking our voters is whether they want to directly vote for their MLA or choose whether their representative is chosen by the party they’re voting for. As the member for Vancouver–False Creek noted recently, that is what is at question here.

The government had many different options to choose from for the proposed proportional representation systems. Many of them actually do have voters directly voting for their representative. The government included some of those systems in their feedback questionnaire that they supposedly used to inform the referendum. Yet, in the end, they discarded those systems that allowed voters to choose their representatives, and put a system in that does not, going so far as to put two systems on the ballot that, to quote the Attorney General’s report, are not currently in use.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We are being asked to vote on systems that have not been used anywhere else in the world, yet the government is choosing to not even provide maps of electoral districts or even the number of electoral districts and how many representatives each would have. And that is why I am supporting the amendment to take more time to review these questions.

The information we have instead is that political parties will choose your representative. That is in the case of the three proportional representation systems proposed by the government.

In dual-member proportional representation, you are given two options appointed by political parties. All losing votes are distributed to the parties to allow them to appoint candidates elsewhere, which, of course, is what could allow a party with as few as 5 percent of the vote to appoint a candidate in a part of the province where they only have marginal showing.

Then, of course, we get mixed-member proportionality. This is the only proportional system on the ballot that is actually used anywhere in the world. In this system — again, we have drastically few details about it — political parties choose 40 percent of their MLAs. Whether they will do so from a closed or open list is yet to be determined. And that is why I support the amendment to ensure that we have more time to provide information to people across British Columbia.

Rural-urban is a two-tiered mix of the STV system, which British Columbians rejected in 2005 and 2009, and mixed-member proportional, which was also on the ballot. Whether a riding is rural or urban — and therefore whatever system they will use — is going to be determined after the referendum. Voters are being asked to decide on a system where they don’t actually know whether they will choose their representative by STV or MMP. In other words, they will not know what system they get when they actually go to the polls to vote.

Let’s take a moment and consider that the Attorney General has dropped this bill in the Legislature in the middle of an emotional, contentious debate in our province about something as fundamental as how we elect people who govern. In just days, envelopes are going to start arriving in people’s mailboxes across British Columbia, and they will be asked to carefully consider how they vote.

[4:35 p.m.]

The decision to change an electoral system should be determined only after there is a fair process, an independent process, an informed process, a process that answers legitimate questions from British Columbians. Can we look at a map, at least? Can we see what our riding is going to look like? Who are our MLAs? How many MLAs will there be? There should be ample time for education and discussion and engagement with British Columbians, because that is what we do in this House.

I support the amendment, as more time is needed to answer important questions being asked by British Columbians. Now, do you think that it’s an accident that the referendum is tucked neatly between the end of summer vacation, the return to school, the fall activities, Thanksgiving and — oh, did I forget? — the local government elections and school board trustees elections? While we’re thinking that maybe the only thing that people are thinking about with electoral reform is, “I don’t understand it because I don’t have all the information,” the most common reaction I get when I talk to my constituents, whether they voted for me or not, is: “What referendum?”

We’re about to ask British Columbians to change the electoral process in British Columbia, and most of them do not even know that there is a referendum. What on earth is the rush? We need more time. We need more time to answer the questions. In that context, the Attorney General, through Bill 40, says to British Columbians: “Don’t worry about your decision. Let’s just consider change. Let’s give it a try, and if you don’t like it, we’ll change it back.”

On one hand, we hear how important it is that people need the education, the information and take a thoughtful approach and learn as much as they can before their ballot. That is what the government is trying to say is happening right now. After all, in my view, the outcome is pretty important.

On the other hand, the bill clearly sends a message: “Hey, you know, it’s okay if you’re not quite sure. If you don’t have all the details or all the information you need, it’s okay. Just give it a shot. Take another leap of faith. If it doesn’t work out, we’ll just do another referendum.” How disrespectful to British Columbians. How disrespectful to the costs of taxpayers.

British Columbians deserve more than this, and their valid questions need to be addressed, questions such as: what will my riding look like? How large will it be? I’ve heard in this House that, you know, our ridings…. You know, you’ll be represented, but what if the geographical areas become larger than they are?

I started the debate today with great pride in describing what Cariboo North looks like. Again, my riding is larger than Vancouver Island. Let me take a moment to consider the constituents on Vancouver Island if they had only one representative. I can tell you, it does not matter to the constituents on Vancouver Island who they voted for. If they need help from government or an MLA, they will ask an MLA.

I can also tell you this. Whether you are a community of 50, of 100, of 10,000 or 100,000, constituents expect you to be in their communities. They expect you to listen. They expect you to answer their calls when they are concerned about issues such as the constituents I had around wildfires.

How do we possibly expect to represent constituents when we are talking potentially about growing our ridings to sizes larger than multiple countries in Europe? It takes six hours for me to drive from one end of my riding to the next, and much of it, actually, you can’t necessarily do in one specific road fashion. There are some very remote areas in my riding.

[4:40 p.m.]

The fear from my constituents, and it’s a legitimate one, is: “If we are all of a sudden to be expanded into a much larger riding, how will I have access to my MLA?” Well, many people think that people may not be paying attention to what’s going on in the Legislature, and they could very well be right about that.

This bill, once forced through the Legislature, will be used to give people who genuinely and rightly are considering how they will vote a sense of false comfort by making a promise which cannot be kept — that there will be a subsequent referendum. Again: “Don’t worry. Take a leap of faith. Change the system. We can always do a do-over.” Really? Does anyone actually believe that if a system is put in place that encourages, mobilizes and brings multiple parties to the Legislature, there will ever be a second referendum to consider reversing the very system that gives power to those parties?

This bill, on a single sheet of paper, is designed to provide some degree of comfort to voters that are asking legitimate questions. Again, it’s a reason why we need to be supporting the amendment to take more time to consider. Anyone who takes a few moments to think will recognize that it won’t work that way. If the Premier, his government and the members of the Green Party want British Columbians to take a leap of faith, then they should be at least prepared to answer the tough questions that a process like this deserves. We are changing, potentially, the colour of our electoral system in British Columbia, and that is why more time is needed.

The Premier also said that there would be an independent process. Well, certainly, that isn’t the case. The Attorney General is the lead on this file. The questions were approved by his cabinet. They were different than what was put forward to British Columbians.

Bill 40, introduced in the Legislature in the middle of this debate in British Columbia, is simply saying: “It’s okay. Don’t worry. We’ll give you a do-over.” We know, as I said earlier, that in just a few days, a voting package will be arriving. There’s confusion, there’s misinformation, and there are unanswered questions. More time is needed. That is why I am speaking to the referendum.

M. Hunt: I rise to speak to the amendment that is being proposed to Bill 40. I’ve been listening to the debate, when I’ve had time, in the midst of my office and also when I’ve been on House duty. Honestly, it really sounds like the government is all reading off the same song sheet. They’re all saying the same thing, and it’s really nice to hear, except that this reminds me of a magic show. Well, actually, it is not magic; it’s the art of the illusion. In the art of the illusion, what we do is put forward a focus over here, and we get people’s focus and attention over here, while something else is going on over here.

When I listen to this “every vote counts,” it really sounds good, and it’s a real nice focus. But I’ve got to ask the question: “Well, where is the power in this? Where is the power shifting? What is happening with the power?” I find it interesting because when I listen to members of the government speak concerning this bill, they often talk about those bad B.C. Liberals — for 16 years, you know, big business has been running things and how terrible this is.

There’s only one problem with that argument: they already introduced legislation to deal with that. This obviously doesn’t have anything to do with big business being involved in this, because we already have limits of $1,200, and it has to come from personal accounts, not from business. So that’s already been dealt with.

Oh, and yes, big unions have been put out of this too. Except, gee, the funny thing about that is that big unions seem to be in these so-called community benefits agreements, and the 19 selected unions seem to be getting an awful lot of money in the midst of all this.

[4:45 p.m.]

Then all of a sudden, we discover that in municipal elections, there’s a massive, massive hole in the midst of this legislation where unions can go and send their paid staff out to door-knock for their friendly candidates, and that’s perfectly fine. I find this amazing because really, they didn’t get unions out of this. They have actually given them a wonderful avenue to stay in and keep those other guys out. Something’s wrong here.

When you start to look deeper into this process, I start to look at: okay, what are the proposals that are being put forward? What’s actually happening in the midst of these? It’s interesting to see that what we actually have is a shift in power that is very subtle in the midst of this. If we go back to 2004 and the creation of the citizens’ assembly, where we had 160 members, citizens chose…. I believe that it was random of some sort of description. But 160 members got together, and they came up with a system that kept power in the hands of the voters.

That’s one of the subtle things we’ve got to watch in what happens here in government constantly — the shift of…. Is the power in the hands of citizens, or is the power in the hands of government — or somebody else, for that matter? So when we look at the systems that have been proposed — and there are many different systems that work on some kind of proportional representation — the citizens’ committee came up with a system that kept the voter at the centre.

The voter had the power. Yes, it was that whoever was elected had to get at least 50 percent plus one voters on their side in order to have the majority support so that they could be in the House. That’s what was called the single transferable ballot.

It’s absolutely amazing as we look at what is being proposed, because when this went out to public consultation, there were, in fact, proposals and systems that had both voter and party systems. Interestingly enough, now that we actually have the question that is before us, the voter systems have all been removed. The three proposals that we have are all party-centred proportional representation systems, two of which are totally unique. They have never been used anywhere in the world.

So you go: what is the rush happening here? That’s what this amendment is about. It says: “Hold it a second, folks. Let’s slow this process down.” Who should be at the centre of our electoral system? It should be the voter. It should be the voter who is in charge. The voters are the ones who should be deciding, not political parties.

Instead, what we have is, if you look at the different ones that are here — and I’ll go into that in a second — instead of the voters directly choosing who is going to represent them…. Well, whatever the new boundaries are, we know that they’re going to be considerably larger, because any of these have extra members, so the region has to become larger. In the midst of this, only one MLA, the first MLA, is actually directly elected. Anyone else is elected through a political party. So the shift here is that we’re going from the electors making the decision to political parties making decisions.

Now, one thing that…. Obviously, I’ve been around for a few years, and in those few years I’ve listened to various and sundry debates on the Senate of Canada. It’s interesting, because from time to time, when we talk about the Senate….

[4:50 p.m.]

You had the Senate. “Well, that’s just a bunch of political appointments. They’re just political appointments. It’s the old boys’ club” — now there are ladies involved, but the old boys’ club, figuratively speaking — “for those who are political hacks. They did their job for the party, and now they’re guaranteed a job until they’re 75 and a massive pension thereafter.” We hear that as being anti-party and that they should be directly elected. Well, some actually say: “Just abandon it completely.” Others say that it should be elected.

Then when we look at the House of Commons, we hear a similar debate. “Well, we have the same thing here where the Prime Minister or the Premier chooses cabinet.” So therefore, their entire party is a bunch of barking seals just wanting to do anything that the leader says so that they can get the privileged cabinet post.

I’m sorry, but those are things that people say out there in public. I’ve heard it over the many, many, many years that we’ve had these discussions over our systems of government. But you know, it’s amazing how people, when I talk to them and in my conversations, always seem to be against political parties and the strength and the power of political parties — that we want the power to the individual that I elected. And that’s why we sit here. We’re recognized.

I can’t even call my friends on the other side of the House by their names. I have to refer to them as the “member from” or “the minister of.” I can’t refer to them as my friend…. No, I can’t use his name. It’s not allowed in here, because he is only here as a representative of the people that are in his constituency.

That’s the point. People want the focus on who is representing and speaking for me. I want to be able to be a part of choosing that, not have some political party doing that. But that’s exactly what we have in the three proposals that are being put forward to the people here.

In fact, what we have, and some have said it, that this referendum is a referendum of government, of the parties, by the political parties and for the political parties. That I find wrong.

Now, one of the other things I’ve noticed as I’ve been listening…. I have to be really careful on my words here, Mr. Speaker, so make sure — I know that you will — that I use the correct words in describing this.

I’ve heard three f’s, and I’m going to try to describe it this way: one is falsehoods; another is fabrications; and, of course, fearmongering. Those are things that we, on this side, have been accused on of how terrible it is that we’re doing these things, and that we are just totally, completely and absolutely wrong. There is no question about this.

Well, the amendment that is before us is to say: “Let’s put this off for another six months so that we can get more information and details and understand more of what’s happening here.” That’s the amendment that’s before us.

Alas, I discover there are no details. Because all we can do on this side of the House is speculate the possibilities based on other countries and what we see in PR elsewhere.

Of course, our dear friends on the government and the Third Party side can say: “Oh, no, no. Not true, not true.” But there are no details to establish what truth is. All we have is: “Trust me.”

As a matter of fact, it’s amazing that the Premier would let it slip out of his mouth, but he did it because he thought he was among his friends at the UBCM where he said: “Join me on this leap of faith.” Well, as Vaughn Palmer put it, it’s much more a “leap in the dark” is what it really is.

We did have a member opposite say: “Hold it a second. No, no, no.” Again, falsehoods, manipulation and fabrications. There is 22 pages of information that is going to be sent to the voters so that they are going to know assuredly what it is that they are voting for. Well, I thought: “Oh, I missed something here. I better get a hold of this and find out what’s going on.”

I went onto the Elections B.C. website, and I printed off for myself the 22 pages. Actually, it’s 24, but that’s okay. We’re not going to worry about that. But I printed off the pages of this pamphlet that’s going to be given.

[4:55 p.m.]

Here’s the insightful information that is going to help people to clearly understand proportional representation proposals that are before them.

Page 1 is the referendum on electoral reform. I’m reading the table of contents just so that you understand what I’m doing here. Page 2 covers who can vote on the referendum and what the referendum is all about. Page 3 deals with the referendum ballot. It gives us a possible look at what it’s going to look like, which is helpful. Four tells us how to vote — you know, whether you put an X, a check mark, how to vote. That’s always good. Page 5 is how to ask for a voting package if you didn’t get one during these times. Then, of course, page 6 is dealing with important dates.

Page 7 tells us how to get help voting. That’s always important because we want everybody to be able to vote, and of course, translation information is also on page 7. Oh, page 8 now gets going, and it tells us what will happen after the referendum. Well, I’ll come back to that, because there is some choice information there. Page 9 tells us what a voting system is. That’s always good to know, since we’re voting on that — what is a voting system.

I’m already halfway through these 22 pages, and I haven’t learned the first thing about what we’re actually voting for. Could you say that was slight misrepresentation of the facts? I don’t know, but anyhow, we keep going.

We get to page 10. Finally, we get to find out what the first-past-the-post voting system is, because that really is a funny name for this. It took me forever to try to figure out: “What is the concept, first-past-the-post?” Okay, it’s got to be the classic horse race, right? The horse race, the first post passed. Like in the Olympics, everybody gets on the track and they run and the first one past the ribbon. Okay. Well, finally, I figured that one out, so first-past-the-post.

Then it talks about what proportional representation is on page 12. Thirteen we finally get to get a glance at what the voting systems are like. Finally, on page 14 — we’re two-thirds the way through this informational brochure — we finally start to find out something about dual-member proportional, mixed-member proportional and rural-urban proportional.

It’s absolutely amazing, because remember, this was a member of the House saying that all the information was here. That we could just go here, and we could find out everything we need to know so that the electorate can actually make an informed decision.

It’s interesting. I’m just going to go to pages 14 and 15, because 14 is dealing with dual-member proportional. When we get to the second…. It’s got pretty pictures, and it shows what a ballot might look like.

Oh, but isn’t that interesting? It simply sits there and says: “party A, party B, party C, party D, independent candidate.” Boy, that sounds like I’m voting for a party. It doesn’t sound like I’m voting for an individual to represent me. I’m voting for a party. Hmm, most interesting. Then, as it tries to give us more information on this, it says: “Characteristics of dual-member proportional.”

You see, there are no details. This whole charade of a referendum has been hidden in secrecy and clothed with: “Trust us. We know what’s good for you.” There’s nothing here that is factual. There’s nothing here that is detailed. There is nothing here that gives people clear understanding. It’s only “characteristics of.”

As the members opposite have so delightfully done with arguments that we have put forward…. They say: “Oh, no, no. That’s not what’s going to happen. It’s going to be something else.” But it’s amazing that when we look at each one of the proposed ballots that are in here for this, we see each one of them has: “party A, party B, party C, party D.” You’re not voting for candidates. You’re voting for parties. It’s only when we get to mixed-member proportional that they actually have both on the same proposed ballot.

[5:00 p.m.]

We are, in fact, keeping the electorate in the dark. There is nothing here that is, in fact, giving people the information so they can have their Charter rights of being an informed electorate making an informed decision.

I go back to page 8, Mr. Speaker, because I think this is most critical to the amendment that is before us. I know that’s what you want me to be speaking on, and I’m focused on the amendment. I’ll read to you just past the halfway part on page 8 of these 22 pages of information.

It says: “If a proportional representation voting system is adopted, the government has said that after the referendum….” Oh, the government has said. Boy, that really sounds definitive, doesn’t it? That sounds like that’s absolute fact. You can go to the bank on this, because the government said.

As it goes along, of course, it talks about boundaries of electoral districts, which most of us are familiar with. We usually call them our riding, our constituency. Those sorts of words are all sort of synonymous.

In the midst of this, we also have “and regions.” Now we don’t only have constituencies, but we’ve got regions. So maybe there are some other things going on in here. But then, as it goes down, it comes to the last bullet. The last bullet says this: “Another referendum will be held after two general elections to see if B.C. wants…the new voting system or go back to using first-past-the-post.”

Why is Bill 40 before us? Bill 40, according to Elections B.C., is already what the government has committed to. Why in heaven’s name have we got this bill in front of us now when, in fact, Elections B.C. tells us that they’re already doing this, that this is already a fact accomplished. This is already something that the government has…. Well, I shouldn’t say committed to. No, no, no, no. It says the government has said that they will do this, that this will happen.

Well, it really has me asking some questions. It really has me wondering. Because if this was in the original legislation and this is what was already predetermined by the government, why have we got Bill 40 before us? Well, maybe it’s to reduce fears, because now we’re going to put it in the legislation so that people don’t have to be afraid of change, because we’ll say: “It’s a money-back guarantee. We’ll go back to it if you want to.”

Now, I know the members on the government side are going to have to forgive me for this, but I’m going to put a cynical hat on. I don’t do this very often, but I have to put my cynical hat on for a minute and say maybe the government has decided enough money hasn’t been spent on the yes side of the referendum so that the government can go out with government ads saying: “Yes, if you vote yes, you have a guarantee in legislation that after two, we’ll go back.”

Is that what this is about? B.C. Elections has already put in their literature that it’s going to happen. So why is this legislation before us? Again, a very good reason for this to be considered six months from now, not at this point in time. Because if it’s at this point in time, obviously, we’re in the middle of an election writ, for all intents and purposes, and we are, in fact, having government putting — how do I say it? — forward their side of the story in stronger terms in the middle of the election writ.

I would think that’s illegal by the rules of Elections B.C., because you sure can’t do that during the provincial election. You can’t do that during local elections. Why is this happening? Why is this not being ruled out of order, completely and absolutely, because we’re in the middle of an election writ? Maybe that’s what the Speaker’s office should be doing: ruling this whole debate and Bill 40 out of order because it’s being brought up in the middle of the referendum writ period, and it actually will increase spending.

[5:05 p.m.]

Is the government of B.C. registered as a campaigner for this? I think this may be absolutely, totally, 100 percent illegal, because the provincial government, or members of the government, will go out and say: “Here’s Bill 40. It’s written in pen and ink. You can stand on it.” I think it’s all illegal, quite frankly.

But hey, there’s another side to this, and that is simply this: this parliament cannot bind future parliaments, and that’s exactly what Bill 40 is all about. Bill 40 is trying to bind the parliaments. This is parliament 41. They’re trying to bind parliament 43. We know that doesn’t work. Well, it’s illegal to start with, and two, it has no force in law.

All we have to do is…. Let’s go to the carbon tax. I mean, I know that my friends on the opposite side are going to say: “Another fabrication, another falsehood by that member for Surrey-Cloverdale. I can’t believe how he can’t get his facts straight.”

Well, let’s talk about the carbon tax, because it was in legislation in the carbon tax that it was going to be revenue-neutral. Now, what has happened to that? I can tell you what has happened to that is that the members opposite have decided to throw away that piece of legislation. That clause just got removed and thrown out, and they couldn’t care less, because that was the intent of the 16 years of B.C. Liberal government — to be carbon-neutral.

Interjections.

M. Hunt: Yes. Whoo! I’m sorry. I’ve got to make sure you guys are awake on that side, right?

You see, it was revenue-neutral for those years, but now it’s not, because this current government has simply thrown that into the trash can. I hate to say it so bluntly, but this bill isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on, because they can just as easily throw this into the garbage can. It means zero.

That’s why it needs to be considered six months from now, not now, because now is in the middle of the election writ, the whole process in the midst of voting on this and getting people aware. And it is completely wrong, in my humble opinion.

Now, another falsehood, fabrication, fearmongering, but this time I can’t believe it. I just find it absolutely unbelievable that this came out of the Premier’s mouth yesterday. I’m just shocked by it.

I have to read it to you, Mr. Speaker, because I know that you can’t believe it either. No, I better not put words in your mouth. I’ve got to be good. But I don’t think anybody….

Anyhow, here’s what he said. Now, again, this is him arguing in favour of proportional representation. He said: “For four years, I sat on that side of the House” — meaning here in opposition — “offering, I’d like to think, on occasion, useful suggestions to the government, whether it be in this place or in the budget estimates that happen annually, bringing forward ideas from not just myself but from the people that I represented at that time in Malahat–Juan de Fuca” — now, that only makes sense; that’s why we’re all here; we all are part of the process — “and I got zero response from the government.”

Whoa, what an indictment against the government. What an indictment against the first-past-the-post electoral system. Obviously, proportional representation will take care of that, right? Well, I don’t know how, because we’re still going to have a government side and an opposition side.

[5:10 p.m.]

The fact is that that is a falsehood, a fabrication, a wild allusion. I’ve got two pages full of lists of money that was spent in his riding — $53.9 million for Belmont Secondary School to accommodate 1,200 students at the new Belmont school building. That was June of 2013. How about up to $7.4 million for the extension of the Westshore Parkway project, with matching contributions from the federal government — and the city of Langford also being a part of that? The total project was $22 million.

And $7 million for capital funding for the Pacifica Housing Advisory Association from B.C. Housing to build 64 low- and moderate-income family units in Langford. And $6.3 million in construction financing for Goldstream Avenue, again from the B.C. government, to do affordable rental housing initiatives there. And we can go on to resurfacing of roads in Sooke. We can talk about the interchange at Leigh Road. We can talk about resurfacing Highway 14. A total of $105 million. I find it amazing that somehow that is zero, in the midst of arguments for proportional representation.

I’m sorry. There is no possible way I can support this bill going forward at this time. Absolutely, I am supporting the amendment that is before us — that this be considered six months from now. To have it in the midst of a vote, in the midst of an electoral period, where we have restrictions on who can do what and why with large penalties for those who disobey…. We’ve got restrictions not only on how much you can say, who can say it, how they can do it…. Believe it or not, we’re having fights over what we can actually do as MLAs.

At least in theory, this Legislature is supposed to be exempt from it so that we can talk to our constituents freely about whatever is being discussed in this House. But no, oh no. No, no, no. We’re getting some really strange interpretations from time to time. They’re just sitting there saying: “No, you can’t communicate to your constituents at this point in time because we’re in the midst of an election writ.” Well, that’s exactly what this is, and this is the government spending an awful lot of money to shore up the yes side of the referendum bill. There are an awful lot of people that are scared stiff about what’s going on and what’s happening here, because they don’t trust this government.

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 40 and the hoist motion put forward by my colleague from Vancouver–False Creek. Politicians talk all the time about….

Interjection.

J. Sturdy: We do.

My predecessor is an excellent example of that. We talk all the time about the most important issues, the most important speech, the most important event that’s happening. While it may or may not be true, certainly I believe that in this case, the issue of Bill 40 and the potential to hoist this bill for a period of six months is, in fact, the most important issue that we’re dealing with in this parliament.

How we choose our government is fundamental. This is the third time in 13 years, as you know, as the Speaker knows, I’m sure, that we have been at this debate. Clearly, I had certainly hoped that it was settled some years ago, but here we are, back again. It’s an example of the future, I believe.

The Third Party and the Premier and the leadership in some backroom cabal has decided that we should do this all over again. I do understand that the Premier actually flipped on this particular issue. He originally was not in favour of proportional representation and flipped in 2009. My story is exactly the reverse.

[5:15 p.m.]

I guess it really came down to the Greens, who drove this, who are all in on this particular issue, and they forced it as part of the CASA agreement, as a condition for forming government. “You will do….” Fill in the blank. And that is, in fact, the future. That is what PR is going to bring us in this House, if we go in this direction.

Any special interest group that gets 5 percent of the vote will get members. They can make whatever demands they prioritize as part of their calculation and payoff for power. Just like what happened last year, actually, in this House. The difference will be that it will be every single time. Every single election.

As I said, I travelled a different route from the Premier. In 2003-04, I followed the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform — good process, in my mind. I thought it was non-partisan. It was outside of the hands of politicians, with randomly selected representatives from all constituencies around the province — First Nations representation — guided, to some degree, by academics and researchers who helped this group of citizens understand what was being considered.

It is complicated. There’s no question about that. This is not something to just be considered lightly. This is something that people need to be educated on. Certainly, this has not been the case in this go-round, which is, again, why we need to take a little bit more time and educate and discuss in more detail what is being proposed and what is really being considered.

The citizens’ assembly generated a report — after some good work, some thoughtful consideration — that they presented to this Legislature, to this House. In fact, I know that there are members who are sitting here today who saw that report.

Debate ensued, and the decision was made to put the proposition of BCSTV to the people, in conjunction with the 2005 election — not like this time where this is a secret, backroom deal that was arranged in payment for an agreement to govern. In this case, the cabinet is going to come up with the rules behind closed doors.

In 2005, the provincial election ensued. This was to get a better turnout. This was to have a good engagement and to have people really come forward and make a decision — unlike this time, where we’re going to see…. It’s almost like the intention is to suppress turnout. The majority thresholds are gone. The riding thresholds are gone. The objective seems to be to diminish the participation.

In 2005, I thought this seemed like a good idea. Make every vote count. What’s not to like? We were also dealing with incomplete information. There was quite a big miss, actually — just things like what the riding looked like. That’s not something that I really identified for my own particular vote. I thought: “Make every vote count. What’s not to like?”

In 2005, I voted in favour of it. In many ways, what we did was dodge a bullet, because the referendum didn’t quite meet the thresholds. The Premier of the day acknowledged that there was interest there and that the electorate wanted to know more and should have another look at it.

[5:20 p.m.]

The decision was made to run it again in the 2009 election but this time with a little more information — with an idea of what the ridings looked like, of how many members we would be seeing, of the rules.

For me, in 2005, I’d also been elected as the mayor of Pemberton. I spent the next four years working with my MLA, planning for my community, in the interests of my community, building up to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, which were hosted just down the road — in part, anyway — in Whistler, working with the MLA and the First Nations in the area to make sure that the interests and the activities were in the interests of the local community. It became very clear to me that local representation at a provincial level was critical, so that we would be serving the community and serving the region.

It became clear to me in the lead-up to the 2009 referendum that if we went to proportional representation, Pemberton would be part of a huge riding, a riding of as many as a quarter of a million people, that we would have no one accountable to me as a community leader or to my community at all. We’d be working with multiple members, potentially working at odds against each other, with the result that as a region, we’d get nowhere.

Pemberton has 5,000 people living in it; Whistler, 10,000; Squamish, at the time, about 15,000; and the various rural areas around the electoral areas, about 5,000 people. So there are 35,000 people in the Sea to Sky, in a riding of a quarter million. The Sea to Sky would be an afterthought, and we know it’s not. The Sea to Sky would be almost irrelevant. It would rarely see any participation, any representation. I could see that it just did not make sense for us.

In 2009, I voted against proportional representation. Fortunately, I think many other people did have the same experience. They began to better understand what this meant for them, and the outcome of the vote was significantly different. Rather than a close vote, this time it was soundly defeated.

Here we are back again, back to square one, extorted into a deal with the Greens to gain power but with a trust-me. “Trust me” is the approach. “Trust me” is what the mantra seems to be. We’re back to the days of no maps, no ridings, no knowledge of what the membership would look like. How many members would we be talking about? We’ve no idea of what we’re really voting on.

“Don’t worry; nothing to see here. Trust us. It’ll be okay. We’ll figure it out later. We’re going to have an all-party committee, you know” — dominated, of course, by the Greens and the NDP. What’s not to like, right? Well, plenty, I’d say. I had come to the conclusion, in 2009, that BCSTV was a bad outcome for B.C. Unfortunately, it almost looks good compared to what’s on the table today.

PR will potentially lead to a poor investment climate, because it leads to instability. Italy — it’s the one that’s commonly used as an example — has had 65 governments in 70 years. Or is it 70 governments in 65 years? I can never remember. It leads to a constant threat of toppling government. If the holder of the balance of power doesn’t get what they want, they could have a little temper tantrum, a little hissy fit, and topple government or threaten to topple government. Does it sound familiar? I would say it does.

[5:25 p.m.]

Three systems are being proposed — all worse, in my view, than STV and all not well understood at all. This is, again, why we need to look at how we can spend more time understanding what is proposed, which is why I’m supporting the hoist motion. We’ve got dual-member proportional, mixed-member proportional and rural-urban proportional. I’ve gone through these time and time again. I’m trying to find an easy way to describe the examples, and it’s just not there. But I think we could sum it up in some respects. They are all more or less party-controlled, as opposed to voter-controlled.

In mixed-member proportional representation, 5 percent of the vote gets you members in this House. Imagine. We are here today with a minority parliament for the first time in 65 years. Understand all the backroom workings, the shenanigans, the discussions, the jiggery-pokery — I had to get that in — that we’ve had to work through. You know what? That is the future. If we go to a proportional representation system, that is what we can expect to see continuously. Every election you can’t count on anything anybody commits to.

I can’t recall now, actually, if it was the Third Party Leader, or perhaps it was the leader of the NDP. I think it was the Third Party. “Election promises are irrelevant.” Certainly, a truer word was never said in this situation. It was appalling in many respects, but it was true because you know your government will be determined in the back room by faceless, unaccountable people and party bosses who negotiate for power.

Think about that 5 percent. Well, we have 28 parties currently in B.C. One of them is the Marijuana Party. I think we all know that it’s an important day in British Columbia, because today is the first day that recreational cannabis has become legal. Well, in 2001, the Marijuana Party got 3.2 percent of the vote. Can you imagine a circumstance where they might get 5 percent? I think it’s more than conceivable.

A single-issue party could very well hold the balance of power. If it’s not marijuana, it’s another issue. I suspect we’re going to see the Free Ferry Party. I mean, there are 700,000 people living on Vancouver Island. It could be a good strategy for somebody.

Interjection.

J. Sturdy: Maybe we’ve got the beginning of the party sitting over here on the front bench.

Just think about those ideas that could resonate with just 5 percent of the electorate and control the agenda. The idea that extremist parties will not get elected is, frankly, ridiculous. Of course they will. It just goes with the territory.

There have been some interesting quotes that have been generated. The one I like in particular…. I’m not sure that the Communist Party of British Columbia — which has, incidentally, been around for a long time — is necessarily going to get 5 percent of the vote, but hey, one never knows. I thought it was a really interesting quote when they said: “While proportional representation doesn’t guarantee more positive government policies, it increases the chances to elect communists.”

Well, that’s a good motivation. That’s what we’re talking about, potentially. These are special interest parties. These are special interest groups that are going to ultimately control the agenda.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The power will shift away from the bulk of British Columbia and be reallocated to, certainly, the most populous areas. Rural B.C.’s loss of representation will be enormous.

[5:30 p.m.]

As I said earlier, Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton…. I could just see losing our voice, losing our individual voice. But who will gain? It will be the parties. It will be the leaders. It will be the political leaders. If you get 5 percent of the vote, you don’t have to actually win any ridings, but you get seats.

If you don’t win a riding and you get seats, how — you may ask — are the members actually selected? I think that is an excellent question — not a question that we actually know the answer to, mind you. My guess would be the first person that would be appointed would be the party leader, right? Then the second person, probably the deputy leader. Maybe the third person is the chief fundraiser, and the fourth, you know, the chief political hatchet guy. I mean, who knows? It’s whatever the party and party leader wants to do. And who are these MLAs accountable to — the electorate? No, no. The leader and no one else.

Today people complain about the concept of party discipline and the Whip system. I’m not sure they necessarily understand it, but some people have experience with it. It riles people, and it’s understandable. But if a member is not happy with their party, or the party, frankly, is not happy with their member, as has happened…. I think we have seen that happen. We’ve seen that happen in this House, and we have actually seen that happen on this side of the House when we were not on this side of the House. Well actually, we have, I suppose, haven’t we? Yes, indeed. I stand mistaken. I apologize. I don’t want to put forward a mistruth.

The point being that if the member’s not happy, the member can resign from caucus or be removed from caucus. But that doesn’t meant that those people have no representation. It means that that member sits as an independent. That member has to face the voters next time around, no question about it, and be accountable for the decisions they made. The voters may or may not agree with the decisions that member has made, but that MLA is still in the House.

In the future, if you don’t like the direction your party is going and you resign your seat or perhaps the leader doesn’t like what you, as a member, have to say — doesn’t like your attitude, doesn’t like your hair colour — they can just toss you out. You’re gone. And you’re not just gone out of caucus; you’re gone out of this Legislature, because you serve at the pleasure of your leader, not at the pleasure of your constituents.

If you think party discipline is a problem now, there will be an iron fist in the future, because you are no longer an MLA. You’re just gone.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. Sturdy: The leader will pick a more amenable member, somebody who will conform. You should pay attention over there. Somebody who will take your place, and the electorate has nothing to say about it.

Interjection.

J. Sturdy: They will.

I fully intend to be accountable for what I’m saying, because what I’m saying is accurate, unlike what is being proposed across the floor, which is…. There is no detail to what is being proposed. We have no idea. Just make it up. Yeah, exactly. Just make it up. “Don’t worry,” they say, “It’ll all work out. Trust us.”

Well, we’re already seeing this muzzling, in some respects, when we talk about PR. I talk to members opposite, especially from the rural ridings, and ask: how is PR good for your constituents?

[5:35 p.m.]

They have little or nothing to say. They know that it will silence the voice of their communities. They know that they just need to be supportive, because the CASA agreement required it. The government agreed to move PR forward and, interestingly, to campaign vigorously in support of whatever was proposed. What was proposed? Didn’t have any idea what was going to be proposed, but they were going to campaign vigorously in favour of it. Pretty astounding.

Campaigning in favour of something that was not defined or developed or even written down, other than on the back of a napkin, is irresponsible, at best, and certainly not in the best interests of the constituents. The idea that “we don’t know what’s going on, but we’re going to support it fully” is the future of B.C. politics if PR is adopted.

Fortunately, this is not the type of blind allegiance that we’re teaching in the new curriculum in B.C. schools these days. Critical thinking is the future, fortunately. It’s too bad the CASA agreement runs contrary to this principle.

I will give the Premier credit, however. The Third Party wanted to just impose proportional representation. At least, the Premier was good enough to kibosh that and ensure that it went to a referendum, which is the right thing to do, certainly. It’s just the wrong time. We don’t have the information we need to have an informed decision, which is why we need to hoist this proposition for six months.

The idea that we would impose things on the electorate is the future. Draconian action is the future of what politics looks like in British Columbia in the case of minority power. It does make you wonder what else the Third Party has in the works that they aren’t talking about. After all, the details in the plans of the government will not be known before people emerge from the back rooms to let you know what the next five-year plan is all about.

That’s exactly how it’s working in other jurisdictions. In New Zealand, in the last election, the New Zealand First party, with Winston Peters as the leader, otherwise known as the Donald Trump of New Zealand…. In a country approximately the same population as British Columbia, 4.5 million people, New Zealand First party got 7 percent of the vote across the whole country, which equates to approximately 9 seats. They didn’t actually win any individual seats at all. All their seats are through appointment.

The New Zealand First party is a socially conservative, nationalist, anti-immigration party. It was really interesting. They had a group of unnamed people in a back room that took a month to decide who to do a deal with and what was going to be on that deal. What were the details of it? They didn’t really articulate any principles other than they seemed motivated by where they got the best power deal.

They’ve had a history of this, actually, ever since New Zealand has adopted PR. They’ve supported the National Party. They’ve supported the Labour Party. I think they even supported the Green Party at one point. They’d support anybody. It really didn’t matter. “What’s the best way to get power?”

So you’d wonder. What are some of the things that they might be negotiating for? Could it be the prime-ministership? No, but what about the Deputy Prime Minister? If you suspected that the appointment of the Deputy Prime Minister was going to the unelected leader of the New Zealand First party, you would be right. The Deputy Prime Minister is Winston Peters. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. The antithesis of “make every vote count.” In this case, 7 percent of the vote is what counts. Just 7 percent.

[5:40 p.m.]

This is what happened in New Zealand just recently, and this is the future in B.C. if we adopt PR. It seems to happen in every country that’s adopted proportional representation, and it happens virtually every time.

It’s ironic that voters who believe they’re picking the leaders and picking leadership would be wrong because their vote doesn’t count. The better strategic plan for voters, oftentimes, would be to vote for the 5 percent because they’re the 5 percent who ultimately have power. But we don’t really know how our system would be proposed to work. There’s so much to be decided. Elections B.C. has identified 29 things that still need to be decided. Nobody in this House today can say with any confidence what type of election process that we can expect if PR is approved.

Will electors know what riding they live in? No. That’s a pretty fundamental thing to understand, but they won’t know. How many MLAs will we have in British Columbia? Yet to be determined. How many MLAs in any given riding? Who knows? We’ll find out eventually. Trust us, they say. A leap of faith, the Premier says.

Well, for me, that’s not good enough. I want to know what we’re voting for, other than a backroom deal with unidentified people negotiating for unknown priorities other than power.

First-past-the-post works. Like the municipal elections that are happening right now — 87 elections around the province. Provincially, there are — I don’t know how many — 200-some-odd municipalities and regional districts. Thousands of elections. The person with the most votes wins. The mayoral candidate that gets the most votes wins. Is there a problem with that particular approach? I would say no, but this is what we’re proposing to do away with.

In British Columbia, there are 87 elections around the province, and the party with the most wins forms government. PR is one election rather than 87. The local candidate is almost irrelevant. Five percent of the vote gets 5 percent of the seats, and who represents or lives in an area just really doesn’t matter. A party doesn’t actually have to win any seats, but they get seats. Local representation is out the window. Party lists and parties are dominant. We are potentially going from a voter-based system to a party-dominated system. This is just wrong, and I will be supporting the motion to hoist this bill.

J. Martin: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the hoist motion, the amendment.

This is a very different debate than we’ve gone through, moving into my sixth year in this chamber. Certainly, it’s one of the most critical, one of the most important. From the get-go, it’s probably been the single sloppiest, most flawed process ever since the initial PR legislation was brought forward.

We’ve been down this road before. We’ve had not one but two referendums recently, in 2005 and 2009. Both of them were legitimate. They were transparent, they were honest, and they were genuine. This is something very different.

In those previous referendums, they had the benefit of being informed by the citizens’ assembly — not by cabinet, not by politicians and certainly not by a political party. They were informed by citizens, selected at random from all over the province, who spent months and months touring beautiful British Columbia, finding out: what do British Columbians think is deficient in our democracy? What do British Columbians think? How do they think, maybe, we can enhance our democracy? What improvements could we look at? We should keep on doing something like that every ten, 15 years.

[5:45 p.m.]

We should always look at improving our system and ensuring that we are able to perform our job in this House as legislators better than we were able to do ten, 20, 30 years ago. We should always be moving forward in that direction.

The citizens’ assembly was a completely non-partisan, non-political process. There were no politicians involved. The Premier’s office had nothing to do with it. It went straight from the citizens’ assembly to a process of determining what a ballot question should look like, and it went to Elections B.C. Basically, it was hands-off from all political entities, and that’s the way a referendum of this nature should be done. It was done in both cases, in 2005 and 2009.

Now, what was the difference in the outcome of the two referendums? In 2009, the support to move to a new system was almost cut in half. But what was the difference between 2005 and 2009?

Well, in 2009, the people of British Columbia were provided with maps of what their riding would look like under a new electoral system. When they saw what was going to happen — how the ridings were going to double, sometimes triple, in size, how existing ridings were going to be amalgamated — they wanted no part of it. That, I put to this House, is the one and only reason that we don’t have maps going into this process.

The response from the government — why don’t we have maps? — is: “We don’t have enough time.” Well, there’s a hoist motion taking place right now to give you enough time to do that. Take advantage of the opportunity to inform British Columbians of what their riding is going to look like.

I want to know if I’m going to be in riding called Chilliwack-Abbotsford-Aldergrove or Chilliwack-Abbotsford-Mission? Or am I going to be in a riding of Chilliwack-Hope-Merritt-Kamloops? I want to know that. I have a right to know that. My people that I represent have a right to know that. The government is saying: “No, you don’t have a right to know that. You don’t even need to do that. Just sit down. Defer to your betters. We’ll let you know what your riding’s going to look like when we get around to it.”

That is one of the major differences between what we’re going through right now and what we went through in 2005 and 2009. There was transparency. There was honesty. There was credibility. That is very different than what we are seeing right now. This process is a disgrace.

When the federal government started down the path to look at a new system of electoral reform toward proportional representation, they spent much more considerable time looking at it before they realized: “Hey, this is bad news.” But they gave it months and months and months. This has been a rushed process. The debate has been rushed.

The Premier is now backing off from a public debate with the Leader of the Opposition that he publicly agreed to. Now he’s backing off. Well, why? Why, all of a sudden, does the Premier not want to go into a public setting and talk about this wonderful Shangri-la of electoral system that we’re apparently going to move into, where everyone sits around, and they get along so well, and they break bread and drink tea together? I’ve seen some video clips of European parliaments. It looked a little bit different to me, but be that as it may.

Why won’t the Premier engage with the Leader of the Opposition? Simple. It’s because, just as in 2009, when British Columbians got to see those maps and what was going to happen to their ridings and their communities, they wanted no part of it. This government and this Premier are well aware that the more information British Columbians have, the less likely they’re going to support proportional representation. So that is why we’re seeing the Premier back away from the public debate, and that is why we are seeing this reluctance of the government to be forthcoming.

The absolute nonsense that all of these 22 or 23 key elements will be determined after the vote…. It doesn’t work that way. People expect more from politicians. They expect more from their elected representatives than: “Hey, vote this way. Trust us. We’ll tell you what we’re going to do later.”

[5:50 p.m.]

A leap of faith. I’ve got another term for it, but I’d have to withdraw by the exact moment I got it out of my breath, so I’ll withhold that for now.

Interjection.

J. Martin: Not here.

What else was different in 2005 and 2009? British Columbians were given a straightforward, clear-cut question: do you want to keep the current system, or do you want to move to the STV system? It was clear-cut, it was honest, it was straightforward, and it was easy to determine — exactly like the Premier told us the question was going to be for this referendum.

Well, that is not at all what we’re getting. We’ve all seen the ballot, and it is far from a clear-cut, straightforward A or B ballot that we were promised. Why are we not getting the ballot that the Premier promised us? He went public and said, “Yeah, straightforward, that’s right,” when asked if it would be a yes-or-no, straightforward question.

We have a very complex ballot. Where did it come from? It came from a group in Ontario. Not only did they devise one of the proportional representation systems that doesn’t exist on planet Earth, not only were they able to make up one of the systems, but they designed the ballot question. Another one of the ballot options for proportional representation doesn’t exist on planet Earth either. That’s more than a leap of faith. That is insanity. That is madness.

There are lots of proportional representation systems out there that people tend to, in those countries, be happy with. I am all for having an adult conversation about the merits of enhancing, improving or even changing our existing electoral system. But let’s look at some of the other systems that do exist and are in use and have been for use for many years.

We’ve got a math student from Alberta who made up one of the systems, and we’ve got an activist group in Ontario that made up another one of the systems. How is that serving British Columbia? The third system is used by four countries in the world. How is that serving British Columbians?

This whole mantra of “one person, one vote; make your vote count; every vote counts; 22 percent of the vote should equal 22 percent of the seats” — well, none of the three options will deliver that. The only way 22 percent of the vote delivers 22 percent of the seats is if you have a strict party list, whether it’s open or closed. But you need a strict party list. People vote for the party that they chose. At the end of the day, when the ballots are counted, if a party gets 16 percent of the vote, they’ll get 16 percent of the seats. Those seats in the Legislature? They’ll represent different areas or different regions. There’ll be some formula for that.

This ballot does not offer a strict process like that, of an open list or closed list. There’s a mixture. You will not get that result that they are basically going around promoting that happens under proportional representation. So why can’t we have an adult conversation about legitimate systems that actually exist on this planet, for starters? That’d be kind of a nice way to begin the dialogue.

In 2005, 2009, a straightforward question. It was non-political. It was non-partisan. It was hands off by the government. It was hands off by the Premier’s office. That is the model that we should be using.

We’ve got time to deal with this, and we need to take a breath and slow down. We’ve got another opportunity to do this properly. I’m not opposed to a referendum, not opposed to it whatsoever. But you need an honest, non-political ballot, and a ballot has to be something that is straightforward and clear.

Another six months of contemplation is something that both sides of the House could all benefit from, giving British Columbians an honest and fair opportunity to have a say in their future, in their political destiny of the province, just as we did in 2005 and 2009. That is not what is happening here.

One of most frustrating things for me in this whole debate, the entire narrative around proportional representation, is this nonsense that people are underrepresented or not represented at all under the present system.

[5:55 p.m.]

I have lived in various parts of this province. Federally, I have had Liberal, NDP and Conservative Members of Parliament. I’ve had Social Credit, B.C. Liberal and NDP MLAs in different parts of the province. At no time did I think for a second that I didn’t have an MLA or an MP. I always did. The fact that I may or may not have voted for that person has nothing to do with it. It’s irrelevant. And to spew this absolute garbage that if you are NDP supporter and you live in a riding that has an MLA of a different political persuasion, you don’t have representation is…. It is a disgrace if anyone would even come to that conclusion. It is absolutely unforgivable to come up with such nonsense.

People come into my office. I don’t check and ask how they voted. I don’t look for a party membership card. People sometimes come into my office. They’ll sit down. They’re ready to talk about the file, the case, that they’re ready to deal with, and they’ll say to me: “Hey, I voted for you.” And I say: “Hey, thanks. That’s great, but we don’t talk about that in here. What can I help you with?”

When we’re in Victoria, yes, we’re political animals. We’re partisan creatures. We’re legislators that have an agenda, and we are very, very forceful and very aggressive often in our opinions and our calculations.

When we’re back in the ridings, we’re social workers. We’re mediators. We’re deal brokers. We’re trying to fix things. We’re trying to help people get from point A to point B and get through some of the nonsense of the bureaucracy and the red tape. We don’t care what the political persuasion of our client is when they come into the office.

To say that somehow no one in the Okanagan who is a supporter of the NDP or the Greens has an MLA is absolute garbage, and I wish there was an opportunity for people that have said that to think about it and take those words back, because it’s offensive. That’s what it is. It’s downright offensive.

When we look at the process we’re going through right now…. I mean, how are we here in this chamber at this very moment speaking to a hoist motion? It’s because Bill 40 was brought forward. Well, when a bill is brought forward in this House, they tend to be of different natures, different descriptions. Sometimes they’re these huge, major, mandatory bills that come in that define the current legislator. They define the current government — a budget, a major piece of legislation that was in the campaign platform.

Then we have some of the more minor ones that are basically rewriting some statutes and policies or maybe merging some of the existing statutes out there. We have other pieces of legislation that are more of a housekeeping nature, very mundane. You tend to get very little debate about it. It’s a foregone conclusion that people are going to support it on both sides of the House.

Well, Bill 40 doesn’t fall into one of those categories. You need a different file to put Bill 40 in, and that’s called the gimmick file, because that’s all it is. It is a gimmick. Since last spring, support for proportional representation has dropped by 20 percent. It has been in free-fall, and the government is clearly worried about how much lower it’s going to go.

Back in the spring, this was looking like two to one in favour of proportional representation. We’re told it’s a dead heat now by the pollsters. “Okay. Hey, we’ve got a great idea. Let’s bring in a piece of legislation that says: ‘Hey, if you go to PR, it’s not a big deal. It’s not the end of the world. In eight years, we’ll have another referendum, and you can go back to it if you want.’” It’s a gimmick. It is simply there to try and appease some people who are very, very concerned about moving to something that they may regret — buyer’s remorse. So here’s a way to placate them. “Hey, eight years, two more elections, and you can go back again.” It’s absolute nonsense.

[6:00 p.m.]

Bill 40, if it passes, does not bind a future government to do anything of the sort. No government is beholden to the decisions of a government from eight years ago. The current government has undone several pieces of legislation that the previous government, which I was a part of, did — for instance, the mandatory portion of the carbon tax, whereby it had to be revenue-neutral. Now it’s just another tax grab. It’s just more revenue for the government to spend however they see fit. They undid a piece of legislation that was brought in about eight years ago, ten years ago.

A future government does not have to hold a referendum, and depending on what happens with the vote, it’s very likely that we would never, ever see an opportunity for another referendum. Let’s be honest with ourselves. This is a gimmick. It’s a little bit of a smokescreen. It’s something to try to bring the temperature of the debate down and comfort some people that are very concerned and very worried.

I like some of the things I’m hearing about PR. I’ve talked to people from other countries, and they say: “It’s pretty good. You should really give it some consideration.” But I’m worried that if we go there, we’re stuck there forever. What if it doesn’t work? Remember, a lot of these countries that are under PR are very different. I mean, they could fit into some of the ridings that members in this Legislature represent.

Is it going to work in a place like British Columbia, which has so much of the province very sparsely populated, ridings that can take the better part of ten hours to get from one end to the other? By suggesting that we’re going to get another opportunity to have a second referendum and roll it back — “Well, I guess we could afford that; I can live with that” — we know this is not legitimate. This is not honest. We know that this is simply a gimmick.

What is this nonsense in the Elections B.C. guide — the handout, the booklet — that describes everything about the proportional representation? It basically suggests it’s a foregone conclusion that there’ll be another debate in eight years. We haven’t even voted on that. Where did that come from? Who directed Elections B.C. to put that into the booklet? That is disgraceful. There should be no mention of something like that, which is currently before the House and is being debated. It may pass; it may not. We don’t know.

There is absolutely no opportunity for British Columbians to look through that guide and get an honest sense of what is going on. This guide tells them that they’ve got an opportunity to change it back in eight years. That may or may not be the case if the legislation does or does not pass, and it certainly won’t be the case, inevitably, because a future government doesn’t have to do anything that a government eight years ago passed into law.

Let’s have an adult conversation, and let’s be honest about it. So far, we’ve seen anything but that. Now, we talk about the opportunity for other parties. Right now there are three parties that have representation in the House. There were several other parties that contested the last election. What happens under proportional representation is that we tend to see not so much the election of smaller fringe parties, but it certainly enables the opportunity for them to get representation. That can be a good thing or a not-so-good thing.

It doesn’t take an awful lot to get 5 percent support for a particular cause. The Western Canada Concept, if that were a political party back in the day, would’ve gotten 5 percent if they contested a British Columbia election. We’ve seen some populist movements that very easily would get 5 percent of the vote in a provincial election. You might be quite uncomfortable having a representative of some of these groups. I don’t want to sit beside communists. I don’t want to sit beside Nazis; I don’t want to sit beside racists.

[6:05 p.m.]

That is what we see in parliaments in other parts of the world that have proportional representation. We literally see, in the German Parliament, a significant number of unabashed, self-described neo-Nazis. We need to be very, very careful about enabling that type of intrusion and extremism into our Legislature, because it happens elsewhere.

To say: “Oh, yeah, that’s over there; it can’t happen here….” Well, why can’t it? Why can’t it happen here? What insulations do we have for a very extreme, very dangerous organization that could get 5 percent of the vote? What insulation do we have that prohibits them from getting representation under the model that’s being proposed? We need to be extremely, extremely careful.

In this country, there are parties in provinces that come and go. Most people will recall…. It wasn’t that long ago that they were saying: “Voting is hopeless in British Columbia. If you’re not voting Socred, you’re just wasting your time. The Socreds will never, ever be voted out of power.” Well, they said the same next door in Alberta with the Tories: “Why even vote, unless you’re voting for the Conservatives? They’re going to get in anyway, with a supermajority.” Well, we saw what happened next door. Social Credit may exist in a registry at Elections B.C., but that’s about it.

On the federal scene, we saw a populist movement, rooted originally in some western alienation and dissatisfaction with the status quo. We saw the emergence of the Reform Party. That didn’t last too long. It became the Canadian Alliance party. It didn’t last too long and eventually merged, and you have a newly branded Conservative Party.

I mean, parties come and go. To think that somehow the B.C. Liberals on this side, or the NDP or the Greens, are forever going to be an entity in British Columbia is a little bit foolhardy, because that’s not up to us. If a party is not able to rebrand itself and stay relevant, very often they do soon become extinct. We see that happening all over the place.

Look at what just happened in Quebec. That’s kind of an interesting one. The separatists always had the same attitude as the NDP, which is, basically: “Okay, all right. We lost a referendum. We didn’t get the result we want, but we’re going to keep doing it until we get the right outcome, and that’ll be it. That’ll be good.” Well, the separatists are now — temporarily, at least — basically a footnote on the political scene in Quebec, and that’s a good thing.

There’s an ebb and flow, and it happens naturally. It doesn’t happen by politicians bringing in a new system of how to conduct an election. It happens with the people of the province or the people of the country who want change, who want something different, who tire of the status quo. Once a wave like that happens, there’s very little you can do to stop it.

To his credit — I’ve always respected the man, and I always will — the Premier was adamant that we are going to put this to a referendum. His partners in the minority government, the Greens, had a different view: “No, British Columbians shouldn’t have a say in this. Let’s just do it. Let’s just impose it on them. They have to take it, whether they like it or not.” That’s a very uncomfortable approach, and I thank the Premier for holding his ground. Certainly, any minority government is always shaky, and anything can happen from one day to the next. As a matter of principle, he dug his heels in. I commend him for that.

As we move forward with the proportional representation process, there’s an opportunity to hit the pause button, to do that right now with the benefit of this hoist motion, and think through some of these things that are being brought up in the House. They matter, and British Columbia matters an awful lot to each and every one of us.

[6:10 p.m.]

As I say, my constituents have a right to know what type of riding they will be living in and voting in. They want to know if they’re going to be swallowed up by a much larger community next door. They want to know if they’re going to have to book an afternoon off work to drive 3½ hours to go see their MLA. Right now they don’t have to do that. If we move to a system of PR, then all of a sudden my riding moves all the way up the Coquihalla to Kamloops and beyond. They will have to book a day off if they want to come and see their MLA. That is not good representation. That is not providing good service to your constituents.

Everyone in British Columbia, whether they’re in an urban or a rural riding, has a right to elect their member of the Legislature or their Member of Parliament. Senators are assigned to us. You know, there has always been a debate that we should be able to elect our senators. Well, it’s never actually happened. They’re assigned to us.

Under two of the models that are being proposed in the ballot on proportional representation, almost half of the ridings would have someone assigned to them, who may have never, ever set foot in the ridings. Now, I could go around from one side of this House to the other and sit down and have a little 90-second chat with each and every member and say: “How did you get to the point where you got elected?”

They’ll say: “Well, you know, I’ve been very community-minded. I’m part of Rotary. I volunteer here. I chair this board,” or “I run a business in this town. I’ve hired people. I’ve created jobs. I’ve expanded industry,” or “Hey, I was a teacher here and a principal. I mean, I know these people. These people I bump into on the street were my students from 40 years ago, and I see them now.”

You know, we chat, and we remember what it was like. That’s because we have roots in the community. We know those communities. We know the problems, the challenges and the obstacles. I would dare to say that the overwhelming majority of us are here as a consequence of being elected because we have some of those attributes of being community-involved, having a history of working in our community, representing that community, being very active and making it a better place. “Yeah, I think that guy would be good going to Ottawa. I think that guy or that girl would be really good going to Victoria.”

Under PR, that’s gone. A party boss will sit down and decide who’s going to be your MLA, who’s going to represent you. It doesn’t have to be someone from your riding; it doesn’t have to be someone from anywhere near your part of the province. It can be someone who’s never set foot in your community. “Hey, this is your representative. Suck it up. That’s the way that it’s going to be. Get used to it.”

That is a system that I absolutely cannot support. If we’re going to have an adult conversation, if we’re going to have a ballot, let’s make sure that it is a fair, transparent, honest process, and let’s hit the pause button and get it right.

Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the amendment, the member for Kelowna West.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure and an honour to rise on this amendment about Bill 40, because I think that this whole process that we’ve been going through since over a year ago, when it was announced that there was going to be a referendum…. I go back to the history about why it is that we’re faced today with Bill 40, and why we need to take a time-out on this.

I think it goes back to the fact that it’s not that there hasn’t been enough time to properly have open, public debate or to make certain that there’s been proper consultation in this. I think that it goes back to this agreement that basically was signed between the Green caucus and the B.C. New Democrats. The second item, “Making democracy work for people,” talks about the fact that this was a power grab. This is about staying in power.

[6:15 p.m.]

What did they say about power? Doesn’t it corrupt all? Isn’t that kind of what the problem is here — this whole scenario, from this agreement to today, to when the Attorney General introduced this bill?

Our members felt that the best thing to do for British Columbians, while we’re in the middle of a debate — or not just a debate, an actual election process, a referendum process, with the ballots imminently coming out…. The fact is that these people are uninformed, and the whole process has been, as the former Member for Cowichan Valley used to say, jiggery-pokery. I laugh when I hear that, and I think that he’d laugh too if he was in the House today.

I do think that one of the things that is important is that the things that are stated in this agreement…. A lot of them are not actually coming out the way that they were stated — not even in this agreement.

It said: “A referendum on proportional representation will take place in the fall of 2018” — well, that’s accurate — “concurrent with the next municipal election,” which leads a lot of people to think that it could be on the ballot. But no, it’s kind of mired in the whole election process of literally thousands of people across British Columbia — school trustees, mayors, council members, regional district representatives.

The fact is that the ballot and the knowledge of what’s really going on has not really taken place. That’s one of the reasons why the pause and the amendment have been proposed — to take time and make certain that there’s no rushing of what Bill 40 is suggesting.

I think that the other things that are stated in here…. It says: “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.” Of course, today we have three forms. We don’t have just one.

Really, as they went through this kind of convoluted, complicated on-line referendum…. I filled it out, and I know, when I finished it, after 20 or more minutes of sitting down and thinking thoughtfully about each of these questions…. How does that actually determine or influence what the government is thinking about?

I think that probably there was a predetermined set of thoughts that the people that are working on this have had right from the start. That is shown when the minister marches in here the day before we adjourn in the spring session and brings out the ballot question. I mean, what are people supposed to think? There’s been really no public debate. There’s this on-line consultation with some 80,000 — out of how many millions — of voters that we have in the province of British Columbia. I mean, it’s ridiculous.

The fact that in 2003, when the Premier of the day said we were going to have a citizens’ coalition… They took 160 voters — voters, not just people that were from party lines. There were no political people on it. They were sent around the province for over 12 months. The bottom line is that they went out and did a consultation that looked at proportional representation and looked at other systems.

They came back and said at that time that they felt that the most fair system we should be looking at was single transferable vote. I don’t think many people understood what that meant. There was a fear of change.

It did not pass in that referendum that required 60 percent of the voters that voted in that referendum — on the 2005 general election. It was with the ballot to vote for your MLA. It was essentially defeated — but close, in the sense that it was determined by the government that they maybe had not done their job in making certain that voters understand exactly what it was that they were voting on.

They went back in 2009, and it was on the general election ballot. Now, you can’t tell me that that isn’t a public process that people have been engaged in, bought into. A year with 160 different voters, not party people, from across the province that went out and canvassed the province, came back and recommended to government a system that was different than first-past-the-post. It failed in the May 2009 election, and I think that for most of us, we felt that that system didn’t deserve to come back or shouldn’t be discussed further.

[6:20 p.m.]

However, that wasn’t the case when, in the 2017 election, we have a government that got less than the majority — still the majority of actual votes, the majority of seats. However, the other two parties formed a coalition, signed this agreement. And frankly, what is it all about? I go back to: it’s about power. That’s what they want. That’s why they stand up in the House and they talk the way they do.

The bottom line is: is it in the best interest of the people that they’re serving? Are they standing here and…? I mean, they’re arguing about things that, you know, if they were really in a caucus that was joined…. The way that my experience in caucus has been, we have our disagreements, but we sort that out before we come into the House, and we don’t threaten and do all the things that we hear from one side to the other: “If they don’t do this or they don’t do that, we’re going to throw them under the bus.”

One part of this…. They did agree to support the agreed-upon form of proportional representation and that they would actively campaign for that. That they’ve done, in spades. As a matter of fact…. It’s funny. Almost the day after the ballot question was announced in this House, I’m back in my riding just getting ready for summer break, and there’s a pro–proportional representation, “Let’s talk about the systems” — somebody that had the inside track and knowledge.

I mean, this has been a rigged game for so long. This is ridiculous. British Columbians know, and they want to make certain that this amendment goes through, because the fact is they want a time-out on nonsense like what’s being proposed.

It’s been — what has it been? — 16 long months. I think I heard that yesterday. Anyways, I think one of the things that came out in Bill 6, which came out in the fall session, was that…. Essentially, it talked about changing the referendum and recall act to make certain that less than the threshold that we’ve used on all sorts of other referendums and why we would change this to just simply 50 percent plus one, but not just 50 percent plus one, without any regional kind of component to it.

You can’t tell me that that’s fair, when three-quarters of the population pretty well lives in the Lower Mainland and the rest of us out in rural British Columbia. Even the area I live in is relatively rural. We probably have less than half a million people between Kamloops down to the border, and the situation is that we’re going to be shut out of this because they’ve changed the rules here.

The fact is: is this not important? I think that British Columbians…. The reason that…. I know, when I’ve been talking to people and they’ve come to information meetings that I have done on votes, on all the systems, what the ballot looks like, and in my information systems…. They can’t honestly believe that they have not had better information.

This book that Elections B.C. is sending out…. Well, it’s just coming out now. But the bottom line is it’s interesting. This book, as the previous member from Chilliwack just mentioned, shows that the government has been interfering with a non-partisan body, a statutory body that we appoint people to, to make independent decisions. You know, if we don’t like what they’re doing…. They basically have recently had a change in terms of how Elections B.C. operates.

The bottom line is that in this book that’s on line now and coming out to voters next week, it already talks about Bill 40 and what it’s saying. “You’re going to get the opportunity that if you don’t like what we’re choosing or what people vote on, you’re going to get a chance.” That’s wrong. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

The bottom line is…. You know what? Everything is at the last possible moment. The fact is that this thing…. I mean, let’s have it out. Let’s have a fair game of cricket or whatever you want to call it. But let’s not do this behind closed doors. This idea about the fact that there have been some changes in terms of what…. I think people have questioned the information process. And I don’t disagree that….

[6:25 p.m.]

The Premier said: “Well, listen. Let’s take a leap of faith.” I know that a lot of people have called it a lot of other leaps, but the point about it is that’s really what Bill 40 is all about and why we’re proposing that we amend that to delay that at least six months. I mean, besides the fact that you can’t hold another government for eight years ahead, etc., and as we heard about the fact that we can change…. You know, governments come and go. They have different priorities, and they may choose that they prefer that system because it happens to work for them and make certain that either they or their coalition stays in power. You never know how it is.

Or it could be that the coalition is so fractured, made up of multiple different fringe groups and whatever, that they have no interest in giving that power up. They are not going to support the idea that we’re going to have another referendum in a couple of…. Well, it’ll be so far into the future. We’re talking hypothetically that it could be 2030. We might not even be on this planet. You never know.

I think it’s important that we do make certain that we do amend this bill and delay it. I think that’s really what it is. We’re talking to the fact that the election could be held, or if proportional representation comes into play, that would be in July of 2021, and then two subsequent elections. I mean, it’s forever, right? It’s just a pipedream.

I think that the idea that there have been so many leaps of faith to get to where we are today…. I think we just need to pause. I just think that’s the right thing to do. I think the government and the Green Party would look a whole lot more credible if they realized that the voter…. The fact that there is the possibility of low voter turnout, the fact that it might be more urban-biased — I think that there is a reason. I think that they’re going to have to do another leap of faith in the sense that they’re going to have to find a way to back out of this so that they don’t have the rest of British Columbia disliking the outcome and some sort of self-imposed….

As we heard with promises previously, this was going to be an all-party committee that was going to discuss how we were going to deal with proportional representation. I don’t think anybody on this side of the House has been asked. I think that the bottom line is that we’ve been kept in the dark and fed the stories about the fact that we’re going to get to it. You’re going to have lots of time. I remember that comment about how nobody wants to debate this over the summer, during barbecue season and things like that.

The whole point about it is that we’re now into civic election mode, and the fact is that people are just finding out now. They’ve heard about a referendum, but they don’t really know what it is. So I think that it’s going to backfire in some ways. I don’t think that this is the right way to approach this. I think a deferral on this, before any other amendments to this whole process happen…. That’s why I’m standing here to speak about it tonight.

The other thing that is wrong about this system is the size. In 2009, we published maps under the fact that if we were going to change the system, instead of 79 ridings that we were electing for in 2009, we were going to be going down to 22. That meant that, under this system, we were going to have more people elected. So the sizes of the ridings were going to be massive.

I have to concur with the member who spoke previously about the fact that we go back and deal with issues around social work. That’s what we do in our constituency offices. We deal with things on ICBC, WorkSafe, the fact that they’re dealing with the things that, frankly, they need help with, whether it’s shelter or whether it’s…. We’re not there….

This type of stuff is what’s, unfortunately, occupying…. I find a lot of my time is going into this to make certain people are getting the answers. But the bottom line is that I have lots of priorities in my riding. And the bottom line is if I imagined a riding that was two, three, four, five times the size, I can’t imagine how it could be serviced by a single individual and a bunch of people picked off party lists.

[6:30 p.m.]

Now, this party list business is literally nonsense, as you can tell from the examples that have been cited. Italy, which has had proportional representation — not the same as what we’re proposing here — has had 65 governments, and the bottom line is that…. That’s since 1945. Belgium. Contrast that against Canada. We’ve had 22 federal elections since 1945. Clearly, a third less than Italy. What type of stability is that? Think about the extra costs. Do you worry about the costs? Maybe not.

I think the situation is that we have an important obligation to make certain that what we do get is that we get to a point where we elect people that can make decisions. The current system, first-past-the-post, for the most part delivers that. There’s been hardly any examples, from what I know, in probably the last 70 or 80 years of where there has been a situation where there has been either a deadlock or a situation where some party or parties can’t come together and work. Frankly, I think the system has worked pretty well, based on that example of what Canada has been through.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We have no maps. We’ve got the fact that the requirement for winning this referendum has now been reduced from 60 percent of the eligible voters, as well as 60 percent of the ridings, including rural ridings, being shut out of this. We have no public engagement. The bottom line is that rural areas are going to be left out of this, and that does concern me.

I mentioned a minute ago about costs. I’m thinking about the fact that…. I think I heard that the number we’re going to spend is $14 million on a mail-in ballot. Now, how logical is that? I mean, the fact that we…. I understand that we do things in government that sometimes cost money. But is there no way that we could have maybe found a different way to do this where it was included in a general election or a civic election or some other manner? But the bottom line is we’re using a mail-in ballot process.

I am concerned about the fact that there seems to be the appearance of the fact that there is interference by the Ministry of Attorney General. I think that that is a strong accusation. But clearly this document…. Somebody is directing it. That’s what’s happening. This document shows the fact that there is ongoing interference by the ministry that’s supposed to oversee a neutral statutory body. I don’t know whether the people on the opposite side of the House are taking this seriously or not. I say that, of course, meaning that they are taking the referendum seriously, but the fact that they seem to be crossing the line is something that is a very serious concern.

I think that when we talk about the different options here, what we’re talking about in terms of the different options, etc…. I think that one of the things that was done from information on the Elections B.C. website by the member from Vancouver…. He essentially put together a YouTube video that actually shows how these different systems works. It was a simple matter that he took the time to take the information that was available and put that into an interpretative manner so that people could actually understand: what does dual-member or mixed-member or rural-urban actually mean?

I think that probably it’s pretty clear that going from 87 ridings down to 20 something is going to lead to far more people that are actively taken and appointed off a party list. Well, that might be fine if you’re a party insider. But what about the voters? Aren’t they important? They’re the ones that should be voting. That’s what they have now. They have 87 different elections. They don’t have to sit down and worry that they’re not connected. I mean, how many people in the province of British Columbia have a political party membership? Is that what we’re going to distil this down to — that people that have a political party membership are going to be the ones that actually run the government because they’ve taken out a membership?

I lived in a country recently for 3½ years. That’s the way they run their country. If you don’t have a party membership, you basically don’t get to make decisions. I can tell you that that’s not the country or the province I want to live in. The reality is that….

[6:35 p.m.]

I think there’s a lot be said, even with not necessarily perfect voter turnout…. It did increase slightly in the last election. It’s over 60 percent, and I want to encourage people to get out and make certain that their vote does count, as they say.

As is suggested by the pro–proportional representation…. They suggest that not every vote, currently, is counted, or it doesn’t necessarily equate into a seat at the table. That doesn’t happen all the time, even at…. There has to be things that happen at family dinners or in business or whatever, and it often means that you don’t all have an equal seat at the table or a say as to how things are going to be run. That’s kind of what I think that the slogan is suggesting, that you really don’t have a say.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Frankly, if you look at it today, we got over 40 percent in the last general election. Are the people that voted for our particular party the ones that are going to be…? I mean, they’re not represented other than we sit in opposition. They don’t have an equal say to the people that got, let’s say, 15 percent of the votes in British Columbia. They have a completely different say at the table.

The bottom line is that we understand that in the particular situation that we’re faced with, we have to debate, and we have to talk about amending, etc. That’s why we’re here to amend this particular bill that’s in front of us. The amendment is really to delay and think about that.

We’re not supposed to be adjourning, are we? No. Okay.

Interjections.

B. Stewart: No, no. I’m not suggesting adjourning at all. I just…. Well, if we agree on the hoist motion, maybe we would agree. How does that sound?

Well, I think that what’s important is that when people do sit down and they do get informed…. I mean, simply put, there’s a lot of information. I’ve looked on line at this particular ballot from the Australian proportional representation system that they’re using as a ballot. Frankly, people take one look at it, and they’re completely baffled by the fact that…. How would they even possibly start with making a decision about who to vote for in an election where there are probably at least 20 to 30 different parties and people? I mean, some of these are very small, fringe parties.

As we heard about the situation confronting a very democratic government that, however, finds itself having to make an arrangement with the Germany-first party, which is really well known to be a neo-Nazi-supporting party, with 91 of 94 MPs sitting in their legislature that were from party lists. Now, how the heck is that considered to be good representation?

I think the problem is that what happens is that certain things elevate the interest of the voters and get them to be interested in voting. I would hate to think that it would be about things that we’re hearing about in other parts of the world, whether it’s New Zealand or Germany or Italy or some of the other European countries that are currently using a proportional type of system.

I want to say, again, that I’m speaking for this amendment. I believe strongly that people don’t have the time to properly assess what the proposed motion of the bill is in front of this House and what it will mean to them as far as their ability to actually have the right confidence that they have the information to make an informed decision. And the fact is that we’re in the middle of a referendum right now, with the ballots coming out imminently — Elections B.C.

We’ve been campaigning for months, both sides, and the bottom line is: to introduce this seems unconstitutional. It doesn’t seem right. I think that when it comes time to look at the systems that are proposed here, I think that it would be well worthwhile for the parties to rethink going ahead with this. Maybe that mail strike, if that happens, will give everybody time to have a pause and a second thought.

[6:40 p.m.]

More importantly, maybe there will be a chance for people to get more informed about this so that they actually can have the information that’s absolutely necessary to know the difference between these party lists for dual-member, mixed-member or rural-urban. What is that actually going to mean for somebody that’s in the Peace River or up in Stikine or any one of the other ridings that are already rural and remote? I don’t know how those members, even today, can expect to have a larger geographic area and have their constituents being able to get the information they’re looking at.

I think that most voters like the process of what we have currently, where there’s direct representation. They like the fact that they’ve got the 87 individual elections. If they don’t particularly like the MLA that they have…. There are lots of instances where people in this House have not been re-elected. They’ve been defeated because they didn’t convince the individual voters either that they were the right person or that they carried out their job and they’d been doing what they were elected to do. I think we all work on that very hard. But the ones that don’t, don’t resume their seat back here.

I think that it’s important. There was a comment made yesterday — I want to bring this up during debate on Bill 40 — by the Premier. This is kind of one of the things that I think is important. When you sit in opposition, are things not taking place in your riding? He made a statement in this House:

“For four years, I sat on that side of the House offering, I’d like to think, on occasion, useful suggestions to the government, whether it be in this place or in the budget estimates that happen annually, bringing forward ideas from not just myself but from the people that I represented at the time in Malahat-Juan de Fuca, and I got zero response from the government.

“They did not receive 50 percent of the votes — far less than that, in fact — but they had 100 percent of the power and the ability to say to me, as a member in this place, that my views didn’t matter and my constituents’ views didn’t matter because of the banner I carried one day four years ago. I think that’s wrong.”

That’s a statement that the Premier made in this House. The fact that his riding didn’t actually receive anything…. I have a list here of some of the things that were contributions in Malahat-Juan de Fuca. It received $111,000 every single day over the period of 948 days during that period — $105 million.

I even remember our Education Minister telling us about the fact that we were going to spend $54 million on Belmont Secondary School. How is it…? So $54 million — it’s a huge sum of money. The fact that we’re being accused of not contributing and taking care of that…. We have to take responsibility for all British Columbians.

I go out there, and I know that the former Highways Minister made specific targeted safety improvements on the Malahat because of the fact that there were continued safety issues. The idea that they put in road dividers and things like that — I think that goes to show that we are a government that governs broadly. We make certain that we take care of all of the constituents that are in British Columbia and not excluding any.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and conclude that I support the amendment on Bill 40.

G. Kyllo: It’s always a privilege to rise in the House and represent the hard-working constituents of Shuswap.

I certainly will be in support of the amendment that has been brought forward by my colleague for Vancouver-Fraserview with respect to holding the pause button, as they say, for the next six months, with respect to the bill that’s before the floor.

Now, I think it’s really important, if we have a look at what has brought this whole referendum process about…. I know in the election in 2017, I knocked on hundreds of doors in the Shuswap riding. I had conversations with literally hundreds of residents. And not once during the last 2017 election did anybody talk to me about concerns about electoral reform. So I think when we have a look at why we are here today even talking about electoral reform, it is not because of the will or the request of the majority of British Columbians.

[6:45 p.m.]

This largely has to do with the current, I would say, challenging situation that the current government finds itself in with the partnership with the Green Party. As we’ve seen, in the last election, the B.C. Liberals actually won the majority of seats in the province, at 43, and also had the majority of votes across the province. Yet, unfortunately, we weren’t able to actually work out a deal, either with the Greens or the NDP, in order to form government. We accept that. But what we have seen is we now have three Green Party members that have a disproportionate influence on the future direction of the current government.

The B.C. Liberals currently have 42 seats in the Legislature — 42 seats. The Green Party has three seats, yet the three Green Party members have disproportionate influence. They have more influence on the future direction of the current government than the B.C. Liberals do with 42.

I think that that is absolutely wrong. When you have a look at why we are here…. The Green Party actually won about 15 percent of the popular vote in the province. The easiest way they can increase their seat count would be to have the current government implement a form of proportional representation that would actually increase their seat count based on the percentage of votes that are cast across the province.

I think it’s important…. If we look back to the British parliamentary system, I think this has served British Columbia and Canada extremely well. I’m a proud Canadian. We’ve got one of the most amazing countries on the globe. B.C. is an amazing province, and I think the current system has served us extremely well. We are well thought of by other nations around the planet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if I may remind you that the speaker has the floor.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If we look back to the British parliamentary system, even the term “riding,” we talk about…. There are 87 ridings in the province. Well, the term “riding” came from the British parliamentary system, which took into consideration not just the population which you’d serve but also the geographic area. It took into consideration how far you could actually ride on horseback in a given day. It took into consideration the fact that it wasn’t just about the number of constituents that you’d represent but also your geographic ability to actually be of service to your constituents.

British Columbia is a huge province. My colleague from Vancouver-Fairview shared with me one day that his riding is about six city blocks. Yet we have other ridings in the province of B.C. that are upwards of 100,000 square kilometres.

Shuswap, the riding that I have the privilege of representing, is about 8,400 square kilometres. It includes five different municipalities, so that’s five different mayors that I have to have a strong relationship with, as well as their councillors. There are two regional districts. We also have five First Nations bands.

I think that the ability to provide proper and sound representation for your riding is the ability that you actually live and reside in your riding. I’ve lived in Shuswap for 40 years. I married my lovely wife, Georgina, 30 years ago this coming Monday. [Applause.]

Georgina is really the one that needs a big round of applause for putting up with me for 30 years. We’ve raised our four girls in the Shuswap, and now I’m blessed with seven grandchildren who also still reside in Shuswap.

I think that when we look at why we are here and why we are elected in our home ridings, it largely has to do with the fact that we know our neighbors. We know our other community members. We’re active in our communities. We understand all of the intricacies of the ridings that we live in.

I think that’s extremely important, because this referendum that is before us largely is looking at taking a significant amount of that away from voters. Instead of potentially electing your local representative, under two of the forms of PR that are being proposed in the upcoming referendum, 40 percent of representatives would actually be selected.

You won’t be electing your representative. Up to 40 percent of the members of this Legislature will actually be appointed — I’ve heard terms “from party bosses” or “off of the party list” — and they may not even reside in your local riding.

Well, I think, with all due respect, your ability to provide service to your riding largely has to do with the knowledge that you have and the time that you have spent in your riding, knowing the needs of the different community organizations and non-profit organizations and actually understanding what people in your riding are looking for.

[6:50 p.m.]

That would largely be given up, to the point where you have a look at what is being proposed — again, up to 40 percent of the members being actually selected off of party lists. I think that’s something that folks who live in rural British Columbia are extremely concerned about. I’ve been out talking to constituents over the last number of months, and it certainly is top of mind and very concerning for them.

Now, if we also turn back and have a look at this whole process — as has been shared by my colleagues back in 2005 and 2009, when we had the previous referendums on electoral reform — there was an all-citizens’ assembly that was actually selected. As my colleague from West Kelowna mentioned, 160 individuals from across British Columbia were actually identified and selected to sit on an all-citizens’ assembly and to go out and canvass British Columbians and to look around the globe for what form of proportional representation may be best suited to British Columbia.

It wasn’t for them to decide that PR was the right choice for B.C., but they went out and actually had a look. If B.C. was going to consider a form of proportional representation, and if they were going to be looking at putting that question to voters in B.C., it was important that it was a clear choice. British Columbians certainly have a strong understanding of the current electoral system in B.C., the first-past-the-post.

Noting the hour, I’d like to reserve my place and move adjournment of debate.

G. Kyllo moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.