Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 42, Assessment Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 42 — ASSESSMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 42; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

On section 1 (continued).

[1:35 p.m.]

T. Stone: I certainly appreciated the information that was provided by the minister and the ministry in the series of questions that we canvassed before lunch in terms of this particular section and its implications for class 4 industrial properties.

The final area that, as the official opposition, we want to address is this concern, which has been raised by lots of small businesses, in so far as inequities that exist with respect to how assessment is done in British Columbia. This bill, we can all agree, does nothing to address the fact that 98 percent of the businesses in British Columbia are small businesses. They’re facing significant challenges in pockets of certain communities, particularly Vancouver and other Metro Vancouver communities — challenges relating to rapidly rising property tax bills.

While we understand the intentions of this bill and its laser-like focus on addressing what appears to be a concern with one class 4 industrial property at this time, we can’t help but feel that there was an opportunity here to also try to address the inequities that exist for all of these small businesses.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a number of BIAs, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, UDI, chambers and many others — not to mention thousands of businesses — have been asking for modernization of how we do assessment in this province. They’ve been asking for some relief. It’s incumbent upon all of us in this chamber as policy-makers to, I think, acknowledge that challenge and to try to do something about it.

We often talk about the hollowing out of our cities — particularly in Vancouver and in the Lower Mainland — with small businesses having no choice but to close due to the fact that the property taxes they have to pay have escalated, and in many cases quite dramatically. We know that that’s being driven in part by changes to official community plans. But often, also, it’s just due to sheer market forces which, I think we all acknowledge, have caused significant increases in the assessed value of highest and best use, particularly in the Lower Mainland.

Notwithstanding the pleas of small business, there is nothing in this bill that addresses that reality. We think, in the official opposition — especially last week being Small Business Week — that there was an opportunity to put a bill in front of the House that perhaps could have taken some steps towards addressing these inequities.

The fact is you can have a situation like in the city of Vancouver two years ago, where the West End plan was passed. Assessed values under the community retail properties throughout the West End plan increased between 200 and 300 percent, not because of anything substantive or practical that had happened on those affected properties but simply because of market forces.

There is also, I think, a deeply rooted sense of unfairness here. Your value is determined by highest and best use, but you’re going to pay a tax rate, in the case of small businesses, on a much higher mill rate than you otherwise would.

Mr. Chair, at this point, we would like to propose an amendment to this section.

[1.1 The following section is added:

20.01 The minister must establish a task force to advise the minister on matters relating to assessment of property classes 5 and 6, as prescribed under section 19 (14) of this Act, and

(a) the task force must include a representative from at least each of the following groups including property classes 5 and 6 owners and occupiers, local governments and the small business community,

[1:40 p.m.]

(b) the task force must evaluate assessment inequities of property classes 5 and 6, incorporating a definition of ‘eligible property’ in this Act such that an eligible property will include property classes 5 and 6 where the highest and best use value exceeds the value of the actual use,

(c) the task force must issue a report to the minister no later than September 30, 2019 and the minister must make the contents of that report public no later than October 15, 2019, and

(d) the task force recommendations must be implemented by the minister in time for inclusion within the assessment roll for the 2020 taxation year.]

That’s the amendment that I would like to move. I’ve got copies of the amendment here for you, Mr. Chair.

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have to say how fascinating I find it that the member opposite, after 16 years in government, is saying now that something needs to be done, when, according to his own quote two years ago, the West End plan created significant challenges for those properties. If I recall, the member for Vancouver–West End raised that here in the House, and it fell on absolutely deaf ears. So I find it absolutely fascinating that suddenly there’s an interest, an interest in small business and an interest in the challenge of regular British Columbians, because for a long time, those concerns went unheard and unheeded. I find it quite fascinating to hear that suddenly there’s this interest.

I also want to remind the member — I know that he was listening closely to my second reading comments — what I said, because he clearly wasn’t paying attention. My ministry is undertaking a review of the highest best valuation impacts on other property classes that are dealing with similar issues in addition to ongoing work on identifying property tax mitigation strategies for small businesses subject to triple-net leases. We’ve already started to undertake that work, and it’s work that’s going to continue to proceed going forward.

N. Letnick: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: I seek leave to make an introduction because, for the first time in ten years, as far as I can recall, my brother, Robert Letnick, is in the House. Robert is a dentist and has been my watchdog for — I don’t know — 60 years and has taken care of me, making sure that I don’t get into too much trouble. It’s, indeed, an honour to have him here. Would the House please help me make Robert Letnick feel welcome.

One more, if I may. I wanted you to applaud before for Robert here, but he’s also here because we lost our mother this weekend.

Debate Continued

The Chair: Seeing no further speaker on the amendment, shall the amendment as introduced by the member for Kamloops–South Thompson pass?

[1:45 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 41
Cadieux	de Jong	Bond
Polak	Wilkinson	Lee
Stone	Coleman	Wat
Bernier	Thornthwaite	Paton
Ashton	Barnett	Yap
Martin	Davies	Kyllo
Sullivan	Isaacs	Morris
Stilwell	Ross	Oakes
Johal	Redies	Rustad
Milobar	Sturdy	Shypitka
Hunt	Throness	Tegart
Stewart	Sultan	Gibson
Reid	Letnick	Thomson
Larson		Foster
NAYS — 42
Kahlon	Begg	Brar
Heyman	Donaldson	Mungall
Bains	Beare	Chen
Popham	Trevena	Sims
Chow	Kang	Simons
D’Eith	Routley	Ma
Elmore	Dean	Routledge
Singh	Leonard	Darcy
Simpson	Robinson	Farnworth
Horgan	James	Eby
Dix	Ralston	Mark
Fleming	Conroy	Fraser
Chandra Herbert	Rice	Furstenau
Weaver	Olsen	Glumac

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1:55 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — ASSESSMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 42, Assessment Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S. Robinson: I call Committee the Whole, Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2018.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 43 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 43; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:57 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to introduce legislative counsel who’s here with me. Sherie Verhulst will be assisting me through this process.

I note we have quite a crowd in the gallery. Just for background for those who are joining us in the Legislature here today, we’re doing committee stage on the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act. This is not the most exciting bill that you are going to see, but it’s necessary work for the Legislature to make sure that we correct minor errors that are in laws. They have to come to the Legislature for approval.

We’ll be working section by section through it, and my critic in the opposition will be asking me questions about the sections possibly, and we’ll see what happens. I’d just like to take the opportunity to make everybody feel welcome.

M. Lee: Just to ask a question on this bill. Recognizing that it’s a correction where you have a number appear alongside of a letter, as opposed to two numbers together, is there a way for the ministry to do a general review as to this sort of combination of numbers and letters, just to ensure that we have the right formulation, let’s say, where it’s intended, clearly — for this to be December 31, as opposed to December 3l, if that’s a little “l”? Is there a way that we can do a general search to review this so that this isn’t done in a piecemeal fashion?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The correction the member is asking about originated in 1979. The section is supposed to talk about December 31, but instead it talks about December 3, small letter “l,” because someone mistook the small letter “l” for the number 1. So we’re correcting it to be December 31 instead of December 3l.

The correction was apparently noticed by a publications clerk. If you can imagine, someone actually spotted it. It looked unusual to the clerk, and they brought it forward to be corrected.

I’m advised that it would be incredibly time-consuming and challenging to search the assembled statutes of British Columbia for similar errors, but I can assure the member that staff has advised me that there is a spell-check program in place that should catch this for statutes that are going in currently and that whenever staff identify similar errors, they will be bringing them forward to us for correction.

Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

M. Lee: I know that the Leader of the Third Party decided, in his comments on this bill, to raise attention to this particular subsection — 21(b). Just out of interest, though, in terms of the B.C. Hydro plan, the way that it’s utilized in this schedule…. Perhaps I could get a comment from the Attorney General as to what that term is intended to cover, and the way it’s defined currently as “B.C. Hydro Plan.”

Hon. D. Eby: The member is referring to…. There are two corrections in this section. One corrects the word “hectares,” plural, to “hectare” because it’s talking about a single hectare of upland. So it’s correcting the plural to the singular.

The other one talks about the “B.C. Hydro Plan plan,” so it removes one of the words “plan” from that duplication.

The B.C. Hydro plan is actually a document, and the B.C. Hydro Plan in this section refers to a document apparently prepared by a gentleman named Fred Peters in 1999. It’s a specific document. It is meant to be referred to, as opposed to a verb like “to plan” or “there was a plan underway” or something like that. It refers to a plan like a document. This is a very specific document that the legislation refers to related to something called Fintry Park.

I’m not sure if that’s exactly what the member was looking for, but that’s what we know.

Sections 21 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:03 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[2:05 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call continued second reading on Bill 40.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

A. Wilkinson: This amendment is, of course, designed to ensure that we have a proper and fulsome debate on the issue of the electoral reform referendum. Sadly, we find ourselves in the position that the ballots are already in the mailboxes of British Columbians. Some people have received them already and found them to be confusing. This is the state we find ourselves in, as this government has basically force-fed this referendum onto British Columbians.

We need only review the history to see how much of a mess has been made of this referendum. Back in 2004 when the issue was on the table after the 2001 landslide election, the appropriate approach was taken. A full year was taken for a neutral citizens’ assembly with no political involvement at all. Political parties had nothing to do with the citizens’ assembly in 2004. Members of that assembly were chosen at random from across British Columbia, and they assembled in Vancouver with the appropriate financial and academic support to make it possible to have a properly developed referendum on electoral reform.

After a full year of deliberations, they produced a simple yes-no question asking British Columbians if they wanted to change to a STV voting system. That was put on the ballot in the 2005 election — a general election, with maximum possible turnout of voters, with maximum information available to British Columbians and with no political involvement or manipulation at all. That was the right way to do it.

That referendum vote did not prove to be successful, yet the question was put on the ballot again, in 2009. By that time, fully developed maps had been put forward so British Columbians would have the ability to say: “Now I know what I’m voting for. I understand the system that’s being proposed. It’s a simple yes-no question. It’s here on the ballot at the general election, when I’m focused and paying attention, and I know what my riding would look like. I know exactly what I’m getting into.” That’s what British Columbians voted against in 2009, to the tune of more than 60 percent rejecting the proposition, with full information.

We then fast-forward to the current situation. Of course, we all remember the 2017 election, where the Premier of today said, as the opposition leader at the time, that there would be three critically important features to any referendum on electoral reform.

First of all it, would be a simple yes-no question. That’s a crystal-clear promise that is very easy to understand.

Secondly, there would be a citizens’ assembly. Bravo for the now Premier — who has since broken his promise — because that was the right way to go about it.

Thirdly, there would be regional thresholds so that regions of British Columbia would not be steamrolled by Metro Vancouver. And lo and behold, the Premier has broken all three of those promises flagrantly. We need only review them to see how badly this has come across the table from the government of the day.

The citizens’ assembly was proposed in an electronic mail to the Attorney General, who normally sits in this room today, and that was rejected by him in November of 2017. The answer from the Attorney General was: “There’s not enough time.”

[2:10 p.m.]

Well, there was an abundance of time. It’s now 11 months later. There could have been a full-on citizens’ assembly. It could have been done properly — with integrity, with transparency — and the Attorney General rejected that proposition in November of 2017.

The second issue, the yes-no question. We remained hopeful, as the NDP deliberated these issues in secret in their cabinet room, that they would bring the question before this House for a debate so that all of the members of this elected assembly would have some input into the question that was to be put forward on the ballot.

Lo and behold, the Attorney General, who is supposedly neutral in these matters, turned around and did an on-line survey that was so massively biased that the media folks, the people in the gallery here who report on political matters, rejected it out of hand as a complete sham. Lo and behold, the survey asked a few questions, which then played no role whatsoever in the decision of the NDP cabinet as to what the questions would be and how the referendum would be conducted. Clearly, the survey was a sham. It was simply a way for the Attorney General to say, “Oh yes, British Columbians were consulted in this,” which they were in a completely fraudulent way.

So where are we left? In the spring, we heard that the question would be put forward, as developed in secret by the NDP cabinet, and they had already stacked the deck a year ago when they passed legislation saying that it didn’t matter what the turnout was. Members on this side asked the Attorney General on that side: “What if 10 percent of people vote?” He stood in this chamber and said, “It will be binding,” because the legislation says that the result of the referendum, no matter how many people vote, is binding. It must be implemented.

We all know the story of Prince Edward Island. When it voted two years ago, 52 percent of the people voted in favour of change, but only 36 percent of people voted. So 18.7 percent of eligible voters in P.E.I. said they wanted change, and the cabinet wisely said: “That’s not a mandate.” They’re going to have another look at this completely. Instead, we have an arrogant NDP government pandering to the Green Party and force-feeding this on British Columbians by saying that the result will be binding, no matter how many people vote.

That, of course, brings us around to the issue of the whole process in which they’ve set this up. We have, in this House, witnessed the NDP suppressing conversation on this and arranging for Elections B.C. to discipline people who try to discuss this in public. This is fundamentally wrong. The right to vote, the structure of our voting system, is the right of our citizens. It is not something that is owned and operated by political parties.

Lo and behold, we have the NDP setting up a system whereby if people spend more than a few nickels on this, they have to register with Elections B.C. and provide financial statements. They get disciplined and, possibly, prosecuted if they don’t. This is a way to suppress conversation about this, to make it dangerous to get involved. MLAs on our side of the House have been threatened with disciplinary action and prosecutions for simply going out and informing their voters of their views.

This is wrong, because our system of democracy is wholly dependent on legitimate elections. What the NDP, to keep the Greens happy, is doing is setting this up as an entirely biased process to lead to an entirely biased result.

That, of course, brings us to the issue of the approach taken in this Legislature. In the spring, we had the concern raised about the question. The question disappeared into the NDP cabinet room and popped out with three possible scenarios for proportional representation, two of which no one had ever heard of before. This had no connection whatsoever to the consultation that had been conducted before that secret cabinet meeting. The sham consultation by the Attorney General was a complete waste of time and money, in a duplicitous way, to mislead British Columbians.

So what do we have? We have an NDP cabinet, some of whom are in the room today, who’ve processed and passed a complicated ballot that was then foisted on the people of British Columbia with no debate whatsoever in this chamber. We asked for an emergency debate. The NDP blew it off. We asked to debate the ballot. The NDP blew it off. The media people have been pointing out, increasingly, that this whole process has turned into a sham.

[2:15 p.m.]

Yet we have the shameless, slavish adherence to the plan by the NDP members and the Green members. We notice that they have gone conspicuously silent, because this works entirely in their favour. The party that talks about collaborative government, that talks about involvement of citizens, that talks about how we have to be democratic in our voting process, has gone silent as this sham rolls out.

We had the NDP also decide who is allowed to be funded to support this process. One would think, in a democracy like ours, if you’re agitated and concerned, you can just go out there and talk about the democratic process. Surely, that’s something that comes in the Charter of Rights in Canada. But no, we had the NDP attempt to legislate that out of existence with tight rules, with spending limits, with a process that is designed to oppress citizen involvement.

What have we got at the end of the day? The ballots are arriving in mailboxes, and people are barely aware that this is happening at all. When they open that ballot, they find a confusing package of multiple documents that they’re supposed to sift through.

Hearing from constituents of mine, relatives of mine, people in the far corners of British Columbia, they’re opening this package and they’re offended by it, because they feel like they’re being manipulated. The ballot is so confusing, and the series of packages they have to stuff it into and sign in just the right way will lead to a very high degree of voter dismissal and voter apathy. People will look at this package and say, “I don’t even understand what this is about,” and throw it out.

We’re going to see a huge amount of discarded ballots, and that, in this situation, is a tragedy, because British Columbians are entitled to have full involvement in this kind of thing. They are entitled to be informed. They are entitled, as the citizens who are the core of our society, to decide their own democratic fate.

Instead, we have people opening up a package and wondering: “What on earth is all this about?” They’re barely aware it’s happening. They’re presented with a package that’s confusing, and the easiest thing to do is nothing. And that, I think, has to hang in the air, that the easiest thing to do is toss it out.

It would appear from everything we’ve seen, from the behaviour of the NDP and the Green Party, that that’s exactly what they want people to do. Seeking a low voter turnout is ideal for the NDP because only their motivated souls — and we’ve seen a few major public sector unions getting actively involved in this to turn out their vote, just as they did in recent municipal elections….

Voter suppression is something that the Left, throughout the world, have decried everywhere they’ve been, except here. We have the Republicans in the U.S., who are notorious for voter suppression, yet that’s exactly what the NDP are doing here. There is a degree of malign arrogance going on in this referendum that has to be pointed out.

As part and parcel of this, what I’ve been trying to do with the Premier is to get him into a public venue to be accountable for this. We need some transparency around this referendum. We need disclosure. We need heightened awareness in the public. People need information. They need their questions answered, and telling them to go to a website is the height of arrogance.

We also have to inquire as to why this was done as a mail-in ballot — $40 million of taxpayers’ money that could well have been spent on the many things this government extols, like homeless shelters, higher education, you name it. Lots of things could have been done with $40 million, rather than doing this the way it’s been done.

Why was this not done at the next general election? Let’s answer that question. Why was this not done at the next general election, when people are focused, when voter identification is done in a rigorous and thorough fashion by Elections B.C., where we have the structure and efficiency of the existing voting system and we have voters who are focused on the general election?

Instead, we have a mail-in ballot. Well, how convenient. How self-serving can that be? Forty million dollars down the drain solely to make sure that the Green Party has their best possible shot at getting more members in this Legislature.

[2:20 p.m.]

This is shameful that the members opposite sit and stare into their laptops and ignore these questions and just wait for the results to pour in, because the combination of an unaware public, voter suppression, suppression of dissenting voices, a manipulated ballot, the mail-in ballot system and suppression of the funding of campaigns is a perfect formula for the members opposite to get their way with the electorate. This is utterly shameful, yet we’re supposed to just suck it up and talk to voters and encourage them to exercise their franchise.

That’s exactly what we’ve been doing all over British Columbia: encouraging people to realize what will go on in their community. Whether you’re in Vanderhoof or Kimberley or Osoyoos, you simply have to look people in the eye and say: “If they succeed, you will never have an MLA of your own again because the ridings will be so much larger that smaller communities, which get special treatment from the Electoral Boundaries Commission today, will be completely consumed into large ridings where those small towns will disappear.” Their electoral representatives will fold into the cities, and lo and behold, we have a much more urbanized assembly than we do now.

This is bad for British Columbia. We only have to remember that the northern two-thirds of the province — everything north of Highway 1, north of Cache Creek; two-thirds of British Columbia — has 7 percent of the population. They have ten seats now, and that’s for good reason. That wasn’t decided in a gerrymandered fashion. That wasn’t decided by some crooked process. That was decided by the Electoral Boundaries Commission because that area of the province needs provincial services in a very special way. They are entitled to extra representation.

Do you think those people know what will happen to them under any of these three proposed systems? They have no idea how many ridings there will be, how far they’ll have to go to see their MLA, whether their MLA will be somebody they’ve ever even heard of and whether it’ll be someone off a party list who’s foisted on them by the party bosses after the election. This is so fundamentally wrong in a province as complicated as British Columbia that the members opposite should be ashamed of themselves.

We also have an Attorney General who glibly announces that under the three proposed voting systems, there are only 23 unknown features that will be decided by an all-party committee after the referendum vote. What? Why aren’t these things known now, like how many votes will you have? How many MLAs would be in an electoral district? We’re not allowed to know.

Think of this. Assuming the referendum is successful, the people on that side of the House will simply vote themselves the seats and votes they need, because they have the ability to vote in the details they want in an all-party committee. This is a complete sham. We’re hopeful that the courts will see through this. They are very vulnerable to judicial challenges on this because of the high-handed, arrogant, condescending way in which they’re treating the voters of British Columbia.

We also had this issue, which is only emerging now, of how deeply offensive this is to the role of the citizen. Why is it that this has been completely controlled by political parties? Why is it that a razor-thin majority, as we just saw on a vote here that was 42 to 41…? The most they can muster is 44 to 42. Is that a way to fundamentally change our electoral system?

Shouldn’t this require more of a mandate from the public, from the electorate, from the people whose rights are being diluted and taken away by this high-handed government on the other side? They don’t seem to have the slightest qualm in doing that. This combination of voter suppression and lack of awareness feeds perfectly into the hands of a high-handed, skin-of-their-teeth minority government who are trying to rig things for their own benefit in the years to come.

I have been very clear for over a month, asking the Premier for a public debate on this issue. Lo and behold, a couple of weeks ago, he said: “Oh, under the right circumstances, with a few broadcasters, maybe it could be possible.” Then on October 18, the Premier said: “Well, okay, if you insist.” But they’ve never come up with a date. So the cynicism continues to roll off their benches.

They’re going to clearly jig this to get a date after people have voted. What a complete and utter sham that the Premier hasn’t got the stomach to come out and portray the benefits of this to British Columbians on prime-time TV before they vote. What’s the point?

[2:25 p.m.]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let’s have one speech.

A. Wilkinson: So we’re left with the issue…. The members opposite now try to shout down this issue. They’re uncomfortable with the fact that their Premier doesn’t want to debate until the people have voted, so what they’re doing now is trying to shout down this conversation, a further step in their attempt to suppress the interests of voters.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We’re told that this is the right place to debate the issue. Well, our side of the gallery is completely full. Where is the rest of our Legislature at the time of a debate that they say is fundamental and that should replace a television debate? Well, this is a shameless display of arrogance on the part of the NDP.

They are prepared to completely dismiss the idea of a television debate, to control the electoral process, to suppress citizen involvement, to keep people in the dark, to have a sham consultation, to rig the question, to control the entire process and to go through this George Orwell world of theirs where they know what’s best for us and we are just the poor peasantry who will be told what to do.

It’s time for British Columbians to wake up, look at their ballots, have a look through them, come to the conclusion that makes the most sense. This democracy has worked since 1871. It’s worked in Britain for 300 years. Do not let these people opposite play games with your franchise and overrule your fundamental rights. We have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a reason, and we do hope that there are people out there who will get out and litigate this, because it is a complete sham.

It’s unfortunate to end on this kind of tone on something so fundamental, because we should be celebrating the success of a citizens’ assembly. We should be celebrating the fact that people went to the polls in a general election and made their selection. We should be celebrating the fact that we have a dynamic democracy where people get to choose their destiny rather than being manipulated by the members opposite.

The question remains: can we have a debate with the Premier? If so, when? When is he going to show up on television to debate this? It’s time for the Premier to show his cards and time for us to have a fully democratic approach to this. Even at this late stage, we can do better if the Premier will just cooperate.

T. Wat: I’m so proud to rise today to speak in support of the hoist motion for second reading of Bill 40, that the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act “be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting ‘six months hence.’”

Many of my colleagues on this side, including the Leader of the Opposition, have already articulated so well the flawed process of the referendum. The MLAs on this side of the House have to stand up in this House to point out how the NDP government, together with their junior partner, have been manipulating this referendum to ensure the outcome will be in their favour and in their interest, not in the favour and the interests of British Columbians.

Essentially, the NDP and the Green Party partners are asking for British Columbians’ blind trust. However, trust needs to be earned, not just given. To earn trust, say what you mean and mean what you say. I have not seen any evidence of why British Columbians should give their trust. Here’s why.

Let’s first look at how many factors won’t be considered until after the referendum. It totals 29, a staggering 29 factors. How are voters supposed to make an informed decision when so much remains unknown? We don’t know how many MLAs there will be. We don’t know what’s going to happen to our ridings. We don’t know the map of each riding.

[2:30 p.m.]

We don’t know, for example, for the municipality that I represent, if the existing four Richmond ridings will be combined into one riding. But one thing I can assure you: all ridings will be much bigger.

The city of Richmond now has four ridings, as Richmond has grown so much that the population exceeds 200,000. Many of my constituents come to my office to seek assistance on various issues, such as how to enrol their children in school, how to apply for a CareCard, how to apply for a driver’s licence or how to export their product to the market of Asia-Pacific, etc. As the MLA for my riding of Richmond North Centre, I’m so honoured and privileged, like all my colleagues in this House, that we can provide assistance to our constituents.

Many of my constituents are immigrants who are new to our province. When a constituent comes to my office for assistance or a meeting with me or my CA, we never ask them if they voted for me or not. The MLA constituency office serves all constituents, whether they are NDP, Green or B.C. Liberal or do not belong to any political party. That’s the way it should be, as the elected officials are the servants of British Columbians.

Under the three proposed PR systems, there’s a likely chance that the four existing ridings will be combined into one riding. Or even worse, the neighbouring city of Delta might be incorporated into Richmond. The government has refused to provide maps of these three proposed PR systems. The wider an area an MLA has to travel, the less exposure they will have to unique local issues. The more constituents an MLA has to serve, the less time he or she has to interact and serve the constituents.

We don’t know what constitutes a rural or urban riding; therefore, we do not know which system would apply. We also don’t know whether there’s going to be closed or open lists of party candidates. But one thing we are sure of is that a political party has got to choose the candidates who will eventually become the MLAs that represent their constituents, and the voters are stuck with the party’s favourites. The voters cannot fire the MLAs chosen by the party even if they are not happy with their performance.

Besides all these unknowns, there are no turnout requirements for this referendum. To me, this is not only a sign of the NDP government’s own insecurity but a distorted way to manipulate the public and entrench their position. Changing Canada’s constitution requires two-thirds of the provinces representing at least 50 percent of the population to be in favour. Why is British Columbia considering changing our electoral system with what could well be far less support than that?

I hosted and participated in several public meetings about the referendum with my B.C. Liberal colleagues this summer. One of those in attendance asked this very pointed question. She explained that her strata council requires two-thirds of the vote to pass a rule change. How come the threshold for electoral reform is much lower than for a strata council?

In British Columbia’s two previous referenda on proportional representation, the B.C. Liberal government took steps to achieve a clear mandate. We required a majority of eligible voters and a majority of ridings to vote in favour of any change. Now the previous 60 percent threshold has been replaced with a 50-percent-plus-one threshold, the lowest the bar can be set. To vote for a new system that would change the fundamentals of our democracy, a new system to replace the current system that has been in use for over 100 years, shouldn’t the threshold be set higher?

I argue that the design of this referendum is obviously self-serving for the NDP-Green partnership. A government formed under proportional representation would be based on a backroom deal only after British Columbians have cast their votes. The deal bears only one goal in mind, which is to establish a partnership of power. Under such a partnership, there would be promises of cabinet roles, but there would not be principles of governing.

In so working on solutions to your problems, proportional representation means that MLAs have to worry first about what is best for their party and the parties they have formed coalitions with. Coalition governments don’t exist very long — certainly not for four years, as we are used to here.

[2:35 p.m.]

This instability is reflected in the length of government mandates. MLAs are forced to be shortsighted. In order to form a government, parties are forced to make deals with each other. This is the norm. In cases around the world, this has led to enormous power being given to fringe parties and extremist parties.

It is not hard to find examples of coalition governments where religious, populist or even racist parties hold sway. The system doesn’t reward consensus or compromise, and there’s none of the give-and-take that happens behind the scenes in a large party like the B.C. Liberals or the B.C. NDP.

Fringe groups are empowered and encouraged to compromise. They are incentivized to dig in. What you get is hard-line parties setting the agenda. The system lends itself to chaos and confusion.

In Germany, 91 of the 94 MPs were elected from party lists. This is a party with racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and xenophobic tendencies. They are linked to neo-Nazism. Under PR, they have become the largest opposition party in Germany.

I had the opportunity to visit New Zealand this summer and to listen to what people there have to say about their electoral system. It was a perfect time for discussion as New Zealand just had an election in 2017, using a mixed-member system, almost exactly like one of the three proportional representation systems proposed here by the NDP government in B.C.

The balance of power was held by the populist anti-immigrant party New Zealand First with less than 8 percent of the vote, and it was rejected en masse for their extreme views. A backroom deal was negotiated between this party and the minority government. Such a political arrangement was certainly not what New Zealanders voted for.

The leader of New Zealand First, who holds extreme views, was rejected by its own constituents. After the election, he was appointed by his party and became the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in New Zealand. When the New Zealand Prime Minister was on maternity leave, the leader of this anti-immigrant party was even acting Prime Minister.

This is an example of how, under proportional representation, parties could appoint someone from their own party list to represent constituents without the member actually being voted in by their constituents. This is the case in each of the three PR systems proposed by this NDP government.

Right now, I’m wholly accountable to my constituents in the Richmond North Centre riding. I answer to them first. Under PR, voters will, instead, be represented by unelected MLAs answerable to nobody but their parties. As over half of my constituents in my riding are immigrants of Chinese descent, we cannot afford the rise of anti-immigrant parties or extremist parties because even in a beautiful province such as British Columbia, we are not immune to racism.

If you don’t think that could happen here, I can tell you there are 27 parties registered in B.C. already. We need to consider that this lengthy list of parties exists under a system where the majority of these parties are never likely to win a seat. PR will only increase the size of this party list.

It’s one thing to laugh about the B.C. Excalibur Party, but I and the majority of British Columbians don’t want to see them given a single seat in the Legislature any more than I think we would like to see the Communist Party MLA given a seat.

Let me quote you a statement from the Communist Party of B.C. on June 10 of this year: “While PR does not guarantee more positive government policy…it increases the chances to elect communists.” Another statement on the same day was this: “The policy of the Communist Party in Canada has always been to support a mixed-member PR system.”

[2:40 p.m.]

How about the Vancouver Island Party? I wonder how many members from the Island on the other side would jump ship and join this party if the proportional representation electoral system was in place. A quote from the Victoria News said: “Vancouver Island Party lays out its declaration of independence from B.C.” Just think, for a second, about our future Legislature comprised of MLAs from several fringe parties focusing on single issues.

Now let’s look at another fringe party, the Cultural Action Party. In an article published on October 16, 2016, the Vancouver Sun headline: “Anti-immigration Party Registered for B.C. Election.” The Vancouver Sun reported that the leader of the Cultural Action Party, Brad Salzberg, often puts out new releases against the influence of Chinese culture and Chinese-Canadian figures in British Columbia.

In 2014, this leader of the Cultural Action Party held a campaign to get a well-known University of B.C. history professor fired. Dr. Henry Yu has lectured and written about politics and racism in B.C. Many of our MLAs in this House know Dr. Henry Yu, who was a co-chair of the former government’s Legacy Initiative Advisory Council that was established after an apology by former Premier Christy Clark, in this Legislature, to the Chinese-Canadian community for the historic wrongs committed by past provincial governments over 100 years ago.

I’ve also heard from leaders of the Chinese community. David Choi, national executive chair of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, voiced his opposition on behalf of all members of his organization, saying that this referendum is not open or transparent. By the way, David Choi together with Dr. Henry Yu are the co-chairs of the Legacy Initiative Advisory Council — same Dr. Henry Yu who was the target of the Cultural Action Party.

Instead of a fair and transparent referendum process, we are getting a rushed job that has only served to create confusion and anger in our communities. I don’t think the majority of British Columbians want to see any credibility given to separatist or racist parties. But that’s how these parties all start. In countries like Germany and Hungary, nationalist and extremist parties have gained a foothold because of proportional representation, and in both countries, their influence increases with every passing election.

The on-line survey that informed the referendum was created by four academics that the NDP has sworn to secrecy. Three of those academics felt the end result of the survey was biased and unfair. The Attorney General, who is a so-called neutral arbiter of the process, campaigned in favour of PR, and his own staff had input into the referendum process. Both the engagement survey and final ballot questions were written by the Attorney General’s political staff and were finalized behind closed doors at the cabinet table. The NDP refused to release the discussion on the referendum question, waited until the last day of the spring session to release the results of the referendum survey and then tried to stifle debate in the Legislature.

In an effort to ensure that British Columbians can make an informed decision in the electoral reform referendum, the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, almost a month ago, on September 24, suggested to the Premier that there should be a public, televised debate. This debate is to raise awareness, to get the positions on record and to allow people to make up their own minds. Even the media have offered air time for the debate. The media are readily available. The Leader of the Official Opposition party is available. The only missing item is a date given by the Premier. Why is the Premier so scared to come up with a date for the debate, before the voting for the referendum began yesterday?

[2:45 p.m.]

I guess the Premier is well aware that once a public debate is watched by thousands of British Columbians, the truth will come out that this referendum is a flawed process and that British Columbia will vote no to PR. That is what the Premier is afraid of. That is why he has tried to delay the public debate as late as possible.

British Columbians are being presented a piece of legislation that lacks basics in these realities. This bill is asking for British Columbians’ trust — for their “leap of faith,” as the Premier said — that if the PR system turns out to be a mess, there will be an opportunity to fix it. Trust is earned when actions match words. This government has not been doing that.

This government’s handling of the electoral reform referendum is in sharp contrast to the 2005 and 2009 referendums when B.C. Liberals were in government. Different from the NDP government, the B.C. Liberal government handled the referendum in a non-partisan way.

A citizens’ assembly, with 160 average citizens chosen randomly, was asked to look at all the forms of proportional representation. They had 11 months to study the different systems of proportional representation. They consulted the public and preferred a voter system in which voters choose all of their own MLAs. The citizens’ assembly rejected the party system, where parties get to choose MLAs.

The citizens’ assembly firmly rejected the mixed member proportional, MMP, system that is the favourite of this NDP government — one of the three systems they propose. The citizens’ assembly rejected the MMP system because they did not want to move power from the voters to the parties. In fact, of all the three PR systems proposed by this NDP government, only MMP is in use in some countries, including New Zealand and Germany, that have seen the rise of anti-immigrant fringe parties holding the balance of power. The other two proposed PR systems have never been tried anywhere in the world.

This NDP government has an obligation to explain to British Columbians why they are proposing these three forms of party-based proportional representation and why there are no details, including the number and the size of the ridings and the maps of the ridings, provided to voters. Clearly, the NDP government is fully aware that once all the details of the three proposed proportional representation systems are known to the public, this PR referendum would be defeated by British Columbians.

In fact, the three proposed PR systems contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to the Charter, every citizen of Canada has a right to vote in the election of members of the House of Commons or of a Legislative Assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

If any of the three PR options was to be used, our voters would not be able to vote for their chosen elected officials. Instead, a political party would decide which MLA would be assigned to the riding. I really doubt if any British Columbian would be comfortable with a political party deciding on who will be their elected official. Would you? Oh well. If the yes side to this referendum won, British Columbians would not be able to choose their favourite MLA. The political party will make the choice for you.

British Columbians don’t need a second referendum promise. British Columbians are asking for a clear, fair and transparent referendum with all of the information and the riding boundaries. They want to know if they will vote for one candidate or two candidates or if they will vote for a party with a closed list or an open list. Without all this basic information for the three proposed PR systems, this referendum is truly a flawed process, and it’s against the basics of democracy and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For all the above reasons that I laid out in the last 20 minutes, I support the hoist motion to postpone Bill 40 for six months.

[2:50 p.m.]

J. Yap: I’m indeed honoured to take my place in this debate on the hoist motion. That motion reads as follows: “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.’” I appreciate the great speeches from my colleagues, which I have been listening to carefully over the last few days. I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver–False Creek for his great speech and for introducing this amendment, which I support.

This referendum is supposed to be based on a question on which voting system our province should utilize. I have to ask: how has our system not worked for British Columbians that we have to make this drastic change to our democracy in such a rushed, ill-advised, incomplete and unfair fashion? Hence, my support for this amendment.

I heard the Premier speak about how, under the current system, he felt his voice was not heard and that somehow this affected his representation of his riding and constituents. The Premier said:

“For four years, I sat on that side 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 of this place, that my views didn’t matter and that my constituents’ views didn’t matter because of the banner I carried one day four years ago.”

However, the facts do not support the Premier’s contention. It’s why I support this amendment.

As we’ve heard from previous colleagues speaking to the amendment, over the 16 years of our previous B.C. Liberal government, elected four times under the current first-past-the-post system, the Premier’s riding was the beneficiary of over $105 million in public investments by the B.C. Liberal government. We’ve heard from colleagues what some of these investments were. If I may, a brief rendition of some of the projects that the MLA for Juan de Fuca was able to secure for his constituents as their representative. It’s a very impressive list. I would almost envy getting this type of support for my riding, and I’m sure you would as well, Madame Speaker.

First of all, a whopping $53.9 million for Belmont Secondary School, for 1,200 students. That was one of the projects funded. There was $7.45 million in provincial funding for the extension of the Westshore Parkway project; $7 million in capital funding to Pacifica Housing Advisory Association, for 64 units of low- to moderate-income families in Langford; $6 million for resurfacing projects in the Sooke area, from B.C. on the Move; and $5.5 million in capital funding for the Knox Vision Society, providing 40 units for low- to moderate-income adults, families and seniors. The list goes on and on.

The fact is that all of us MLAs, whatever party we may be members of — as my great colleague from Richmond North Centre said and as my colleague from Abbotsford-Mission said so eloquently the other day — serve and are at the call of all constituents. We will advocate for them. We’ll try to solve problems for them and help them navigate whatever bureaucracy of the provincial public service they need help with. We do not only represent those that vote for us or are members of our party, and I’m sure that that’s the case for every member in this House, on whichever side of this House.

[2:55 p.m.]

When constituents come to my office, I serve them regardless of their politics. I don’t ask constituents how they voted. Some may offer that they did not vote for me, and that’s fine. I serve every constituent. Maybe if I do a good job supporting them, that constituent might change his vote in my favour next time. Or not, and that’s fine.

However, as I talk to my constituents in my riding of Richmond-Steveston and listen to their concerns, it’s becoming very clear to me that this referendum has really become a question on the trustworthiness of this government. After the hopes and lofty promises made by this government in the 2017 election, the NDP has shown that they cannot be trusted. That is why I support this amendment.

The NDP promised $10-a-day universal child care. Promise broken. The NDP promised a $400 renters rebate. Promise broken. The NDP promised 114,000 new affordable housing units. Promise broken. The NDP promised no new taxes other than what was in their platform. Instead, they’ve instituted an increase in taxes to the tune of $8 billion. Promise broken. The NDP promised an all-party impartial process to determine the referendum rules. Instead, the Attorney General and the NDP cabinet have been dictating the referendum rules. Promise broken. And the NDP promised a simple yes-or-no referendum ballot question. What is being delivered to homes as we speak — the ballots, the questions — is anything but simple. Promise broken.

This is a government which has shown, in just 16 months, that it cannot be trusted. Hence the need for this amendment. The referendum ballots, as I said, are arriving in mailboxes and homes of voters around the province, yet here we are in this House debating this bill and this amendment, which I support. This referendum process has been rigged from the outset, and this bill is a blatant further effort to tilt the scales in favour of the yes side. British Columbians should be outraged over this.

Bill 40 is a further testament to the untrustworthiness of the NDP government. I suspect that there’s probably a simple reason for this bill coming to us right now, in the middle of the referendum period. That is, that the NDP might be fearful that they have lost the momentum with the referendum. As rigged as the process was, as stacked against the no side as it has been, they’ve gone from a commanding lead in the opinion polls, a 2 to 1 margin just six months ago, to now a virtual tie between the yes and the no sides.

We have Bill 40, which seeks to set a second referendum after two elections under the new system, should proportional representation pass, to allow British Columbians to vote again on the electoral system. The NDP and their Green partners are essentially asking British Columbians to buy now and hopefully see a return on investment later. Except in this case, there is no buyer’s remorse. This referendum is legally binding.

As we have heard, 29 different factors won’t be considered till after the referendum. Given that, how are voters expected to make an educated and informed choice, when they aren’t being offered all of the relevant information? Hence the need for this amendment.

Major factors such as — I’ll just list a few of them — the number of MLAs. We don’t know. The size of ridings. How big will they be? We don’t know. What constitutes a rural versus an urban riding? We don’t know. Whether we will use the so-called closed or open list for candidates or even a list system at all, we don’t know.

[3:00 p.m.]

I don’t think we can say fairly that we are actually choosing a system. We’re instead asked to vote on the concept of another system of how we elect MLAs. What we are asking is whether voters want to directly vote for their MLA, which is the case now, or whether they want to have their representatives chosen by the party they are voting for. As the member for Vancouver–False Creek noted, that is what the question is here. Again, I’m grateful to him for bringing this amendment, which I support.

The government had many options from which to choose for the proposed proportional representation systems. Many of them actually do have voters directly voting for their representatives. The government included some of these systems in their feedback questionnaire that they supposedly used to inform on the referendum.

Yet in the end, they discarded those systems that allow voters to choose their representatives, and they put in systems that do not, going as far as to put out two systems on the ballot that, to quote the Attorney General’s report, are “not currently in use.”

We are being asked to vote on systems that have not been used anywhere in the world, yet the government is choosing to not even provide basic information like maps of the electoral districts or even the number of electoral districts and how many representatives each would have. The information which we have instead is that political parties will choose their representative. That is the case in each of the three proportional representation systems proposed by the government.

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

Then we have mixed-member proportional. This is the only proportional system on the ballot that is actually in use anywhere in the world. In this system, which we again have drastically few details about, political parties choose 40 percent of the MLAs. Whether they will do so from closed or secret lists or open public lists is still to be determined. Basic information — to be determined. That’s why we need the amendment, which I support.

Rural-urban is a two-tiered mix of the STV, or single transferable vote, system that British Columbians rejected two times, in 2005 and 2009, and MMP, which is also on the ballot. It’s a mix of the two systems. Whether a riding is rural or urban and, therefore, which system they use is going to be determined after the referendum.

Voters are being asked to decide on a system when they don’t actually know whether they will choose their representative by STV or MMP. In other words, they don’t know what system they will get when they vote.

This referendum is not a vote on which system British Columbia should use. It is instead a question on whether voters should choose their MLA or whether political parties will choose their MLA based on their proportion of the vote. As the member from False Creek said, this referendum is a referendum of political parties by political parties for political parties.

My constituents in Richmond-Steveston are deeply concerned with this flawed, rigged process. I have heard from many of them, and on their behalf, we need to hit the pause button. That is what this amendment will achieve.

[3:05 p.m.]

Let me just share a few examples of what I have heard from constituents. My constituent Brian writes to me: “I want to go on record with you as my MLA that I’m totally opposed to changing our FPTP, first-past-the post electoral system. It’s simple. It’s uncomplicated. It works. I want my MLA to represent the interests of my constituency first in the B.C. Legislature and to be directly accountable to the constituency that elected him or her. I want to encourage other people to vote in the referendum and, hopefully, once and for all, end this dispute so that government can get on with what they were elected to do — govern.”

My constituent Neil writes to me: “As a matter of interest, last week I toured the Reichstag in Berlin. There are six parties represented in the Bundestag.”

I’m grateful to my colleague from Richmond North Centre for sharing some examples of the situation there in Germany.

Neil writes: “I specifically asked about this with the upcoming referendum in mind. I was told that the German Bundestag has not had a majority government since 1957. Some people are suggesting that the German model is an example where PR is working, but as things stand at the moment….”

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, the Chair will hear the speaker.

J. Yap: My constituent Neil writes: “It is decidedly not. It took several months for the current coalition to be established…”

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Ministers.

J. Yap: “…and even now, apparently, it is fraught with contention.” That was from my constituent Neil.

And one more. There are many, but just three for brevity. Ian writes:

“I am opposed to switching to proportional representation for several reasons. I will comment on just two.

“First, the purpose of elections. Are we trying to elect a government, or are we trying to elect some single-issue advocates? If the latter, we will have to accept disproportionate influence of small parties as they and the larger parties bargain their principles with backroom deals. There are lots of examples of that occurring around the world. With that dealing on the records elsewhere, there is the real risk of unstable governments.”

Ian goes on to say:

“Recently Germany and New Zealand had hung parliaments. Italy has had 62 governments in 72 years. In 2010, it took Belgium 541 days to form a government.”

This is his second point, my constituent Ian:

“Secondly, the ‘my vote doesn’t count’ complaint only applies if one believes in participation medals for the also-rans.”

He goes on to say:

“It is bizarre that parties attaining maybe 10 percent or 15 percent of the vote could be granted seats that may gift them the balance of power. Eighty-five percent or 90 percent of the voters did not vote for them.

“The first-past-the-post system has given B.C. stable governments for 146 years. It may not be perfect, but it’s better than all the others. PR in a large province like B.C. would be disastrous.”

End of the letter from Ian.

We can address my constituents’ concerns with a pause, with this amendment. Constituents value their direct connection to their MLAs. That is true with all MLAs in this House, on whatever side of the House you sit. If an MLA is not doing his or her job, that MLA could be replaced by the voters in the next election.

With prop rep, as we’ve seen in other jurisdictions, this is not the case. Unelected candidates can and are appointed to be members by their parties. For example, in the case of the unelected New Zealand deputy prime minister, he actually was a failed candidate but was appointed, nonetheless, to Parliament and a senior cabinet position.

[3:10 p.m.]

I’m honoured to serve the great people of my riding, Richmond-Steveston. I’ve lived in my riding for over 32 years. My constituents have the confidence that I understand their issues, as I spend time and I live among them. Elected as their representative, I’m accountable to them. So let us #savelocalrep.

We need to hit the pause button, with this amendment, because moving to prop rep, proportional representation, would change this. Unelected MLAs would be appointed by parties to ridings. British Columbians deserve to learn more about the details of how proportional representation would look; how it would operate in terms of the maps, the size of the ridings and the number of MLAs; and how the selection of MLAs appointed by the parties would work.

I agree with the mover of this motion that they deserve more time to get that information, and that’s what this amendment will achieve — more time. We need the details, which should have been provided months ago, well before the referendum period which we’re in now.

The referendum process has been rigged from the outset. This Bill 40, this amendment act, is another attempt to slant the referendum in the favour of the yes side, to help encourage voters who are on the fence, who are thinking about the possibility of voting in favour of it, to try out proportional representation. This is yet another blatant attempt by the NDP to favour the yes side.

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a fairer process. They need the time offered by this amendment, a mere six-month delay, to be better informed. I will be supporting and voting for this amendment. I hope all members will also support this amendment. This amendment offers a chance for the government to hit the pause button, and that would be the right thing to do.

S. Cadieux: I’m pleased to take my place to speak to the motion to amend the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act. Isn’t it odd that just six months after government rushed in the referendum act, we’re here already because the government wants to amend the act? It’s exactly why I support this hoist motion to move this debate six months ahead.

Bill 40 is a blatant and unfair interference with the referendum campaign, and I think the whole House should be supportive of this motion.

The question is about Bill 40 and why it’s being introduced right now. In my mind, as I said, it’s a blatant violation of the spirit of the referendum act, in which it states and is made clear that there should be fairness about who should be able to influence the referendum and direction. It set out a “yes” committee and a “no” committee and rules about funding. But instead, in the middle of this referendum campaign that is now underway, the government is choosing to introduce a bill. What’s the purpose? There could really only be one purpose, and that’s to influence voters to vote yes.

The pro–prop rep people are losing momentum, so government has to do something to entice voters, with a buyer’s remorse insurance policy. They’ve brought this bill to amend Bill 40 forward, and we’re suggesting now is not the time to amend the bill. The time to do that is later, once the referendum is over and people have had their say.

[3:15 p.m.]

How did we get to this point where support for proportional representation is dwindling to a point where government thinks they need to buy themselves some insurance? Perhaps it’s because the more people learn about the referendum, the more serious questions they start to ask.

Now, this is not our first rodeo. We’ve done this twice before but with a few significant differences, not the least of which was the 160 average citizens, chosen randomly, tasked with looking at all of the forms of proportional representation. Now this time cabinet has decided that they know best. They’ve put forward three systems of proportional representation for people to choose from, two of which are just merely hypothetical.

Last go-round the independent, representative citizens’ assembly rejected the MMP system, which is now the favourite of the Green-NDP government. They rejected it because they didn’t want to move power from voters to parties. Each of the three systems that are being proposed in the referendum have party lists — lists which the parties influence in a very great degree who gets chosen to be MLAs.

Now, the referendum is asking the impossible of voters. If the ballot information package is anything like the Elections B.C. website information, voters are getting a single page of information about each system. I received mine just the other day and took a look through it, and in fact, that is true. There is a very little bit of information available about each system.

If a voter goes to the Google, as the Premier has suggested they do, to research dual-member proportional representation or urban-rural proportional representation, what will they find out? Well, pretty much nothing. That’s because these systems have never been used before. They are totally hypothetical.

Dual-member proportional representation is a complete unknown. So the government either has been grossly negligent or completely deliberate in even putting this option out for discussion. Urban-rural is a hodgepodge of the three systems — the effect of having three different systems jumbled together, completely untested in a democracy. But, yes, let’s go with that. What could possibly go wrong?

The mixed-member proportional on offer is what? Well, frankly, nobody really knows, because even the most basic of details haven’t been decided. If you’ve watched the Elections B.C. videos describing the options, as I have, what stands out is the last minute of each video where they state: “Many of these decisions will be made after the referendum.” In fact, there are about 29 of these many things that have yet to be decided and will be decided after the referendum, so in fact, we’re not voting on first-past-the-post versus any definable form of proportional representation.

No, we’re voting on first-past-the-post or some form of proportional representation to be determined after the fact. It’s like mystery meat. What is it? Is it pork? Is it ham? Is it turkey? Is it meat at all? Who will define it for us? Who’s going to provide that recipe if the electorate chooses one of the three forms of proportional representation?

Well, it won’t be a citizens’ assembly. It won’t be an independent, constitutional or voting system panel of experts. Nope. In fact, it will be a multiparty process. Yes. What does that mean to the average voter? Here’s the definition of that. Politicians from self-interested political parties will get together and decide what they think is best for citizens. That couldn’t possibly go wrong.

Now, I think it would be absolutely fine to ask voters to vote on a potential change to our democratic systems if that potential change was clearly defined, articulated and factual, and if the voters were presented with a clear decision between two differing systems.

[3:20 p.m.]

The fact, though, is that every day I see inaccurate information being thrown about by citizens, and it makes me concerned that, indeed, enough information and education has not been done. Not enough facts are available.

Just the other day I witnessed, on Twitter, an exchange between a number of individuals who purport to prefer one system or the other going back and forth. A number of those individuals are continuing to say that under proportional representation, you get to vote for your MLA, and there are no party lists. Well, those people are wrong.

They need to read the Attorney General’s recommendations to cabinet. In that document, both dual-member proportional representation and mixed-member proportional representation have party lists. In dual-member proportional, each district has a two-person closed list determined by the party. That’s a list prepared by the party.

Voters can’t vote for individual candidates. It’s not a voter-chosen system. They only vote for parties. It’s a party system. The party determines who’s at the top of the list. Being first on the party list is critical in the dual-member proportional system for candidates, so candidates will have to have their loyalty first to the party. Their loyalty is essential to the party, not to the voters, because that’s the only way they make it to the top of a list.

In the multi-member proportional and in the multi-member proportional part of the urban-rural proposed systems, from what we can tell, there are also party lists, the exact form to be decided on by a legislative committee — i.e., the NDP and the Green Party, with a majority of members on a committee, will choose.

The options are for a closed list or an open list. But both open and closed lists are party-ordered lists. That means that candidates need to try to get their name high up on that list. The most important thing they can do to determine whether or not they end up with a seat in this Legislature is whether or not they are at the top of that list.

To be a party favourite increases your chances of getting elected, regardless of your popularity with voters. That comes second. The first race is to be on the list, at the top of the list. That happens well before any interaction with voters.

So who’s the boss? Who are the MLAs chosen this way most tightly bound to? Clearly the party, not the voters. Voters don’t help candidates climb higher on a list. Their popularity with the party brass is what matters.

Now, I don’t think that makes for a more democratic system. That’s why I’m not in favour of the referendum, and I’m certainly not in favour of giving voters an out clause, an insurance policy, with the amendment that’s being put forward by government. It’s why I support the hoist motion and suggest that we push this discussion about providing another referendum until after we’ve at least seen what the voters think of this first very difficult and confusing one.

As I said, I’m not actually opposed to asking the voters if they’d like a change. I just think the voters need to have the information to make that change, and I think that the voters should be the ones to choose that change. In this case, voters choose for something that will be defined after the fact by politicians. I don’t think that’s right.

I don’t like the idea, personally, of party lists. I made that clear the other day, and somebody came back at me and said: “Oh, but you were selected by your party as the candidate in your riding.” That’s true. I was, as were we all. The difference, though, is that my loyalty must remain with my voters. The voters, if they don’t like me as the candidate picked by the party, do not have to vote for me. They can place their vote elsewhere.

In fact, in elections past, I have voted for a candidate that was not from my preferred political party because I believed that the person who would best represent me was from a different party. That’s my right as a voter.

[3:25 p.m.]

How would that work under proportional representation? If the voters don’t like the person that’s been representing them, they don’t even have a chance at the next election to vote that person out, because the party determines who represents that riding. I don’t think that’s fair.

Now, a few days ago, the Premier stood in this House and said:

“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…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 of this place, that my views didn’t matter and that my constituents’ views didn’t matter because of the banner I carried one day four years ago. I think that’s wrong.”

Those were the Premier’s words. Now I’m sure he was using more than just a little artistic licence in his performance the other day, because I know for a fact that isn’t the case. Let me give two examples.

I am in opposition. I am not a member of the governing party nor of their partner’s. I am not politically aligned with the Premier. I represent a riding, and by virtue of the Premier’s comments, my constituents shouldn’t expect anything from his government because they voted for me. Yet he’s already been to my riding himself to announce new school funding, much needed and much appreciated.

Now a second example. The Premier suggested his riding got nothing when he was in opposition. But you know, that’s incorrect. Why? Because I was one of the ministers responsible for providing funding to programs and services specifically in his riding — $52,000 to a B.C. early-years centre, $10,000 to the Transition House Society for Annie’s Place Transition House, two things that are really important for the constituents of his riding, two things I know the Premier advocated for, for his riding. Child care, early learning opportunities, domestic violence support.

Let’s be clear, if anyone had reason to hold a grudge or ignore someone, it might’ve been me. During that same period, the member from Juan de Fuca was calling for my resignation and citing my incompetence — his words, obviously, not mine.

But I didn’t. Those investments still flowed to his riding and to his constituents, because government is for all of the people of B.C., and government continued for all of the people of B.C. despite the fact that the member did not represent government. Despite personal differences of opinion, politics or personal attacks, government continues.

So there you have it: two examples, two governments, two opposition members and two sets of voters benefiting from governments that they may or may not have voted for or had a direct part in electing. Why? Because that’s our job as MLAs, to govern for all, and I believe that we all understand that.

That’s why I’m so troubled by this referendum, and now, this sideways attempt to slide in an insurance policy to sweeten the pot for voters. It’s why I can’t take the Premier seriously at his word to trust them and take a leap of faith. The arguments they make to support their cause of proportional representation don’t pass the test.

If the government is so confident that PR is the right thing for British Columbia, then they should support this hoist motion. There will be plenty of time and opportunity to come back after the referendum to debate the amendment to Bill 40. Obviously, I think that the House should support the motion. But let’s break it down again, because it’s a lot to swallow.

We have a razor-thin majority government, a minority coalition government, which coincidentally, we are more likely to see in perpetuity if the people choose to adopt a PR system.

We have a flawed process that led to flawed legislation — whew, that’s a lot of syllables — that enables a sham of a referendum.

[3:30 p.m.]

We have a politically derived flawed public consultation that led to politically derived legislation for a referendum, and the politically derived question proposing three potential and largely undefined potential options to first-past-the-post.

We have a referendum and question with no clarity, no certainty, a significant lack of detail and a Premier that says: “Take a leap of faith, and trust me to tell you later what you voted for.”

We’re debating legislation to amend the legislation that this coalition pushed through in the spring. Why did they do that? Well, to meet the obligations of their confidence and supply agreement with the Greens.

The legislation that enables the referendum itself to provide a sort of insurance policy for the voters shouldn’t be necessary. But by even presenting Bill 40, the government is suggesting that the voters are not supportive of a change to proportional representation under the rules and process that were set out in the spring. So they better make some changes to entice voters to take that leap of faith.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Seriously, this is serious business. Changing our voting system is a major decision, but we are being told by government that we should take a leap of faith and that we will add this little amendment to the voters to offer them a chance to change their mind two or three elections from now. They can’t be serious. It’s ridiculous.

The government has bungled this from the beginning. They’ve been rushing from the beginning. We can’t have maps, because it would take too much time. We can’t have the details. The details could be worked out later. There’s no time. We can’t have an independent citizens’ assembly. That would just take too much time. Rush, rush, rush.

What’s the rush? I don’t think we should rush. My colleagues don’t see any need to rush. But the Greens want to rush. In fact, the confidence and supply agreement that keeps the NDP in power and able to move forward with the other things that they think are important…. They say there’s a rush. It has to happen. It’s politics. That’s the rush.

Now, I know governments rush sometimes and don’t always get things right. The government had a great number of those moments lately, rushing to implement a speculation tax that they’ve had to make oodles of amendments to, that still is not a speculation tax.

Rushing to deliver child care, scaring providers in the process, leading to amendments to policy. Rushing to find a way to make up all the money that will be lost by eliminating MSP, only to have to go back and amend the plan because, oops, they forgot about charities and, oops, we forgot about the public sector. Big oops. But hey, they were rushing.

I accept that people make mistakes when they rush. But this is bigger than an: “Oops, we missed that, and we’ll fix it later.” This is a fundamental change to our democratic institution. This is potentially switching from first-past-the-post to proportional representation, and it is a big, big decision. It shouldn’t have been rushed. The government is wrong here.

The referendum is a stacked deck, rigged game and, in my eyes, an embarrassment. It’s a payoff to the Green Party, not a reasoned, non-political, thoughtful process, as it should be.

Now, we’re already stuck with a referendum that I don’t support. But to now ask me to consider adding an additional insurance policy to appease voters that are ner­vous…. Well, that’s just too much. That’s why I’m supporting this hoist motion.

Setting aside the fact that future governments can’t be bound by legislation passed by previous governments, setting aside the fact that under PR, minority governments propped up by fringe parties that are only able to send members to this place because of the voting system…. What kind of logic is the NDP trying to sell here?

Before the other side gets too excited, because I can see they’re getting a little antsy, I don’t want them to think I’m just trying to keep first-past-the-post to keep my job. I’m not. Let me assure members I respect the voters. I respect the public in making the decision on what system we have. I would support a referendum on electoral reform, like the ones we’ve held before that were taken seriously. I’d support a referendum where citizens could truly make an informed decision, and I would respect the results of that process, regardless of what it meant for my political future.

[3:35 p.m.]

But how is it we are going to be asked to presuppose the outcome of this rigged-game referendum and vote on a piece of legislation to amend the legislation allowing that same referendum to take place to bind a future government to hold another referendum to check if people like the decision they made to change or if they want to go back?

It seems very odd to me, and it’s why I support the motion to suspend this legislation for six months. I frankly don’t think we have enough information. I don’t think the public has enough information. It’s time to shut this down.

N. Simons: I actually want to thank my friend and colleague from Surrey South for her words — not that I agreed with most of them, but I respect the fact that she presented her argument in a nice, succinct way, and I think that she made her points. I just disagree with most of the points she made.

For the benefit of those in the gallery watching here today, what we’re debating is a hoist motion, a motion to change or to delay a piece of legislation that we’re passing, that we’re hoping to pass, which is Bill 40.

We said, all along, that the people of the province, when deciding on potentially choosing a new voting system, would have an opportunity, later, to say whether they want to stay with that choice or go back to the other system. We’ve said that all along. My colleagues have said that all along.

It should be of no surprise to anybody that when we talked about having a referendum on proportional representation — something that I might remind the opposition was in one of their throne speeches — we said that we would have an opportunity for the people to have another look later. Maybe they regret it. Maybe they didn’t like the way it worked. But they would have an opportunity to go back and vote again.

That seems to me pretty fair. That seems to me like it’s making their concerns a little bit less strong. Because if they’re so concerned about a system coming into place that may reduce their ability — I don’t know why — to be represented, there’s another option for people to go back to the polls later and decide that that wasn’t the decision they wanted to make.

I will not support this motion put forward by the opposition, and I know it’s not a surprise to any of them, because I don’t think we should delay. I think we need to get on with this, and we need to ask the people of the province if they would like to choose a different system to get people in this House elected.

There are lots of systems around the world, and the one we have in British Columbia is a little bit simplistic. Whoever gets the most votes in every riding wins.

When I was first elected, I only got 43 percent of the vote, and the other two or three opponents combined had more, together. Later, obviously, because the government of the time was just ignoring the people of the province, my popularity shot right up, and I got 57 percent. I’ve always managed to maintain a level of support from my constituents, partly because they think I’m doing a good job and partly because they didn’t want the Liberal Party to be elected.

That’s just the choice that people in the province have. They get to choose between political parties and individuals, and that’s not going to change. The only thing that will change is that when one party gets 40 percent of the votes, they’ll get 40 percent of the seats. If you get 20 percent of the votes, you’ll get 20 percent of the seats. And the people being elected will be chosen very similarly to the way we get chosen now. We will be seeking our nominations. We will be hoping for the support of the people who are members of our party, and we’ll put our names forward, and we will have representation in this province.

Let me point out something that the opposition doesn’t want to mention. They don’t want to mention the fact that for 16 years — and I mean 16 years, 16 long years — they had all of the power. They could make every decision they wanted, despite the fact that in opposition, where I sat for 12 years, we represented a lot of voters in the province. But did we get to make decisions? None. Did we ever try to? Yes. But did government listen? Never. They had 100 percent of the power. They knew it, and they would use it to their advantage at every step of the way.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now, the argument that when you’re elected and you’re in opposition, your riding still gets stuff, I find very simplistic. You know what? I think this is what the member opposite said. It is not the entirety of the argument, obviously. It is not the entirety of the argument, because the Premier would also have said: “I would have preferred it if government thought a little bit about the people who are going homeless, thought a little bit more about the people who are suffering in the systems that they were gutting until they were almost a shadow of their former selves.”

We wanted to see efforts going into reduced poverty, but the government wouldn’t listen. They had 100 percent of the power, and they didn’t have any intention of listening to the opposition.

In a new system, where everybody gets represented according to the number of votes they get, we’ll have to talk more amongst each other, and maybe we’ll have to compromise once in a while. Instead of saying, “No, no, no,” to everything, maybe say: “Well, that’s a good idea.” If it’s a good idea, we should think about doing it. If it’s a good idea, whether it’s from the Green Party or the Liberal Party or the NDP, we should think about it.

Maybe there will be more parties. Maybe more people will run in elections. I think more people will even vote in elections if they think that if they vote, that one person will get one more vote, and if enough people vote for a party that they like or people that they like, then they’ll have representation.

Interjection.

N. Simons: A person or a party that they like. They’ll be able to elect the person or the party — both.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order now. Members.

N. Simons: For my friends in the gallery: this sometimes happens. When we say something they don’t like, they’ll just try to shout us down. But that’s okay. I’m used to it. I think I might get under their skin.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take a seat, please.

Other members will have their chance when they get the chance to speak. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has the floor now.

Please continue.

N. Simons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes I do get accused of being the best heckler in the House. It’s true, and they know that it’s always friendly. We have the best of a lot in this House right now: the best barbecuer in the House, the best Minister of Indigenous Relations — I could go on — the best Finance Minister. Yes, I might be the best heckler. That’s okay. They know how to take it.

But I’m talking about a motion that’s a serious issue in this House. We’re talking about electoral reform. The opposition doesn’t like what we’re planning, but unfortunately, it’s what the people of the province knew was coming and the people of the province are happy to have a chance to vote on.

I’m not telling people how to vote, and nor should the opposition tell people how to vote. They should be helping to ensure that the public of British Columbia is well informed — not scared, not deluded, not misinformed and not misguided. But that’s not what’s happening. They’re standing up in this Legislature, when they’re given a chance, and they’re saying: “You should be scared of the options put before you. You shouldn’t like the options put before you, and you don’t know all the answers to all the questions.”

For that reason only…. It doesn’t really make sense. It really doesn’t make sense, because there must be something else. There must be something else that bothers the opposition about our proposed legislation.

I don’t think it’s necessarily true when they say that it’s always going to be politicians making decisions about ridings and things like that. We have independent commissioners. We have Elections B.C. Decisions about things like that are made by independent boundary commissioners. We’ve don’t know, when they’re changing our boundaries, how they’re going to be changed. We don’t have a say in that. We can say what we’d like, but we don’t get a say for sure.

I think a system that doesn’t put all the power in one place, necessarily, is a better system because we have a more moderate approach to everything. We have a better opportunity to discuss. I think it’s clear that it can work.

Now, when they talk about stability in government and predictability in government, we have many examples of first-past-the-post where that doesn’t work. Look at New Brunswick. Who’s going to be forming government? What was their percentage of the vote? It doesn’t seem to make sense. They have 22 seats versus 20, but the ones with 20 got more votes.

I would say that for every example the opposition tries to bring up to support or reject a particular jurisdiction’s voting system…. I think you can find other examples, but we’re talking about British Columbians. We’re talking about British Columbians who understand that we’re a diverse province with geographical differences, regional differences, even local community-to-community differences.

[3:45 p.m.]

In my particular constituency, we have a broad range of communities. We have Gibsons, Sechelt, Pender Harbour, Powell River, Lund — all those communities. All the way up the inside coast of British Columbia, we see diversity of communities. They change, and they have different needs over different times, and they have different representatives. We expect that they will continue to have their voices properly reflected in this place. There’s no reduction of the voice of the people in this province. There’s only an increase to their voice in the proposed system.

That is at the root of this issue — that we will be voting potentially for a system that is proportional. The best thing about a proportional system is that it’s proportional. What we have right now is often disproportionate underrepresentation. We have disproportionate underrepresentation. I don’t know why there’s such a fear of this particular approach. I think that all parties stand to gain.

They still have to put their views forward. They still have to make their arguments for the platforms that they’ll come forward with. That’s not going to change. The people of the province will have an opportunity to mark Xs on a ballot next to names. That doesn’t change. Their views will be represented in this House in a more proportional way.

I don’t see a problem with making it more possible for minorities to be represented, for underrepresented groups to have a voice in this place. I think that’s nothing but positive. And I don’t understand the…. Some call it fearmongering. I’ve heard so many arguments from the other side that don’t seem to make sense to me. On one hand, they’re criticizing the fact that we make changes to legislation when citizens and representatives ask us to. I think that’s highly appropriate. Just because we’re not a bulldozer doesn’t mean we’re not actively doing things in a constructive way.

Previous governments might not have changed their mind when the public spoke out loudly or when the public even mentioned things that could have been done differently. They seemed to reject outright, for 16 years, proposals from well-meaning and thoughtful individuals from the community or from the opposition. That was never considered. I don’t understand why that would be…. Maybe that is their problem — that we do listen. And maybe they don’t like the fact that the public seems to be supportive of most of our policies — in great numbers, in fact.

This hoist motion is just a delay tactic. We said we would have a second referendum to decide whether the decision made was a good one or not or one that we wanted to stay with or not. That’s exactly what we’re planning to do. The question of legitimacy is laughable.

It’s laughable. When they want to talk about legiti­macy…. This is the same party that put forward to British Columbians decisions on the rights of minorities as a referendum. If you want to talk about illegitimate, that’s illegitimate. When you use a referendum to determine whether minorities have certain rights or not, that’s not just illegitimate; that’s a bit scary.

Then we had the member from Kamloops talk about the illegitimacy of the municipal elections. They talked about the illegitimacy of our government. They don’t understand illegitimacy. They don’t understand it. They think that’s illegitimate. They should have a look in the mirror and see what they did when they decided to have a referendum on minority rights.

And you know what? They like the fact that we say 16 years. They’ve been talking about fast ferries for a long time, and that’s a lot longer than 16 years ago. The ridiculousness of that, everyone can see. I think 16 years is understandable. For any child born when they first came into power, they did not have the benefits of British Columbians that had lived under a different government. They would’ve had the appropriate services in their schools. They would’ve had the appropriate number of teachers in their schools. They would have had an opportunity to have hope and no rejection of a poverty reduction plan.

[3:50 p.m.]

Just look at the cost of living. Look at the ferry fares. People on the Sunshine Coast did not have a voice in whether ferry fares would be increased or in the Coastal Ferry Act that the government rammed through this Legislature when there were two members of the opposition at the time. Did they even consider giving those two members party status? No.

This is what ultimate power does. And this opposition, when in government, was a perfect example of what you don’t want in an electoral system — a government that cares absolutely not about the voices of minorities or about alternative views or different perspectives.

They had no interest in implementing policies that were in the public interest. They were good at letting corruption run rampant all over the place. ICBC costs skyrocketed. They didn’t do things that were in the best interest of the general public. They did things that were in the best interest of their own friends. So I find it a little bit laughable to think that they’re going to be telling us anything about legitimacy.

We have a good process in place. If they don’t want to vote for it, they don’t have to. But I don’t think it’s appropriate to fearmonger. If they want to explain the systems to people, they should engage with citizens and tell them: “Here, you can go look at the Elections B.C. website.” They have three good videos on the three different systems, and if they don’t want to choose one of those systems, they can just say yes or no. That’s the other option.

I don’t know why they have a problem with double-checking with the people of British Columbia. Maybe the opinion of British Columbians isn’t really what they’re interested in. Maybe they just want to make a political grandstand on this particular subject. You know what? Go for it. It doesn’t seem to be working.

We have a hoist motion that’s solely designed to delay what is good legislation — legislation that we said we would bring in, legislation that goes with the referendum on proportional representation.

I’m hoping that the people of British Columbia will get their mail — look at their mail and not put it in the recycling — and decide, because it’s an important decision, whether they want to stay with our current system or move to a new system. That’s what’s on the ballot. That’s what people have a decision to make about. I’m hoping that despite the opposition’s efforts, people take part in this part of the democratic process, this important decision that’s being made.

Instead of trying to scare people away or undermining its value or its legitimacy, I think they would do better, if they don’t agree with it, to tell people they shouldn’t vote for it, and if they do agree with it, say why they agree with it. But to say that it’s too complicated or that it’s scary or that it’s this or that…. All sorts of words have been used to describe it that I think are unfair, not helpful, counterproductive.

That’s their decision. That’s the way the opposition wants to be. That’s the way the opposition wants to communicate with British Columbians. That’s too bad. I’d rather be less cynical and have expectations that British Columbians understand the decision that’s before them and take part in expressing their perspective by voting. That’s what the referendum is about. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a question that British Columbians are and will remain engaged with.

I’m looking forward to this passing. I’m looking forward to the decision being made by British Columbians. I’ll certainly encourage my constituents to vote for a system that is more representative, more proportional, and that reflects the diversity of voices in our province so that we all have a voice in this chamber.

T. Stone: I rise today in support of this hoist motion which is currently before us, with respect to Bill 40.

Sadly, in British Columbia’s upcoming referendum on electoral reform, which is really about addressing the most sacred aspect of our democracy — how we elect the members of this chamber, the people’s representatives — this NDP-Green government has conveniently and purposefully chosen as the key means of education in this entire process, as a key strategy for British Columbians to get the details, to understand what’s at stake, to understand what’s being proposed….

[3:55 p.m.]

The government has suggested that British Columbians should get that information by, as the Premier has said, going to Google — an astonishing directive from the Premier of British Columbia. I would suggest it’s a shocking display of leaderless leadership, suggesting that British Columbians really are on their own to navigate this highly divisive issue, to figure out his government’s intentions surrounding our treasured democracy and to do so on an Internet search engine — a blatant, irresponsible abandonment of education and fairness.

This brings me to this hoist motion in Bill 40. This amendment that the hoist motion is attached to amends the referendum act to provide for a requirement to hold a second referendum after two elections. Of course, this would happen should British Columbians decide in this current referendum to replace our current first-past-the-post system with some form of proportional representation.

Now, the government wants us to believe that this bill is about providing British Columbians with the assurance that if one of these forms of proportional representation doesn’t work well for British Columbia, if, indeed, the people of British Columbia find, after two election cycles, that they don’t like it, well, they should not worry. “Don’t worry. We can get rid of it at some point in the future.” Think of this as some kind of warm and fuzzy blanket that British Columbians are being asked to wrap around themselves as they take what the Premier described recently as a great leap of faith.

We’re supposed to believe that a second referendum provides citizens with some form of guarantee, a safety valve, an off-ramp. Well, let’s just think about that. The message is, basically: “If we mess up, if this proportional representation experience doesn’t work for us, don’t despair, don’t worry. There’s a do-over. Don’t worry, be happy. It’s not like anything of significance is on the line.”

Again, all of this is in the context of our democracy. All of this is in the context of that most fundamental tenet of our democracy: how we elect our MLAs. Well, the stark reality is that this manoeuvre by the Attorney General and by the NDP-Green coalition is actually sad. It’s sad for our province, and it’s sad for our democracy.

It’s sad that the NDP and the Greens would play so fast and loose with the rules, that they would play so fast and loose with our democracy — not to mention one small detail. It has been pointed out a number of times by a number of my colleagues, and I will reiterate it: this chamber cannot bind a future government. We all know this. The NDP knows this. The Attorney General certainly knows this.

Can you imagine two elections after proportional representation is in place? What would that landscape look like? Well, if every other proportional representation jurisdiction is any indication, there would likely be a plethora of smaller political parties — a whole bunch of parties with five, ten, 12 MLAs and perhaps a few with more. Presumably, no party would have a majority, and there would be a coalition government in place, propped up by a collection of these small parties. And the propping up only takes place when the small parties can extract that pound or two of flesh from the larger parties, whatever that is that they want in exchange for their support.

The NDP wants us to believe that the MLAs of that future Legislature — a Legislature that would be characterized by a fractured minority parliament — would play ball and that they would agree to hold another referendum when the sole purpose for holding another referendum would be to put their small parties out of business by potentially having British Columbians vote to revert to first-past-the-post.

[4:00 p.m.]

You know this isn’t going to happen. I know this isn’t going to happen. Rather, by a simple amendment to the Referendum Act, the coalition government that would likely be in place at that time would more likely amend the act to remove the requirement for a second referendum. In fact, it would likely be a condition of support from the small parties in exchange for propping up that coalition government.

That is exactly what we saw take place in this current parliament, with the three Green members extracting their pound of flesh, as detailed in the confidence and supply agreement that the Greens and the NDP signed — those conditions that the NDP needed to meet in order to assure themselves of receiving the Green Party’s support.

On top of this, it’s unbelievable that a government is bringing forward this commitment to a second referendum in the middle of the referendum campaign itself. We are in the middle of the referendum period. In fact, we are now in the voting period. So I ask: how is this manoeuvre, inserting an amendment into the referendum act in the middle of the actual campaign period, not inserting the government’s resources and the taxpayers’ dollars into the referendum period?

This provision for a second referendum could have very easily been included in the last round of amendments that the government made to the referendum act earlier in the life of this parliament, but they opted not to do that, knowing full well that moving forward with this amendment for a provision of a second referendum would have far greater impact in the middle of the referendum period itself.

Ballots are being mailed out to British Columbians, and ballots are being received by British Columbians. The Attorney General and the NDP have the gall to inject this amendment, this measure, into the middle of the referendum period. Again, we ask ourselves why. The simple answer is: because they want to influence the outcome. That’s shameful.

To recap, ballots are in the mail; they’re being received. The NDP has injected into the middle of the referendum campaign period — and, indeed, the middle of the actual voting period — a piece of legislation that would promise British Columbians a do-over.

If that’s not enough, how about this? Before the promise of a second referendum even becomes a binding legal requirement, this House has to debate and pass Bill 40, the very bill that we’re still debating.

With that backdrop, imagine my surprise — actually, disgust — when I received, in my home mail, a voter’s guide from Elections B.C. several weeks ago — before Bill 40 was even introduced in this House. On page 8 of that voter’s guide, it says: “Another referendum will be held after two general elections to see if B.C. wants to keep the new voting system or go back to using first-past-the-post.”

How could that be, when this House hasn’t even determined yet if it is willing to endorse that commitment, in the form of the amendments before this House? It’s an unbelievable manipulation of this referendum process.

I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out at this point in my remarks that I actually feel increasingly bad for Elections B.C. I feel sorry for them, in a certain respect, for the professionals within Elections B.C.

It can’t be easy to have the Attorney General, the person that the Premier has declared as the “neutral arbiter” of this process, force you into a box on this and many other details related to the referendum. It’s inconceivable that the Attorney General would be this blatant in his desire to tilt the balance and influence the outcome as much as necessary to get the result that the NDP and the Greens want. Bill 40 is nothing more than yet another feature of this entire referendum sham.

Just to refresh your memory on how flawed this entire process has been, the approval threshold was dropped from 60 percent plus one to 50 percent plus one.

[4:05 p.m.]

It was our party, the party that I belong to, that held two previous referendums in this province on electoral reform. We’re not opposed — never have been — to holding another referendum — this referendum. But this lowering of the bar is quite something when you are talking about the most important feature of our democracy — that we wouldn’t have a slightly higher threshold requirement for approval.

There’s no regional approval any longer. This was a hallmark of our previous two referenda on this subject — 60 percent plus one required of all ridings in the province. This was the voice of rural B.C. This was the voice of the Interior and the north, so with its removal, with this provision pulled back, one can expect that there has been a pretty significant increase of frustration and anger and outright worry in the Interior and the north, and in rural B.C. People are nearing the end of their patience. People are worried that the will of the mass-populated areas of B.C. will increasingly dominate and, indeed, overwhelm rural B.C.

Since B.C. joined Confederation back in 1871, only 147 years ago, there’s always been a grand bargain of sorts between urban and rural B.C. There has always been accommodation of both urban and rural B.C. There has always been recognition and respect for the sensibilities of both urban and rural B.C. That has been thrown out the window.

There’s no minimum turnout requirement. How can that be? We have a Premier, on the record, who has said that a 10 percent voter turnout and 50-percent-plus-one support would constitute a mandate to move forward with electoral reform, to move forward with change. The math on that is 5 percent. That would be 5 percent of eligible voters. That’s just not right.

Many in this House have talked about the Premier’s commitment to a simple yes-no question. That has been replaced with a confusing two-part question. There’s a mail-in ballot, which is going to cost millions of dollars, upwards of $15 million, to hold, that is nicely laying on top of not just the recent summer but the municipal elections that we just had.

There was no citizens’ assembly. This was, again, one of the hallmarks of the two previous referenda in this province on electoral reform. The details, the question, the maps, everything related to what was eventually put in front of voters was determined by citizens. Citizens should be at the centre of our democracy. Citizens should be at the centre of any change to our democracy.

There were no riding maps this time around. We’re told there wasn’t enough time to develop the maps. There wasn’t enough time to develop the maps so that British Columbians — as part of educating themselves, presumably, on Google — could access those maps and look for their community and understand what each of the three proportional representation options would actually mean to their community. There are no maps.

There’s no advanced voting opportunity. The Canadian Snowbird Association is a national, non-partisan, not-for-profit advocacy organization dedicated to actively defending and improving the rights of travelling Canadians — about 110,000 members across the country, mostly senior citizens. They’ve said that in order to ensure eligible electors who will be absent during the voting period could still participate, there should be an advanced voting opportunity held. They say that an advanced voting period will serve to increase voter turnout and enhance democratic participation. They believe that without an advanced voting period, there’s a risk of disenfranchising thousands of travelling British Columbians who will be unable to participate.

They also say that requesting and receiving a mail-in ballot, a voter package, while abroad is insufficient. I can understand why. The response from this government and Elections B.C. has been: “Not going to happen.” There’s not going to be an opportunity for advanced voting.

[4:10 p.m.]

There are 29 details that we’ve canvassed in a great amount of detail, on this side of the House, that will be confirmed after a vote. But we’re told: “Don’t worry.” There’s a panel of experts that will be appointed by, presumably, the Attorney General that will recommend what those details should be. Then those details will come before this House or specifically to a legislative committee.

They don’t point out that that committee would have five NDP-Greens on it, and four B.C. Liberals. So I certainly know what the results of that committee will be, and that can hardly be suggested to be an independent and fair process.

We’ve no idea how many ridings there will be. We have no idea what the boundaries will be. We have no idea what constitutes a rural riding versus urban ridings. This is probably one of the most common questions I get up in Kamloops. If, presumably, Kamloops is thrown into a much larger riding that likely would span from Quesnel to Princeton and, perhaps, Revelstoke to Lillooet — Kamloops is a city of 110,000 — does that mean Kamloops is an urban riding, or will Kamloops fall within a rural riding? Again, we don’t know. Those details haven’t been determined yet. We don’t even know what the total number of MLAs will be. We’re given a range, but we don’t know how many MLAs will actually sit in this chamber.

Voters are just supposed to look at the ballot and know the differences between mixed-member proportional representation, which is in use in a number of jurisdictions around the world, and two other forms that have never been used anywhere — urban-rural and dual-member proportional. You don’t have to take my word for it. The Attorney General’s own report says that those two systems are “not currently in use.” But we’re just supposed to know what these are and rank them accordingly.

Now, it was interesting to read the views of someone who has really immersed himself in public life and in public policy, a gentleman that is well known to most members of this House, Gordon Gibson. He has spent most of his 81 years in British Columbia. He was elected to this chamber twice. He ran five times. He was the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party in the 1970s. He declared himself a non-partisan in the early 1990s. To put a finer point on that, he’s been very clear in recent days that he supports candidates, not parties. The records will show that he contributed $2,000 to the local campaign of the Minister of Finance, the MLA for Victoria–​Beacon Hill.

But back in 2002, the B.C. government tasked him with designing the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, a process that he put together that was unanimously adopted in the B.C. Legislature of the day. In his words, that process has since been studied the world over as the “gold standard for making such important changes.” There were 160 members of that citizens’ assembly, and they studied and they engaged and they consulted and they deliberated for over a year. What did they come up with? They proposed a very specific form of proportional representation called a single transferable vote or BCSTV. It was put to a referendum vote.

Now, Gordon Gibson says about the process that was put in place and followed throughout that referendum — throughout that citizens’ assembly at the front end of the referendum, in particular: “That is the way to do it: citizen design, citizen approval. Democratic elections belong to all of us, and if the rules are to be changed, they should be changed by us.” Of course, he’s referring to the people of British Columbia, to the voters.

[4:15 p.m.]

Fast-forward to today. We have an NDP-Green government that’s taking a very different path, one that features all of the referendum details being developed by the NDP in the back rooms of cabinet, presumably with occasional visits from the members of the Green Party, and an approvals process that was designed entirely by the NDP cabinet as well.

When it comes to the most sacred of our rights and freedoms, that is, how we select our MLA, one path that has been travelled before — twice in this province — places citizens at the centre of any change to our electoral system. The other path places politicians at the centre of this change. Regrettably, this second path is the path that has been chosen by the NDP-Greens, and that’s wrong.

Here’s what Gordon Gibson has to say about the path that the current NDP-Green government is on.

“Now we have a new proposal for electoral change, but with a huge difference. This one is designed by partisan politicians for their benefit, however high-sounding their words.

“Anyone who follows sports knows the importance of detailed rules. Even apparently tiny ones can tilt the playing field and rig the game. To all but the closest students of the game, the tricks are invisible, but they determine who wins.

“That is the basic problem of the current referendum on electoral change. Specific details like community representation, what bosses will choose party list MLAs, how many votes you will have and how they will be counted — these essentials are hidden, to be decided only after the referendum by conflicted politicians. But that is too much of a mandate to give to a saint, let alone your average MLA.

“In short, this process is dishonest, misleading and wide open to down-the-road manipulation. Our current government is following a process that is wrong.”

The wise words of Gordon Gibson.

Even if you support moving to proportional representation, how can there be any credibility in the result when the process has been so seriously flawed? That’s why I support this hoist motion. I think the delay of six months would be more than in order here.

For the record again, even if the process wasn’t so flawed, I personally don’t support making a change to proportional representation. The current system that we have, first-past-the-post, I like to think of as 87 mini-elections. With 87 constituencies around the province, on election day, there are 87 mini-elections. British Columbians in each of those 87 ridings vote for the candidate of their choice. They put an X next to the person’s last name, and the person with the most votes wins. It’s simple.

Under proportional representation, there will be, regardless of which form you choose, a reduction in local representation. Under proportional representation, the entire base of government will be where the population is: Metro Vancouver. Rural regions will face the very likely prospect of MLAs not even living in the region that they represent. We know that the size of the ridings will become huge, as the number of ridings under any one of these forms of proportional representation will be dramatically reduced. The number will be cut by 40 to 60 percent.

Kamloops might continue to have an elected MLA; we might not. Communities today that have MLAs, such as Quesnel and Williams Lake and Oliver, Sicamous, Ashcroft and others would almost certainly not have an MLA again. Some MLAs would be elected, but at least half would be appointed to regions off of party lists. In these lists, MLAs would be picked by political parties and parachuted into large ridings without having to actually get a single vote from a voter. They will be spared the requirement of actually running for an actual seat.

These different forms of proportional representation really represent a shift of power from local voters to political parties. It means a dramatic shift to the back room, where there would be backroom deals and horse-trading between political parties, where commitments to voters, commitments that are made in elections, no longer matter.

We’re sitting here watching an NDP-Green government where the Greens campaigned in the last election on killing LNG. How’s that going? Or killing Site C — how did that work out for them? Very contrary to the commitments that they made to the people that voted for them.

[4:20 p.m.]

Likewise, the NDP. We have no $10-a-day daycare. We haven’t seen the renters rebate. We haven’t seen a number of other commitments that were made. Why? Because they go out the window. As the Green leader himself has said, the commitments that the parties make to each other become more important and trump the commitments that are actually made to voters. Why? Because you have to negotiate and form these coalitions behind closed doors.

Those in favour of proportional representation are certainly passionate, and I thank them for their commitment to being involved in the process. That’s why we’re so proud and lucky to live in a democracy. But they’re also crafty, and they’re relentless, and that’s how campaigns go. Somewhere, they’ve positioned themselves on a moral high ground on this issue, as if to say that only their perspective matters, only they have the true facts, and only they can enlighten the fine people of British Columbia.

They do have great slogans. “Make every vote count.” Unless your candidate that you vote for represents a party that gets less than 5 percent of the vote provincewide — then your vote doesn’t actually really count.

Or: “No party will get 100 percent of the power with 40 percent of the vote ever again.” Well, how about this? Today we have a party in government that didn’t get 40 percent of the vote. Or you could look at it another way. We have three MLAs in the House here that got 17 percent of the vote, and one would suggest that they have 100 percent of the power today.

How about the slogan: “Parties must work together to ensure policies have real majority support”? Right, just like we see today. We have 42 members of the B.C. Liberal Party in this House that have never been joined in a single vote by the three Greens, who purport to be an opposition party but have voted 100 percent of the time with their NDP masters.

How about: “You will be able to vote for who you want, instead of against who you don’t want”? Really? This falls apart fast when you realize that you could end up with an appointed-list MLA representing you, and that person didn’t get a single vote in an election.

Or how about: “You’ll get an MLA that will listen to you, not a party”? This one is the worst one of all. It’s actually insulting. I never ask a constituent who comes through my office door: “How did you vote in the last election?” I never ask anyone that comes through my door: “Do you support me? Would you like to volunteer on my campaigns?” I work for everyone in my constituency. When that election is over, I represent the people of Kamloops–South Thompson.

They even managed to convince folks that they’re non-partisan. But the part of their argument that drives me the craziest is their assertion that if only we had proportional representation — wait for it — we will have better social outcomes, better education outcomes, more concern for the environment, less incarceration rates. On and on it goes. I think unicorns for children under six is on that list somewhere as well.

It’s as if to say that with prop rep, it’s the only system that affords a high standard of living and wealth and freedom. That’s simply not true. There are, of course, great countries with prop rep, and there are, of course, basket cases with prop rep. The same can be said for first-past-the-post. What this really means is that the electoral system is not the reason why a country prospers.

This entire referendum process has been ill-conceived. It has been highly flawed, and this government needs to go back to the drawing board. That is why I support this hoist motion, and it is why I will be voting against Bill 40.

T. Redies: I rise to speak in favour of the hoist motion to Bill 40. I speak in support of this delay because there are so many things wrong with this referendum process. In fact, it’s all wrong. From the get-go, the process around this referendum has been a travesty. Bill 40 is just another continuation of this farcical exercise.

Before I speak to why I fervently believe we need to delay Bill 40, I want to say that I’m not against electoral reform. If the people of British Columbia were given all the information they needed to make an informed decision on proportional representation, if there was a valid and independent process and people voted in significant numbers for electoral reform, I’d embrace electoral reform wholeheartedly. However, that’s not what we have here.

[4:25 p.m.]

Let me tell you why I have no faith in this process and why I believe the only right thing to do is to support the hoist motion. To forewarn you, Mr. Speaker, I’m going to speak in detail about the entire process to date because, for me, it underlies why this side of the House can’t support any part of this referendum legislation.

First, we have a Premier who promised a completely different approach when he campaigned during the last election. However, to cement his secretariat with the Green Party and grab the reins of government, he threw all of his principles to the wind.

During the campaign, when asked about a referendum on proportional representation, the Premier indicated there would be a citizens’ assembly, similar to the ones put together in 2005 and 2009. As so aptly described recently by Gary Mason of the Globe and Mail: “Well, not since George Bush Sr. said, ‘Read my lips; no new taxes,’ has there been a greater public policy U-turn. Mr. Horgan has gone from letting the public decide on a new electoral system to endorsing having it done by an unelected committee of academics and hand-picked members of the public.”

Instead of a citizens’ assembly, we had the Attorney General appointed as the so-called neutral arbiter to decide the process of consultation, the question to be put forward and type of proportional representation system to be put before the voting public.

Well, to quote a well-used analogy, isn’t that just like putting the proverbial fox in the henhouse? Instead of an independent citizens’ group deciding the question and the type of proportional representation system for the public to vote on, no, the Attorney General, the Premier’s bastion of objectivity and neutrality in this House, gets to control the whole process. Excuse me if I’m skeptical, Mr. Speaker.

One thing that came out of the Attorney General’s consultation process was keeping the voting process simple. Well, there’s nothing simple about the proposed three PR systems on the ballot. I have a degree in finance, and I read multiple times how the proportions are generally determined mathematically with one of the systems, dual-member proportional representation, and I still have trouble understanding it.

Now, even the question that came forward to cabinet was not a simple yes-or-no question, and that was another broken promise by this Premier. The first part of the ballot is relatively straightforward. However, it’s the second part of the ballot that concerns me.

First, of the three proportional ballot systems that have been put forward, two have never been used anywhere else in the world. And second, nowhere on the ballot does it say you don’t have to vote on the second question if you voted for first-past-the-post in the first question. The ballot is deliberately misleading from that perspective. For what reason? I don’t know why. Perhaps the government is going to use the ballots that have answered yes to first-past-the-post and answered the second question to boost their percentage for how many they say voted in favour of PR. I wouldn’t put it past this government, based on the process that I’ve seen.

The ballot question wasn’t conceived by an independent citizens’ assembly that had nothing to gain or lose with proportional representation. It was conceived by the Attorney General and then blessed by the NDP cabinet, no doubt with ample advice from their Green colleagues. And surprise, surprise — the cabinet approved the question with no changes.

Also concerning was that this government waited until the last day of the House in the spring session to release the question. Far from having the courage of conviction or a principled approach to something as far-reaching as electoral reform, the NDP tried to sneak out of the spring session without any debate on the question. The official opposition had to force an emergency debate in the House on the last day because this government didn’t even have the guts to put the question up for debate. How is that a principled approach?

If they were proud of this process, why did they wait for the last day of the spring session before they released the question? Because they know the process is flawed, and it doesn’t pass the smell test. The process was designed to be opaque to British Columbians, to help skew the referendum in favour of zealots who are bound and determined to get proportional representation into B.C. by any means possible.

The Attorney General and his Green buddies know that it’s all about who can get the vote out. The Attorney General also said that his job was done after bringing the question and the PR choices forward for cabinet’s blessing. In May of this year, he said he would “step away from any further discussion or decision-making on the issue.” And he went on to say: “The role of my office, as of today, bringing this forward, is complete. I will not be participating in any caucus or cabinet discussions about proportional representation.” Well, well, well. So much for keeping to that promise. Roll forward to October 2018, when it has become abundantly obvious that the mood of the B.C. voters is changing.

[4:30 p.m.]

Now we have Bill 40 in front of us. Proportional representation is now neck and neck with first-past-the-post in the eyes of the B.C. voters. Suddenly, we now have Bill 40, conveniently inserted during this campaign to let B.C. voters know: “It’s okay. In two elections from now, if you don’t like proportional representation, you can vote to go back to first-past-the-post. So don’t worry; be happy. Give PR a chance. You can always go back to the polls and change it two elections from now.”

But as many of my colleagues have said before me, this is a sham. This document’s not worth the paper it’s written on, because the governments cannot bind future governments. It’s just a sham exercise designed to coax those B.C. voters who might be too scared about voting for PR to give it a try, thinking they can change it back two elections from now.

So much for the Attorney General staying out of the process. The Attorney General has asserted himself and his ideas in every aspect of this referendum, and now, even during the writ, the Attorney General is forcing through Bill 40, just as a last-ditch effort to make sure PR passes. It’s all a sham.

The other major, major problem here is that many British Columbians don’t even know we’re having a referendum, and even if they do, they don’t understand what it is all about. This fact alone should give everyone in this House, and indeed every British Columbian, cause for concern.

We need a sober second thought about Bill 40, and we need a sober second thought about this referendum altogether. Here we are at the point when the ballot question is being mailed to British Columbians, and a large percentage of people don’t know what is going on.

This is unthinkable, unconscionable and unprincipled. A principled government would say stop. We need to better educate the public on what we are asking them to vote on. We need to delay this vote until we can properly dot the i’s and cross the t’s,” so to speak. But that’s not what we have. We don’t have a principled government.

We have a government that has shed all of its principles on electoral reform just so it can seize and retain power by keeping their Green friends happy.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

When I speak about principle, I must also comment on the actions of the leader of the Green Party. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is always stating that we all, in this House, should act on principle, and I agree with that. But it seems to me that the leader of the Green Party and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head doesn’t always act on principle.

Time and time again, he’s threatened to vote no on the government’s policies, and he hasn’t. It’s pretty obvious to all, including the media, that he won’t be doing that, because we all know that what he cares about most is having proportional representation go through.

As far as standing on principle, instead, the leader of the Green Party recently said in a town hall that the reason to vote for proportional representation was “to make sure there is never another B.C. Liberal majority again.” Wow, that’s a truly principled approach to electoral reform.

But back to process. Why was the threshold only set at 50 percent plus one of people voting? A ridiculously low threshold given the importance of electoral reform. From the outset, this has been a rigged process and a rigged game, set up purely to assuage the Green Party and ensure they prop up this minority government. The Green Party has the most to benefit from this referendum, pure and simple.

Again, I’m not against electoral reform, but I’m for a clear independent process, and this has not been that. This has been a rigged process from the outset.

Even today there are many British Columbians who don’t know what is going on. A poll less than a month ago showed that 33 percent of British Columbians were undecided — 33 percent. If the questions and the PR choices are so clear, as this government and the Greens attest to, why are so many people undecided?

The government doesn’t want to produce riding maps until, if and when, the public decides to vote on one of the three PR options before them. The Green Party leader, the other day in this House, said that he doesn’t know if the ridings will get bigger under proportional representation. Well, I have to say that assertion was a big surprise to me, because the leader of the Green Party has a PhD in mathematics.

The only way you would be able to keep the same number of MLAs — the 87 MLAs — and be able to manage the proportions of a general vote would be to make the riding sizes larger so they could hold back a number of seats in order to manage the proportions. It’s either that or they’re increasing the number of MLAs. It’s a bit surprising that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, with a PhD in mathematics, didn’t come clean on this.

[4:35 p.m.]

Also, to illustrate the issue around riding sizes and what the pro-PR folks are saying out there, a PR proponent spoke at the Surrey Board of Trade last month. When asked by an audience member as to what would happen to the ridings with PR, he said that Surrey would have fewer ridings, and it was his opinion that Surrey didn’t really need nine ridings. It probably only needed probably two or three. Wow.

Surrey was a very important region in terms of deciding the outcomes of the last provincial election and previous provincial elections. But now PR advocates are saying to Surrey, the fastest-growing city in the province, that you don’t need nine ridings. That expert thinks that Surrey doesn’t need nine MLAs that are directly voted for by the citizens of Surrey. He thinks it’s okay if the parties just add people the party supports after the election from their party lists — the people who will supposedly represent the riding but, in reality, are loyal to the party, not the voter. I can’t say I agree with that, and I can tell you it didn’t go over well with Surrey.

What will happen with the ridings, of course, isn’t the only nugget of information being held back from the voting public. As we know, there are 20-plus different factors that won’t be decided until after the referendum — factors such as the number of MLAs; the size of the ridings, which I spoke to; and what constitutes a rural versus an urban riding; whether or not we use closed or open lists to pick MLAs who would make up the proportions.

These are not little details. They have a significant impact on how elections in this province proceed, going forward. How can the voting public vote on something they are not fully informed on? I ask you: how could any principled government expect voters to vote for something when they have not been made fully aware of the implications?

Now, the Premier, in some Orwellian mindset, has said to the voting public, “Don’t worry. Just trust me.” “Take a leap of faith,” I think is what he said. He would have British Columbians vote for PR without all the information they need to make an informed vote. “Just trust me,” he says.

How is that remotely possible when everything that has been done with this referendum, every decision point, every action taken, every step that has been made has been designed or engineered to get a win on proportional representation? “Just trust me,” says the Premier.

Would you buy a car and have the salesman say to you: “Look, we’ll tell you after you pay whether it’s a sedan or an SUV, whether it’s grey or pink, whether it’s a manual or standard, whether it has three wheels or four, whether it works or not”? Would you buy a car this way? Absolutely not, but this is what this Premier is asking British Columbians to do.

Why should anyone support Bill 40? Why should we not have a longer delay on this bill so that we can debate the issues here? This process, from the get-go, has been a travesty. It’s not been a fair process. It’s not been an independent process. Why should we trust this Premier when he’s broken every promise relating to this referendum?

The Premier, from my perspective, should do the honourable thing: stop this sham and make sure that British Columbians are properly informed. To do anything less is an abdication of his responsibility as Premier of the province.

J. Isaacs: I rise today to speak to the hoist motion and the very many reasons that I have to support the hoist motion. I welcome the opportunity to raise some of my concerns, the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues and the concerns that I have heard from voters in my riding and elsewhere.

First and foremost, there are just too many unanswered questions and voters have simply not had enough time to sort through what the referendum would mean to them. The referendum is the biggest, most significant vote in front of British Columbians right now, and for the most part, voters are unaware of the mechanics of what is before them. They are uninformed as to how this fundamental change will impact our electoral system and how these changes will impact British Columbians, both at the local level and across the province. Voters have questions, I have questions, and we need more time for answers.

We have been in the middle of municipal elections all across the province. Voters have been completely distracted with local election issues, and rightly so. Many municipal voters were taking the time to inform themselves as to who the new candidates were, what their platforms were, taking time to understand what the issues might be in their local jurisdictions.

[4:40 p.m.]

It takes time for voters to inform themselves in order that they feel comfortable and comfortable enough to make an informed and responsible decision. Last week voters exercised their democratic right to vote, and I congratulate all the elected officials, along with the candidates who put their names forward.

We know years in advance when elections are scheduled. Whether it is municipal, provincial or federal, we know in advance. Government has an obligation to make sure that they organize their affairs and the timing of affairs in accordance to other events that are taking place, particularly significant events such as the municipal election. They should not have called for a referendum that clearly conflicted with another election.

As a result of pressing forward, voters have raised the question: why? With such an important vote already before British Columbians, why would this government deliberately choose this date, when voters would be distracted with municipal elections?

Scheduling the referendum at this time and trying to push through legislation that, according to Elections B.C., cannot be implemented any earlier than 2021 raises concerns. Voters would like to know why there’s so much urgency, why it has been placed on holding a referendum vote right now and what the underlying motivation could be to rush through something so important, a decision so vital to our democracy and one that will materially change the way in which we govern in this province.

Well, I think I can offer a response for that question. As I see it, and as many of my colleagues will agree, the only reason that this flawed referendum is being pushed through in such a rushed fashion is because there is an agreement between the Greens and the NDP that was made in June 2017 — an agreement that was formed after the election where the Greens would agree to support the NDP if the Greens could secure agreement to bring forward a referendum vote.

So perhaps we can tick that one off. The rush is simply because the Green Party has one single issue that they want to bring forward, and it’s proportional representation. With so many important issues for government to address and work on, such as jobs, affordability, supporting B.C. businesses and growing our economy, the motivation for the timing and reasons why the Greens and NDP are calling for election change now is clear. There was a conditional agreement between two parties, and not the public, to hold a referendum on proportional representation.

I support the hoist motion because there are a few other questions that remain unanswered, and voters have not been provided the opportunity to adequately educate themselves on this fundamental shift to our election process. The process as to how the referendum changed from a simple yes-or-no vote that the Premier promised in 2016 to a more complex question, which the Premier promised would not be the case, raises concerns. It is no longer a simple yes-or-no vote.

This change, together with the addition of three proposed proportional representation systems that voters need to consider and choose from on the ballot, makes the entire exercise much more complex. The public’s questions have not been answered, and clearly, more time is needed so that voters can evaluate exactly what is being proposed.

In the last referendum, there was an independent citizens’ assembly comprised of 161 members. They consulted with British Columbians all around the province and asked British Columbians what kind of improvements needed to be made and how the referendum question would be asked. In the 2018 referendum, there was no independent citizens’ assembly, no independent consultation with the public and only a skewed on-line survey that very few British Columbians were even aware of or completed.

Instead, it was the Attorney General who decided what the process would be. He decided what the question would be, and he decided what options or models of proportional representation would be put forward on the ballot form. There have been no substantial answers as to why there was a change in the consultation process or why the Attorney General, who has publicly stated that he supports proportional representation, claiming he is unbiased in the process, decided that the public should not be afforded an opportunity to comment on proposed changes or to have any input as to what model could be considered.

There are no substantial answers as to how the three options were chosen. In fact, two of the three options have never been tried anywhere in the world before. When the public has raised concerns and when legitimate questions are being put forward for clarification and more comprehensive explanations, there have been no answers.

[4:45 p.m.]

In response to these important questions being raised by the public, the Premier said that British Columbians should take a “leap of faith.” I think that most voters feel that taking a leap of faith is not the responsible thing to do. Voters should be allocated sufficient and adequate time to comprehend all the risks, as well as the benefits, of proportional representation. They deserve time to understand what a new voting system means, and they need the time to fully understand how each of the proposed options will impact them directly.

There’s another reason that I support the amendment. In the last referendums, there was a minimum threshold that had to be met in order to make the referendum binding. The minimum level needed for voter approval was set at 60 percent. In this case, referendum 2018, we’ve seen significant changes to the minimum threshold limits. In fact, the minimum threshold has been dropped to an alarming 50 percent plus one, with no regional thresholds whatsoever in place.

This means that the population of Vancouver alone could change the way we elect our local representatives and how we govern around the province and hold governments accountable. How would this process be considered a fair vote for those who live outside of the Lower Mainland?

Another unanswered question is the question voters are asking with regard to changing electoral boundaries. We know that proportional representation will reduce the number of ridings. The four Tri-Cities ridings, for example, will likely be reduced to just one riding. Constituents in my riding are very concerned about what this means to them. The rest of the province will experience enormous changes to their riding boundaries as well. Yet there is no clear indication or confirmation of where the boundary lines may change and, once those boundaries are in place, how representation in each region will be compromised.

Without proper maps that show clear boundaries, how would the public know and understand what region they would be voting for? Maps showing the adjusted boundaries should be provided to voters before the referendum vote and not after. If Elections B.C. needs time to provide the maps, the time should be allotted. This is just another example of why I support the amendment. Voters should not be casting votes in a vacuum.

The other question that voters are concerned about is their understanding — really, it’s their lack of understanding — of who will actually represent them in their local riding. Will it be the MLA that they voted for? Or will it be a representative appointed from a party list? Most people are completely unaware of how their representative may be elected or appointed in their riding under proportional representation. An appointed representative may not even live in your riding, and access to your MLA will be through a bureaucratic channel.

I was at a recent meeting where someone said that if you are an NDP’er and have an issue, you cannot go to a Liberal MLA for help. This is not the case. Once elected, MLAs work for and with and respond to any and all issues that are brought forward by constituents. MLAs work on behalf of everyone in their constituency. We need to pause and take the time to explain to voters what is really at stake here and how the benefit of local and accountable representation is at risk. There has simply not been enough time for people to understand the magnitude of change that will take place.

One of the biggest concerns is the question related to the costs and ineffectiveness of government when single-issue parties or fringe parties end up with a disproportionate balance of power and end up having control over public policies, even when those policies may not represent the values or principles of the majority. It is the classic tail wagging the dog. Parties with only 5 percent of the votes can promote their single-issue agenda over and above the wishes of the majority, stalling other important issues such as job creation and supporting B.C. businesses that grow our economy and provide services to support our communities.

For those voters who are concerned, want clarification and are asking questions, taking the process seriously, what has been the response to them for wanting to make an informed decision? Well, the response so far has been disappointing and lacks clarity.

[4:50 p.m.]

The responses are intended to diminish valid concerns that the public had raised. Voters have raised multiple questions, and their concerns have not been met. They are only met with smirking and sneers, and legitimate questions are scuffed off.

Why are these questions being raised in the first place? It is because there has not been enough time for voters to understand the issues. It’s no longer a simple vote, which we currently have under the first-past-the-post system. It is a much more complex vote, with multiple options and with multiple unintended consequences.

We keep hearing: “No need to worry. There are 90 countries that have proportional representation.” The Greens and the NDP and the yes groups expect voters to accept this statement, that that alone should be good enough. “You don’t need any more information. Don’t worry. We’ll figure it all later.” Well, if voters accept that 90 countries already have proportional representation, they will also have to accept the unintended consequences.

We only need to look at New Zealand, a country similar to Canada, where the leader of the New Zealand First party did not get elected in his own constituency because of his extreme views, including anti-immigration views. His constituents essentially threw him out. Yet, under proportional representation, the party reappointed him. He is now the Deputy Prime Minister and was even the Prime Minister for a time. That’s probably not what voters intended. Yet the government and the public are left with the unintended consequences of having to deal with an extreme single-issue appointed representative. This is just one example of 90 countries that are under the proportional representation voting system.

Let’s look at one more, Sweden. Their recent election resulted in 43 percent of a Right government and 43 percent of a Left government. The remaining minority, unfortunately, belongs to the Swedish Democrats, a far right, even neo-Nazi group.

If you accept proportional representation, you must accept the unintended consequences that are the reality in other countries. As the yes side try to play down the negative and unintended consequences, they believe that they will get your vote because the NDP just said last week: “Well, if it doesn’t work out, we’ll just change it back after two terms.” Well, that’s not okay.

We should not be figuring out anything after the referendum. We should know exactly what is at stake now, and we should not have to revisit this issue two election cycles down the road or eight or so years after the referendum. People have valid concerns and questions, and they should be afforded the appropriate time to educate themselves in order to make an informed decision.

The member for Prince George–Valemount made a very good point in her comments related to the public’s concerns. She summarized the public’s asking of legitimate questions. “That is not fearmongering; that’s fact-finding.” Why does the government seem determined to characterize any questions about this referendum process as fearmongering? It is not.

The public has every right to know and understand the fundamentals of proportional representation. They can only arrive at this understanding of what it means to them locally and around the province if they raise their concerns and questions — legitimate questions.

How many MLAs will I have in my riding? What will be the size of my riding? What constitutes a rural riding or an urban riding? Where will the riding boundaries be? Will we use a closed list or an open list? Will we be given the option of what lists will be used? Why should I trust government to figure it all out after the referendum vote?

Many of the systems around the world do have voters directly voting for their representatives. The government included some of those systems in their feedback questionnaire that they supposedly use to inform the referendum. Yet, in the end, they discarded the systems that allow voters to choose their representatives and put in options that do not. Two of the systems on the ballots are, as the Attorney General report states, “not currently in use.” The rural-urban system was rejected in both 2005 and 2009.

[4:55 p.m.]

Without clear electoral boundaries, voters are being asked to decide on a system when they don’t actually know what system they will get until after the referendum vote.

I believe that I’ve laid out a number of issues that warrant supporting the hoist motion. My colleague the member for Vancouver–False Creek really captured the essence and intent of this referendum when he eloquently said that this referendum is a referendum of political parties, by political parties, for political parties.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of the amendment. We simply need more time to consider the most significant vote in front of British Columbians today.

M. Stilwell: I very much appreciate the opportunity to join the other members in this House to speak about and discuss something so fundamental and important as a potential change to our electoral system. It is a great opportunity for me to share my perspective and comment on the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act amendment that was put forward by my colleague from Vancouver–False Creek. I support this amendment, and I am grateful to him for doing so, because since the day this referendum was announced, I have had major concerns — red flags, alarm bells, apprehensions.

From day one, there have been issues, and the NDP government has been behind that plan. They’re keeping people in the dark. As the Premier says: “Take a leap of faith with me.” Major factors like the number of MLAs, the size of ridings, what constitutes a rural riding or an urban riding, whether we’ll use closed lists or open lists or whether we’ll even use lists at all — important details that the voters need to have when trying to make an informed decision.

You see, the referendum itself creates serious changes for the democratic foundations of our province. The people have not been given the information to make an informed deci­sion, something of so profound importance, as it attempts to make wholesale changes to our voting system and the way that we pick our elected representatives.

There are 29 different factors that won’t be decided until after the referendum. Honestly, how are voters expected to make an educated choice when they’re not even being offered any of the relevant information? This is a fantastic reason to support this hoist motion and take the time to get the information out to the electorate. They certainly deserve it.

As weeks have gone by, the people of this province have started to learn what this government has been up to, and the support for changing to PR has shifted. It has started losing support because people have started to realize how this government is trying to manipulate them. They have started to pay attention and ask those critical questions.

They started going to town halls and having conversations at coffee shops and started looking and understanding, really, what is at stake. What is it that this referendum is all about? They have become really concerned, and rightfully so. Now we see that this government is seeing the need to bring Bill 40 onto the table in order to try and give the public a safety net, a lifeline. “Don’t worry. It’s all okay. Vote for PR. We can always change it back later. Just give it a try.”

Here’s the thing: all of us gathered here know that the fundamental rule of this place is that we cannot simply limit the power of those who come after us. We cannot stop them from passing or repealing any legislation that they see fit to deal with. But that’s exactly the kind of promise that this bill is on the table.

The philosophy behind this legislation imagines that somehow, in two or three elections from now — potentially eight years from now — the government of the day, elected under proportional representation, would be bound to hold a referendum on a possible return to first-past-the-post. It’s not plausible. So here we are rushing through a process that deserves a far longer time to provide the people the details, the facts.

[5:00 p.m.]

Currently there are no riding maps. The boundaries are unknown. The government says: “Don’t worry, folks. Just vote for PR, and we will figure those details out for you later.” And by “we,” I want to make clear that we are talking about the NDP and the Greens in a committee making those decisions for us.

Do you think that they might have some self-interest in those decisions? Think that what will be in the forefront of their minds will be all about protecting themselves? They talk about collaboration and how PR will bring forward a way of working together that FPTP doesn’t. Well, if that isn’t a fallacy in itself.

It’s actually been entertaining to watch the municipal elections over the past few days, especially when the NDP Vancouver mayor got elected under FPTP with 27 percent of the vote. Didn’t seem to have a problem with FPTP then. Or the Greens gaining extra seats on that same council under FPTP. I’m not sure why the Green Party leader really wants to be so adamant about changing our electoral system when the current one seems to be working for the Greens.

There’s nothing more fundamental to democracy than free elections and the rules by which our legislative representatives are chosen. Changing this system is a serious undertaking — one that demands meaningful public engagement, clear alternatives that people can clearly understand and a voting process that ensures the collective voice of British Columbians actually be heard.

That’s not what we have in front of us today. What we have in front of us today actually falls extremely short of even meeting the most basic of criteria.

Just look at the ballot question. It was promised as one question, a yes-or-no question, and instead we have a two-part question. Voters are supposed to first indicate their preference: stay with the current first-past-the-post system or move to some type of proportional representation system. Now that’s the easy part.

Then there’s the second part where voters are to select one of three or rank three different models of proportional representation. The level of understanding of the three proportional representation choices is just not there. It’s complicated. The details are not there for people to make that informed choice.

We’re being asked to vote on systems that haven’t been tried or tested anywhere in the world. Yet this government is choosing not to provide maps of the electoral districts or even the number of electoral districts and how many representatives each of those districts would have.

One of the options is the mixed-member proportional voting system, which takes FPTP, the current system, and combines it with some yet-to-be-determined form of regional representation — key words there being “yet to be determined.” Those are details that will be figured out later.

Even the most basic elements of how this system would work are not outlined. You see, with certain models of MMP, voters cast two separate ballots — one for a district candidate and one for a party — while in others, a single vote for a candidate also counts for that candidate’s party.

The Elections B.C. website states that if MMP were to be adopted, a legislative committee would decide after the referendum if voters have one vote or two. So even supporters of MMP won’t really know what they’re getting because that will happen after the referendum by the NDP and the Greens, when they get together to devise the details.

Another PR option, the dual-member proportional representation, was invented by a mathematics student from the University of Alberta a few years ago. It’s completely untested, having never been implemented anywhere in the world. I’m not making this up. I can see why the Premier is saying: “Take a leap of faith with me.”

I won’t trouble you at this point with all the complex formulas that determine the outcomes, but what I will say is that I hope everyone is prepared to take some math or physics courses to help themselves understand it.

I quote the member for Surrey–White Rock who said: “Try using the algorithm from dual-member proportion, calculating the seats based on the largest remainder method and a Hare quota. If you figure it out, let me know.” Well, the member for Surrey–White Rock was the CEO of a rather large credit union. If she can’t figure out the arithmetic which underlines the voting schemes, I’m not sure that we can expect many others to figure it out either.

[5:05 p.m.]

The member for West Vancouver–Capilano, who has a PhD in mathematical economics from Harvard — even he can’t figure out the equations of such difficulty and complexity. I’d love to see any one of those members opposite explain the Droop formula. Any takers? Take it now? Try and explain it.

The third PR model is a rural-urban proportional hybrid. It’s even more complex. It combines two different voting systems — the single transferable vote and the MMP system. The two are used independently in a few jurisdictions, but nowhere have they ever been combined into one single voting system. That’s right — nowhere.

So we can see that the basic design of this referendum question is flawed. But there are plenty of other reasons that have been putting on those red flashing lights and those warning signs. Why not hit the pause button on it, just like this amendment is suggesting.

It’s not simply the bewildering complexity of the voting method; there is blatant unfairness of how we are asked to approve it — not much information, really short deadlines and no money being contributed. At the end of the day, the government will formulate the details through a backroom deal hammered out after the people of the province have voted.

It should be noted that with PR governments, it often takes months of deal-making to form a government, while things sit at a standstill, waiting for those partnerships to form. Look at Belgium — 541 days in 2010. That’s how long it took Belgian politicians to form a government. They actually earned a Guinness World Record for going the longest time without a government.

Deals offered, deals rejected. Potential partners are wooed in the back room, and overtures are rebuffed. It’s concerning to me and to many citizens that with each of these three proportional representation systems proposed by the government, political parties will choose your representative. In dual-member proportional representation, you are given two options appointed by the political parties. All losing votes are distributed to the parties to allow them to appoint candidates elsewhere.

What we’re actually asking voters in this referendum is whether voters want to directly elect their MLA or whether they want to have their representative chosen by the party that they are voting for.

I can tell you that I never heard anything, in my time while I was campaigning at the doorstep, from constituents that this was something that they wanted to see. Certainly, we know that this is about the NDP appeasing a demand from the Green partners, their junior partners, to ensure their partnership so that the NDP can stay in power and the Greens can gain more power.

We can look to other countries around the world to see how PR actually encourages political fragmentation. With several more parties virtually certain to secure representation in this Legislature, this will make majority governments a thing of the past. It will lead to greater political and policy instability, something that could and will have a dampening effect on our capital formation — the business confidence, the incentives for long-term entrepreneurial wealth and creation that British Columbia has become accustomed to.

I am so proud to be a B.C. Liberal. One of the reasons that I am a B.C. Liberal is because we are a big-tent party. It is because we have a wide range of viewpoints and perspectives. Under PR, the parties are likely to become more narrowly based. That will make governing even harder, and political debates more strident.

The list goes on with my concerns. The absence of the minimum threshold in the referendum is extremely troubling. One of my primary concerns is that we end up changing our system based on the support of a small majority of voters. If we’re going to even consider changing our system, I believe that bar needs to be set very, very high. That has not been made possible with the way that this stacked deck and rigged game have been set up from the start.

How on earth can this government suggest that it is fair or reasonable to run this referendum without a participation threshold?

[5:10 p.m.]

I know that people in my community are raising concerns every single day because there is no regional threshold. The possibility that our election process could be fundamentally altered by the voting populace of Metro Vancouver is wrong, plain and simple.

It is critical that our voting system is fair — equal and equitable representation for every single region of this province. Imagine that only 30 to 40 percent of eligible voters correctly fill out and then mail in the ballot. It’s an entirely plausible scenario. In that case, the existing electoral system could be abandoned, based on the judgments of just 15 to 20 percent of British Columbians.

Worse still, because of the awkward two-stage structure to the referendum question, an even smaller fraction of voters could determine which specific PR model that this province ends up with.

To recap, under our current first-past-the-post system, each voter gets one vote and chooses one candidate to represent his or her constituency. The candidate who wins more votes than any other is elected. First-past-the-post provides clear choices between main political parties. It provides greater stability. It promotes strong linkages between constituents and the representatives, and popular independents can be elected without a political party.

Each first-past-the-post constituency has one MLA, who is personally accountable to their voters and their respective constituencies. And yes, every vote is counted.

When this debate goes to suggesting that MLAs under first-past-the-post don’t serve everyone…. In fact, we had that comment the other day from our Premier that that’s what happens. I don’t ask people who voted for me. It doesn’t matter to me, because no matter what, I am here to serve the entire constituency, all the people in my region, in my community. I will always do that to the best of my ability.

Once our voters have chosen their MLA, we serve all constituents — not our supporters, not the members of our party but our constituents — our citizens, our residents, the people that live in our community. If there’s an MLA in this House that uses that as a principle for their public service…. I highly doubt that other MLAs in this House would turn away somebody because they didn’t get voted for. It’s not what we were called here to do. That’s not our job once we are elected.

Once elected as an MLA, no matter what our party is, we have the opportunity to have things happen in our community — unlike what the Premier suggested last week. He said:

“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 that 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 of this place, that my views didn’t matter and that my constituents’ views didn’t matter because of the banner I carried one day four years ago. I think that’s wrong.”

Yet the facts say something completely different. The Premier had 58 projects and over $105 million spent in his community on schools and housing and bike lanes and seniors, and search and rescue, and family resource.

This is not the first time we’ve come across this topic of introducing proportional representation in B.C. We have done this before, two other referendums. We had a great process that was handed over to the public, through the creation of a 161-member panel on electoral reform. The B.C. citizens’ assembly was created in an effort to determine what kind of improvements needed to be made and how the referendum question would be proposed.

The concept around the bill, in my mind, is completely out of order. It will not bind anyone. All of us gathered here should understand that and know the fundamentals of this place and that we cannot limit the powers of those who come after us. We cannot outlaw our successors from passing or repealing any legislation that they see fit, and that’s exactly what this bill is trying to do.

[5:15 p.m.]

Deciding to change an electoral system is one of the most fundamental decisions that British Columbians can make. It is our job to ask those tough questions, and there simply aren’t enough details here in front of us. There are no maps. No one in the House can tell me how many people, how many MLAs, will represent the riding of Parksville-Qualicum. No one can tell me how big it is, where the names are going to come from. No one can even answer the question of how low the voter participation rate has to be before we can say it’s not legitimate.

What I say today is that’s not good enough for British Columbians. What’s the rush? Let’s put a pause, just like the hoist motion suggests, to allow us to take the time, provide the information to the public so that they can make that informed decision. We know the right citizen process in B.C., and we have used it in the past. That is the honest way to consider the respectable but very complex question of electoral change.

Our current government is following a process that is wrong, and it’s shameful. As the member for Vancouver–​False Creek so eloquently put it, this referendum is a referendum on political parties, by political parties, for political parties. In my view, it’s simply not good enough for British Columbians.

M. Dean: I’m very pleased to stand here and join the debate about introducing the process of proportional representation to our province and to talk about Bill 40. Essentially, what a proportional representation system is going to do is it’s going to make every person’s vote count. It’s going to be up to British Columbians to decide whether to change our province’s voting system. And it’s also going to be up to British Columbians to decide whether to keep a new voting system after they’ve tried it.

It is time for a new way of voting that works for everyone across British Columbia. For too long, our old, outdated voting system has put too much power in the hands of too few. So right now we are conducting a provincewide referendum, and this gives British Columbians a chance to replace the status quo with a form of proportional representation, a way of voting that puts people at the centre of politics.

Proportional representation is used by democracies around the world and provides more choice for voters, more accountability and more collaboration between parties to get things done for people. So what is proportional representation? It’s a system that’s used around the world, and it ensures that everyone’s vote counts. A party that gets 25 percent of the votes gets 25 percent of the seats in the Legislature.

Proportional representation provides stable governments where parties work together to get things done for people. And while most democracies in the world use proportional representation, B.C. would be leading the way in North America. With proportional representation, you can elect a government where parties work together to get things done for you as a British Columbian.

For too long, our unfair and outdated system has just worked for the people at the top. Election after election, the B.C. Liberals got less than half of the votes and took 100 percent of the power. And at the end of the day, it was hard-working people in our province who paid the price. The B.C. Liberal opposition and their rich friends are desperate to keep that old way of voting because it makes it easier for them to control government with a minority of the votes.

My predecessor and her colleagues tried for years to have an influence on decisions made in this House and made by government that affected British Columbians and members of my constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin. In my previous role, I would raise my concerns with my MLAs, who represented communities all the way from Port Renfrew to Esquimalt, concerns about how government policies were impacting the lives of people on a day-to-day basis in my community.

[5:20 p.m.]

I was told about cuts in services, about lack of GPs, lack of investment in the community. And even though most British Columbians didn’t vote for the government in power, the policies they implemented affected everyone.

I’ll tell you about Kiri. Kiri is a young mom. She’s a single mom who lives in my community. She had a tragedy when she was 13. She was traumatized by it. Her father murdered her mother and then killed himself. She needed lifelong counselling. She received counselling when she was younger. By the time she was in her 20s, she needed counselling again. She was going through a really difficult relationship and continued to suffer from the trauma of that experience.

I worked with her to help her to try to find those re­sources. We could get funding. We could get money to be able to pay for them. We couldn’t find a counsellor in our community that she could access, even though we could find funding to actually pay for counselling services for her. So we met with our MLA. We spoke to our MLA, and our MLA understood the problem and knew that Kiri was one of many people in our community who had significant needs that were not being met. Unfortunately, she was in opposition. She was not able to get a resolution for that member of my constituency who was in a high level of need.

Your family, my neighbours, your mom, someone else’s nephew, someone else’s sister — everybody affected by the B.C. Liberals, who did not have the support of the majority of British Columbians. The B.C. Liberals made everybody pay for everything, while cutting important services, including health and education. And they will use every trick in the book — fearmongering, misinformation, complaints about the process to stop people from voting for proportional representation.

They fearmonger about fringe parties. And we were just told about how the B.C. Liberals, by design, are a big-tent party. Well, big tents can contain fringe elements too.

Let’s make sure that a government elected by a minority of voters can’t cut services and make everybody’s life more expensive, like the Liberals did for years and years and could be doing again. The only way to fix the problem….

Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the amendment.

M. Dean: Yeah, I’m coming to the urgency, Madame Speaker. Thank you.

Made-in-B. C. proportional representation means that we can elect governments that represent everyone and work for everybody. This is an urgent matter, and that’s why I don’t support the hoist motion. We need to move forward on proportional representation and find out what the voters of British Columbia want.

Proportional representation leads to higher voter turnout, more youth engagement and cooperation between parties to get things done for people. It gives voters more choice. It gives a stronger voice to voters in every region of the province. It makes governments more accountable and focused on priorities. Ultimately, it makes government more reflective of the diversity of our province. It puts people at the centre of politics, and it puts more women in politics. There, again, is another matter of urgency. And that is why we cannot have a delay on this process of proportional representation.

There exists an abundance of research on the effects of electoral systems on the participation of women in politics. It’s been found that the share of women in parliamentary bodies is eight percentage points higher in PR countries. There’s a positive correlation between PR and women elected to legislatures, and that’s very well-established in the literature.

While women’s participation in politics can only be explained with reference to a wide range of variables, the research community is united in declaring that PR elects more women. And one of the most widely accepted theories is that multi-member districts allow more women to be elected because parties will want to put forward a diversified slate of candidates to reach a wider range of voters.

[5:25 p.m.]

On a worldwide level, this pattern is reinforced. Of the five countries in the world who have 30 percent or more female parliamentarians in their single or lower House — Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands — three have proportional electoral systems, two have a mixed proportional electoral system, and none have a majority system.

Of the eight countries that have 29 to 25 percent female MPs in their lower or single House — New Zealand, Seychelles, Austria, Germany, Iceland, Argentina, Mozambique and South Africa — all have either proportional or mixed proportional electoral systems. Again, none have a system of majority.

In contrast, if one looks at the lowest worldwide level of female political representation, a far higher proportion of countries with 10 percent or less women in the lower or single House of Parliament have a majority electoral system, and nearly 90 percent of countries that have no female parliamentarians use a majority system.

According to the United Nations, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the global database of quotas for women, worldwide, women hold more than 25 percent of seats in countries that use proportional electoral systems and less than 20 percent in those countries that use plurality or majority systems. Mixed systems fall in the middle, with women’s representation sitting at nearly 23 percent on average.

While B.C. is doing relatively well, although we have only elected 114 women to the Legislative Assembly since women gained the right to run as candidates in 1917, we currently have 19 NDP women, 14 Liberals and one Green, which is 39 percent of our Legislative Assembly and 50 percent of women in cabinet. Nevertheless, there remains an urgency to maintain momentum and build an electoral system that reinforces and supports women’s engagement in our parliament, which is why I do not support the hoist motion.

Dr. Everitt is now a visiting fellow in the women and public policy program at Harvard University, and she says that if Canada were to switch to a proportional representation voting system, then in the very next election, our percentage of women MPs would jump by at least 10 percent. And Dr. Grace Lore from Equal Voice has written: “In general, many aspects of politics must change if the electoral arena is to be regarded by many more women as a rewarding and realistic proposition that leverages their talents and leadership abilities.” So PR will result in more women in politics, and that will benefit British Columbians.

There are many reasons why it will benefit us if we have more women in politics. One is that we need more women to help make the laws that rule society, because their experiences differ from men’s. Women still do the most child care and elder care. They do more than half the housework. They experience the workplace differently. They experience more harassment. They make less money. And they are far more likely to be the victims of family and sexual violence.

We need the perspectives of women to develop legislation and policies that deal more effectively and with priority in these areas of life. In fact, almost all areas affect women differently — from taxation and pay equity to divorce law, managing businesses and microbusinesses, employment law, health care policies, etc.

How does proportional representation voting create governments that better reflect society, not only with more women but with more minorities? Put simply, it’s the magnitude of voice. PR provides natural incentives for parties to give voters more choice. This means each major party will give voters the choice of more than one candidate on the ballot. As soon as they present more than one candidate, the incentives offering the public balance and diversity start to operate. Parties may do so because it’s important to them or to appeal to voters who want to see more equality in politics, and when one party balances their electoral lists, the others are also pressured to do so.

The representation of women and minorities in parliaments and cabinets in itself is also a measure of the quality of the democratic health of a community. Political equality is an indicator of democratic equality, and that equality is increased in systems of PR.

[5:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This week the first referendum ballots are being mailed out. Voters will decide whether to keep British Columbia’s existing first-past-the-post voting system or change to a system of proportional representation.

Now, a clear majority of the participants in the public engagement that helped shape this fall’s referendum were in favour of holding a confirming referendum if British Columbia moves to proportional representation, and right now there is no legislation binding future governments to our commitment to hold a confirming referendum. So we’re introducing this legislation to allow British Columbians the opportunity to vote in a confirming referendum on electoral reform, if the majority vote in this fall’s referendum to change B.C.’s voting system.

The legislation fulfills a commitment made by the province and is based on recommendations from the Attorney General’s report on electoral reform. This confirming referendum would allow British Columbians, not politicians, to have the final say on the voting system.

The amendments also require that the second referendum must be held within 13 months of the second general election, if a proportional representation system has been introduced. So this precise time frame provides certainty for voters as to when the second referendum would be held, rather than leaving the timing open-ended. By legislating a confirming referendum after two general election cycles, what we’re doing is giving voters a safety valve to revert to the previous voting system after an opportunity to actually experience both systems.

In my discussions with members of my community, they’re excited about a future where their vote will really count. I was talking to a young woman today from Esquimalt, and she told me that she was totally convinced that the system needs to change from one where a government has absolute control but with only a minority of the people having voted for them.

She also told me what I have also heard, that some people are nervous about change, about a new system. They are reassured, however, when they learn that there will be a second referendum for British Columbians to have the opportunity to confirm the system of proportional representation, if it’s introduced or not. And if, during either referendum, voters decide that the current system is preferred, the government of B.C. will be bound by law to respect that decision.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I do not support the hoist motion. I fully support Bill 40. The first-past-the-post system has been operating for too long. We can’t wait any longer for an opportunity to consider an al­ter­native — a system that is more engaging, where more women and minorities are represented and where everyone’s vote counts.

M. Lee: Hon. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the amendment to Bill 40 with this hoist motion. I must say, just as you mark time, that I have been asked by our team to be the designated speaker on this amendment to this bill.

We’ve had much opportunity over the last number of days and weeks to continue to debate the upcoming referendum. As many of us have said on this side of the House, it is wholly inappropriate for this government to be attempting to insert, at this late stage, under the guise of some additional comfort to British Columbians, the promise of a second referendum.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Exactly.

We have said, as with these voters’ guides that have been received by British Columbians in the last week…. It’s curious, of course, that the way it’s framed, it says that the government has said that after the referendum, another referendum will be held after two general elections to see if B.C. wants to keep the new voting system or go back to using the first-past-the-post.

[5:35 p.m.]

In this document, on page 8, it lists all the things that the government has said will happen after the vote. Well, for weeks now, we’ve had Bill 40 tabled in this House, with this promise of a second referendum, when it hasn’t been passed. As the last speaker just said, that’s the reason why it needed to be brought forward.

It’s not good enough that the government says it’s going to do something. It’s bringing forward a bill. That’s the reason why we believe it’s inappropriate to be inserting this at the last minute, when voters are receiving their voting package today, tomorrow, Thursday or Friday of this week. The government, at this late stage, is still attempting to pass legislation to change and manipulate this process yet again. That’s the reason why all members on this side of the House are in favour of this hoist motion, which would see this manipulation being deferred for six months. What we want for British Columbia, of course, is fairness. We all want that.

From day one, when this referendum was agreed to by this government, with the support of the three Green Party members, it has been by the determination of political parties. It has all been about power. When do you that, you end up in a situation like this, where instead of the Premier of this province standing up and debating with the Leader of the Opposition in an open forum — to go through all of the detailed questions, the information, the considerations of each form of proportional representation that this government is proposing to British Columbia — to do that at a time when British Columbians are now in possession of that voting package.

Earlier this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition stood up in this House and made very clear his views about the flawed referendum process, the need to maintain our current first-past-the-post system and, yes, the concerns around each of the three forms of proportional representation being proposed. As we have said, and as the Leader of the Opposition has said today again, we need to have that debate. We need to have it now, at a date to be set this week, not in November, because British Columbians need to hear from the Premier of this province about what is potentially a fundamental change to our voting system.

Now, of course, with Bill 40, the promise of a second referendum holds out some faint hope for this province. I know that, in the words of the MLA for Nanaimo, as he sat in this chamber until now, until Saturday…. When we were having a debate a few months ago, he said this to me across the aisle: “What are you afraid of? Don’t worry. We should just try this. If we don’t like it, we’ll change it back.” That is the thinking of this government.

A concern that we have is when you formulate a referendum process that leaves so much detail. We’ve talked about the 29 items in the Attorney General’s report on each of the three forms, these details that are being deferred for determination until after the vote — details to be determined by an all-party parliamentary committee. Of course, in the Voter’s Guide, it says: “A legislative committee will determine how some aspects of the new system will work.” These are the kinds of vague, general statements that are being made in this Voter’s Guide. There’s no clarity. Why is it that we’re leaving these important details to be determined by that committee?

[5:40 p.m.]

We know, of course, that there wasn’t time for this government, in their minds, with the agreement of the three Green Party members, to do a comprehensive engagement process with British Columbians. Clearly, a citizens’ assembly is what the Leader of the Opposition and members on this side of the House believe is the proper process to deal with electoral reform.

Members on the other side of the House talk about what happened in the aftermath of the May 2017 election. We said, and we’ve always said, we’re open to electoral reform. We need to continue to find ways to make government work better for British Columbians. We can do that, but we need to do it in a clear, fair and transparent way, not in the kind of convoluted, manipulated type of way that this government, with the support of three Green Party members, is doing.

Why is it that a committee of this House is making those determinations? It’s yet another example of this rushed process. Even after this referendum is done, on November 30, the implementation, under the act…. The Electoral Reform Referendum Act says it needs to be done for an election after July 2021, almost three years from now.

We have been asking the question, of course, why there wasn’t time for a citizens’ assembly. The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon talked about that, talked about the fact that there was time. When you look at their agreement at the end of June, we had months to run a process, to engage in the same way that was done in 2004 and to provide to British Columbians the kinds of details, including maps for electoral districts in this province, as was done in 2009. None of this is being done here.

What we got, in comparison, is an on-line survey that didn’t include two of the three proposed forms of proportional representation that are being included on this ballot: dual-member and rural-urban. British Columbians weren’t engaged on these systems. They weren’t asked in this great on-line survey how they felt about those systems. In fact, I know that many have cited the baseline survey that was included. I’ve done that too.

One of the questions was how confident are you today to vote on a referendum on electoral reform? Words to that effect. The answer that came back in that February period…. Baseline said 30 percent. If you ask the question today to British Columbians — how confident are you to vote on a fundamental change to our voting system? — I doubt it’s changed much. Confident. To have confidence in how you vote on this fundamental change, you need to be engaged.

This voter’s guide is helpful. It’s been on line on the website for Elections B.C. for some weeks now. But it’s curious, of course, in terms of how the process has been run or is run. It’s separate from the voting package. That means voters in this province need to look for something they received in the mail this last week and couple that with their voting packages that they’re receiving this week.

This is a concern — a concern about how we are engaging British Columbians through a mail-in ballot process. There were opportunities, as was done in the 2009 referendum, for this government to heed the advice. Back in 2009, the Chief Electoral Officer said to the government of the day: “Don’t hold this referendum at the same time as a municipal election. Do it in conjunction with the provincial general election.”

[5:45 p.m.]

The Leader of the Opposition called for that again today in his statement in this House. If we’re going to do electoral reform, it has to be done properly. It has to be done in a way where British Columbians are engaged in that process, and they haven’t been.

This is the reason why this motion is so important. This promise of a second referendum doesn’t cure any of these flaws. To be part of this House, to be standing in this House, and allow this government to pull another manoeuvre on British Columbians…. It’s not something that members on this side of the House are going to stand for. This is the reason why we brought forward that hoist motion.

I think that as we go forward, what we need to ensure is that British Columbians understand what is at stake here. As we debate this hoist motion, over tomorrow’s period as well, with the number of speakers that we are bringing forward on this side of the House, it gives us another opportunity to talk about how flawed this process is.

I have said that this promised referendum is a promise, under Bill 40, 12 years from now. Members on that side of the House yesterday said that that was a lie. It’s not a lie. If you do the math, as I just mentioned, July 2021…. You hold a general election under proportional representation, if it passes, by November 2021. That’s three years from now. Two election cycles after that, four years each — eight years. Three plus eight — that’s 11 years.

Under this Bill 40, it says that the subsequent referendum will be held no later than the 13th month after the second general election date. So three plus eight plus one is 12. Pretty simple math. I’m not sure why members on the other side of the House don’t get that — 12 years from now. We are talking about a referendum that is a promise.

Interjection.

M. Lee: I can go through the math again. For the member on the other side, I will do that, as I’m the designated speaker. I’m happy to take the time to walk the members on the other side of the House…. It’s amazing, given it’s their bill. It’s their bill, and we need to explain to them how the math works.

Bill 40 says that the subsequent referendum would be held after two general elections, having held an election using proportional representation. Two general elections after the first election using proportional representation — that, by definition, has to be eight years.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Well, I think, then, that we should be looking at clarifying the language of the bill as well. That may be the subject of another amendment, then, if they’re reading the language differently from how we’re reading it. I think they are.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member.

M. Lee: Well, you know, I think this is probably another reason why, with the hoist motion…. Clearly, members of this House are not reading the language in the same way that the government purports it says. I think that is concerning.

That’s the reason why, in speaking to this amendment, we should be looking at this after the referendum. It is objectionable for this government to be promising a second referendum at this date. Why is it that they would bring this on in the middle of the referendum process? Not even in the middle, at this point.

[5:50 p.m.]

Voting started this week — on October 22, yesterday — and runs until November 30. The ballots really have to be mailed in by November 23. Yet this bill came in after the campaign period started on July 1, in an attempt to influence voters at this late stage. If this government really saw the need to bring this in place, it should’ve brought this in place before the campaign started on July 1.

As we know with Elections B.C., there shouldn’t be…. The advertising sponsorship restrictions that have been imposed upon all British Columbians, including members of this House…. It’s members of this House like the member for Vancouver–False Creek — attempting to merely communicate his concerns about Bill 40, which is on the floor of this House now — receiving letters of restriction from Elections B.C.

We know that under the Election Act, section 3…. That act cannot purport to restrict the ability of any member to conduct the business of this House — the duties of that MLA, the duties of MLAs in this House — particularly when we’re debating a bill affecting the referendum, which is what this government has brought on all of us. It makes it the business of this House. I do not understand why my colleague would be restricted from communicating with his constituents in the course of this bill discussion.

This is just an example of this whole manipulated framework that has been established by this government to restrict freedom of expression, which is a fundamental Charter right in this country. We’re being restricted — third parties, citizens of this province, limited in their ability to engage with other British Columbians about the importance of the change that this government is making, potentially, to our voting system.

This is the reason why, in speaking to this amendment, we can’t stand for this. We are not going to allow, with all of our ability, this bill to pass. It’s objectionable. So let me say this. Members on the other side of the House talk about how they want to put people at the centre of politics. It’s in their throne speech. It’s a common expression that they say in this House.

We know, in terms of the lack of definition under the three proposed forms of proportional representation, that each of these forms is party-based. It’s the reason why, for example, the citizens’ assembly in 2004 rejected mixed-member proportional out of concerns for how prejudicial it would be to rural British Columbia and the fact that it shifts power from voters to political parties.

The way that closed lists are a definite possibility under mixed-member, as stated in the voter’s guide, will have voters voting for political parties themselves, but not for the representatives who are to represent British Columbians in each of the electoral districts around this province. That is a shift that this government needs to explain to British Columbians.

As a colleague of ours said earlier in her comments, we see this all the time in terms of the discussions we’re having, whether it’s on social media, at various community forums, in our constituencies — proponents of proportional representation saying either that closed lists won’t happen or that they don’t exist at all.

[5:55 p.m.]

That’s just wrong. The Voter’s Guide says that closed list is a definite possibility. In that case, what voters will be voting for are political parties, as I just said, not for representatives. It’s the political parties, then, that will make the decision.

British Columbians that we’ve talked to are still confused by that. We have so much misinformation that is out there, misunderstanding. Part of it is because of the partisan nature of the way this whole process has been run. That does go back to that initial agreement with the Green Party, because when they agreed that both the NDP government and the Green Party would campaign in favour of proportional representation, that was wrong.

That was wrong for British Columbia, because it turned this whole referendum process into a debate about political parties, as just demonstrated by the last speaker who spoke. It’s not about the B.C. NDP’s track record or B.C. Liberal’s track record.

I will say that it is about the influence of the B.C. Green Party, though. That’s just an example that we’re living with, right now, of the disproportionate power that a party can have over a minority government. But this referendum is not about which political party is better, which political party can deliver the better future for this province. We both believe we can do that job.

What’s important is, as I said yesterday during the private member’s statement debate: we need political parties that are broad coalitions, like the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Liberals. We need political parties that can forge a consensus for this province because the diversity in this province, with the 87 electoral districts that we have, is very vast and very diverse — on an economic, social, community and ethnicity social makeup. So many differences that are there in this province.

We need strong, local representation, representatives who are first accountable to their constituents through their electoral districts that they represent. We need political parties that can find and balance those priorities, the priorities that are pressing on this province — and the opportunities. That means we can’t afford….

In my view, and all of my other colleagues on this side of the House, we seem to understand how detrimental proportional representation will be to this province’s future. Some will say that we’re fearmongering. I think that what we’re trying to do is make sure that British Columbians understand all the different considerations and factors that they should. This is not about fearmongering. It’s about making sure that the facts are known for British Columbians to consider.

Of course, as I said at the outset, the reason why this amendment is so important is because it gives British Col­um­bians this sort of false comfort that if there’s something that goes wrong here, something that we don’t quite like, something we didn’t think about, something that we did not foresee, something that the all-parliamentary committee — with the majority of members being from the government side, with the three Green Party members holding that sway….

[6:00 p.m.]

The 29 different items, the details on each of these three voting systems that are to be determined by that committee, as currently structured — something there that is further manipulated in the way that this whole process has been. This is the reason why, when given the opportunity by this government in the course of Bill 40, we are proposing this hoist motion.

As I’ve talked about with the upcoming referendum, there are so many things that are being proposed here that this government can’t fix. It certainly can’t fix it with a promise of a second referendum. We know that with this promise, it is only that. This government cannot bind a future government, a government that two election cycles from now will be elected under proportional representation if it passes.

It will be a different Legislative Assembly. The composition of this House will be divided. It will have to rely on the kind of backroom agreement that this current government operates under with the three Green Party members. When they operate like that, we don’t know what understandings they have, just like we don’t know what understandings they have about those important details that are to be determined after the vote.

It does go back to why the Premier is not prepared to stand up and debate the Leader of the Opposition. We have been saying for weeks: “What is he concerned about?”

British Columbians can’t afford this kind of leadership. We know, as has been presented by my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie and others, that there are significant challenges to the way this referendum is being run. We’ve talked about the fact that the question and the process adopted by cabinet, on recommendation by the so-called neutral arbiter, the Attorney General, is a process that is inconsistent with the constitution and the Charter.

When this government decided to lower the voting threshold, they lowered it from a course of strong precedent in this province. The referenda that we should be referring to are the referenda that dealt with electoral reform. We know that under those two referenda, there was a special majority, a clear majority. It was set at 60 percent. And, of course, as the Premier promised in the last election, there was a geographic threshold. There isn’t now. Not for this referenda. But we had a geographic threshold.

Why is it important to have it at 60 percent, that dual threshold? Because for something that’s fundamental like this, you can’t rely on a second referendum 12 years from now. You can’t rely on that. You’ve got to get it right the first time. If you’re going to change a system, you’ve got to take the time to do it properly. You need to set the approval levels at a place which is consistent with every constitutional principle in this country.

When you change the constitution of this country, there’s a clear majority, requiring seven provinces, in terms of approval. Under the Clarity Act, if Quebec were to leave this country, there needs to be a clear majority on a clear question. These principles have been established.

[6:05 p.m.]

How is it that this government, in the face of what is Canadian law, can mount a referendum on this basis? This is just one of the components of concern on the constitutionality and legality of this referendum.

It is, of course, being challenged in the courts, and this is the point. This government is not prepared to stand up in court. Just like the Premier is not prepared to stand up to face the Leader of the Opposition in public forum, this government is not prepared to stand up in the law courts to defend the constitutionality and legality of this referendum and proportional representation, the three proposed systems that they presented.

They asked for more time. They asked for months. This was a submission, a challenge that was raised at the end of June. It’s now almost the end of October. Originally the proponents were hoping they would be heard in September and October, but they were delayed. Now we’re hearing, as of about a week ago, that it won’t be heard until January. Well, just like the Premier suggested in question period today: “Oh sure, we’ll have this debate in November.” November.

People are voting now. People are participating in this referendum process which has major challenges about the constitutionality and legality of it, yet we’re proceeding. How is that possible? How is it that this government has been able to manipulate and present something to this province that has so much question, so much challenge?

Well, British Columbians are going to see through that, because British Columbians that we know, that we’re talking to in this province — regardless of the politics, regardless of the policy platforms — are seeing through this. Hopefully, what British Columbians will see is this. For those British Columbians that are confused, unengaged, the answer is: “Well, you know what? I don’t understand this. They’re talking about this, but I don’t really….” That’s what this government wants, quite frankly, with the lack of information, the lack of details, the lack of engagement and a mail-in ballot. That’s exactly what this government wants, but they can’t slide this by.

What British Columbians should be standing for is engaging with that voting package, finding out that information and voting to keep our current first-past-the-post system. Because this province cannot afford to take that leap of faith with the Premier.

As we talk about the constitutionality of this referendum, we know that the questions that have been proposed aren’t simple yes-or-no questions. Again, a second referendum doesn’t cure this either.

This is the reason why, in speaking in favour of the amendment, we are very concerned about what is landing in the mailboxes of voters in this province this week. It’s an unclear, undefined question. It’s a question that stacks up first-past-the-post, which we know…. And it, as the Leader of the Opposition talked about again in his comments, has worked in this country, in this province, for hundreds of years. It’s worked to provide the kind of stable government, accountable government, consensus-driven government that has led to where this country is today.

We have a lot of work in front of us. There’s much more to be done, but we can’t afford to take this huge step back into division, lack of accountability, lack of clarity and transparency in our government. We don’t need to be putting political parties at the centre of our politics. That’s what proportional representation would do.

[6:10 p.m.]

Under electoral systems themselves, under sections 3 and 15 of the Charter, we have principles around the equality of voting rights in our country. We know that there are concerns about imposing different electoral systems on the basis of residence. Why is it that under rural-urban, we would treat British Columbians differently? Two classes of voters — a voting system for those who are rural British Columbians and a voting system for those who are semi-urban and urban.

Under the principles and values of our Charter, we need to be treating every citizen equally, with an equal right to vote. So how is it that that rural-urban system will actually function and not violate our Charter? These are important questions to be asking.

Of course, in terms of a closed list, we know that leading case law has talked about the right to have one’s vote count, the right to have one’s vote count the same as any other valid vote cast in a district and the right to be represented by a candidate with at least a plurality of votes in a district. That is a recognition of how first-past-the-post works. It’s a recognition that under Canadian law, we have these rights, these fundamental rights, which proportional representation would take away.

Under a closed-list system, political parties make that decision for us, not ourselves. This is just another example of the kind of constitutional and Charter challenge that this government is leading British Columbians down the path of, at a $50 million cost, spending the time and resource of all members of this House in this flawed process.

Why? It’s for the purpose to placate the three Green Party members. This is all about the fact that members on this side of the House, under our previous leader, fell one seat short. Under first-past-the-post, as I said earlier, we have the ability and opportunity to gain the confidence of British Columbians in a majority type of way. When governments are not able to do that, they lose government, as we did.

When other parties aren’t able to gain the majority confidence of voters in this province, they get a minority government, and that’s what this current government is. With two seats less than we have, they need the support of the three Green Party members. And it’s those three Green Party members that are dictating to this province, the 84 other members of this Legislative Assembly — bringing on proportional representation at a time when we don’t need to be dealing with this, at a time when there are more pressing issues for this province.

So these are the concerns that we have in terms of how this referendum is being run, and it’s the reason why, when this government brought forward the timetable for this referendum, they had in mind that they would rush it through — rush it through in terms of the engagement.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hold on to the conclusions, the recommendations in that report by the AG. Hold on to it until the second-to-last day before the House rose at the end of May for the summer — not give British Columbians the information, the details that he needed, until the barbecue season, as the Premier put it, when he knew that British Columbians would not be engaged. That’s what he suggested.

He also knew and he said: “Well, we have elections in 28 days. We can do this.” Not if he’s hiding. Not if he’s not prepared to stand up for British Columbians, to talk to them directly in a debate. That’s what we have during elections.

This is the reason why, as we go forward here, we have concerns about the lack of details that are to be put forward in this referendum. Details that would have, under a rural-urban system, for example, as I just mentioned…. We’ve got a situation now where, without the definition of what a rural riding is, what falls into a semi-urban riding or what falls into an urban riding, British Columbians won’t even know what voting system applies to them. We don’t know whether Kamloops or Cranbrook or some other municipality will ever be able to see that, as to what they’re going to fit into, whether it’s semi-urban or otherwise.

[6:20 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, you are about to vote on the hoist amendment proposed by the member for Vancouver–False Creek. Specifically, his motion is: “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.’”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 41
Cadieux	de Jong	Bond
Polak	Wilkinson	Lee
Stone	Coleman	Wat
Bernier	Thornthwaite	Paton
Ashton	Barnett	Yap
Martin	Davies	Kyllo
Sullivan	Isaacs	Morris
Stilwell	Ross	Oakes
Johal	Redies	Rustad
Milobar	Sturdy	Shypitka
Hunt	Throness	Tegart
Stewart	Sultan	Gibson
Reid	Letnick	Thomson
Larson		Foster
NAYS — 43
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Furstenau	Weaver	Olsen
	Glumac

M. de Jong: Noting the hour, even though this day was great, I now move to adjourn debate…. I’m going to reserve my right to come back, and move adjournment of the debate.

M. de Jong moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll wait for the haiku, but in the meantime, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Wednesday, October 24, at 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.