Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 41, the Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — ADVANCED EDUCATION
STATUTE REPEAL ACT

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to begin by acknowledging we’re on the territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people, members of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

It is my honour to move that Bill 41, the Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, now be read a second time. This bill will repeal the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act in its entirety. Portions of this act were struck down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2011. However, those court decisions just dealt with the K-to-12 sector.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Sections of the act that relate to the post-secondary system are still on the books. Repealing this act now will remove the remaining sections of the act. These sections allow public colleges and institutes the right to dictate class size, working hours, the number and length of semesters, professional development time and vacation time, and to make faculty teach distance learning courses. Here’s the catch: these elements can override other acts or collective bargaining agreements that have been negotiated in good faith.

Both B.C.’s highest court and Canada’s highest court rejected these rights at the K-to-12 level. If challenged, this act almost certainly would be found unconstitutional. Fair, equal collective bargaining is good public policy. With parts of the act still left on the books, it prevents each side from coming to the table to bargain in good faith. In fact, it could put government in a precarious situation — the same situation the Ministry of Education was in when challenged in court in 2016.

Removing this likely unconstitutional act also reduces the risk of potentially expensive legal action. Without this unfair and unused act, bargaining can move forward with existing laws and with policies and procedures already in place — most importantly, in good faith.

S. Cadieux: I take my place as the opposition critic for Advanced Education in the second reading of Bill 41. I certainly understand the purpose of the act and the purpose of the repeal. The content is the same as was previously deemed to be unconstitutional by the courts. I certainly respect that and understand it, and the opposition will be supportive of the act.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act.

[2:25 p.m.]

As the minister mentioned, this act repeals the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that was brought in under the previous government in 2002. Within the language of that bill brought in, in 2002, restrictions were removed — in particular, the clause:

“Despite any other Act or a collective agreement, an institution has the right to (a) establish the size of its classes, the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member in a semester, a term or an academic year, (b) assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning, (c) determine its hours of operation and the number and duration of terms or semesters during which instruction is offered to students, (d) allocate professional development time and vacation time to facilitate its organization of instruction, and (e) provide support for faculty members, including, but not limited to, teaching assistants, senior students, contractors and support staff members.”

This legislation, brought to 2002, was fortunately never actually challenged and never actually used, because universities and colleges recognize that the governance style within these academic post-secondary institutions is more of a collegial form of governance, one in which an academic environment is governed by the senate, where there is input from faculty and staff and students in terms of the academic direction of an institution.

What was very troubling, of course, is that when this act was introduced, it also amended sections of the School Act, which stripped teachers’ bargaining rights — or when the prior act was a similar thing — related to class size and composition.

Remember the infamous Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, which started major labour disputes in our province with health care workers. Again, that was also implemented at the same time. It was rather a classic example of a pendulum that swings, when we have governments shift from one to the other side of the political spectrum.

If ever there was a compelling testimony as to why proportional representation is important, it’s that it limits these kinds of pendulum swings because of the fact that we typically don’t go from one extreme to the other. In this example, we’re going back to legislation coming in, being repealed. Of course, this should never have been brought in, in the first place.

With the B.C. Teachers Federation, of the examples I just raised, that dispute lasted for a decade and a half. How much money, how many hours lost, how much stress put on teachers, how much education was not delivered because of time being put to this because of, frankly, punitive measures that were brought forward by the previous government to the employees within the education sector, whether it be K-to-12 or post-secondary institutions?

The amendments to the School Act that were brought in with the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act were poorly thought out. It was legislation that caused, as I mentioned, a decade of turmoil, including the longest strike in BCTF’s history, in 2014, when I was sitting on the other side there. It was based, frankly, on ideology that the government of the day doubled down on as it lost decision after decision, until it went to the Supreme Court, which, only for a few minutes, deliberated before they ruled unanimously on the direction that this should take.

I remember, frankly, three years ago standing in this House and speaking about the approach of the previous government towards education. At that time, I said that moving the relationship forward between the BCTF and the government would require trust — mutual trust. It was easy, of course, for me to see why the BCTF and other stakeholders in public education were leery to trust the direction of the previous government.

At the time, I was arguing that the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, was a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than engaging education stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, the government was providing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint special advisers and issue administrative directives. Needless to say, that was not building trust. It was a classic example of the previous government’s approach.

Instead of working to build trust, the previous administration spent years fighting the BCTF — and countless dollars in doing so — creating labour disputes, court battles and strikes until finally the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the BCTF.

[2:30 p.m.]

They won their challenge because the legislative changes infringed on B.C. teachers’ freedom of association, guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I use this example because the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that this bill is repealing here today — that is, Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act — has very similar language, which I read out earlier, very similar language in it, which, in theory, could render key sections in collective agreements with post-secondary educators void.

Coming to a specific example in the previous bill, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, which is being repealed, it states here, as well: “Despite any other Act or collective agreement, an institution has the right to…assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning,” and to establish class sizes and “the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member….”

The total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member — this shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how universities operate.

I taught at a university for 25 years before coming here. I had PhD students and master’s students. To think, here, that somehow government was enabling that my institution could tell me how many PhD students I could supervise…. Who’s going to pay them? We have departmental policy that requires us to find money to pay our students. What about if I was no longer active in research, and on and on. It just showed such a fundamental misunderstanding.

But in fact, in 2007, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators noted this, and they stated that this act overruled provisions of their collective agreements that dealt with class size. At the same time, their statement read as follows. This is the statement that they read: “Although we have succeeded in preventing post-secondary employers from using the legislation, today’s decision adds to our case that the legislation should be scrapped all together.” That was with respect to a ruling, one of the many rulings, that came in the BCTF’s favour.

The Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act has still not been used to this day, thank goodness. But if it were to be used, I cringe to think of the disputes it would cause, and the subsequent legal challenges that could arise.

Now, I recognize that this legislation, which is still on the books, is a blight on the previous government, is a blight on the official opposition, which is why it seems that there are no speakers to this at second reading, and that they’ll accept it, and quickly, apart from one just saying, in a matter of moments, that they’ll accept it.

We’re not getting a detailed discussion and rationale on why this was brought in, in the first place. Why was this brought in, in the first place? We have members sitting opposite who’ve been in the B.C. Legislature since 2002, when, in fact, this legislation was brought. Rather than simply giving us a history, rather than telling us why it was brought in and why they’re now supporting it, all they say, in essence, is “we support repealing it.”

I recognize this is a blight. It’s a shameful blight on 16 years of actually not putting education as a priority in this province. This bill before us today is seeking to remove the controversial piece of legislation, which, fortunately, has never been used before, and, frankly, if it were, would almost certainly have triggered legal challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada, where, once again, it would’ve been deemed unconstitutional and a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the legacy that the new government has to deal with. It is repealing legislation that, yet again, would almost certainly have been unconstitutional. My caucus and I are 100 percent behind this bill, and with that, I thank you for your attention.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. Mark: I move second reading of Bill 41.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mark: I move that Bill 41 be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Mark: I call Bill 40.

[2:35 p.m.]

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

On the main motion.

S. Cadieux: I am pleased to take my place to speak to Bill 40.

Bill 40 is just a blatant and unfair interference with the referendum campaign. There was to be a “yes” committee and a “no” committee and rules about funding, but in the middle of the referendum campaign, the government chose to introduce a bill that is clearly designed to get a “yes” vote. But I think that the referendum, frankly, is asking the impossible of voters.

There are 29 things that have to be decided after the referendum. We’re not voting on first-past-the-post versus something else; we’re voting on first-past-the-post or something else to be determined later. I just don’t think that that’s the best way or an informed way to make a decision about something as fundamental as electoral reform.

I absolutely believe that it is fine to ask voters to vote on a potential change if that potential change is defined, factual and clearly articulated. But every day I am continuing to see inaccurate information being thrown around by citizens. It makes me concerned that, indeed, not enough education has been done and not enough facts are available to those voters. People are continuing to say — including members of this House — that under proportional representation, you as a citizen get to vote for your MLA and that there won’t be lists. But that is not true.

The Attorney General’s own recommendations to cabinet, if you read them, lay out that two of the proposed systems would contain lists. The dual-member proportional and the mixed-member proportional representation would have party lists. I don’t think that that makes for a more democratic system. Now, of course, that is my personal opinion, but I can’t understand how people can suggest that it leads to better representation of the voter.

The current system allows voters in any particular area to vote for or against a particular candidate. So if someone is elected, even if that person is elected and it is the choice of that voter, by the next election, if individuals feel that that person has not represented them well, they can not re-elect that person. That is that direct accountability available to voters.

When the Premier says, “Take a leap of faith with us,” I just think that’s insulting. If the government thinks that PR is the right thing for B.C., then why does the Attorney General say: “Well, if you don’t have enough information, just vote to keep the first-past-the-post”? Why not, instead, provide the information? But no, because we have a flawed process, a flawed referendum and a flawed ballot question. I just think that with a razor-thin minority government, through a minority coalition…. The reality is that I think that we should be a little more careful about a big decision like this, and we should take the time necessary to make this decision in a way where voters can make an informed decision.

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

We’re debating legislation here to amend the legislation that this minority coalition government pushed through in the spring to meet the obligations of their agreement to maintain that coalition. The legislation itself that enables the referendum was rushed through in the spring. Now we’ve got an insurance policy coming forward on behalf of the government to the voters to suggest that it’s okay, it doesn’t matter if you don’t know what you’re voting for, because later you can change your mind.

If that was the intent…. We’re told it was, in fact. Clearly, government intended this long ago. What we’re debating now — the potential to have a second referendum after a change to the voting system many years from now — is already referenced as a done deal in what are supposed to be non-partisan Elections B.C. voter packages explaining the referendum. And if that’s the case, then the government told Elections B.C. months ago that the legislation that we’re debating here today, which has not been passed by this House, is a done deal.

[2:40 p.m.]

Now, I understand that the government feels that is the case, and I understand that they feel they have the support of their coalition members in forcing this legislation through so that Elections B.C. information is, in fact, correct in the future. But it’s not correct today, yet it’s been printed, presupposing the outcome of the legislation that we’re debating.

I think that is presumptuous. I think it is calculated to give the government cover on this very flawed process.

By even presenting Bill 40, the government is suggesting, to me, that voters are not supportive of a change to proportional representation under the rules, processes and information that have been set out to date. So they have to make some changes to entice voters into taking that great leap of faith.

Why else would this happen now? It was only six months ago that the referendum act was passed. The government is telling me that they were so poorly prepared for that legislation that they forgot to include this big issue of a second referendum, so they need a do-over already, before we even have the referendum. It’s insulting.

Changing our voting system is a major decision, and it is the right of the people. It’s a major decision for the electorate to make, and it’s their right to make that change should they wish. But the electorate is being told by this government that we should take a leap of faith, vote on hypotheticals and vague promises, and I do not believe that is so.

The government has bungled this from the beginning. They’ve been rushing from the beginning. We can’t have maps because it’ll take too much time. We can’t have details. It can be worked out later. Don’t worry about it. We can’t have a citizens’ assembly. That’ll take too much time. But this is a fundamental change to our democratic institution. If the Premier believes it’s the right thing to do, if the Attorney General believes it’s the right thing to do, then they should have the class and the integrity to present their case, to defend it, holes and all, with its vague promises, with their Green Party deals. They should present it all to the public.

And they — wow — miraculously are going to do that in a debate next week, after the majority of the ballots will have already been sent back to Elections B.C. People will have already made their choice, based on all that flawed information.

This is not something that should be lesser than an election. This is not something that should be given less attention than a general election. This is, in fact, in some ways, more important. But government is trying to slide it past the voters, hopeful many will ignore a mail-in ballot, which they will. We’re already seeing evidence of that in apartment recycling bins.

We have to ask, I think, the Attorney General, who’s now suggesting that if people don’t have enough information, they should vote to keep the system we already have. And I agree; they should. But isn’t that just an admission by the Attorney General that, in fact, this whole referendum process is flawed and, in fact, there isn’t enough information? Otherwise, he should be defending the systems he’s put forward. But the details aren’t there to support.

Frankly, I think the translucence from the Premier on this referendum is obvious. I would support a referendum where citizens could make a truly informed decision, but many people aren’t informed. They can’t get the information they need to make that decision, and many are making their decision with incorrect and misleading information.

My colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie has pointed out that this referendum may be unconstitutional, and he’s laid out his reasons. The pro-PR folks have presented that as a myth, but it’s actually a very reasonable concern and a question.

Now, there is nothing unconstitutional about changing our voting system, provided — and I stress “provided” — that the change we make must be in keeping with the Canadian constitution and the Charter. There is a valid argument that some of the proposed proportional representation systems do not.

There are a lot of myths out there, and there are a lot of things being presented as facts. Depending on which side of the argument is leading the discussion, you may find you don’t agree with either a myth or a fact. But there are a few that I read on line the other day that I am really concerned about.

[2:45 p.m.]

The pro-PR side is putting forward as a myth that prop rep is a risky unknown. They say that’s false, and they present as a fact that more than 90 percent of the world’s democracies use prop rep and that only four countries use first-past-the-post — the U.K., the United States, Canada and India. But that statement is fundamentally false. The actual number of countries that use proportional representation and first-past-the-post are approximately even in support.

The fact that people suggest it’s risky…. Well, it is risky, because two of the three options on our ballot are not used anywhere else in the world. They are hypothetical. And the third is only used in seven of the countries that use proportional representation. So I’d say there is a significant degree of risk that we don’t know how those systems would work here.

There’s another myth that the prop rep side is trying to put down. They say that there’s a myth out there that prop rep will result in fringe parties. They say that’s false. They put forward that to win a seat under prop rep, a party must win 5 percent of the vote. In their minds, political parties will need substantial support, so then they couldn’t be fringe.

Holy moly, all one has to do is look through the news articles of the day to see what’s happening in Sweden, New Zealand and other countries. There are fringe parties in every legislature that uses proportional representation, and many of them are there with less than 4 percent of the vote. Some are on the far right; some are on the far left. Some can’t be classified as left or right. They’re just one-issue parties. Meanwhile, few, if any, of the first-past-the-post legislatures or systems have any fringe parties represented.

Now, I love this one. The pro-PR folks are telling people that it’s a myth that if we change the system, we’re stuck with it. And they’re presenting as a fact that B.C. will hold a second referendum after two elections and that we can go back to our first-past-the-post if we change and we don’t like it. By the way, no country has ever gone back after adopting prop rep.

The reality is that the legislation we’re debating says that if we switch to prop rep, then we will have it for eight years, or two elections past the switch. But it won’t be until after the 2021 election, so it’s more likely 12 years from now. And the structures that underlie our election system — the number of parties, the number of MLAs, the number of ridings and the election rules — will all have changed in that time to suit proportional representation. So it’s not like throwing a switch.

Referendums are expensive. The changes that would be required if we choose to switch will be even more expensive. The promise of a second referendum is an empty one. It’s offered as an insurance policy. I understand that from the perspective of government, but I believe firmly that if we switch, that’s it. No do-overs.

Best of all is something the member for North Vancouver–​Lonsdale alluded to in a very impassioned speech — that somehow proportional representation democracies are kinder, gentler democracies. How so? Canada is consistently rated one of the best, most democratic and free countries in the world, one of the best places to live, one of the places most people would choose to move to if they could. Why? How about the fact that the election system we have now has produced one of the kindest, gentlest, least corrupt, prosperous and free democracies on earth?

Why do we need to switch? This system isn’t perfect. Every member of this House and every voter doesn’t get their way on everything. That’s because we don’t all see eye to eye. Every citizen has different priorities and thinks government should, of course, adopt theirs. As a member of a cabinet for a number of years, I didn’t always get my way, because there are competing priorities for governments to grapple with.

[2:50 p.m.]

This new government is not delivering on every promise they promised to voters. Why? Because they can’t do it all at once, and there are competing priorities. Right now some of those competing priorities are with their coalition partners saying: “You can’t do that, or we won’t support you.” This is how our democracy works. Whether it’s first-past-the-post or proportional representation, the reality is no one will always get all of their own way.

But this first-past-the-post system has given us one of the best places to live in the world. This has given us a stable, free place to live. Regardless of the fact that at this moment in time, my chosen political party does not govern our House or our province, that doesn’t mean I think we should switch the system. This is okay. This has given us good government and a good place to live for a long time, and I don’t see the need to rush to change.

Again, I will say: if citizens are demanding this change, then why are we rushing? If citizens are demanding this change, then let’s have that citizens’ assembly. Let’s let the citizens tell us how they want to elect their representatives. Then let’s have a referendum based on those preferences versus first-past-the-post, like as has been done in the past. Because this matters.

If proportional representation is supposed to cure all the ills of voter disillusionment and drive up participation rates, then why are we seeing so many discarded ballots in recycle bins right now for this referendum? If this is going to drive up participation rates and this is going to cure all the ills of our parliamentary system, then why has no threshold been set for voter turnout?

How is it we’re being asked to presuppose the outcomes of this rigged referendum and vote on a piece of legislation to amend the legislation that allows that same referendum to take place, to bind a future government to hold another referendum, to check if people like the decision that they made?

I don’t support the referendum in its current form. I don’t support this bill to amend that legislation. I don’t believe that the people of British Columbia will agree either.

C. Oakes: It truly is my pleasure to rise today to add my comments to the discussion, and I appreciate all of the members of this House and what they have contributed. I appreciate all of the contributions that members of both sides of the House have made in this debate.

I think it’s important today that I take a few moments…. I speak to my constituents in Cariboo North, who have been asking incredibly valid questions that they are seeking answers to. What I have been saying is…. I direct my constituents to Elections B.C. to find out further information about what the three options for proportional representation look like.

Here are the types of questions that my constituents are asking. And the reason why we have taken a very thoughtful approach to ensure that in this House, we are asking legitimate questions that we are hearing from the constituents — the very nature of what our jobs are as MLAs…. When I have been home in my riding, somebody can come up to me in the grocery store and ask me a question such as: “What will the riding look like?”

[2:55 p.m.]

At the gas pump, somebody can stop me and ask me specific questions, which I think really speaks to the heart of what it means under the first-past-the-post to have an elected representative in our riding that you can reach out to and you can ask questions of and you can make sure that you’re holding them accountable.

Sometimes lost in this whole discussion…. Sometimes the discussions in this Legislature in general really only speak to the element of an election. I was reviewing what the Premier said in his response to Bill 40, and it really was focused on the idea about the time of an election and making sure at an election time that you had a representative. That is why, you know, “Take this leap of faith” — and all of these elements that are out there on why this is such an opportunity.

I think what sometimes is lost and, I feel, may have been lost in the comments around proportional representation is the fact that as MLAs, our job is to listen to our constituents not just at election time. Our job is to be listening consistently to our constituents and to be bringing those voices forward and reflecting on them. So when we speak in this House and we talk about what we have heard out in our communities, it is because we have access.

As many of us have said in this House before…. I represent a riding that’s over 38,000 square kilometres. My riding is larger than Vancouver Island. I work diligently with an amazing team of individuals to make sure that we are out consistently on the road, listening, holding mobile offices. And the number one concern that we are hearing from my constituents is: what will these maps look like? What is our riding going to look like? We certainly understand, and you read through the math, that there has been a set number of how many seats this House can hold, so the fears are that ridings like Cariboo North will be lost.

We have a population of just over 28,000, and we already struggle with the threshold that is necessary through Elections B.C. But there is a geographic element that has always been acknowledged within the constitution, as my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie has talked about, and there are real fears that that regional imbalance of what potentially we may see may be reflected in this. In back and forth with emails that I’ve had with my constituents….

Currently it takes about six hours to go from one part of my riding to another, and for many of my constituents, it’s a three-hour drive into my office to meet with me. We do our best. You know, it is difficult in rural ridings. How do I go now to my constituents and say: “Well, if we get amalgamated or eliminated, we now may become part of a mega-riding”? Where now, all of a sudden, to that senior who desperately needs assistance or desperately wants their ideas reflected here in Victoria…. They want to raise those concerns to me. They’re now told: “Well, your MLA is ten hours away.” Or maybe it’s 12 hours away. What is the workability of that going to look like in our communities? These are questions that just have not been answered through this process.

Some of the other questions that have been asked, that they mention, will be post-referendum decisions — the total number of MLAs in the province, either a specific number or range, up to a maximum of 95. So who is going to lose their riding? Is it going to be in an urban setting? Are we going to see ridings lost in Surrey? Are we going to see ridings that may be amalgamated in Burnaby, perhaps?

Is there going to be a geographic focus on what we’re looking at? For northern British Columbia, are we going to see the entire north amalgamated, and then are we going to see a party choose what that representation will look like in our communities? That is very concerning, and it should be concerning to all members of this House — whether to use a reserve seat allocation method and, if so, for what percentage of seats.

[3:00 p.m.]

We also don’t know the number and configuration of single-member districts, what that may look like, or the configuration of two-member districts. And if you have a two-member district, how is the workability with constituency offices? Do we now, all of a sudden, see a community have multiple constituency offices in it? If so, what does the budget allocation mean through the Legislature to make sure those are staffed?

We look at other questions under the MMP decisions for the Legislature — the total number of MLAs in the province, exact ratio of first-past-the-post seats to the list of PR seats, up to a maximum of 40 percent list of PR seats, ballot options for the list of PRs to vote. Is it a closed list? The order of candidates is determined by the party.

I’ve heard in this House many times…. I’m incredibly proud to be the first female MLA elected in my region, and it’s difficult. There are a lot of challenges, when we look at how we encourage women to get engaged, how we get millennials engaged. How do we get young people engaged?

I look at a system of…. If it’s a closed list and it’s determined by the party, how are we going to ensure that people who maybe are, for their first time, taking a foray into politics, those millennials that are engaged and excited and passionate about this option, and want them to consider…? If it’s a party list, and you’re competing with a very senior individual who has been represented in this House for many years and has significant experience, how are we going to allow access to ensure that millennials and women and other populations will have the same opportunities? I’m incredibly concerned about that, and that is a question that has not been answered.

If it’s an open list and voters vote for specific candidates, my question for this is…. I come from a riding that has also had an independent member in this House, and I think it’s a relevant question. We’ve had independent members who have served very well in this House. They’ve brought forward very relevant, important information in this House. If it’s under a closed party system, if we look at some of the options that are being proposed, and it’s based off of a party list, how does an independent have the opportunity to serve in this House if they’re an independent and don’t belong to a party?

Isn’t that, by the very nature of democracy and everything that we represent in this House — so that people have the option to raise their concerns and to be democratically free to do that — an important element? I think it is. I think questions such as open and closed lists and if it’s a party that determines that…. I think it’s important.

The other side of the argument will say: “Well, there will also be, in some of the options, an elected opportunity.” Again, I look at an individual that may come from a community in Quesnel that decides to run as an independent, and our riding becomes amalgamated with all of the north. Perhaps we get amalgamated or dissolved, and we become part of this super mega-riding that includes larger populations. Maybe it’s a Prince George, or maybe it’s a Kamloops. How does an individual in a smaller community with a smaller population base have the same opportunities to really be represented or to have their voices heard? I think it becomes much more difficult.

The other questions I’ve heard in my communities are: one vote which counts for both the local candidate and the list of PR seat allocation; two votes — one for the local candidate and one for the list of seat allocation; whether candidates for the local first-past-the-post seat may be on the party’s list for the regional list under PR seats; the method of determining the order in which the list of PR seats are allo­cated; whether to permit overhung seats — that is, to have a fixed number of total seats in the Legislative Assembly; potentially added seats to compensate if any party wins greater than the share of the first-past-the-post seats than its overall vote share would be entitled to.

[3:05 p.m.]

I raise this because these are legitimate questions that people are raising in our constituencies. To suggest…. First of all, to go out on a referendum with so many unanswered questions and put all of us, as MLAs, in a situation where…. I was certainly not raised to suggest to somebody who is an intelligent, articulate individual just to take a leap of faith. I am going to propose something to you, and you just need to trust me. The very element of being in politics often…. It is incredibly difficult to assure citizens that there is that high level of trust.

When we, in some respects, do not respect the intelligence of our citizens by providing them with accurate information, dismissing them and suggesting that they take a leap of faith, I think it is very discouraging. I certainly have felt that on the doorsteps in my community.

Other questions that have come forward are whether the order of candidates on the list of PR ballots should be randomized or not. What is the method for filling in the single-member districts and the list-PR seat vacancies? What happens if we have a by-election — similar to what it is currently or will be called — in an area? And then post referendum, other decisions around the Electoral Boundaries Commission — the number and configuration of regions, the number and configuration of first-past-the-post districts in each region, the number of list seats in each region. There are so many unanswered questions.

Again, I think to go out and to suggest to people now: “Well, yeah, I know that there are a lot of unanswered questions, so that’s why we’re proposing we do a do-over….” I’ve gone on to Elections B.C. We are still debating this bill. We are still in debate of this bill, yet on Elections B.C., it is mentioning that you can have a do-over.

I think that there has to be a level of confidence that our citizens have in us that we follow a process and a procedure. Quite frankly, we come here to debate. We come here to have honest dialogue.

I would like to read a comment that the Premier made. I think it’s important to put on this record. “I hear it every day as I travel around British Columbia. I hear from people who are saying: ‘I’m really glad you guys are working together.’” If we’re working together, why then the presumption that having dialogue and having the ability to raise questions may not…? It could formulate a different answer.

If the Premier is suggesting that everything is all working well and everybody is cooperating, why, then, wouldn’t we wait till after the vote is called before we actually institute and put something into the referendum — information that, perhaps, in many respects, is very misleading to constituencies and to people in communities?

The Premier goes on to say: “I’m really happy to see that. I like the idea that you’re cooperating. You’re putting aside your personal differences, and you’re working in the best interests of British Columbians. I hear it over and over again.”

He goes on, and I think he was being a little flippant: “Of course, when you’re in government, you have an opportunity to travel around and talk directly to people. When you’re in opposition, you’re looking for a parade to lead, and I’m certain that someday a parade will come by that the member for Cariboo North can join into. But for now, the question before us is Bill 40 and the opportunity to say to British Columbians: ‘You can embrace a change in our electoral process this fall, and if you don’t like it, two elections hence you’ll have an opportunity to vote against it.’”

He says: “Take a leap of faith.” He acknowledges: “Well, yeah, I know. As I’ve been travelling around British Colum­bia,” which he acknowledged in his response, “people are asking a lot of questions.”

[3:10 p.m.]

People are legitimately asking honest questions to the Premier, and he has admitted this in his Bill 40. He knows that when he travels, people are asking: “Show me a map. Show me what the riding will look like.”

I think it was also interesting that he was a little disrespectful to the constituents in Cariboo North, which I probably should read into the record so my constituents have the opportunity to understand how collegial this House can be. “That’s why proportional representation’s time has come. The fear should stop.” Let’s not provide information, just have a leap of faith. “The practical understanding…. You don’t need a degree in statistics.” Obviously, you don’t need a degree in political science either. That’s my own quote.

“You don’t have to be…exercising your franchise by putting an X beside the person that best reflects your values. After you do that, you can say with absolute certainty that your values will be reflected in this place.”

Now, you may not get represented, because again, it might be ten hours away where your MLA is, but your values will be represented. Lord help you if you run into any problems, and you’re in a crisis, and you actually need an MLA to help you. You may not have somebody around your area. My constituents who are affected by wildfires or floods or landslides may now have to travel significantly farther.

But I digress. “That, again, as they say in the business, is a good thing.” The Premier goes on: “Maybe not in Cariboo North, but everywhere else, that’s the case.” Maybe he was referring to Cariboo North because, as I have mentioned before, we’ve had an independent in our community. Maybe what the Premier is saying is: “Well, now we’ve just eliminated the ability, through this process, to ever have an independent sit in this House.” Maybe that’s a good thing.

Maybe that’s the whole intent of the Premier — to make sure that independents don’t have the ability to sit in this House and that it’s directed clearly by parties. I don’t know. I’m just reading what he said in Hansard on Bill 40. But I think, again, these are very valid concerns that people have brought forward in our communities.

I’d also like to talk a little bit about the workability, or how this Legislature works. If I look at select standing committees, which we have various of, I can never speak to…. It’s unparliamentary to ever say who may or may not be attending certain meetings. I can tell you that there are very good records that are kept by our incredible staff here through the Legislature and that important work is done through these standing committees and the different offices that happen.

I can tell you that if you look at the attendance…. The Finance Committee has just finished travelling the province, listening to citizens and taking very important information back. All of the parties in this House have participation in that. I will say that it was discouraging to look at the attendance, perhaps, of the membership, and I encourage citizens to look.

If you start having…. I think you need to pay attention, when there are critically important standing committee meetings that are happening, to who is attending and who is not attending.

D. Routley: I seek advice from the Speaker as to whether it’s appropriate to refer in any way to attendance at committees. I sit on a committee with the member speaking and can tell the member that in 14 years, I’ve missed fewer than 12 days in this Legislature. I don’t know who she was referring to, but I question the appropriateness of that.

Deputy Speaker: The ruling has always, in the past, applied to the attendance within this chamber.

Please proceed.

C. Oakes: I would say that I appreciate the member’s comments. I’ve sat on a committee with the individual and felt it was a very rewarding committee that we sat on. I felt that incredible work was done. I raised that because I was very proud of the work that we achieved.

[3:15 p.m.]

My concern is that, on some of the committees that we currently have, there may…. I would also suggest that it is not the party of the individual who rose — that perhaps the attendance is not in question. There is a party where, I would suggest, attendance needs to be looked at.

The challenge is, if you have three or four people, how do you possibly ensure that all of the workings of this House — of the standing committees, of all of the work that happens within this Legislature — gets achieved?

Those are some of the elements of the workability factor around proportional representation that I don’t believe have been addressed. And how, if you look at the standing orders, there probably has been…. I would hope that there has been work done on looking at how the standing orders will be reflected, with such significant change as what we are looking at with proportional representation. I think those are critical elements to that.

Going back to the idea of a do-over, I so respect the work that is done in this House and by every single member in this Legislature. I know that all of us come with the absolute heart and soul of making sure that we are listening to citizens and doing the elements of the work.

I cannot imagine that, with the number of unanswered questions that we have…. We look at how special standing committees will work, and even Finance, and all of the operational elements of what happens in this House — the type of damage that can come by choosing a decision without having all of the information prepared in advance is incredibly concerning. Or I think of the idea of the incredible cost to taxpayers by not having specific questions answered.

And the idea of: are we going to be setting up constituency offices in every single community in British Columbia? Again, coming from a rural community, I often hear about…. There is so much, even through Elections B.C. Everything is built around this idea that British Columbia has this level of connectivity that we are all so blessed to have.

Again, in my communities, my 38,000 square kilometres, I can go ten kilometres any given way and not have cell service, or not have connectivity options. Or if we do, it’s satellite, and it’s so incredibly expensive that not everyone in our rural communities has access to that type of connectivity.

So if the idea is that we are moving away, which I think will be an element of proportional representation — you move away from having that direct contact with an elected MLA in your communities or your region, and move more to utilizing technology. Where will those investment dollars go to ensure that every citizen has the equal and same opportunity for information and support?

You know, currently, I believe, it may be 80 percent of the population that is connected. But it’s not 80 percent of the province of British Columbia. Anyone who has had the privilege to travel throughout this amazing province of British Columbia can tell you that there are still significant gaps in last-mile connectivity. So I raise that as a concern of how our constituents will have access to us.

I think that instead of voting…. We are voting more on a concept. I understand that there may be people out there that are comfortable with the idea of moving forward on a concept. Within the walls of this House, we certainly have a process — and I would never dream of bringing forward, you know, a concept.

[3:20 p.m.]

As a former minister, you need to do your briefings, you need to have your information, and you need to have all of those pieces in line before you would ever come to this House to present something. What we are asking our citizens to do is in exact contrast to what we in this House do — by nature of making sure that we’re prepared, that we do our briefings and that we have the information prepared for us.

We’re being asked to vote on systems that have not even been used anywhere else in the world, yet government is choosing to not even provide, as I’ve said, the maps of the electoral districts or even the number of electoral districts and how many representatives each would have. Local representation does matter. The information we haven’t said is that political parties will choose your representative. Again, I come from a part of the world where we’re pretty independent. We like to ensure that we have the same opportunities, perhaps, as in the urban ridings.

In dual-member proportional representation, you are given two options appointed by political parties. All losing votes are distributed to parties to allow them to appoint candidates elsewhere — which, of course, is what could allow some of the examples that have been used in other countries that have been brought forward.

Then you get to mixed-member proportional. This is the only proportional system on the ballot that’s actually used anywhere in the world. I will be honest: when I’m doing my absolute best to present information to my constituents — I think it’s important that we do that — I’ll often refer to this one because I think it’s the most notable or the one that is the easiest, probably, with the most information to define.

In this system, again, we have drastically few details about how the political parties would choose 40 percent of the MLAs. Again, my concern, as a female representative, is: how will we be supporting young people, millennials, to ensure that they have the same opportunities to get elected into this House?

You have the rural-urban, a two-tiered mix of the STV system that British Columbians have rejected, as we’ve mentioned, twice before, in 2005 and 2009; and the MMP, which is also on the ballot. Whether a riding is rural or urban…. I know I had talked about this earlier. I guess my constituents in Quesnel are wondering: “Are we urban? Are we rural? If we end up with Prince George or Kamloops, what does that look like? How will that change?” Whether you’re in a health district…. Your health authority — how does that change in your region? There is a lot of those types of elements that I think are concerning. People need to ask, and are asking, those questions in my constituency.

I see that my time is just about up. Just again, with all respect to all of the members in this House, it is truly a privilege to serve. We all work very hard to support our constituents, and it has been very disheartening to go home and to have my constituents ask specific questions — questions that I cannot answer.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kelowna–​Lake Country. [Applause.]

N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thanks to my colleagues for that warm welcome. It’s indeed a pleasure to get up and address this issue on behalf of the constituents for Kelowna–Lake Country.

We are both an urban and a rural centre — Kelowna, of course, being quite urban in many ways. My riding actually starts from Highway 33 and goes north to Oyama. Therefore, two-thirds of my constituents live in the urban centre of Kelowna, and one-third of my constituents live in Lake Country, which is a vastly less urban location. Both have interesting priorities. For the most part, their priorities are similar: good health care. Good education. Safe and efficient transportation. Affordable housing, of course. Taking care of those that fall between the cracks.

[3:25 p.m.]

Mental health and addictions. Investment in our post-secondary education institutions, both capital and operating. Also, investment in our K-to-12 infrastructure, in particular the need to replace Rutland Middle School. We have many, many issues that are compatible between Kelowna and Lake Country. It has been for ten years now — I’m in my tenth year — that I’ve had the privilege of representing them.

But none of those ten years has ever seen me stand up and actually discuss a bill like Bill 40, which is deciding how future MLAs…. Maybe me, but over the course of time, someone will follow me. So this is about the future MLAs, not for me in particular, who will be decided by those constituents that live in the general area of Kelowna–Lake Country — because as we know, with some of these options, we’re talking about larger ridings, so it’s hard to specifically pinpoint Kelowna–Lake Country — and how they will be selected to represent them.

The whole basis of my thesis here, and I know it’s an interesting word for this, is that we need local representation. We need to make sure that we elect local people that represent local issues to this place so that they can fight for those local issues.

What I’m going to do over the next 25 minutes is talk a little bit about why we’re here; some of the opinions that have been registered on this bill so far; what the government has said they were going to do and what they’ve actually done; how in the past, over two referendums, we’ve actually had an example of how the process should work and the results of that. Then I will finish off at the end with a little bit of why I believe, in summary, we should continue to go with first-past-the-post to elect our representatives here in this chamber.

First of all, why are we here? Well, today in the Glacier Media outlet, the headline is: “Former NDP Premier Clark” — and that is not Christy; that is Glen — “Votes No on Electoral Reform.” You add that to the list. That’s Glen Clark, and now we have former NDP Premier Ujjal Dosanjh, who also votes no to electoral reform.

Interjections.

N. Letnick: I never thought, mentioning those two names, that I would actually get a round of applause. Let me say it again: the former NDP Premiers Glen Clark and Ujjal Dosanjh vote no.

Interjections.

N. Letnick: That’s very funny.

Interjection.

N. Letnick: Yes, the members are throwing me off my list. I might actually have to go for 35 minutes, Madame Chair, with your permission.

But anyway, Mr. Clark said, and I am paraphrasing from the article, that the situation has become a political one driven by the B.C. Green Party shoring up Premier John Horgan’s government. That’s why we’re here. It’s very simple. It is all because of the confidence and supply agreement, the coalition agreement between the Greens and the NDP.

As we all know from the polling and the discussions in our ridings, this is not falling directly on party lines. There are many people in the B.C. Liberal Party that want to look at PR as an option. There are many people in the NDP that want to keep first-past-the-post. I also understand there are some in the Green Party that want to keep first-past-the-post.

There are differences of opinion, and I really would encourage all people in British Columbia to go to the Elections B.C. website and get the information that they require so that they can make an intelligent choice on their ballot. I would encourage all British Columbians to vote on this important referendum once they’ve had the information that they require.

So that’s why we’re here. Clark has voted against PR in the current referendum campaign. He’s already voted, just like I have. Full disclosure: I voted. I voted against PR. I’ll tell you why through this discussion. He says: “I don’t like proportional representation.” Clark was Premier from ’96 to ’99.

[3:30 p.m.]

He said he’s not a fan of any system where he would be voting for someone whose name is on a party list — one of the proposals in the current referendum, the mixed-member option. “I like to vote for the person who represents me. I want to vote for someone who’s going to be accountable. If you really want to get more representation, get more seats.”

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

He obviously has his opinion, and he’s not shy about making it known. Neither is former Premier Ujjal Dosanjh, who came out loudly against proportional representation.

We also have some members of the media — I think their statements have already been on the record, but I’ll add them again today — who are not attached to any particular party. Actually, they have fun taking all political parties to task. In this case, they’ve taken this referendum to task.

Gary Mason, of the Globe and Mail, said: “I think there are better voting systems to ensure everyone’s vote counts, as opposed to the winner-take-all approach we have now. However, I could not support reform based on the way in which this referendum is being conducted. It is just so badly flawed, so poorly conceived, any outcome will be rendered defective and in violation of the fundamental tenets of democracy.” What a scathing indictment of this whole process by Mr. Mason.

Just like the Premier said — I think it was the Premier: “If you don’t have enough information, vote for first-past-the-post.” So I’m thinking that Gary Mason is going to be voting for first-past-the-post, based on what he said there. And he’s encouraging people to do the same — not to throw out their ballot, not to the tear it up, not it put it at the bottom of their condos so that somebody puts it through the recycle bin, but to vote for the current system because that’s the right thing to do, according to the two former NDP Premiers and Mr. Mason.

Other quotes. “The biggest problem with the latest electoral reform referendum is how badly the NDP has handled the issue and how partisan the process has become.” That’s the Vancouver Sun editorial board.

I also understand the Vancouver paper editorial board came out and told people, or suggested to people, that they should not vote for any of the PR options, that they should keep first-past-the-post. But to keep first-past-the-post, they need to vote for it. They can’t just assume that by not voting at all, they will be able to retain their current system, because there are a lot of motivated people out there, for good political reasons, that are very engaged in this process to support the PR option, and they will, en masse, be voting for PR.

So for the silent majority out there, I’m calling on you to go and get informed, look at what these pundits have to say, look at what the former leaders of the NDP have to say — not the current one — look at what Elections B.C. offers in non-partisan information, and then vote accordingly.

Vaughn Palmer, who also, of course, is a very respected columnist in our province says: “It’s very hard to explain to people how this is going to work because the Attorney General has engineered it so we won’t know until after the vote is over.” He said that to Shane Woodford on October 5, 2018.

When Premier Horgan calls on voters to take a “leap of faith….”

Deputy Speaker: Member, no names.

N. Letnick: Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will remove the notation to his name.

“When the Premier calls on voters to take a leap of faith with him on proportional representation, he means ‘leap in the dark’” — Vaughn Palmer.

You’d think after ten years, I would have marked that off already.

“The NDP, unlike previous attempts to change our voting system, has set the bar pretty low.” That’s Jon McComb at CKNW.

Mike Smyth on CKNW said: “They are setting the bar as low as possible for this referendum to succeed.”

Keith Baldrey said, on Global: “This is a nanny state approach to governing gone rogue.”

We also have Kirk LaPointe in Business in Vancouver, who says: “We are lurching, wobbling, staggering, somewhat blindly and quite deafly, into the fog of confusion and consensus and deliberate under-information that calls itself the 2018 referendum on electoral reform.”

Bill Good said, in June: “It appears they are determined to manipulate the process.”

[3:35 p.m.]

The list goes on and on. All these pundits, these people that are not affiliated with any particular party, have logged into the debate and said, quite frankly, the process is flawed. It’s not fair. It doesn’t follow what the Premier promised the process would be, and it nowhere comes near to the level of impartiality that was offered in the last two referendums.

You know, the Premier said in the past that the referendum would be a yes-no vote. “You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no.” The reporter, Shaw, said: “So you give them one system to vote on?” The Premier said: “Yeah, exactly.” This is in the Province, in May of 2017.

Instead of a yes-no ballot for PR, voters will likely have to choose between multiple PR options against first-past-the-post. Since the multiple PR options are not clearly defined, it really is comparing apples to watermelons.

The Premier also promised an all-party committee to engage the public on changing our electoral system. “Set up an all-party committee to hear from citizens and formulate a referendum question at the conclusion of that process.” He said that on April 10, 2017. Instead, a single cabinet minister is in charge of the engagement process. I’m pretty sure everyone knows all the quotes from the media as far as how that particular minister is not an impartial arbiter, by any stretch.

The regional threshold. The Premier promised to have a strong regional threshold for a referendum on electoral reform, similar to the Canadian constitution. He said: “The amending formula for our constitution…requires approval by seven provinces with 50 percent of Canada’s population. So it is an absolute 50 percent, but it has to include seven provinces…. This amending formula is similar to the kind of formula we’d need for a plebiscite on changing how we elect people in B.C.” He said that in April 2017.

Again, not exactly what we have. We have the 50 percent plus one, but we don’t have that regional threshold like we do in the Canadian constitution.

It really is a challenge as a politician to trust what the Premier has said when key parts of the referendum that he promised we would have — a simple yes-no, all-party committees, a regional threshold — have been broken.

How should it be done? Well, it just so happens there is a report — back in 2014, I think it was — by the commission that looked at the previous referendum. I think it’s important to get that on the record as to what they did.

Now, their mandate, their terms of reference, was: “The citizens’ assembly must assess models for electing Members of the Legislative Assembly and issue a report recommending whether the current model for these elections should be retained or another model should be adopted. In carrying out the assessment…the citizens’ assembly must consult with British Columbians and provide British Columbians with the opportunity to make submissions to the citizens’ assembly in writing, and orally at public meetings.”

Now, that didn’t happen. We didn’t have a citizens’ assembly. What we had was politicians directing the making of the question. Actually, it was done in cabinet.

We’ve all heard the story from the weekend of how certain cabinet ministers might not be able to explain the particular proportional representation votes. But you know what? I don’t think cabinet ministers are alone. You ask most people in this Legislature and, I would say, most people around the province to try to explain the different forms of PR that cabinet has come up with, and I think most people would be at a loss to describe them.

“If the citizens’ assembly recommends, under section 1, the adoption of a model” — so if they recommend it for Members of the Legislative Assembly — “(a) the model must be consistent with both the constitution of Canada and the Westminster parliamentary system; and (b) the model must be described clearly and in detail” — which, again, we don’t have.

“The assessment described in section 1 must…be limited to the manner by which voters’ ballots are translated into elected members and…take into account the potential effect of its recommended model on the government, the Legislative Assembly and the political parties.” Again, we did not get that.

“The citizens’ assembly must present its final version of the report…. On presentation of the final version of the report to the Attorney General, the chair may arrange for the publication of the report.”

[3:40 p.m.]

How did that work? Well, the first thing they did is they had the selection of who was going to be on the assembly. The members of the citizens’ assembly were chosen at random, not appointed by the Premier to cabinet. They were chosen at random from the province’s 79, in those days, electoral districts. The process began with Elections B.C., a non-partisan office of the Legislature, updating the B.C. voters list in late summer, 2003. So first they updated the list, before they appointed people to the citizens’ assembly.

From that list, Elections B.C. drew a random 200 names from each electoral area — 100 males and 100 females — and they were also grouped by age and gender to produce a representative sample of the province.

In 2003, the assembly staff sent an initial letter to 15,800 British Columbians that were randomly selected. This letter explained the purposes and went on to a second set of 200 randomly selected names for districts, which were… Not enough responses were received to represent the districts. So they made sure that we had a representative sample.

The pool of names provided the basis for invitations to one of 27 selection meetings held at various locations around the province. They really went the extra mile to make this a broad consultation, a broad group of people, a broad group of citizens that would have input in the process, and not only the process, but making sure that the different PR options that they examined and made recommendations on at the end, which they did — we all know they made a recommendation for one — would be complete. People of British Columbia would have a complete idea of what they were voting on, whether it was first-past-the-post, with all its benefits and drawbacks, or a particular proportional representation option, with all its benefits and drawbacks. That, again, is not what we have here.

After they put together the group, they went through phase 2, a learning phase, and the members of the citizens’ assembly presented a wide variety of backgrounds. They reflected the diversity of the province, and they went through six weekend sessions, held between January 11 and March 26 of 2004. The sessions were conducted at Simon Fraser University, and they had a lot of experts helping them through those sessions. But at the end of the day, it wasn’t the experts that made the decisions. It was the citizens’ assembly.

Assembly members also learned how to work together. They developed a set of shared values. It culminated in the preliminary statement to the people of British Columbia, outlining: respect; challenge ideas, not people; listen to understand; commitment to the process; focus on the mandate; make sure it’s simple, clear and concise in communication; have a positive attitude and, above all, integrity. Don’t promise something you don’t deliver on.

They went through a public hearings phase, and 50 public hearings were organized throughout the province during the months of May and June, 2004 — 50 public hearings, all around the province. In the course of the public hearings, approximately 3,000 British Columbians attended presentations given by 383 people. This is the way it should happen, not in the back rooms between the Greens and the NDP.

Other significant opportunities for public participation were through written submissions. Over 1,400 individuals with 1,600 submissions were made. Research staff looked through the submissions. At the conclusion of the public hearings, the assembly met in Prince George to review what they had heard and read.

Then we have stage 4 — the deliberation phase. The deliberation phase brought the assembly’s work to a conclusion. During the phase, they met at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue in Vancouver. I’m sure many people are familiar with that. It’s quite an amazing place. Together, they framed their discussions within a well-defined set of democratic values.

The members then moved from discussion of fundamental principles to the examination of what a new system would look like, and they selected the single transferable vote as the way forward, as the option for British Columbians to review.

So what happened? Well, BCSTV was proposed as the voting system by the citizens’ assembly on electoral reform, in October 2004, for use by British Columbians, and belongs to the single transferable vote family of voting systems. The BCSTV was supported by a majority — 57.7 percent of voters — in a referendum held in 2005, along with the general election. But the government had legislated that it would not be bound by any vote less than 60 percent in favour.

[3:45 p.m.]

Because of the strong support for BCSTV, the government of the day elected to stage a second referendum in 2009. This one had increased public funding for information campaigns to better inform the electorate about the differences between the existing and proposed system. The leadership of both the yes and no sides were assigned by the government. The proposal was then rejected by 60.9 percent voting against it — more than had voted for it the first time — versus 39.1 in favour in the 2009 vote, again, as part of a general election.

I think being part of a general election is key, because that encourages voter participation. It not only encourages people to come out and vote for their MLAs, but it also encourages people to research the topic, understand what the choices are and then make an informed decision when they go cast their ballot. Again, we don’t have that now with the mail-in ballot. A lot of people are looking at the information and are asking us: “What does it all mean?” Some of us can answer that.

A previous referendum suggested that BCSTV was not an option in this referendum. It’s not an option in this referendum because of the three samples that the cabinet has come up with. Two, of course, we’ve heard many times, over and over again, have not been used anywhere else. The one is really devoid of a lot of clarity.

For example, the mixed-member proportional — the one that’s most likely supportable, from my understanding, in the polls of the three PR systems — is missing a lot of details. For example, riding sizes for the 55 new ridings — what are they going to be? What are the boundaries going to be? We have no idea.

No maps were produced. Fortunately, in the last referendum, people had maps. They had a clear idea of what the boundaries were. The 87 constituency MLAs apparently will be reduced to around 55. Constituency MLAs have a non-partisan role in their communities and a political one in Victoria, but which MLAs would get ditched in the process?

I know some people have asked me, because I run under the B.C. Liberal Party banner in Kelowna–Lake Country, if I represent everybody. Of course I represent everybody. I represent whatever they voted for. Or even if they didn’t vote for…. I have about 60,000 people in my riding. When somebody calls me or contacts me or my office for help, no matter which party they supported, no matter whether they voted or not, I’m there to help them achieve their goals.

Whether it’s better health care, whether they’re having trouble with ICBC or having trouble with MSP or WorkSafeBC, whether they want new roads or a new school — it doesn’t matter. I’m here to advocate on their behalf. I find it quite offensive that some people would say that because I’m with the B.C. Liberal Party, I only support those people that come supporting the B.C. Liberal Party. That’s totally untrue. Actually, I would say everyone in this House, all MLAs in this House, have the same attitude — that no matter who voted for them or even if anybody didn’t vote at all, they still will go the tenth mile, the extra mile, to make sure that that person, their constituent, is dealt with appropriately by the government of the day.

Voters will have one vote for a candidate and party combined on MMP. So is this two separate votes? We don’t know. Voters will be asked to vote for a party list. Will it be a provincewide list created by the party big shots, the leaders? Or will it be multiple lists? Will it be open or closed? Will people actually be able to put down who they want to be on the list, or will the list be proposed to them as a fait accompli? We don’t know that.

How do you get a plum spot near the top of your party list? That’s a million-dollar question, of course. I would imagine that the party leader would be No. 1. So if the party leader is No. 1 on MMP and they have more than 5 percent of the vote — which is another issue I want to talk about — and they get one person or two people but they’ve done a really lousy job in their last term in office, how do you get rid of them? You can’t. They wouldn’t put themselves down at the bottom and say: “Okay. You know what? I didn’t do a good job as an MLA. Therefore, I’m going to put myself, as party leader, fourth or fifth down the list and let other people who do better jobs representing their constituencies go at the top of the list.”

That’s pure nonsense. It’s going to be impossible to get rid of MLAs, the way this thing is designed — or not designed, actually, because we don’t know what the answers are to these questions.

[3:50 p.m.]

Quite frankly, it’s idiotic to go and ask voters in British Columbia to vote on something when you haven’t given them all the answers. I think it’s totally unfair and totally undemocratic to do that. I hope that people realize that before they vote when they do vote.

The other thing about the 5 percent…. “Oh, it’s limited to 5 percent. Don’t worry. It’ll be okay. Only the more reputable, centre-leaning parties will be the ones that are elected because only those will be able to get 5 percent around the province.” Well, we saw how that worked right after the last election. The Green Party had three members. It took four members to be an official party in this place. What’s the first thing the Green Party demanded of the NDP so they would support the NDP in government? “We need to reduce from four, for party status, down to two, so we can have party status.” What happened? They did exactly that.

So I can tell you exactly what’ll happen after this referendum is passed, if it’s passed. The government will say to the parties that got 5.1 percent of the vote: “So 5.1 percent of the vote — you know what? If we’re going to support you in government, we better reduce that, because in the next election, you might only get 4.9 percent of the vote.” And that’s exactly what will happen. They’ll negotiate that threshold down — down to 4 percent, down to 3 percent, down to 2 percent — so that they can get enough people to support them to form government.

I’m not saying it’s going to be them. I’m just saying it’ll be whoever wants to form that coalition government. They will see that 5 percent gone faster than a chicken at my house. I tell you: it’s just going to be bye-bye. We love chicken. If you bring chicken to the house and mashed potatoes, it’s just an amazing thing to see how fast it goes.

How will a small party’s MLA be assigned? Party list MLAs — what will their job be exactly? Who will they represent? How much more will all these extra party-list, non-constituency MLAs cost? These are all questions that should be answered prior to the referendum being held, like they were answered the last time we did this particular exercise.

I can go on for hours. I’ll skip all this other stuff. I had some great material on the other forms of PR and how they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of British Columbians as well. But let me finish with this.

Over the last 20 years in municipal and provincial government — I’ve done nine years in municipal and now finished nine and am in my tenth year in provincial — I’ve knocked on tens of thousands of doors. Working hard, I’ve tried to find out what my consumer wants, what my constituencies want. Then I put together my platform for their priorities.

I come here every time, and I put on my wall in my office a list of my platform priorities that they told me they want me to fight for. And I go and fight for those priorities. I keep them top of mind. Voters then can hold me accountable. Then in the next election, if I don’t deliver on their priorities, they are free to replace me with someone who’s going to work harder for them, based on their constituency needs.

How can you ever do that with PR? How can you ever tell someone who is appointed by a party list: “Sorry, we don’t want you in the next election, because you didn’t work hard enough on the local constituency.” It’s not going to happen.

So I believe that if we want to have MLAs that are clearly elected by the community, for their community and accountable to their community, which is the great strength of our current system, we have to continue with first-past-the-post. And if we are going to do PR and look at PR in the future, we’ve got to do it honestly, which is not happening now, and fairly, by making sure all aspects of the proposed system are there for people to look at and choose from when they’re comparing the status quo against the new proposal.

J. Tegart: I rise today to speak to Bill 40 and the great number of concerns my constituents are raising regarding the Referendum on Electoral Reform. I share their concerns and worry that the way this process has unfolded will have numerous consequences for my constituents but also for our democracy.

British Columbians are being asked again to consider a significant change to the way their provincial representatives are elected. It’s a serious matter — one that requires proper consultation and information and an appropriate length of time to undertake those activities. The process for a vote that could result in a fundamental change to our democracy shouldn’t be rushed or plowed through, but sadly, that is exactly what is happening.

[3:55 p.m.]

The process around this referendum has been flawed from the very beginning. We saw the removal of the 60-percent-plus-one provincewide approval threshold, not to mention the regional threshold that required 50 percent of all B.C. electoral districts to approve any change to our system.

That move in particular is one that has really irked people in rural communities, including my riding of Fraser-Nicola. That regional threshold took into account B.C.’s unique geography and the voices and perspectives of people living in rural and remote areas. Removing this threshold gives more decision-making power to urban centres and diminishes those rural voices.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Not only that, I would say that the dual threshold requirement was important for another reason. It was stringent, and it was rigorous. It recognized the importance of the issue at hand: the significant decision British Columbians are considering and the impact that decision would have on our province and on our democracy. But now it’s gone, and that’s not the only concern that my people have had with the referendum process.

The people of British Columbia were promised a simple yes-or-no ballot question. Instead, they’re getting a multiquestion ballot that is more complex and confusing than what they were told to expect. And they’re getting that ballot by mail, which might result in a low voter turnout.

I should mention that, also, there’s no minimum voter turnout requirement, meaning an incredibly small group of people could be responsible for drastically changing our electoral system. Meanwhile, British Columbians were also told that an all-party committee of the Legislature would iron out the referendum details, but we know that hasn’t happened.

What we see is a pattern of promises made, promises broken, when it comes to this referendum. One has to wonder why. It’s not like we haven’t done this before. Electoral reform has been explored in the past in British Columbia. But those previous experiences were much different than the one that’s unfolding today.

In the 2005 referendum, the process that preceded it took more than a year, and a formal and independent citizens’ assembly was created to carefully examine this issue. It was comprised of British Columbians from all across the province. This group did an incredible amount of work to review a number of different electoral reform options before making recommendations to the public.

I’d like to reserve my right to continue and move adjournment of debate.

J. Tegart moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain in your seats.

[4:00 p.m. - 4:05 p.m.]

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

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Bill 36 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2018

Bill 37 — Land Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 38 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

Bill 42 — Assessment Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 43 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018

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

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): I have to say that I’ve got the easy part of this job. What a pleasure it is to see all of you and to thank you again for all of the work that you’ve undertaken over the past few months.

I wanted to share that I’ve just returned from London, where I had a really wonderful visit with Her Majesty. I found her exactly as advertised. She was gracious, noble, happy and glorious. We had a wonderful opportunity to talk about a whole range of subjects that I wouldn’t have expected to discuss with her. She also expressed great interest and affection for Canada and British Columbia.

It reminded me yet again of how fortunate we are to live in this country and also in this province and to have the benefit of a stable system of governance and the active engagement of some very fine people — really, all of you — who bring your very best to the roles that you play every day and always have the best interests of British Columbia and our citizens at heart. I thank you for that.

I also wish you happy Halloween.

Now it’s time for me to head to Government House to transform for the evening’s festivities. If anyone wants to help me hand out candy, I’d be happy to have your support.

All the best, and we’ll see you again soon.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 40.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

J. Tegart: I would invite everyone to stay. It’s riveting.

[4:10 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

To continue my remarks, voters were given an appropriate amount of time and adequate resources to make an informed choice. Four years later, in 2009, B.C. went through another process of examining electoral reform. Again, it was very informative. The electoral boundary maps were provided so that voters could get a clear idea of how any potential change would affect them.

So why, this time around, are British Columbians being denied that type of information? Why are they expressing frustration and anger that they don’t know what is being asked of them this fall? Why is this government so clearly rushing things, especially considering that any change to our electoral system wouldn’t come into effect until the fall of 2021?

Maybe it’s because this NDP government needs to satisfy the Green partners keeping it in power. Those partners know that a switch to proportional representation will benefit them greatly through more seats in the Legislature. The NDP know they are on shaky ground and need all the support they can get, so they’ve skewed and slanted elements of this referendum to achieve the result each of them desires. Perhaps they’re hoping for low engagement and low voter turnout that will get them their result, but it’s not right.

We should not put power brokering before people, and in my view, it’s the people of British Columbia who will be most affected by a change to our electoral system. They absolutely must know what they are getting into before casting their ballots, yet they are coming to me in droves telling me they don’t feel engaged or informed.

They don’t understand the ballot. They don’t know what to do or where to go to get more details. It’s for these reasons that I have trouble with this bill. Why are we even talking about subsequent referendums when this one is being carried out in such a rushed, flawed manner?

I recently completed one of my fall constituency tours. My riding of Fraser-Nicola is a big one, comprised of numerous communities of varying sizes, challenges and needs. While I have two constituency offices to serve the people I represent, my riding is so big that some folks find it difficult to travel to those two locations, so it’s important that I go to them and meet them where they live. I embark on a road trip that takes me through these important communities that I hold dear.

To give you a sense of how large my riding is, I’ll tell you that this trip takes me three days to complete. Over the course of those three days, I visited Spences Bridge, Lytton, Boston Bar, Yale, Hope and down the Fraser Canyon, which is absolutely breathtaking at this time of year. From Hope, we went to Merritt, Logan Lake, Ashcroft and Clinton. We’re also heading over to Lillooet within the next two weeks.

While we talked about important issues like transportation, cellular service, affordable housing, seniors’ housing and economic development, boy, did I get an earful about proportional representation. People in these communities told me they don’t feel they have the information or a clear understanding of what’s being asked of them this fall. I tried to share as much as I could with them and direct them to more information, but we know those details are sorely lacking right now.

[4:15 p.m.]

People had so many questions around what the ballot looks like, what the three options for proportional representation look like and so many more questions, but what really came through was their feeling that they weren’t being provided with the answers they would like to see ahead of the referendum.

I don’t know how we can ask these people to put forward an opinion or cast a ballot on something so important when they tell me they don’t feel prepared. It seems very clear to me that we should be slowing things down and doing this right, not rushing people into making a flustered, panicked decision on something so complex that they need more time and space to study.

This bill, Bill 40, is very presumptive in terms of the outcome of a referendum we haven’t even had yet, and also in terms of what people are thinking. It assumes British Columbians want change. We don’t know that yet. They don’t know that yet. They’re telling us they want more time and more information from this government. Why would we bind future governments to this, in light of all the questions out there? It just doesn’t make sense.

It’s important that people know what a change to proportional representation will mean to them and how they will be affected by this shift, if it does proceed — because their lives and their relationship to their MLA would undoubtedly change if a change to PR moves forward.

Some of them have told me they’re worried about ridings getting larger, with potentially more than one MLA serving them. It’s hard to imagine Fraser-Nicola getting any bigger, but here we are. It could also mean some representatives wouldn’t be elected, but instead selected from a party list. Maybe they wouldn’t even hail from the area they’re representing or have any kind of understanding of the unique local issues that matter to the people who live there.

Earlier I talked about the road trip I took through my constituency. In Ashcroft, people are thrilled with the recent developments at the Ashcroft Terminal. This inland port is an important part of our community and our economy. For years and years, the team at Ashcroft Terminal has been working hard to secure new deals and grants so it can continue to grow and be even bigger. It will provide more services. It will provide more jobs.

Because I live in Ashcroft, I very much have been a strong advocate for this project. I’ve been proud to work with them, listen to them, hear their needs, advocate for them, do whatever I can to assist. Because I live there, I get it. I know what a game changer these major developments are going to be — not only for the company, but for our region.

When I look at projects like this and think about the very real possibility that an important contributor like the Ashcroft Terminal could lose that local advocacy, that local connection with the representation they depend on, it pains me. This concern doesn’t just extend to important projects and significant pieces of infrastructure. It extends to the personal relationship between an MLA and their constituent.

In rural ridings like mine, and in smaller communities, where everyone knows each other, those connections really mean something. They matter. People have told me they’re worried that a switch to PR would diminish that relationship. They want to know their MLA. They expect to know their MLA.

[4:20 p.m.]

They expect an MLA who knows they’re accountable to them. They want a representative who understands what it’s like to live in a rural or remote community and what it is that keeps them there. They want an MLA who is loyal to their constituents, who earned their votes and their privilege to serve, not someone who is loyal to a party that simply appoints someone from a list.

This Referendum on Electoral Reform really means a lot to the people in my area. Its importance should not be taken lightly, yet I feel that is exactly what is happening. That’s what the actions of this government are showing to people in my riding and beyond.

My people deserve to know the answers to the most simple questions. How many ridings will there be? I can’t answer that. What will the riding maps look like? I can’t answer that. How many MLAs will there be? Who knows? How do people get onto a list? I couldn’t tell you. Simple questions, and no answers. “But please take a leap of faith.” Well, the manner in which this government has put this forward tells me that the leap of faith is truly a leap into the dark.

It’s appropriate that we be talking about the honour and the privilege it is to vote as we come up to November 11. When I talk to veterans in my region and we talk about changing the voting system, they are appalled at the process that is going on right now. On behalf of the constituents of Fraser-Nicola, I’ve put these issues forward. I ask the government to reconsider. I oppose this bill, and I urge the government to rethink its process and empathize with the people in my community and beyond who are expressing so much frustration with it.

M. Bernier: It’s an honour to rise and speak on Bill 40. First of all, let’s maybe just talk a little bit about what Bill 40 actually is. My colleague before me spoke a little bit about that as well.

Bill 40 is a referendum amendment act. Now, government had an opportunity last year — I believe it was Bill 5, when they were putting forward the referendum act — to put everything in front of the public, to actually set the stage so the people of British Columbia could make an informed decision on a referendum. We’ve had a lot of discussion in this House about supporting a referendum, but supporting a referendum that had all the information for the people to make an informed decision as they went forward.

Now, those ballots are in the mail as we speak and are actually coming back. Many people received them over a week ago. They’ve made decisions based on the information they had. What’s unfortunate for Bill 40 — back to that — is the fact that it’s very presumptuous. I would say it’s almost misleading for the public.

We have a bill in front of us, Bill 40, saying that after we are using a new proportionally representative system, no matter what system that is — because, of course, government hasn’t put just one option forward — if an option is chosen to switch, then two election cycles after that, we would put another referendum forward for the people of British Columbia to decide whether they want to stay with that electoral system that they’re now electing MLAs under.

[4:25 p.m.]

The reason why I say that it’s misleading and misguiding for the public is that it’s already being advertised to the people of British Columbia. “Don’t worry. If you vote for a PR system, there will be another referendum in two election cycles after that.” Well that means, first of all, that they wouldn’t be having that second referendum, which, by the way, costs anywhere between $15 million and $20 million yet again to the taxpayers. But that would be in 2025 or 2026, if we stay with the present election cycle that we have here. So we’re talking eight years from today that people might get a second chance.

As we saw just earlier today in the House with the Minister of Advanced Education, under Bill 41, we had a bill that was to repeal something that a previous government did. Now, I commend the fact that they’re going through a process within the House under a bill to repeal an act, which this House can do at any time. What that highlights is how this House works. You cannot bind a future government to do anything. The government of the day will decide what will or won’t happen, based on what they feel are the wishes of the public.

In 2025-26, if that’s where we ended up, under Bill 40, if we pass PR, however that would look in the province, we cannot tell that government what to do. I can’t stand in the House today and put a bill forward to say: “In 2025-26, we’re going to abolish provincial sales tax.” I guess I could. If that passed, everybody would be excited, but we can’t actually bind the future government of that day to do that.

It’s important to make sure we’re giving all of the factual facts to the people so they can make an informed decision on this referendum. The government has failed to do that. They have rushed the process, and I believe, with Bill 40 in front of us, they’re realizing now that they need to put more information out there — last minute, I might add, while people are already voting — to try to persuade them or get those little extra votes that they think will get over that minimal, minimal threshold that they’ve put, of 50 percent plus one, for the province to pass any form of PR.

Now, the government has failed to follow through with almost every single commitment and promise that this Premier and the government ministers and MLAs have said right from the get-go of what they would do. And this has been a rushed process, again, I would say, as we all know, to appease the three members from the Green Party that actually started this whole debacle by putting them in government with a promise to do a referendum. It is rushed. The members opposite, in government, are having a hard time explaining this.

Now, I’m not going to pick on one member of government or another. I have full respect for the roles of cabinet ministers, the roles of ministers that are opposite of me, who struggle with answering the questions about how this would play out and what the three different forms of PR would look like and how that compares to first-past-the-post. I will not criticize one individual member, because I would say, if a camera was put in front of any single NDP MLA or cabinet minister, they would be in the same situation, where they would not be able to give a factual, truthful argument of why we need to go to PR or what the three different options are and explain them in detail. It’s not their fault. This has been a rushed process from the beginning, with limited information.

How is that fair? How is that fair to the people of British Columbia, who are expected, today, who are already voting on whether to keep the existing first-past-the-post system or change to some other form of PR…? Now, I don’t think — and I stand to be corrected — that anybody has stood in the House and said: “We have to keep first-past-the-post because it is absolutely, bar none, the best system absolutely ever, and it has no problems.”

[4:30 p.m.]

Nobody has said that. But we do have a tried, true system that’s worked in Canada for 150 years, has worked since Confederation, has worked in British Columbia almost since founding. People understand it, and it’s simple.

Now, in fairness, and I’ve said this in my riding, if the government had done their due diligence and did what they promised and put forward one option — one option that was actually what the people were considering, that the people had tried, trued and tested, as far as an opportunity for them to have an informed decision on a ballot of a yes or no, of a “do you keep first-past-the-post or move to a system here with all the information?” — I would have been standing back and letting them 100 percent make the decision.

This is and should be in the hands of the voters of British Columbia. We have a system right now that allows the voters of British Columbia to choose their MLA. If we had given them all the information for a second option, which they would have all the information on — they could make an informed decision, and they would know not only the information now but would know what the outcomes would be after they voted, if we moved to that system — then we would be in a totally different position here, not only in this House but, I would say, publicly, as we’re talking about and debating this referendum.

Again, Bill 40, in my opinion, is a last desperate attempt for this government to say: “Don’t worry. Nothing to see here. Trust us.” “Take that leap of faith,” as the Premier said. “Just go for it. Take that gamble. Don’t worry about it. We’re giving you an out-clause. We’re giving you a warranty. We’re giving you an opportunity for a money-back guarantee on PR. Since we can’t explain what it is and we don’t know how it works, we’ll let you test it first, drive it first, see if you like it, see if it actually works.”

Well, most people don’t do that with things that they purchase in a store, let alone our democratic process for having MLAs representing regions and the people of British Columbia in this House.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

One of the things I think we need to remember is when we go through an election, it’s actually not one election. Presently, 87 MLAs in this House. It’s 87 elections that we have here in the province of British Columbia. Parties, candidates, independents, anybody who wants to consider running to be an MLA to sit in this House to represent people can do that under the present system.

They can put ideas forward. They can put a platform forward. They can put promises of what they would do if they were, hopefully, elected for the people in that riding. Then people in the province, people in that district, in that riding, can listen to those values, the concerns that they might share, the opportunities that they’d like to see, and they can actually vote accordingly.

They can also, under the present system, hold that person who was elected to account, which, to me, is fundamental in our democratic system. Any single one of us in this House, out of 87…. If you do a good job, if you stand up for the people in your riding, if the majority of the people in your riding support you, your policies and your philosophies and they think that you have represented them well here in this House, odds are you’re going to get re-elected in that riding. That is how this system works.

With the accountability, if you don’t, the people can now look at you in the face, in your riding, and say: “Don’t think you did a good enough job. Don’t think that I want to re-elect you. I don’t think you represent my values. I don’t think you did a good job while you were in there.” They can make a choice.

Now, I’m not pointing specifically at one person — all due respect — because I think the member that I just pointed out is doing a good job representing the people in his riding, aside from the fact that, maybe, on the bill on the floor that we’re debating…. We’ll talk about that, I’m sure, later.

I think it’s incumbent on the people in this House to do their job, which I believe the government and the Third Party Green MLAs have failed to do. That is giving all the information so people can make an informed decision.

They expect that at election time. They expect us to stand up and say…. What do you stand for? No hidden secrets here. Then they hold you to account afterwards if you don’t follow through with everything you said you’re going to do.

[4:35 p.m.]

Well, guess what. Under PR, that’s gone. That does not happen. The accountability is gone, because now you’re going to have more people — as some will say, which is a good thing — having to negotiate behind the scenes to try to move things forward. But really, what that means is it doesn’t matter anymore what you stand for. It doesn’t matter what you promise. What it will mean is that I make it onto that party list so I can get appointed, that I make it into the good books of whoever is going to make that decision so I can be an MLA in this area.

First-past-the-post. Does it have flaws? Absolutely. But the benefit with first-past-the-post is the accountability, and it’s the only system right now that actually puts 100 percent of the choice into the hands of the voters of whether they’re going to have a local MLA within an existing riding system that we have now.

Now, proponents for PR are out there saying this isn’t fair. We’ve got more people in some parts of the province than others. Is it fair that maybe somebody like myself in a large rural district should have the same vote in this House as somebody, maybe, from a large urban district that represents more people? Well, herein lie some of the challenges, I would say, with the argument around PR. Proponents for PR are saying: “Hey, but it works in places like Belgium and Italy and Germany and, partially, New Zealand.” A handful of countries, and only a handful, contrary to what people will say in the present MMP system, which is the only one on the ballot that’s actually used anywhere.

One of the things that we need to recognize and grapple with, I would argue, in this House, not only opposition but government, is the differences that the province of British Columbia has and, arguably, Canada has in comparison to those places that are being used as poster children of success for PR. This should not be, and it’s turning into, unfortunately, that rural-urban discussion, rural-urban divide. What it should be is the understanding and the education that what government, opposition — all of us in this House — need to do is represent our regions but recognize the differences that we have here in the province of British Columbia.

Is downtown Vancouver the same as downtown Tumbler Ridge? I think everybody in this House can answer that. Because of that, we need to have separate representation. We need to have differences. We have to have recognition of the fact of the vastness, the geographical differences, the opinion differences that we have in the province.

I would say that that misunderstanding, if we want to call it that, between rural and urban British Columbia seems to be polarizing us a little bit in this debate, which is wrong, because it goes both ways. As somebody who grew up in Vancouver, I didn’t have any understanding of rural British Columbia. As somebody who has lived 30 years now in rural British Columbia, I find myself sometimes, and people in my riding, having a hard time understanding what’s going on in urban B.C.

We don’t live in each other’s worlds. We live in the same province. We have differences that we need to be supporting and that we need to recognize. For me to get the people in my riding to start up a big rally, petition and cry against, I don’t know, SkyTrain out to UBC doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, because we have different issues that need to be represented in this House. That difference, that voice and those concerns should be heard.

That geographical difference that I talk about, that space that I cover…. Most MLAs in here that represent anything outside, I would argue, even the Lower Mainland would acknowledge and understand that they have work to do to represent that riding here in Victoria. They don’t always have those concerns heard because sometimes it’s harder, bluntly, as a rural person, to be the furthest away from Victoria, to have my opinion heard down here with that same value. Now, if you were going to change it under PR and make it even harder, I think you can see the concerns that people would have.

[4:40 p.m.]

Now, in all fairness in this referendum, if the government had put forward all the information, rather than people guessing right now, we’d probably be in a different situation. The concerns that are out there and the debate that’s out there could have all been avoided, 100 percent avoided, if the government had done their job and put that information out there. The concerns were raised two referenda ago on: “What will the ridings look like? What will my vote mean? Will I have a local MLA? Will it be a regional MLA? What does that look like?”

Right now the spin that is out there, on all sides, trying to understand and explain this issue, is difficult. It’s hard for the public to understand. I don’t blame them that they feel they’re caught in a full political debate and mess that could’ve been avoided.

The government did not have to be in a rush. If they had done their due diligence, and if they had put that information out there, we would be in a different situation here in the province today for the people to make an informed decision.

I look at the discussion that’s out there right now. Even for my riding or for the member for Peace River North, next to me, we can’t give a straight answer to the people. When people are saying: “Well, is it going to be one riding now, in the Peace region, or is it going to be two? Is it going to be two ridings with four MLAs, or is it going to be two ridings with one each, like we have now?”

Right now you’ll hear the proponents out there saying: “Don’t worry. You still get to have an MLA.” Well, of course you get an MLA. But do you get to have a name on the list in the existing riding you have now that you get to vote for and hold accountable under PR? No, you don’t. The problem is that the information is not out there.

I appreciate getting heckled by the member opposite who also probably can’t answer any of those fundamental questions of: “Is she going to be, still, the MLA in her riding?” Has she had the opportunity to stand up in her riding and say: “I hope you vote for PR, because there’s a good chance that, guess what, our ridings are going to be amalgamated, and I won’t be your MLA anymore, but I’m okay with that.”

If she wants to stand up and tell everybody she’s willing to lose her representation, I guess that’s her choice as an MLA. I’m going to bet she hasn’t done that. I’m going to bet that she hasn’t stood up and actually said that that riding of Courtenay-Comox is actually possibly going to be amalgamated and gone and lose its MLA.

I don’t think any MLA has done that. I don’t think any MLA on this side has done that. You know why? Because we don’t know. We have not been given the information other than proponents for each different system of the three systems, proponents out there who have said: “Pick ours.” It’s fun watching the three different proponents debate on which one’s better, too, because they’re debating without the information. But they’re out there saying: “Pick our choice of PR, because ours is better.”

When you actually break it down — and I’ve done debates on this — and ask the people who are proponents, “Can I still run in my riding?” they can’t answer. “Will there still be 87 ridings?” They can’t answer. “What is a rural riding? What is a large rural riding? What is an urban riding?” They can’t answer.

Now, I don’t blame them. It’s not their fault they’re proponents for something that they would like to change. But they’re proponents without information. It’s all based on rumour. It’s all based on ideals and philosophy. But it’s not based on facts. How can the voters — remember, that’s who this is supposed to be about, everyone — make a good decision? How can they make an accurate decision? How can they make a decision based on fair information?

In the absence of all that, of course people on this side of the House and others, like most NDP Premiers now…. It looks like the only NDP Premier that hasn’t spoken to keep first-past-the-post is the existing one that’s whipping the present members. But, that aside, everybody else understands the flaws.

Even the people who are strong NDP supporters who are coming out publicly, saying, “This is wrong,” most of them aren’t saying: “Stick with first-past-the-post because it’s perfect.” They’re actually criticizing the actual people that they support and vote for by saying they did a bad job and didn’t put enough information to have an informed decision.

Right from the get-go, this was a flawed process. I’d say, again, that it’s taking advantage of the citizens of British Columbia and the voters of B.C., who deserve better.

[4:45 p.m.]

Should we, can we, change to a different system? Again, that’s up to the voters. They’re the ones that own this. We shouldn’t be the ones that own this. We should be the ones giving the information, giving the options, giving all of the stuff that people will need to make an informed decision, and government has failed to do that.

Now, Bill 40 that we’re talking about today — which wraps into, like I said, Bill 5 from last year around the referendum act — again is a perfect example of government’s failure to give information to make an informed decision. You cannot, last minute, when people have already voted, say: “Oh, by the way, there’s a bill on the floor to change this.” How is that fair?

If government was sincere about this, it would have been in Bill 5. They wouldn’t have needed an amendment act, which we’re debating today. They would have had it here last year in the House. But no, it was a last-minute idea. Why? They’re probably feeling the pressure. They’re realizing they can’t answer a lot of the questions that the public have about the different options for PR. So let’s throw a last-ditch effort to kind of confuse the public: “Don’t worry. Again, you’ll have your money-back guarantee if you don’t like what you purchased.” It doesn’t work that way, and it shouldn’t work that way for democracy.

One of the jurisdictions that’s been highlighted in the past, which we haven’t talked about for a bit, that went through this was Prince Edward Island. I want to give them full marks and full credit. They realized, after they went through the referendum, that they did not have a full mandate from the people and the voters and the citizens of that province to actually change the voting system.

They looked at it, and they said: “Yeah, we did a referendum. We said we were going to stand by it. But guess what. Only 30 percent or so of the people voted. It didn’t pass by much more than that, which means only about 15 or 16 percent of the people actually wanted to change. How is that a mandate for government?” The Premier of that province, to their credit, stood up and said: “We could have done better. We shouldn’t change the system because it’s not a mandate from the public.”

Unfortunately, I don’t know if this government has the guts to do that. When you’re looking at the information that’s out there right now on social media, almost every single mainstream media outlet in the province of British Columbia is standing up and saying: “You know, this is a flawed process. The government has failed to give enough information.” They cannot believe people would support changing the system to something they don’t know because of the failure of this government to actually give that information.

If you’ve got almost every mainstream media outlet now turning out there, saying the government didn’t do their job, I think that says something. I think that should be a signal to them that maybe they should have taken more time, at the very least.

Were they committed to doing a referendum? Absolutely. They try to say: “Oh, we didn’t have a choice, because we signed the confidence and supply agreement that says, ‘Well, we’re going to do it in the fall of 2018.’” Well, as we’re seeing with Bill 40, you can change things. They could have easily, in their little backroom deals that they do with the three Green members, said: “Hey, this isn’t fair. We need a bit more time.”

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, that’s true. I was just reminded they even have a $1 million secretariat that allows them to sit in a room with taxpayers’ dollars to discuss — I won’t even say debate — what they want to do to change the electoral systems in the province.

I don’t know if that’s $1 million really well spent of taxpayers’ dollar on top of $15 million — whatever it might be — for this referendum. But they had opportunity to actually sit there and say: “You know what? We want this referendum to pass. We want to do it properly. We want to do it fairly. So let’s sit in our Million-Dollar Man back room that we have….” I think we’re going to have to start calling the leader the bionic man or something with the $1 million that he gets for doing this.

They had opportunities to have this discussion to do it properly. They failed to do that. This is not necessarily just the Greens or the NDP. Collectively, they failed to actually give the information to the public. They could have done better. They’re rushing through this.

[4:50 p.m.]

Back to my point. If all the media is saying this…. You’re out on social media, on everywhere. Right now what’s the number one picture you see usually on social media about this referendum? It’s the complaint that it’s a mail-in referendum, and it’s pictures of people’s recycling bins, in their condo or apartment complexes, around the place, showing the amount of people that have given up, the amount of people that don’t want to vote, the amount of people that have just thrown their ballots in the recycling bin.

Now, that’s unfortunate. It truly is. I would love to see 100 percent participation. But right now it looks to me that rather than government doing their job to try to encourage more voter participation in elections, they’re trying to change the electoral system to curve it to only the people that they want to vote. That’s evidenced by the fact that people are not engaged in this referendum.

As we’ve seen, most people don’t even know what it is. They’ve got their Canadian Tire flyer, or referendum. They put it in…. Actually, they look at them, and guess what. There are better deals right now at Canadian Tire, so they’re throwing the referendum into the recycling. The only reason why I said that is I didn’t want to pick on Canadian Tire. My friend owns one.

The people, again, deserve better. With Bill 40 in front of us as a last-ditch effort…. As I said at the onset of this, it’s a grasp by this government to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia to vote in favour of something when they don’t even know what they’re voting in favour of by having that escape clause.

Where the main issue is, is they are wrong by advertising it. I would say Elections B.C. has been put in a tough position by this Attorney General by them advertising this. How can you be advertising something that hasn’t even happened yet? Elections B.C. and this government are out there telling people that this is going to happen.

Well, we know because of the votes that are across from us — and as long as they all show up, because it is 42-43 if we’re all in the House, a slim, slim majority with the NDP — that this is going to pass. But it’s pretty presumptuous, pretty arrogant and pretty wrong of this government to be out there advertising something that hasn’t even happened yet to the people of B.C., who are making decisions as we speak on how they’re going to vote.

This is another example of this government not doing their job, taking advantage of the voters of B.C. They should have done their due diligence to begin with and had a fair referendum, one that we all would have supported if it had had all the information so the voters, who own this, could have made the best decision possible on what they wanted, which is the kind of representatives in this House and how that would look in the province of British Columbia.

In absence of that, we have no choice but to not only vote against this bill but to continue talking about the flaws that this government has with Bill 5 and this referendum as a whole and why I assume and hope that it’s going to fail, because the people of B.C. are smarter than to vote for something that they don’t know.

M. Stilwell: Madame Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to allow me to speak to Bill 40. I know we’ve heard from many of the members across the way and from our side over multiple days, and I think it’s fundamental that we keep this discussion going because it is something that is going to change — potentially change — our democracy here in British Columbia.

What I heard from the opposite side many times so far is how, in our throne speech, we had put a referendum in place as well and that we had promised a referendum. What I can tell you is that yes, we had, but we wouldn’t have used the process that this government has chosen as a referendum. We would have been transparent. We would have provided the information needed for voters to make an informed and educated decision on the referendum. We would have used a citizens’ assembly. We would not have an Attorney General who is apparently a neutral arbiter — which, obviously, he has not been — doing the work behind the scenes in creating this referendum.

From the start, I have been concerned — from the day it was announced and we started going through this process. It’s kind of interesting that I’m here today on Halloween, with the tricks and no treats being given by this government when it comes to this referendum. It has been far from transparent. It has been far from providing the information that the people need.

[4:55 p.m.]

I heard the member opposite laughing on the opposite side and shaking his head like I’m telling some mistruth. If he has information about these proportional representation models that have been presented to the people of British Columbia, he should share that information, because when I’m talking to my constituents, I can’t answer the questions. I can’t tell them what the boundaries will look like. I can’t inform them how many MLAs will be elected to this House. I can’t share with them the 29 factors that will be decided after the referendum has come to completion, when the NDP and the Green MLAs form a committee to make those decisions — the politicians making the decisions that really should be in the hands of the people. That’s the whole idea of a referendum — that it actually belongs to the people and is their decision.

That’s why I have been concerned from day one, when this referendum started. Now what we have here with Bill 40 is a government that realizes their faults and the flaws in the system and their concerns that the people of British Columbia may not actually like what is being presented to them because they don’t understand it and because they don’t have the information.

They’re casting a safety net for the people of British Columbia and saying: “Don’t worry. Just vote for PR. We’ll figure it out later.” But as the member before me explained, in this House, we all know that we can’t hold future governments — and tie their hands and bind them — to the things that we put in place here today. So this safety net, this bill, is a fallacy. It can’t really work out in the end anyway. So the fact that we’re debating it here is questionable.

We somehow have a Premier who is out there praising proportional representation. He’s going to rallies. He’s making videos that he’s putting on social media about the greatness of proportional representation, this utopia that will happen if we actually put it in place in this Legislature. But it only takes us a moment to do a Google search. The Premier apparently likes the Google. He actually told voters to use “the Google” to get informed and educated on the referendum.

But when you do that search, what you will find are countries like Belgium and Italy and New Zealand and Germany, places where they use the one form of PR that we see being presented to the voters in this referendum, MMP, and what it is doing to those countries.

Belgium actually earned a Guinness world record for going the longest time without a government under PR. We recognize that with proportional representation governments, some things take months of deal-making. In the meantime, the elected people who actually made it to the Legislature start negotiating backroom deals. “I’ll do this for you if you do this for me.” “I’ll give up this if you give me that.” Things become stagnant. They’re at a standstill while we wait for those partnerships to form and see what would happen. Proportional representation actually encourages that fragmentation within the government.

We certainly know that there’s the opportunity for several more parties to end up here in this Legislature. We now have three parties. We see that we have two parties that have decided to work together and negotiate together. Proportional representation will most likely make majority governments a thing of the past. That stability that majority governments bring will no longer be here. What we’ll see instead is a dampening effect on capital formation, on business investment, business confidence here in the province. That wealth creation through entrepreneurship will be lost.

[5:00 p.m.]

When we look at what this Premier promised…. I’ll agree that when we run for election we make promises to our people. We try to sell them something — what we stand for, what we want, what we will do for them when we get here to Victoria.

This Premier promised three things. First, he promised that the question on the referendum would be a single question. It would be yes or no. That’s not what we have in front of us today with the referendum that has been mailed out to the people.

The people who are receiving their ballots today, even though we’ve known it’s been coming — most of them don’t know what’s happening. Most of them are getting the referendum ballots and throwing them in the trash with the junk mail. Those who are opening it don’t understand, when they open it, because they were promised a yes-or-no question. The Premier said…. When he was asked: “You’re going to have a 50 percent yes-or-no question? You’re going to get them one system to vote on?” Horgan said, “Yeah, exactly.” That was in May of 2017.

Instead, that’s not what we have. We have choosing between FPTP and PR. “Which do you prefer?” Now, the ballot goes on to the second part, where it provides three opportunities to look at proportional representation options. Two of those options have never been used anywhere in the world. One was created in Edmonton by a professor. Nobody knows what it’s going to look like or what results will come from that decision — if people choose that option.

The Premier also promised what we had done in previous referendums, in 2005 and 2009, when we were in government, and that was a citizens’ assembly. He promised an all-party committee to engage the public on changing our electoral system. He is quoted in Fair Vote Canada in April of 2017: “Set up an all-party committee to hear from citizens and formulate a referendum question at the conclusion of that process.” Another broken promise.

Instead, we have an Attorney General who has changed everything to do with the details of that. He’s been in charge of all the engagement. He likes to tout that there was the most extensive consultation on line, and they had so many people respond to their on-line questionnaire — which was biased, to begin with, not to mention that we live in a really big province. Does the Premier not understand that there are people in this province that don’t even have access to Internet, who couldn’t respond to that questionnaire that the Attorney General put out?

Another thing that I struggle with when it comes to this referendum is how the Premier promised to have a strong regional threshold for this referendum, similar to the Canadian constitution. Instead, now what we see is a Premier who has lowered the bar to ensure that this electoral reform can pass — 50 percent plus one, the lowest possible bar, lowest threshold. Such a low threshold means that Metro Vancouver could outvote all of rural British Columbia, which means rural British Columbia doesn’t have a voice. No voice at all.

There are so many things with this referendum that create serious changes to our democratic foundation. And all those facts that people need to have in front of them when they’re making their decisions to make that informed choice just aren’t there. I find it staggering, when we’re talking about something as fundamental as our electoral system and the way we bring elected officials to this building, that it could be so jaded in the process.

PR people often talk about collaboration and what we’ll see if we have PR — that people will work together. “It will change the way this House works — for the people.” We are for the people. We all come here as elected representatives for our communities, for our people, and we raise our concerns, and we debate them here in the House, and we put bills forward as opposition members. The government could call those bills so we could debate them, but they don’t.

[5:05 p.m.]

We’re seeing that collaboration in action right now with the NDP and the Greens. The NDP went with Site C and the spec tax, and the Greens supported them. And indirectly, the Greens supported LNG. Now the NDP is giving the Greens what they want. The Greens wanted this referendum.

That’s what will continue to happen if we end up with a proportional representation government here in British Columbia. We will see deals and negotiations, unless, by some miracle, there will be a majority, which is very doubtful. If you think…. There are over 20 registered parties already in this province. If more of them get elected to this House, if even a quarter of them succeed, they will all be frantically doing backroom deals, trying to prop up another party — not necessarily in the best interests of the people that they were sent here to represent.

Although, some of them might not have been elected. In proportional representation, what we have might have are lists. They might be open lists; they might be closed lists. And those lists will come from parties. Parties will appoint people to come and represent down here in Victoria.

I’m actually thinking that I’m going to try and get on one of those lists, if that’s what actually happens. I will no longer have to go to a debate — a public debate in my community — and face the people and answer their questions. I won’t have to go through the campaign, putting up all those signs, all the work and the volunteers that I have to engage. It really does sound like a utopia. Let me get on that list so that I can come here.

You’re shaking your head. Don’t be so sure you’re going to get on your party list.

Interjection.

M. Stilwell: True story.

What we have here in British Columbia, in Canada, is first-past-the-post, a system that has worked for hundreds of years, a system that has served this country and this province well. I doubt that…. Anyone in this House can look around and see all the great services and the enjoyment and the beautiful things that we have worked hard to build in this province under first-past-the-post. That has worked for the well-being of the people.

First-past-the-post is simple. It’s easy to understand. Somebody puts their name forward. Their name’s on the ballot. When you see that name on the ballot, you get to choose that person, and you know that that person is going to be accountable if they get elected. The person with the most votes gets elected, they get sent to Victoria, and the people in the community know that they sent that person here.

Under the MMP or the other proportional representation models, there are complicated mathematical equations that are used. They’re complex. I have yet to hear anyone, after all the hours of debate that have gone on in this House, actually explain the Droop formula — how that works. And how, when we calculate under proportional representation, who the actual official will be that gets to come to this House — it’s a guessing game. When somebody votes, who are they actually voting for?

We’re being asked to vote on systems that have never been used anywhere in the world. The government is choosing to not provide that information. So if it hasn’t been done anywhere in the world and it’s a test case, you would think that this government would provide that information to the people, whether it’s the electoral districts, the number of…. How many electoral districts? How big will they be? How many MLAs are going to be in that area? Are they going to come from party lists? Is there going to be one elected and one from a party list?

[5:10 p.m.]

Does an MLA have to live in the riding? Do they have to be part of the community? If they come from an open or a closed list, do they have to live in the community? We don’t know those things. Those are questions that I’m hearing from my constituents, and they are concerns that they have. When they now hear that there’s a bill on the floor for a referendum that can take place eight years from now, they question.

One of the questions that I get a lot is: how much is this costing? What we have in front of us now is a referendum that’s going through a mail-in ballot that could have been done at a general election. It could have been done with municipal elections — but instead, mail-in ballots costing millions of dollars to the taxpayer. And now another referendum is being promised later that will, again, cost millions of dollars to the taxpayers.

This government claims they are for supporting the people, that they need money for housing, that they need money for social assistance programs, that they need money to support our health care system. Instead, they’re spending the money on a rigged referendum without the proper information going out to people in the province who don’t have the knowledge because they have a Premier who wasn’t willing to debate — who ragged the puck, slowed it down.

Yes, we are getting a debate on proportional representation next week. Too bad half the people have already voted. Those people who haven’t voted will watch with great intent, I’m sure, glued to their TVs to try and learn something, but I’m not sure they’ll learn anything. I’m not sure the Premier can provide any information to them, because it’s not there. How can the Premier explain the 28 factors and what they will look like and what those PR systems will look like after the referendum?

This process has been rushed. It hasn’t been transparent. There hasn’t been a full understanding of what is on the table. I’ve spoken about a great deal of my concerns. The list, sadly, goes on. The absence of a minimum threshold in the referendum is troubling. I equate a little bit of that lowest bar possible to reach and how, in proportional representation, it’s almost like everyone gets a ribbon at the end of the day.

As the Olympic athlete in the House, I wonder about what it would be like to share the podium. That’s not how it works. There’s a first, second and third place. First person comes to Victoria. That’s FPTP, plain and simple. It’d get a little crowded on my podium if I suddenly had a whole bunch of friends with me and I didn’t really know who crossed the finish line first.

I don’t know how this government can suggest for even a moment that this has been a fair and reasonable referendum to run. We are hearing more and more from media outlets — not from politicians, but from those people who report to the general public, that don’t have party affiliations, who are speaking up now and sharing their concerns about this referendum.

The Vancouver Sun editorial board, on October 29, said: “The biggest problem with the latest electoral reform referendum is how badly the NDP has handled this issue and how partisan this process has become.” Vaughn Palmer, on Inside #bcpoli with Shane Woodford on October 5, said: “It’s very hard to explain to people how this is going to work because the Attorney General has engineered it so that we won’t know until after the vote.”

We have a Premier who says: Take a “leap of faith” with me. Vaughn Palmer says it’s a leap into the dark, and I tend to agree with him. I don’t understand why there’s been such a rush on this referendum other than the CASA agreement and the secretariat that’s costing us $1 million that’s supposed to help the relationship between the two parties on that side of the House.

[5:15 p.m.]

The reason it is being rushed is because it was in that agreement, instead of the government doing its due diligence. We wouldn’t need this extra referendum if they had done it right from the start, but here we are.

Deciding to change our electoral system is one of the most fundamental decisions that British Columbians can make. It’s our job to ask those tough questions. There are simply just not enough details. Without the maps, no one in this House can tell me how many people, how many MLAs — especially in Parksville-Qualicum. I don’t know if Parksville-Qualicum is going to be considered urban or rural. I don’t know that. No one can tell me how big it is, where those names are going to come from, what it’s going to look like. This simply isn’t good enough for British Columbians. It’s time to start over.

Some of those basic things like our rights and our freedoms — they don’t belong to politicians. It belongs to the people to make this very impactful decision.

You can only imagine what it’ll be like in that room should PR pass, with the NDP and the Greens and their own self-interests trying to figure out how the proportional representation models will move forward — whichever one might be chosen — should it come to fruition.

I have confidence in the people of British Columbia that they are looking at this and seeing a government that is trying to manipulate them, a government that has only one interest, and that interest is to stay in power. We’ve already seen that when, just days after they made their arrangement and formed government, they changed the election day by six months to give them six months longer in government. That’s what they care about. They don’t necessarily care about the people and informing the people and giving them that information so that they can, in fact, make those informed decisions.

In short — or long, it’s been almost 30 minutes — this process is dishonest. It’s misleading. It is wide open to manipulation down the road.

We know that the right process has been used in the past, with the citizens’ assembly. The government should pull back, do this the right way, the honest way, and consider that respectable process. I simply can’t vote in favour of this process. The people in my community don’t want me to. I hear from them on a daily basis. This referendum has been a sham from the start, and British Columbians deserve better.

J. Sturdy: I rise today to speak to Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act.

While many British Columbians across the province are partially blasé to the fact that we are having a fundamental debate right now on keeping the current electoral system or moving to a new process, I am not.

I have represented my community as a mayor, as a regional district director and, now, as an MLA. This is really the third time that we are going to vote on an electoral system while I have been an elected official.

When the first referendum came around, I admit I voted in favour of proportional representation. I respected the process that we had gone through.

[5:20 p.m.]

I followed the citizens’ assembly on electoral reform in 2003 and 2004. It had randomly selected representatives from different constituencies — from every constituency, in fact, across the province. It had First Nations representation, academics and researchers to help to inform the process and inform the participants. A report was generated, and recommendations were presented here in this House to this Legislature. A debate ensued, and the decision was made to put this question to the people. Not like this time, where this is really the result of a secret backroom deal that generated an agreement to govern. That’s what required this referendum. It’s quite a different process.

This is a process that has been developed behind closed doors. The rules have been created in the back room, although I think it’s instructive. It’s useful for people to pay attention to this, because it does foreshadow our potential future. And I do hope that people are paying attention and do participate.

In 2005, when the Legislature decided to put this referendum to the people, it was in conjunction with a provincial election. I imagine that the intention was to ensure a better turnout, ensure participation — again, in very distinct contrast to what we see today, where it seems almost as though the intention is to suppress.

In 2005, there were majority thresholds in each constituency, and then the majority of constituencies also needed to approve of the change — again, not the case today.

In 2005, there was another miss, another significant miss, and that was that there were no descriptions of the ridings. There were no maps of the constituencies. People were not aware of what the implications, the real implications, for each one of them would be. That was a miss in terms of public understanding. I know I don’t think I really appreciated it at the time either.

Then, of course, there’s the tag line, which exists today: “Make every vote count.” I must admit, I bought into it. It’s simple. Simple slogans are attractive, but these are not simple issues and shouldn’t be treated as such. Anyway, I do plead guilty to not recognizing the implications of my vote in 2005.

Fortunately, however, the referendum did not meet its required thresholds. But Premier Campbell at the time recognized that the interest was there and that the electorate certainly had strong opinions on it. More work needed to be done, and we needed to go back and look at it again, much to some people’s chagrin. Then there we are; and here we are now.

The decision was made to repeat the referendum in the next provincial election, in 2009 — but with a difference. And it’s, again, in contrast to today. There was more information. There were riding maps. There was an understanding of how many representatives you would see in each riding, what the communities of interest were.

It’s too bad that the minister today, the current minister responsible, doesn’t seem to agree that people need to understand these things. People need to understand the implications. Perhaps he learned by seeing the difference in the outcomes between 2005 and 2009. I would have hoped that he agreed that the mistakes in that previous referendum in 2005 should not be repeated, but alas, that does not seem to be the case.

Anyway, in 2005, that referendum, I was also elected mayor of Pemberton, and I spent quite a bit of time over the next four years working very closely with my MLA, planning for the community, for the region, building up to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games and the Sea to Sky, the special projects.

[5:25 p.m.]

We had seniors housing projects, transportation and highway projects, provincial infrastructure issues and critical support from my MLA on the development of a community centre in Pemberton and work on transit improvements. The list is enormous. It was very clear — it became very clear to me — that local representation at the provincial level was critical.

In the lead-up to the 2009 referendum, if we went to PR, it would become clear that Pemberton would really lose our voice in many respects. It would be diminished and be part of a riding of 200,000 or 250,000. You would have no provincial elected officials accountable directly to my community or my region. This was just not the way to go. We could see multiple members working at odds with each other, with the results that, as a region, we’d essentially get nowhere.

You’ve got to remember that Pemberton only has 5,000 constituents. Whistler at the time had 10,000; Squamish, 15,000; electoral areas, 5,000 — so 35,000 people in a riding of a quarter-million. There are a couple thousand more, maybe 40,000 in total these days. Still, it’s hard not to imagine that the region could be a bit of an afterthought.

So in 2009, I voted against proportional representation. With more information, I changed my mind. Fortunately, most people in British Columbia did the same thing. The results were very different. I think they saw the same issues; I certainly hope that they do see the same issues today. I’m not as confident, though, because we don’t have those maps. We don’t have that understanding. We don’t know where we live, in terms of an electoral riding.

Ultimately, what it was, and what it is, is that it comes down to a lack of direct, local representation, of knowing the issues, of being part of the community that you represent. I learned how to help my constituents as mayor because I lived in the community. I share what they go through. I understand their challenges, because I share them.

Currently as an MLA, I travel throughout the corridor from Mount Currie through to West Vancouver and have a common set of experiences with my constituents. West Vancouver–Sea to Sky would likely end up being part of a riding that included the whole North Shore and, potentially, part of the Sunshine Coast. It’s huge, it’s diverse, and it’s complex. It’s not unlike, in many ways, a smaller version…. The Sea to Sky is kind of like that, but it’s significantly smaller.

In the future, we may not have a local MLA. There wouldn’t likely be a local candidate, potentially, that voters looked at, considered and voted for. They could well be appointed by their party and might not even live in the riding. This referendum is supposedly a question on which voting system our province would utilize. It’s really more a question….

Holy camoly. We have a new speaker in the House, potentially. The fairy godmother is attending today on Halloween. Maybe she’ll grant our wish and kill this bill.

This really is a question of trust and what the future looks like. Can we trust the Green-NDP government? Can we trust the words of the most important part of the deal with the Third Party?

[5:30 p.m.]

No, the answer, pretty much, is self-evident. The survival of this government depends on the question of the success of this referendum. The rest of the confidence and supply agreement is irrelevant as long as the government keeps this commitment. Because the Greens are all in on PR, it’s hard to think that this is about anything more than keeping power.

I see the haters and the trolls characterizing this debate as fearmongering. The member for Prince George–Valemount said it best, it seems to me, when she summarized in six words — which I think deserve to be repeated here and around the province — her comments on this debate with regard to fearmongering. She said: “It’s not fearmongering; it’s fact-finding.” That’s what is sadly lacking — the facts.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Why does this government seem determined to characterize any questions about this referendum process as fearmongering? Well, let’s look at the process they’ve designed through their supposedly neutral arbiter, the Attorney General.

They lowered the threshold for victory to a bare majority — 50 percent plus one. They removed the regional thresholds: “Sorry, rural B.C. Sorry, Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton. You know, you’re outvoted.” Honestly, we don’t really know what the ridings look like. Pemberton could be part of Metro or part of a riding attached to Metro. Maybe we’re urban in Pemberton. It’s hard to know. No, it’s impossible to know.

They put out a questionnaire on a series of proportional representation systems, then tossed out all but one and added two that have never been tried anywhere. In fact, one was just made up, and now there’s this issue of the do-over. I have to borrow the words of my colleague the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, with his description of this legislation as “idiocy.”

All of us know that you can’t fetter governments that come after us and wish to repeal any piece of legislation they wish. In fact, I believe it was just today that we began debating Bill 41, which is a repeal bill. I’m not making a comment on that bill, other than to point out the obvious: future governments could easily repeal this commitment, and this government knows it.

This is a cynical sleight of hand — promising a do-over in the future, when that promise can’t be kept. It makes me wonder if the leader of the Greens extends his statement — that election promises don’t count — to include his support for this bill. Chances are that it won’t count. Heck, the leader of the Green Party wanted to impose PR on British Columbia without referendum. I will credit the Premier for dismissing that option. Can you imagine? “Just impose this change” — what democracy.

Really, it is cynical for a theoretically non-partisan Attorney General to introduce this legislation, which is clearly meant to assuage voters, lull them into complacency in the midst of a referendum campaign. “Don’t worry. Be happy. You can have a re-do if you want” — or not. I’m surprised that this attempt to influence the vote is even allowed — being against the spirit, if nothing else, of the legislation around elections and referenda. However, increasingly, I am unsurprised by what this government is doing to cling to power. The recall funding legislation comes to mind. Astounding — isn’t it? — in its boldness and its cynicism.

[5:35 p.m.]

If British Columbians take what is already being called a leap of faith by the Premier — a leap straight off the edge of reason and fact and into a tangle of ill-defined uncertainty — and make the shift to a PR electoral system, there will be new structures, new government and new parties. Made up of how many parties? Who knows?

Possibly a fair number of the members will be new, freshly appointed to their ridings — because they don’t, in fact, live in the area, but it’s based on a closed party list. Or maybe not. Who knows? It’s interesting that government doesn’t seem to want to have answers to those questions. They want to keep the options open for the future.

Most of the MLAs may well have been chosen in a back room, where their placement on a list or in a riding was picked by an executive — perhaps even like the example used in New Zealand, where the executive chose the people who sit in the House, and it was done by a group that was entirely anonymous.

Their leader was appointed to be Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and he is today. He didn’t even win his seat; he didn’t come close to winning his seat. His party got 7 percent of the vote. Did he appoint himself to parliament? Well, maybe. We don’t really know, because we don’t know who decided it. It was decided after a month of behind-closed-door negotiation, I suppose, and in secret, by unknown influencers.

It’s a safe bet that a large percentage of the MLAs making up this new government would know there’s no way they would’ve been in this building had our current first-past-the-post system remained in place, most likely because they don’t actually live in the constituency they represent or aren’t electable in any individual riding. Appointment, and accountability to the shadowy party back room, is where their allegiance will lie. The scary thing is that we haven’t heard anyone from the government side or the Greens deny that closed party lists will be used to fill the seats. Why not?

Imagine, too, that all this comes after months of deal-making, deals offered and deals rejected. This isn’t at all unrealistic. In fact, we saw a small example of it just at the beginning of this parliament, at the last election, a month of uncertainty. Northern Ireland went more than 600 days, recently, setting a new record. We’ll be seeing, maybe, a new general election in Sweden. They can’t get a coalition together. Spain had two elections in 2015 because of exactly this.

You don’t even have to run a full slate of candidates. Make a list, and then if you win more seats than you expect, pick people up later, appoint them later — people who will completely owe the job to the person who appointed them, or the group, the back room, the power broker. That’s the potential for the future of democracy in British Columbia.

The other side says we’re fearmongering. They call it fearmongering when we say that you might not have an MLA that lives in your riding. Well, you might not have an MLA at all under certain conditions. The party may fail to run enough candidates, and you’ll just be without representation until they figure out how they’re going to fill that seat.

This is the thing: there is no certainty here. We don’t know what we’re going to get. There’s no idea of how even resignations would be handled. Or in the case of a death of a member, how would a by-election take place? Again, we don’t know.

With just about 30 different factors to be left until after the referendum — factors such as the number of MLAs, the size of the riding, what constitutes a rural riding or an urban riding, whether we use closed or open lists, or even if there’s a list system at all…. Why are these important questions left unanswered? I don’t think we can fairly say that we’re actually choosing an electoral system. We are instead voting on our current system or the concept of using some other undefined, different one.

[5:40 p.m.]

What we are asking is whether voters want to directly vote for their MLA or whether they want to have their representatives chosen by politicians and political parties. The government has many different systems to choose from. Many of the systems used around the world actually do have voters voting directly for their representative.

The government included some of those systems in the feedback questionnaire that was supposedly used to inform the referendum. Yet at the end, they threw out those systems that allow voters to choose a representative and put in systems where they do not — to quote the Attorney General’s report, two systems that “are not currently in use.”

We’re being asked to vote on systems that have not been used anywhere in the world. Yet the government is choosing to not provide maps of electoral districts or even the number of electoral districts or how many representatives each would have or even what system each of them will use. Rural-urban is a two-tier mix of STV, which B.C. rejected in 2005 and 2009, and MMP, which is also on the ballot.

Whether a riding is rural or urban — and, therefore, which system they use — is going to be figured out some time later, after the referendum. Voters are being asked to decide on a system when they don’t actually know whether they will choose a representative by STV or MMP. Under rural-urban, as we talked about before, is Squamish rural or urban? Is Whistler? What is West Vancouver?

The information we have suggests that it’s going to be not voter-directed but party-directed. This is the case in each of the three proportional representation systems proposed by government. In dual-member proportional representation, you’re given two options appointed by political parties. All losing votes are distributed to the parties to allow them to appoint candidates elsewhere.

Where, you ask? Good question. This, of course, could allow fringe parties with 5 percent of the vote provincially to appoint members in a part of the province where they really might have only had a marginal showing.

Then, of course, there’s mixed-member, which is the only proportional system on the ballot that’s actually used anywhere. In this system, again, we have disappointingly few details other than, it appears, that political parties will choose 40 percent of the MLAs — maybe more. Who knows? But the government-and-Green-dominated committee will decide after the referendum — politicians designing an electoral system.

Whether they do this from an open or closed list is still to be determined. In other words, they don’t know what we will get, even if they vote for proportional representation. There’s so much to be decided and left to politicians. As the member from False Creek so eloquently put it: “This referendum is a referendum of political parties by political parties for political parties.” I do not support this bill.

J. Yap: It’s my honour to join in the debate on Bill 40, which seeks to add a second referendum on top of the current referendum that’s underway, a referendum which has been fraught with many issues. I am not in support of this bill. I share the concerns of so many British Columbians that the NDP has got this all wrong.

What should have been a non-partisan approach to changing the nature of our democracy has been politicized and made full-on partisan by this government. When our previous B.C. Liberal government first looked at electoral reform in 2002, we chose the correct approach. We had a citizens’ assembly made up of ordinary citizens, ordinary British Columbians with no political axe to grind, who did the work of looking at reforming our voting system.

[5:45 p.m.]

There was no political interference in that citizens’ assembly process, unlike what is happening with the current referendum. This current referendum is a travesty. Compared to the previous referenda, it is a sham, a sham of a referendum. It is being run by the NDP cabinet to get the result which the government wants, and that is a “yes” result.

Everything the NDP are doing, from the withholding of key information on how PR would work till after the vote; to the lack of electoral maps under PR; to the fact that this crucial referendum — a referendum that will fundamentally change our democracy — is being done as a mail-in ballot rather than an in-person vote; and now this bill that’s come before the House, offering yet another referendum, all points to a government that is desperate to get a “yes” result by any means, however unfair — any means possible. That is not right, and British Columbians will not stand for this.

We don’t have to take my word only. We have the voices of so many British Columbians who are concerned and have expressed their concerns, their deep concerns. Let me share some of the notable voices with the House. Kirk LaPointe of Business in Vancouver had this to say about the referendum: “We are lurching, wobbling and staggering, somewhat blindly and quite deafly, into the fog of conscious confusion and…deliberate under-information that calls itself the 2018 Referendum on Electoral Reform.” John McComb on CKNW had this to say: “The NDP, unlike previous attempts to change our voting system, has set the bar pretty low.”

Another leading journalist, Gary Mason, in the Globe and Mail, said this: “It is just so badly flawed, so poorly conceived; any outcome will be rendered defective and in violation of the fundamental tenets of democracy.” And Bill Tieleman, the longtime NDP loyalist who has said many things about his concerns with PR, had this to say: “It’s a bad system. It’s a system that really doesn’t work in many, many places it’s been used. First-past-the-post is a system that has served British Columbia very, very well. We’ve had stable governments, we’ve had great economic growth, and it provides local, accountable representation.” A quote from Bill Tieleman.

Former NDP Premier Ujjal Dosanjh had this to say: “We are voting in absolute darkness, and changing to proportional representation means that just 5 percent of voters across B.C. could elect extremist MLAs to the Legislature.” That was former Premier Dosanjh.

Today we hear from another former NDP Premier, Glen Clark, who had this to say: “I don’t like proportional representation. I like to vote for the person who represents me. I want to vote for someone who is going to be accountable.”

It has become clear, as this referendum campaign proceeds with each passing day, that the whole process has been rushed and biased in favour of the yes side. We have heard the concerns of more and more British Columbians about this referendum and how it is being rushed in a haphazard way, with key details left out and problems with the mail-in ballot process. More and more British Columbians see this partisan referendum as completely unfair and wrong. This is not the way to fundamentally change our democracy.

Contrast this to the referenda in 2005 and in 2009, the last two times that we put this to the people. Our previous B.C. Liberal government delegated the referendum process to a non-partisan citizens’ assembly, unlike this NDP and Green sort of coalition government that has chosen to politicize the whole process and put the NDP cabinet in charge of the process. With this partisan approach, we have seen a completely rigged, unfair referendum imposed on our province. That is why I cannot support this bill.

[5:50 p.m.]

Let me name the ways this referendum has been a totally rigged game. The referendum sets the barest possible minimum threshold, one vote over 50 percent of the votes cast to pass, on a change to our democracy as fundamental as how we elect our MLAs to this House, this just seems completely unacceptable. In 2005 and 2009, the requirement was 60 percent.

One only has look at other institutions in society to see that a 50-percent-plus-one margin is completely unreasonable. For example, strata corporations require, on some bylaw changes, a 75 percent majority to make changes. Even the NDP party with their own constitution requires a two-thirds, 67 percent, vote in order to make changes to its bylaws. If a more reasonable, meaningful threshold is good enough for strata corporations and good enough for the NDP, surely this should be applicable to electoral change in our province.

The lack of a regional threshold is also unfair, and it will rig the referendum in favour of the major urban centres of our large and diverse province. This at-large approach in voting means that those living in the Metro Vancouver area can exclusively decide this referendum, and those British Columbians living outside the Metro area could be completely shut out. This is unfair.

In the 2005 and 2009 referendums, there was a thre­shold requirement that 60 percent of the ridings in the province would need to vote in favour of proportional representation in order to pass. Clearly, this lack of a reasonable vote threshold and a regional threshold is part of the NDP and Green plan to tip the scales in favour of getting the answer that these two parties so desperately desire, and that’s a yes on PR.

As I mentioned, while the referendum is currently proceeding, since last week, when ballots were received in the mail, we are lacking key details that would apply if proportional representation is chosen. We are in the dark about details such as the redrawing of ridings under PR. How will the map of B.C. be redrawn? Which ridings will be deleted? How will ridings be consolidated, and what would these supersized ridings look like?

In the previous referendum, under our previous B.C. Liberal government, we had clear maps of how the ridings would look like, to inform British Columbians clearly.

Another missing detail is how many MLAs there will be under PR. This key detail, which British Columbians deserve to know, is missing. All we are being advised is that the number will go up. We currently have 87 members in this House. If PR were to pass, would it be 89? Would it be 90? Would it be 91, 92, 100? We don’t know. What’s the number? British Columbians have a right to know this now, and not after the referendum, should PR pass.

Another key detail missing in action is the process for selecting list MLAs under PR. That would be the unelected party-appointed MLAs. How would they be selected? How would the list of MLAs be put together? Will it be a closed, secret list? Will it be an open list made public to voters? How many names on the list will be added by parties, and how will their ranks on the list be assigned? This information, again, will only be determined after the referendum, should PR pass.

Another concern and issue to consider. We have the Nanaimo by-election coming up, which will happen under the current system of first-past-the post. But under proportional representation, how will a seat that becomes vacant be filled? We don’t know.

Keeping British Columbians in the dark on important, relevant information as they decide on the fate of our democracy is not right. This is why I cannot support this bill, which seeks to perpetuate the wrong approach on electoral reform on our province.

[5:55 p.m.]

Not only are British Columbians in the dark, but apparently, the Minister of Advanced Education, who has access to the highest levels of government briefings, is also in the dark about how the different options of proportional representation on the ballot would work.

How are British Columbians supposed to understand any of the systems if the Advanced Education Minister, possessed of a political science degree, university degree no less, sitting at the cabinet table, couldn’t even provide such basic details?

I’m also concerned with the way the referendum has been undertaken, as I said, with a mail-in ballot. On something as fundamental as our democratic institution, the government should have undertaken this referendum as an in-person vote, preferably in conjunction with a provincial general election, where voters could exercise their vote in person, a process which has built-in safeguards to ensure against vote irregularities.

In fact, as we all know, the NDP could have undertaken this referendum at the same time as the recent municipal elections around the province, which would have allowed in-person voting. But instead, the government chose to go with the mail-in ballot, and we have been hearing many reports of problems with the mailed ballots.

We have heard of issues such as voters not receiving their ballots or voters receiving other people’s ballots, of ballots of deceased individuals being received, of ballots being left willy-nilly in apartment building community mailbox areas or simply piled in recycle bins and so on. A quick scan of social media would confirm the problems we are seeing with this mail-in ballot system.

I believe that the non-partisan public servants at the independent office of Elections B.C. will do their professional best to deal with these problems as they arise, but I blame the NDP for creating this mess, with their decision to undertake the referendum in this manner.

When I explain to constituents how changing to proportional representation will mean the loss of local representation, they are very concerned and reject PR. This is perhaps the most fundamental change with proportional representation, compared to the first-past-the-post system, and it has my constituents extremely concerned. Under PR, political parties will have the power to appoint their party loyalists or whoever they want to be MLAs to ridings where they may have absolutely no connection, let alone live in.

Our current system of first-past-the-post ensures that there is a local connection, that MLAs will always have the interests of their constituents at heart and will advocate for the benefit of their ridings.

On the matter of local representation, 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 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 my constituents’ views didn’t matter because of the banner I carried one day four years ago. I think that’s wrong.”

However, as we’ve heard, the facts do not support the Premier’s contention. Over the last 16 years of our 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. I would like to highlight some of these investments that were made in Juan de Fuca, the riding of the Premier, Almost $54 million for a new Belmont Secondary School; $7½ million to fund an extension of the West Shore Parkway; $7 million in capital funding to Pacifica Housing for 64 units of low-to-moderate income families in Langford.

[6:00 p.m.]

And $6.3 million in construction financing to 550 Goldstream Avenue for 36 Aboriginal families to have new affordable housing in Langford; $6 million for resurfacing projects in the Sooke area; $5.5 million in capital funding to Knox Vision Society, to a project providing 40 units for low- to moderate-income adults, families and seniors; $5 million to the Leigh Road interchange to install a median barrier to Goldstream Park on Highway 1, city of Langford; and the list goes on and on and on.

Clearly, the Premier’s riding, all ridings, benefited, and this runs counter to what he had implied — that because he, over that period of time, was not a member of the governing party, somehow he could not advocate effectively for his riding. Clearly, he did.

What this demonstrates is that whatever party we may be members of, any MLA, each of us serves and represents all of our constituents, whether we advocate for them, whether we try to solve problems for them or help them with whatever provincial service that they need. We do not represent only those that voted for us or members of our party. When constituents come to my office, I serve them, regardless of their politics. I don’t ask constituents how they voted, and I’m pretty sure all of us don’t do that.

Some may offer, on their own volition, that they did not vote for me, but it doesn’t matter. I serve every constituent. Maybe if I do a good job, that constituent might change his or her vote in the next election — or not. But it doesn’t matter.

As I talk to my constituents and listen to their concerns, it’s clear to me that this referendum, this flawed referendum, has really become a question on the trustworthiness of this government. After the raised hopes and lofty promises made by the NDP in the 2017 election, they’ve shown that they cannot be trusted.

The NDP promised $10-per-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 those that were declared before the election. They have instituted new and increased 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. The NDP promised a simple yes-or-no referendum ballot question. What we have is anything but simple — promise broken. This is a government that has shown in just 16 months that it cannot be trusted.

The referendum ballots are being filled out, and people are starting to decide how to vote. Some have sent in their votes, mailed in their ballots. Yet here we are in this House, debating this bill. This referendum process has been rigged from the outset, and this bill is an effort to further tilt the scales, ever so slightly or not, in favour of the yes side. This is not fair, and I cannot support this bill.

Bill 40 is a testament to the untrustworthiness of the NDP government. It’s a cynical attempt to help get PR over the line, the bare line, of one vote over 50 percent. But I believe there’s a simple reason for this bill coming forward now, and that is the NDP are fearful that they’ve lost the momentum that the yes side had. As stacked as the process has been against the no side, they’ve gone from a commanding lead, almost 2 to 1 in polls six months ago to, now, a virtual tie between the “yes” and the “no” sides.

[6:05 p.m.]

Here we have Bill 40, which seeks to add 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, don’t worry,” and hopefully see a return on their investment.

But we’ll have a return guarantee — except that in this case, there is no buyer’s remorse. This referendum, should it pass, will be legally binding. And with 29 factors that won’t be considered until after the referendum, a few of which I’ve highlighted earlier, how are voters expected to make an educated choice when they’re not being offered the relevant information?

These are major factors — this information that we don’t know, such as the number of MLAs, the size of ridings, what constitutes an urban or rural riding, whether we use a closed or open list, or even if there will be a list system at all.

We’re actually not choosing a system. We are, instead, voting on the concept of another system. We’re asked to take a leap of faith. We are asked to believe the NDP when they say: “Just trust us.” I’m hearing from more and more of my constituents that they simply will not do that. For more and more of my constituency, the choice of PR is a “leap in the dark,” as Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun said recently. This referendum basically asks voters if they want to directly vote for their MLA or whether they want to have their representative chosen by the party they are voting for.

Now, the government had many different options to choose from for the proposed proportional representation to put before British Columbians. Many of them actually do have voters directly voting for their representatives. The government included some of these systems in the feedback questionnaire. That was supposedly how they became informed of British Columbians’ feedback. Yet in the end, they discarded those systems that allow voters to choose their representatives and put in systems that do not, going so far as to put two systems on the ballot that, to quote the Attorney General’s report, are “not currently in use.”

We are being asked to vote on systems that have not been used anywhere in the world, two of them, yet the government is choosing to not even provide maps of the electoral districts or even the number of electoral districts or how many representatives each would have. The information we have instead is that political parties will choose your representative. With this change, political parties will potentially become enshrined with powers and rights which were never contemplated under our Canadian constitution.

I’m grateful to my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, who has capably highlighted this in his Bill 40 debate comments. It is possible that proportional representation may not be constitutional and may be challenged and potentially overturned in the courts. That is why I cannot support this bill. Giving these new powers to political parties, diluting the power of voters, will be the case in each of the three proportional representation systems proposed by the government.

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

Then we have mixed-member proportional. This is the only proportional representation system that’s actually in use anywhere in the world. In this system, which we again have drastically few details about, political parties will choose 40 percent of the MLAs. Whether they will choose from a closed or open list is still to be determined and revealed to the people of B.C.

Rural-urban is a two-tiered mix of the STV, single transferable vote, system that British Columbians rejected in 2005 and 2009, and MMP, which is also on the ballot. So it’s a two-tiered mix of these two systems — complicated. Whether a riding is rural or urban and, therefore, which system they use is a mystery now. And again, it’s only going to be determined after the referendum.

[6:10 p.m.]

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 really a vote on which system British Columbians should use. Instead it’s a referendum question on whether voters should choose their MLAs, or political parties will choose the MLA. As my colleague from Vancouver–False Creek put it well, this referendum is a referendum of political parties, by political parties, for political parties.

My constituents are deeply concerned with this flawed process, and I have heard loud and clear from many of them. Marci writes: “I like what I understand, which is first-past-the-post.” Sandy writes: “PR is a bad idea. FTPT” — first-past-the-post — “has been working fine all this time.” Ian writes: “The PR referendum before B.C. must be defeated both due to the rigged and deeply flawed process and on the long-term damage a yes vote would do to B.C.”

Perhaps the most significant concern my constituents have is the loss of local representation, the very same concern identified by former Premier Glen Clark. I’ve heard loud and clear from them that they value local accountability, a hallmark of our current Westminster first-past-the-post parliamentary system.

Constituents value their direct contact and connection to their MLAs. If the MLA is not doing his or her job, that MLA could well be replaced by voters in the next election. With PR, as we have seen in other jurisdictions, the failed, unelected candidates can be and are appointed by their parties to be members. We’ve heard the example of the unelected New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister who was a failed candidate but was appointed in any case to parliament and to a senior cabinet position.

I’m honoured to serve the people of Richmond-Steveston. I’ve had the opportunity to live in my riding for over 32 years. My wife and I were blessed to have raised our children in my riding. My constituents have the confidence that I understand their issues as I spend time in our community and live among them. Elected as their representative, I am accountable to them. Moving to PR would change this. Unelected MLAs would be appointed by parties to ridings.

Let me conclude with an analogy. When a British Columbian goes car shopping, she would want to know, beyond the name of the car and the fact that it’s got four wheels and a metal frame on it, the key details and features — like the shape and style of the car, the car’s exterior colour, interior colour and trim. Is it gas or electric or a hybrid power system? What’s the horsepower, the safety features, the navigation features, the cargo space, the seating configuration, and so on?

This rigged referendum is just like a car salesman saying to the customer: “Oh, don’t worry. You just need to know the name of the car. Just buy the car sight unseen. You’ll learn what you get after you take delivery.”

The referendum process has been a sham. Bill 40 is another blatant attempt to tip the scales in favour of the yes side. On behalf of my constituents, I will be voting against it. I urge all members to vote against this bill.

D. Clovechok: It’s an honour to stand here in this House and speak to Bill 40 today. Most important, I’m also so very proud to stand here representing the hard-working people of Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Columbia River–Revelstoke is a designated remote rural riding. It takes me about 5½ to six hours, on a good driving day, to make my way from the west side to the south side, and that, of course, is going over one of the most dangerous passes in British Columbia — in North America, for that matter — the Rogers Pass.

[6:15 p.m.]

It’s a vast area with some very, very unique communities, a couple of cities in the community, all folks who are good folks, hard-working folks — lots of values associated there — folks that are living together, working together and loving together. I know them, and they know me. That’s important, and we’re going to talk about that a little bit later on.

I do want to just give a quick list here of the of the places that I do represent, because I want the record to understand how diverse they are: the two cities — the city of Revelstoke and the city of Kimberley — the little area of Blaeberry, near Golden; the town of Golden; and moving south, Nicholson, Parson, Brisco, Edgewater, Radium, Dry Gulch, Invermere, Wilmer, Panorama, Windermere, Fairmont Hot Springs, Canal Flats, Field. In all those places, including the rural places where there are ranches and farms, about 24,000 people are eligible voters there. It’s incredibly diverse, and it’s an amazing place to live — very similar issues but also very different issues.

As I say, they know me, and I know them. We’re all aware, in Columbia River–Revelstoke — painfully aware — that British Columbia is staring down the barrel of a very dangerously loaded gun that has a hair trigger. I speak, of course, on the flawed referendum presented by the B.C. NDP and their pals over there, the Greens — of which there’s nobody there today, and that’s obviously noted.

I want the record to show that I’m not against electoral reform. As a matter of fact, I’m open to it. First-past-the-post is the system that we have. It’s not perfect. It has served this country, for over 150 years, very well. I’m not objecting to electoral reform. I’m open to it, but I cannot support this amendment to electoral reform in Bill 40, due to the fact that this referendum has been severely flawed right from the get-go.

It’s a referendum that’s absolutely nothing more than — what I believe, and many of the people that I represent believe — an attempt to make a change that does not address the significant flaws that come with it. What we see in this referendum process actually demonstrates betrayal and calls into question the trustworthiness of this minority government that has been propped up by their three masters from the Green Party.

Malcolm X spoke and said: “To me, the thing that is worse than death is betrayal. You see, I could conceive death, but I could not conceive betrayal.” This is exactly the way that so many British Columbians today are feeling right now: betrayed by a government that seems to be proud of this betrayal.

I’m getting some head shakes. That means I’m doing my job. Let’s talk about that a little bit.

You don’t get to know the other members that well — maybe in the gym at the Grand Pacific once in a while — but you get to know them a little bit. I have to tell you that I don’t know the Premier very well, but I’ve come to believe him to be a very honourable man. He has honour. He works in honour. But that has come into question, I’ve got to say.

The Premier of this province gave his word, in relation to this referendum, that there would be simply a yes-or-no question. Fair ball. He broke his word. The Premier gave his word that there would be a non-partisan group of folks that would oversee this referendum process — non-partisan. Broken word. His cabinet. The Premier gave us his word that there would be an urban-rural threshold and that the interests of rural British Columbia — the people that I represent, care for, respect and love — would be protected from the massive numbers in urban British Columbia. Broken word. Broken promise after broken promise, broken word after broken word.

[6:20 p.m.]

I was incredibly blessed in my life to have an amazing father who taught me from a very small age to consider carefully when you give your word to someone, because once you’ve given your word to someone, you don’t get a redo. He taught me that a man’s word is truly the only thing you ever own. It represents your honour.

I wish this Premier could have met my father, and maybe he could have received some of those teachings that I received. Because in my humble opinion, he has so badly failed British Columbians with his broken words. Yet, in spite of his broken promises, he stands in this House with impunity in front of British Columbians and says: “Trust me. Take a leap of faith.” I cannot find any honour here.

Well, I can tell him that hundreds of people we’re hearing from back home — not everybody, because there are folks that do want change. I’m not objecting to that. But the way it sits right now, I’m hearing from hundreds of people back home who don’t trust him and don’t trust his party because of the deceit and broken promises that surround this referendum. And they will never — I underscore “will never” — take a leap of faith into a dark and bottomless abyss that this party is asking them to dive into. They won’t do it.

The Premier knows this, and that’s exactly why, I believe, he’s trying — they’re trying; I can’t just put it on him — to dupe British Columbians with this referendum, by telling them: “Shoot, in two election terms, if you don’t like it, you get to redo it.” Well, newsflash, folks. People are not buying it.

The B.C. NDP and their Green pals talk about how collaborative they are, but the Greens — this is a window dressing for them. It’s not true. There’s no collaboration. They just say yes. They should be able to shoulder with us in this House, debating the multiple flaws associated with this referendum. Rather, they support an amendment that will never be legally binding on a future government, which was confirmed by the Attorney General himself.

All members of this House should be focused on dealing with the flaws in this referendum. This government has not met the high bar that it set for itself in the throne speech.

The Premier knows that this referendum is nothing but, in the words of another individual, jiggery-pokery. I never heard that word until I got to this House. All of us who stand in this House know that the fundamental rule of this place is that we simply cannot limit the power of those who come after us and form government. We cannot stop them from passing or repealing legislation they see fit to deal with. So the redo doesn’t work eight years or 12 years down the road.

In short, this bill is a scam, and the folks over there are hoping that British Columbians will not catch on. Well, newsflash again. British Columbians have caught on, and they’re angry.

Let’s dig a little deeper into that. The proponents of this bill and referendum want us to believe that with the PR system, all votes count — inferring, of course, that with first-past-the-post, all votes don’t count.

Here are a couple of thoughts on that. I am so proud to stand here representing the hard-working people of Columbia River–Revelstoke, as I have already said. I’m eternally grateful to the people who put their faith in me, checking my name on the ballot. Yet, newsflash to the member from Columbia River–Revelstoke, not everybody put my name down on that ballot. It’s hard to believe, I know, but there were a few of them that didn’t. And I get that, but more importantly, I respect that. Those that did not vote for me I came to understand. They had a diversity of ideas.

[6:25 p.m.]

But in the analysis of the finality of that election, what I did come to understand was that even those people who had that diversity of ideas…. We all agreed on one thing — that the best interests of the people in Columbia River–Revelstoke were at the paramount of all things. We were just disagreeing on how to get there.

What I do not get is the B.C. NDP claim that those who did not cast a vote for me don’t have a voice. I’m offended by that. My voters chose their MLA, and I serve all constituents, not just my B.C. Liberal members and supporters but everyone, all of my citizens and all of my residents.

Yet the Premier, in this House, uttered the comment that under our current system, this does not happen. That’s fake news, if I can use the term, and what a joke. There is absolutely no member in this House, I would hope, that would not help someone who walked through their constituency doors looking for help — even though they did not vote for them.

Every day my office successfully helps people…. My offices — I have two offices — successfully help people who did not vote for me, as well as those who did and as well as those who just didn’t vote at all. It was my promise that I made during my campaign, and I have kept my word. So in reality, their vote does count.

Our Premier spoke not long ago, saying: “You know, once you get elected, the rest of your people in your constituency don’t matter.” I say: “Are you serious, sir? Is that how you treat your constituents?” It’s not the way that I roll, and I can prove it. I can say without hesitation that there are thousands of British Columbians who feel your statement on this is beyond offensive; it’s untrue.

Let’s look at the 2017 election. Did every vote count in Courtenay-Comox? My guess is that if you were to walk up to the MLA that represents that riding, she would leap to her feet and tell you that she, to this day, is thrilled that every vote actually counted. So let’s talk about this process a little bit.

As I travelled from one end of my riding to the other, talking to my folks in our communities, I continued to hear from them that they are so very concerned about the lack of information that explains how the PR system works that is being proposed by this government and their Green buddies. They tell me that this referendum has not given them enough information to make an informed decision.

The B.C. NDP and their Green pals have cloaked this referendum in a fog of mystery and a lack of understanding for the people I represent. The Attorney General, who is responsible for this file and this debacle, did not offer information to my constituents but told them: “Roll the dice, and see what kind of system you end up with in the end.” Wow.

The Minister of Advanced Education — I don’t want to pick on just that minister, as she’s human — does not have a clue about how it works. She said that in her own words yet has, in her own words, a political science degree. Now, that doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence, not so much. And it begs the question: how many other cabinet ministers who are responsible for the decisions being made around this proportional representation referendum are in the same boat?

My experience, in my life and in all of the careers that I’ve had, is that where there is one, there’s bound to be more. But let’s not single out the NDP cabinet members. There are literally thousands of British Columbians that don’t even know that the referendum is occurring — don’t have a clue. Big problem.

Blindfolded by the lack of information, constituents have been given this referendum, a referendum that has a staggering 29 unexplained factors. Yet this government says: “Trust me.” Come on. How can this be trusted on any level?

[6:30 p.m.]

I’m going to read into the record a letter that I got from a very prominent doctor in my constituency, Dr. Murray Trusler. I won’t read the whole letter, but I’ll read a portion of it.

“This afternoon my wife and I attended a community meeting to discuss this situation, and the overwhelming opinion was that we have been inadequately informed with respect to the options being presented and their implications for the future of the democratic process in British Columbia.

“For example, we have not been provided with electoral maps to demonstrate what impact these options will have on our ridings. This is the most basic of information required, and it has not been provided.

“A mail-in ballot is not a rigorous voting mechanism. It is amenable to fraud and manipulation. Furthermore, it depends upon the integrity of Canada Post” — who just so happen to be on rotating strikes right now. “The subject of this referendum is not a frivolous matter and deserves all of the security of a general provincial election. This is not being provided.

“The situation is akin to a patient being rushed to the operating table for an elective procedure without being given full disclosure prior to being asked to provide consent for that operation. We do not allow such behaviour in our physicians in our society, nor should we allow the analogous behaviour from our government.

“To my point, I would ask that ten members of the public explain to you the different referendum options and their implications. I don’t think they’re going to be able to.”

That’s just from one constituent, as I said, a prominent retired doctor in our area. That letter was not addressed to me. It was addressed to the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. Letters to the Lieutenant-Governor on this issue are being mailed as we speak.

How in the name of all goodness are my voters supposed to make an informed decision when there’s no information offered? How are citizens to be expected to make informed decisions when they have no maps of what the ridings are going to look like? Not a clue. No understanding of how MLAs will be selected, how many there will be or where they will be from — not a clue.

They tell us that under one of the systems, 40 percent of those MLAs could well be appointed by parties. Let me give you an example. I live in a very complex riding, as I’ve mentioned — lots of issues. I’m going to use Three Valley Gap as a great issue. The minister over there knows all about that — the conservation issues that are associated with my riding in terms of conservation officers and wildlife management, or the Columbia River treaty, which very few people know about but is so important to the people of my region.

Can you imagine having an MLA — I’m going to use an example — from Surrey, having a Surrey MLA representing the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke? Doesn’t have to live there, but they got appointed by the party bosses — not accountable to the constituents, but accountable to the party bosses. Would that member from Surrey — or Richmond, or wherever you want to choose — have any concept about Three Valley Gap? Would they have any concept about the Columbia River treaty? Would they know the values? Would they know the people? Would they know how they feel and how they raise their kids? I don’t think so. That’s not what my people want. That’s not what they want.

This government has offered three choices for people to vote on, yet no understanding of how they work. Shoot, there are two systems in this proposal that they’ve put in front of us that have never been tried once anywhere on this planet. Are you serious? This government expects British Columbians to be guinea pigs in a system that has never been tried? All we get when it comes to that is: “Trust me. Take a leap of faith.”

[6:35 p.m.]

I have two cities in my riding, as I’ve mentioned, but no explanation on the other system, on this rural-urban concept. They are concepts. There are no details. There’s no way that they’re explaining how it can be governed. There’s no academia associated with this — none, zero. They’re just trying to get a leap of faith going on here. Well, in that one system…. There are two cities in my riding, but no explanation of if those cities are actually going to be rural or urban. They’re cities. No explanation whatsoever on how that’s going to work.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Then there is, as I’ve already mentioned, the accountability — elected versus party-appointed. I’m accountable to all of my voters and not my party. I’m accountable to my voters. I take pride that so many of my constituents have nicknamed me as a maverick, because I fight for them. I will not bend to party rules. I’ll certainly listen to them and respectfully converse. But if I disagree with it, if I disagree with something that doesn’t fit for my people, I’ll fight for it.

That’s because I know them, because I care about them. We live together, and we live around each other. That’s what an MLA is supposed to do — any elected official, for that matter. You know your people, and you fight for them. If they don’t like what I’ve done, they get to fire me. I’m okay with that, if that’s the decision that they make.

Under a PR system, the party bosses get to be my constituents’ accountability bar. There are examples throughout this world where there are PR systems in place today, where people lost elections in their own ridings and their own constituencies yet got picked from party lists. One happens to be the deputy leader of New Zealand. Didn’t get elected, but he got picked. I don’t know how that looks like to democracy to me.

Let’s talk about the costs. Almost 15 million bucks on this sham. I wonder how many electric cars the Green Party members could’ve bought with $15 million, or how many low-cost houses could’ve been built throughout my riding with that $15 million, but it’s a flawed $15 million referendum that these folks want to us buy. Well, we’re not buying it.

Then there is the legal case. My colleagues on this side of the House have made it very clear that this entire process is in contradiction of the Canadian constitution, section 3. I’m not a lawyer, and I won’t get into the legalese on this, but I will say that there will be millions of tax dollars that could go into the health system that are going to be spent in the courts, because this thing will end up in the courts.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: Well, we haven’t seen yet that, sir. We haven’t seen that yet, but they’re going to end up there, and it’s going to cost this province millions of bucks — another litigation after litigation with these guys over there. How much taxpayer money needs to be spent on litigation?

The threshold — 50-plus-one percent, the lowest bar you possibly could ever find, with no ceiling or threshold in terms of the number of people to even make this pass. Come on. This isn’t fair; it’s a sham.

Yet they tell us that we’re fearmongering. Well, there’s a difference between fearmongering and factual information. I’ll tell you what. Here’s the thing. I’m going to read a couple of quotes here, and they should make people fearful, because throughout this world, as in Sweden today, you can see a far-right neo-Nazi group has gotten in, and they are dictating how it works.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: No it’s not. That’s fact.

[6:40 p.m.]

Let me read a couple quotes here from B.C. party leaders who have the potential of finding a seat in this hallowed place. I quote from Helen Clark, a conversation with Helen Clark hosted by the Broadbent Institute. “You could say that the German election produced 92 neo-Nazi MPs. Yes, it did. But what are we saying? Are we saying that they shouldn’t be in parliament?”

From the leader, Timothy George Gidora, of the Communist Party of British Columbia: “While PR does not guarantee more positive government policies, it increases the chances to elect Communists. A small party like ours could potentially hold the balance of power and use that position to help extraparliamentary movements to block neo-liberal austerity policies. The imperialist drive for profits” — it’s almost like I’m in Stalinist Russia again — “and control of resources is behind capitalistic globalization.”

My good Lord. The members across the aisle are proposing this. They’re inviting these people into our chambers, with these kinds of ideas. I don’t like being judgmental, but that’s not something I want in this place.

Then from the B.C. Libertarian Party — Clayton Welwood: “I think every student activist should risk arrest at least once in their career.”

When they say fearmongering, we’re not talking about fearmongering; we’re, first of all, talking about facts. Most importantly, we’re trying to let people know and give people the information that they don’t have. Proportional representation systems invite into our chambers, invite into our lives and our province and threaten our families these kinds of extremists, these kinds of folks.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: That’s his words, not mine, Mr. Speaker. Actually, I’ll respond to that. Mr. Ford is actually doing a pretty good job right now.

Nonetheless, you invite that in there, and that’s not something that we want to see here.

My other colleague who stood up before I did said that there are two past NDP leaders that sat in this House who have come out and spoken directly against proportional representation. Again, that’s nice to have. It’s nice to know that there are NDP folks that have come to their senses. They’re not sitting here, I don’t think.

But nonetheless, again I want to emphasize that I’m not objecting to electoral reform, not at all — but not in this sense, not in this convoluted and confused situation. On the other side, they talk about all these countries in Europe. “Oh, you’ve got be like Europe. You got to get with the program. No, you don’t want to be Canada anymore. You don’t want to be British Columbia anymore. You don’t want to be England, and good God, we don’t want to be the United States.”

Oh, I’m just about running out of time, am I not? Anyways, I could go on and on. I know that the folks over there are riveted.

But on behalf of most of my constituents that I’ve talked to — as I’ve mentioned, there are those out there that want it, but they don’t understand what they want, what they’re being offered — I will not be supporting this bill for the reasons cited. I have asked my constituents to seek as much information, through me or whoever, that they can to make an informed decision, which they’re having difficulty doing. As a result of that, they themselves will not be supporting it.

Also, noting the hour, I would move adjournment of the debate and reserve any right to continue debate at the next sitting.

D. Clovechok moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health, acting for Government House Leader.

Hon. A. Dix: Holy mackerel. I think, hon. Speaker, the sheer moment here…. I feel unworthy of filling the shoes of the Government House Leader. Nonetheless, I’m happy to move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:45 p.m.