Orders of the Day

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE
ON BILLS 40 AND 52

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), all remaining proceedings related to Bill (No. 40) intituled Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 and Bill (No. 52) intituled Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018, including any proposed amendments on notice standing in the Ministers’ names on the Order Paper, shall be completed and disposed of on or before Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:45 p.m. At 4:30 p.m. on the date mentioned, the Speaker and the Chair of the Committee of the Whole will forthwith put all necessary questions for the disposal of all remaining stages of the said bills without amendment or debate.

Any divisions called on sections of the said Bills shall be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1. Any division called on any second reading amendments, second reading, or third reading of the said bills may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16. Proceedings under this motion shall not be subject to the provisions of Standing Order 81, or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to times and days of the sittings of the House.]

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 40, the referendum act. In Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 52, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

E. Ross: Before the lunch break, we were talking about the amendment to Bill 40, intituled the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act. I was just covering the point of why this should not be considered in terms of the electoral reform in its current fashion.

It’s because it’s such a complicated issue. The ballot is complicated. Many residents in my constituency are coming to me, asking me for explanations and just wanting more information in terms of what to expect. There are members on both sides of this House that don’t truly understand the full nature of what will happen or, even under the current process, what’s happening with the referendum on proportional referendum.

Now, we know that there was a promise made for a simple yes-or-no question for the ballot, and that didn’t come through. We were also expecting, and all British Columbians were promised, an all-party committee to consult with British Columbians. We know this didn’t happen. Instead, what happened was an on-line survey that British Columbians didn’t participate in, let alone hear about.

Basically, if you know your way around the Internet and are a political junkie and care about Legislature business, then you are most likely to participate. Unfortunately, nobody in my community participated because none of the people that I represent in my own community actually are political junkies or care what happens in this Legislature and don’t know their way around the Internet.

It’s my opinion that the findings, whatever they were, were skewed because they weren’t really a reflection of what British Columbians, as a whole, were thinking about.

[1:40 p.m.]

The term “threshold” has been thrown around quite a bit. For those many people watching at home, watching us right now, hello. Just to explain to you what “threshold” means in this context. When past governments held a referendum on proportional representation, they included a term called “thresholds.” They understood this because they understood what it meant to be changing the fundamentals of our democracy.

It was said in the past that there was a 60 percent threshold needed for the mandate to change our electoral system. So 60 percent…. Not many people understood this. In today’s context, if we applied a 60 percent threshold, that would mean 52 out of the 87 ridings in B.C. would’ve had to vote yes for a mandate to change our electoral system. That meant that 52 ridings out of the 87 ridings in B.C. had to understand and, more importantly, had to want a system like proportional representation.

This is not what happened in this current referendum. There is no threshold in this current referendum. The government said that even if 5 percent of the electorate — not the ridings — voted, then the results would be binding.

This is an unbelievable position to take, considering the amount of information that has to be absorbed by the average citizen and isn’t available to the average citizen. Combine that with a mail-in ballot process, instead of in-person voting, where the rules are clear already, whether it be a provincial or municipal election. Substituting an on-line survey for actual meaningful consultation with voters is just another mechanism to ensure a yes vote.

This is similar to the false promise that was made to British Columbians just recently that somehow a future government would hold another referendum if B.C. chooses to go back to the system that we currently enjoy. I spoke to that earlier, and what I said was that today’s government can’t get a future government to be bound by a political promise made by politicians today. And that’s what it was — promising a referendum to go back to a system.

What I didn’t mention, though, was: why would a future legislature, made up of a number of parties in this House, choose to end their chance at getting a seat in this House in the first place? If even half of the registered parties of B.C. got into this Legislature under proportional representation, that would be 13 parties, because there are 26 registered parties in B.C. right now. So 13 parties, all minorities, all made up of maybe two or three members per party. Why would they vote themselves out of this Legislature?

You couldn’t get the votes. Under proportional representation, it would be just a process for politicians to save themselves and their parties, to secure their seats in this House. It wouldn’t happen. With all these fringe parties and these small, little parties, many in alliances and agreements in this House to ensure B.C. never goes back to first-past-the-post, it’s a politician’s dream job. All we’d see is deal-making in this House, to make sure that we did not go back to first-past-the-post, if it was even possible for this government to bind the hands of a future government.

Proportional representation is a dream job for politicians, not only for fringe parties, but it’s also a dream job for people that don’t even have to run in an election, don’t even have to campaign, don’t have to abide by the rules of Elections B.C. Under proportional representation, there’s a tremendous opportunity to get appointed to represent a riding. It doesn’t even matter if you live in that riding.

Which begs the question: why have an election at all? If you can just get on a party list — on a minority party’s party list — and they get government, you can be appointed to be an MLA. Now that opens up the door to a lot of different questions that come to mind, right out of the gates.

[1:45 p.m.]

I don’t know if there are current rules or laws — I know it’s a moral issue — when you’re talking about cronyism. For those at home, if you don’t know what cronyism is, Wikipedia defines it as the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority without proper regard to their qualifications. Is that not taking MLAs off a party list and appointing them to constituencies across B.C.? You compare that to our current system, where you must participate in an election under the rules of the B.C. Election Act.

In my village, we call cronyism nepotism, and we’re always accused of it in the villages around B.C. That’s the phrase I’m more familiar with. Nepotism is the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.

Who is going to be on these party lists, and why will they be appointed? What will the criteria be? Let alone: will they have the interest of the constituencies at hand when they’re appointed to a constituency that they don’t even live in because it’s a party favour or it’s a supporter? That is not democracy.

It’s absolutely incredible that the government of B.C. favours a system like proportional representation, which is open to cronyism and nepotism. These are serious charges when you are part of a band council. It causes political chaos, in villages like mine all around B.C., when you’re charged with nepotism. I see no difference here when you’re talking about proportional representation except that it’s on a provincial scale.

I know the government — the B.C. NDP, maybe even the Premier — will put out more promises to put in protections against cronyism and nepotism, but the promises made to date, so far, haven’t been lived up to. So I have to err on the side of caution on this one. A promise that…. I don’t even know what the promise would be. Appointing an MLA that doesn’t run in an election, that doesn’t live in the riding is an unbelievable position to take, especially in B.C., in Canada.

The only way to make sure that a referendum like this one that we’re currently seeing is free from political rigging is to keep politicians away from it entirely. In previous proportional representation referendums, the government of the day formed the Citizens’ Assembly to consider changes to our electoral system. The process of forming the Citizens’ Assembly was to choose two randomly selected citizens from each riding. In 2003, the members of this House adopted this process unanimously.

It’s disappointing that this government completely ignored this at-arms-length, non-political process in favour of a system that all but guarantees the outcome they want. The amount of due diligence that was done by the Citizens’ Assembly was gratifying, as a citizen of B.C., when I read up on this, not only by the process they put in place but also by educating themselves on different electoral systems around the world, including first-past-the-post and proportional representation.

The result was a recommendation to change our current system to a single transferable vote, which ultimately went to a referendum, complete with a 60 percent threshold. Twice B.C. has voted on proportional representation, and twice it was voted down — all because the process itself developed by the Citizens’ Assembly was open, transparent and free from political manipulation.

Now, there’s been a lot said in the media — and, more importantly, the media in this House, which understands how this place works. They live and breathe this stuff. They sit up in the gallery there, and they watch our proceedings. They read Hansard, and they know, without a doubt, what’s happening in here. I’ve read some of the stuff they’ve printed over the years, and some of the stuff they printed I didn’t like, but it was true. It was honest. It was factual. And just about every major media outlet in B.C. has denounced this referendum, because it’s rigged in favour of a yes vote.

[1:50 p.m.]

I think Bill Good said it the best. To quote Bill Good: “With the ballots in the mail and people trying to make decisions, I think it’s important to note that almost all the mainstream media and respected political commentators are saying this referendum is flawed, without all the information to make an informed decision.”

It is what I’ve been talking to people about for months: a flawed referendum without the information needed. Even the Attorney General said that if you don’t have the information, vote first-past-the-post.

The opposite is happening today in terms of this referendum, and it’s why I ask the members of this House to support my amendment to Bill 40, Electoral Reform Referendum Act, 2018.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure and an honour to rise today on something that’s before the Legislature and before the citizens of British Columbia. I just want to reach out to my constituents in Kelowna West. I know that about 30 percent of them have returned their ballots, and I hope that in the coming days, as they make their decision, this debate will help influence their decision.

I want to speak today about the amendment that my colleague from Skeena has introduced. I want to rise in support: that this House decline to give second reading of the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act.

The intent of the bill — to hold a subsequent referendum on whether to revert to the current first-past-the–post voting system from a proportional voting system, if adopted — is meaningless when the government has failed to correct multiple deficiencies in the current electoral reform referendum legislation, including not seeking a clear majority approval from the electorate on a clear question, not providing for sufficient and meaningful public engagement and using a confusing and complex referendum ballot.

I want to talk about some of the things that I know we have discussed in this House. There are many different deficiencies. Many are still even unknown to myself, as an MLA here in the Legislature, but I think they’ve been identified by members of this House. The Attorney General has mentioned, as well as the Premier, that these things are still yet to be decided.

I think, as we’ve seen, as this debate and the referendum discussion has gone on across British Columbia, there is a lot of concern from voters. I think the government — wanting to make certain that they know the validity of what they’re choosing and going to empower British Columbians with their votes in a coming election — needs to make certain that there is adequate participation and understanding of what it is that they’re choosing.

Now, there really are two choices on the ballot. First-past-the-post is the first question, and then the second one is proportional representation — some form of it. It’s not clearly identified. As we all know, question 2 is a multiple-choice selection of three different options that you can rank. What little is known about is how these three systems will actually be put into place and how they will be chosen.

I think that from the rigorous and aggressive kind of discussion that we’ve had here in this House about the different types, etc., what we’re really looking for is the answers that I think lots of British Columbians, not all of them…. I think many are asking questions today about what the differences are — dual-member proportional representation, mixed-member proportional representation and rural-urban proportional representation.

Of course, the two systems, dual-member and rural-urban, are two that actually have never been used. They’re theoretical. They use complex algorithms and mathematical formulas to redistribute votes. I think for most people, they do want a voting system that they can easily understand.

The current mixed-member proportional system — it is in use in other countries — has a track record of certainly some confusion or results that don’t always lead to what has been, I think, promoted as one of the benefits of proportional representation.

[1:55 p.m.]

It’s not that just every vote counts…. It does under first-past-the-post. It doesn’t count in the way that maybe some people would like to see it, but the situation is that it leads to the type of things that we’ve seen in this House over the last 18 months, where we have a coalition that is effectively a proportional representation system of sorts. We have two parties that have to work together to maintain their advantage of being able to pass bills, as we see and have been seeing here every day of the many weeks since we’ve been in the Legislature.

It’s no different than today. This bill is being subjected to closure because of the fact that the government has allowed for a debate on this. However, it is not finished, and the bottom line is that they’re using that authority and power and, blindly, the Third Party is supporting the government without any kind of suggestion about amendments or clarity or changes.

What we have in front of us is the example of where a system of proportional representation is in action, and the bottom line is that, really, even though this side of the House has 42 of the 87 seats in this Legislature, we’re unable to suggest amendments or recommendations.

I know that we saw one amendment, very minor, in terms of the speculation tax, Bill 45. I think, if anybody was listening in the last number of weeks, it is clearly a piece of legislation that many communities, many businesses, many people in the business of creating accommodation want to see, that they don’t put in rules that prevent increased housing supply, which is, I think, the government’s noble objective in that particular regard.

The situation is that the amendments, regardless of how sound they are, are completely rejected. There’s no discussion. There’s no committee work. So I guess the thought of collaboration, proportional…. What will change in the future?

The likelihood, as the member for Skeena pointed out, is that we’re going to end up with many different…. Of the 27 registered political parties in British Columbia, who’s to say that we won’t have 50 all of a sudden, within a few years? I think that the example of those parties in other jurisdictions has shown that the growth in political parties will grow.

Interjection.

B. Stewart: You’re correct, Member, in saying that they have to have 5 percent so that they won’t be the real extremes, but on the other hand, we only have to look to New Zealand, first, where they have the balance of power. They have eight members, and of them, their Deputy Prime Minister wasn’t even elected. He’s from a party list.

We can’t ignore that, and we can’t ignore the fact that we have, in Germany, a similar system. We have the Germany-first party doing the very same thing, with 91 of 94 members, not actually elected but appointed from party lists — a very radical and extreme group — far more than the 5 percent that the member is referring to that will keep the fringe elements…. It will keep the most fringe perhaps, or the least credible, but the reality is that credibility….

When you look at these other parties and their platforms, those parties, obviously, were credible enough to garner enough support in a proportional system to be able to put extreme views forward and make certain that it was possible for them to be a part of that coalition.

As the member for Skeena rightfully pointed out, the reality is that it doesn’t lead to this panacea of cooperation. It leads to the fact that often…. If we look at Italy — 66 elections since the Second World War. How is it possible to think that that’s stability? Canada, with 22 elections has had a third of the elections that have actually gone on in terms of this.

The idea that we’re getting stability, a cost-effective government, more collaborative and that every vote is going to make a difference, etc., is conjecture at this point.

I think that one of the things that is clear…. I say this thinking about what we have in front of us. One of the reasons for this amendment is that we have a concept. That’s what we’re voting on. It is not clear that we’re picking mixed-member proportional representation or rural-urban or dual-member.

[2:00 p.m.]

I know that we had dual-member at one time in this province. Knowing both MLAs in the Kelowna area that represented these ridings, Cliff Serwa and Larry Chalmers, I asked Cliff, and Cliff tells me that the dual-member ridings were very ineffective. It was unclear as to where the boundaries were.

In my particular case, in Kelowna West, the boundary is very precise between the ridings of Kelowna-Mission and Kelowna–Lake Country, Vernon-Monashee, Shuswap. I have to say that the reality is that although we work collaboratively, we know it’s the MLA in that area that is the responsible MLA.

We talk about this concept. We don’t really know, with any of the systems, this information, the most basic: how many MLAs are there going to be in this House? I look around, and I don’t see vast amounts of unused space in here, knowing that, Madame Speaker, you have yourself shoehorned in here between all of our desks, as do the government. The reality is that — you know what? — I don’t know where the space is for these extra ten, 15, 20 seats that are going to come. So that’s one of the things.

For the members that represent this House that come from ridings such as Skeena, Stikine, in the north, Peace River North, these ridings are the biggest, but they’re vast. The fact that we would even consider diluting the representation of the people that have gone out and pioneered areas, to be able to think that they’re going to have less representation…. It would take them days….

Now, I’m not saying that that isn’t a problem in some of the other ridings. As the member that’s speaking for Kootenay West…. I know that in her riding, she has time as well. She has time to get around her riding and constituents, etc., and it is difficult. But just imagine for a moment that we triple or quadruple the size of that.

It’s easy enough if you’re in Vancouver or the Lower Mainland or southern Vancouver Island. But the idea that rural ridings, maybe the Okanagan…. As we’ve seen under the proposed maps of the 2009 electoral referendum, the maps showed clearly that the Okanagan would be a riding from Princeton all the way over to the border, up to Vernon. It’s unbelievable. I think it’s delusional to think that this system is going to give more on-the-ground, local people the ability to make the decision as to who they want as their representative.

I think the other thing that we…. The size of ridings, as we’ve seen from the work that was done by the citizens’ assembly back in 2003…. It showed the fact that there was…. We had larger ridings. There was going to be a different approach, and that system that was considered was off the table this time.

To the government, what’s going to constitute rural versus urban? I know that I’m from an area that’s growing rapidly. Is it considered urban now because of the fact that the population is nearing 200,000 people in that geographic centre? I don’t know.

Then, I guess, the bigger issue is: what’s going to happen with the voters’ choices in terms of party lists? Is it going to be an open or a closed list? I think we all know that the Premier spoke out about the fact that he’s opposed to closed lists, and he wants to make them open.

What I think is important and the reason that this amendment is in front of us is the fact that we do not have clarity in terms of what it is that we’re selecting. We’re being left to a committee that will likely be controlled by the government that will make these decisions. “Don’t worry. Take a leap of faith.” We’ve heard lots about that. As a matter of fact, that’s what Bill 40 is all about. It was created after and introduced after the referendum was actually started.

Here we are in the supposed last week, which has had an extension because of how flawed this whole process has been, whether it’s ballots that have been found in apartment recycling bins, etc. But we have thousands and thousands of people that have talked about the validity of the ballot.

[2:05 p.m.]

I think the fact is that there’s no question that there’s a danger that we have grounds for, perhaps, a spoiled referendum. The validity of those ballots, the fact that the signatures….

Members from our side of the House went to Elections B.C. They were told by Elections B.C. that they’re not validating the signatures. They are looking to make certain that that ballot, that that person, is on the voters list and that the birthdate matches up, which is easy enough to find out if you happen to be a good Facebook searcher. The reality is that there is room for doubt in the minds of the people of British Columbia that this vote will be spoiled. The fact is even Elections B.C. has said that.

How is it that we could possibly consider altering our voting system on the basis of the fact that we’ve got people that maybe are willing to do anything to see their side win in a particular election like this? This is not a democratic process in the way that it should be.

To change our democracy in this type of thing, this should have been a secret ballot, just the same as it is during a provincial election. The idea that it’s been rushed, etc…. I mean, I know that there’s a lot of contradiction about whether that’s true or not, but the bottom line is that we even have the agency that is responsible — the independent agency, not to be politicized by the government — essentially in doubt of some of the things.

It’s fine if it’s an indication on a direction where the government might go. I’m not certain that I believe in that type of governance. More importantly, on page 8 of the guide from Elections B.C. that was circulated to every household in British Columbia, there’s a promise in here — when the ballots were actually already in the mail and before Bill 40 had been introduced in this House — that we were going to guarantee that there was going to be, in two election cycles, another referendum, and you’re going to be able to change it back. That’s the leap of faith.

Well, that’s wrong. That’s undemocratic. It just doesn’t make any sense at all. The bottom line is that what happened to the system that people actually told…. The citizens’ assembly told British Columbians that they wanted to go with what they thought was the best proportional system. That was the STV, which ran both in ’05 and ’09 in general elections and was soundly defeated under the rules of where the threshold was, at 60 percent of the voters having to support it.

Now we have this referendum, and we’ve reduced the majority down to a simple 50 percent of the ballots cast. The fact is that we’ve got an agency like Elections B.C. that can’t verify or certify the fact that every one of these ballots cast has actually come from the voter it was intended for. To me, that stinks.

I do think that when we look at this referendum, there are parallels today in the way that this has been run and the way that certain things have started to take place, even in the past week, here in the Legislature.

The situation is that we want transparency. We want to make certain that when people see something from legislators, like myself and the others here, that there is 100 percent certainty of the fact there is clarity and truthfulness in that. The bottom line is that Bill 40 deserves to be delayed because of the fact, really, of these things: multiple deficiencies, the fact that we haven’t had that meaningful public engagement.

What happened on the meaningful public engagement? I filled out the engagement back in February. I don’t recall being asked about STV and where it ended up. I haven’t seen the results of that engagement to show that STV was clearly not one of the preferred models, even after the citizens’ assembly spent over a year going around and talking to British Columbians. That’s the system that they believed that British Columbians wanted, a system of being able to rank people within that and essentially being able to elect elected representatives by voters through a system that they designed themselves.

This system has clearly been rigged in the favour of party lists. I mean, come on. This is about parties rather than the voters. The voters should have the first right of being able to make the decision about who they’re voting for. And the fact is that this party list is going to lead to people probably getting less engaged in voting, rather than being more engaged.

[2:10 p.m.]

I mean, if I don’t know anybody on a party list…. How many times do you go to vote in a civic election — or municipal, regional district, school board — and you know everybody who’s on there? I had to do as much research as I could about each candidate.

To think that, on a party list, there are going be 20 or 30 names, and I’m going to have, maybe, a choice at selecting or approving those. I’m going to maybe have heard of some of them, but it is fundamentally, democratically wrong. It is not the type of transparency. That’s what people are saying.

The media, all week, have been talking about: “Let’s be clear and honest and truthful about what it is that’s going on here.” I think that this particular bill only adds another black eye to the government in terms of what their objective is and in terms of what they’re doing.

The bottom line is that they need to come clean on this in the sense that Bill 40 is about this promise on page 8 of the referendum guide that says: “Another referendum will be held after two general elections to see if B.C. wants to keep the new voting system or go back to using first-past-the-post.” How disingenuous is that?

The reality is that…. Let’s be clear. Why don’t we have transparency right up front? Let’s have a debate. Let’s get on with the idea that, if voters want a change, like everybody thinks that they do…. There’s no doubt there are people that are passionate about it both in my riding and many ridings around the province.

The reality is that, at present, we still only have a voter turnout, even if all those votes are legitimate, of probably just over 30 or 35 percent. We’ve extended the referendum for another week, and hopefully, without any other postal interruptions, etc., Elections B.C. will get that information.

I have no idea how they’re going to count. We know that they can’t validate those ballots that may have come from the recycling bin in apartment buildings where people have picked it up and sent it in. Who’s to say that it’s not their ballot? It’s got the birthdate on it. It’s got a signature. They’re not validating. I don’t think Elections B.C. knows what my signature looks like. I think that the reality is that we really do have a significant problem.

Speaking further to this amendment, I just want to make certain that we give this sober thought, that it’s transparent. The fact is that we move forward on the basis that we know that this referendum has some imperfections — the imperfections of whether the ballots are legitimate. There’s a possibility, as we have heard, that the ballots may not be as truthful or as forthright or as honest because the system is not a closed or secret ballot as it is in general elections.

I think that the idea that the voter turnout, if we’re going to make this change…. Let’s just say that, as some polls suggest, maybe it’s a dead heat. Is it worthy for the British Columbian voters to change our electoral system on the basis of maybe 15 percent or possibly 20 percent of the voters saying: “We want to change”?

The fact is that they’ve been confused, lots of them. I know many examples of people that have accidentally recycled their ballot because it doesn’t look much different than a lot of mail that comes into people’s homes today. The situation is that, if we’re going to make this huge democratic shift, we want to make certain it’s done in a fair, transparent manner that everybody understands and that we get full voter participation on this.

I’ll take my place. Thank you for listening to me on this amendment.

S. Gibson: I want to thank my colleagues, particularly hearing a good presentation by my colleague from Kelowna West and thoughtful remarks earlier by the member for Skeena.

Speaking to the amendment…. Yeah, it’s definitely in order that we need to delay this process. It’s quite alarming. As the member for Kelowna West just noted a moment ago, the real sense is that this government was not prepared and rushed into this approach with the electoral reform referendum, Bill 40, to the extent that the whole culture of our province is disturbed and alarmed.

[2:15 p.m.]

I want to make a comment about young people today. The Premier has alluded to the fact that this appeals to young people, perhaps more than others. However, as someone who taught university for many years, I will say this: young people, unfortunately, are cynical. They’re cynical of sports heroes, they’re cynical of movie stars, and of course, they’re cynical of politicians.

Here we are in our Legislature, this forum for democracy in our province — this only, unique forum. It’s my sense that young people today, as I talk to them, are cynical, and that cynicism is being promoted by Bill 40. We know how partisan it is, how political it is. The intentions are not honourable. We understand the roots of this initiative. It’s all about keeping this government in power.

The tragedy is at what price. At what price will this marriage, this temporary relationship between the NDP and Greens, unravel? All is hanging on this Bill 40. I’m alarmed to see that, as someone who has been involved in elected office for 37 or 38 years. I look across at the other side of the House, and I’m disturbed. I really am disturbed.

Now, the tragedy is that nobody really asked for this. If this were only $300,000 or $400,000 and a random vote to test the public, I suppose that would be defensible, but spending $14 million to $15 million of the taxpayers’ money with no request? I’m not sure.

Hon. Member for Kootenay East, did you get anybody asking you for this? I didn’t either. My suspicion, along with the member for Kootenay East, is that probably most of us didn’t get asked for this, and here we are, in the midst of something so disturbing and so complicated.

Why do I mention cynicism? The first two goes at this, the first tries at electoral reform, were done in a non-partisan way. There was a citizens’ assembly, a lot of consultation. Well, the result was that it was defeated on both occasions. Now here we are at it again, a third time, not by request. I’m troubled by that. I think this government is going in the wrong direction.

The likelihood is that there will be a relatively small turnout. We don’t know the final figures yet, but this government has said it doesn’t matter. A teeny, tiny turnout — not a problem: “We’ll abide by the results, whatever they are.” Well, that’s troubling as well. It really discredits the power of democracy. May I say this.

Deputy Speaker: May I ask you to take your seat for but a moment to entertain an introduction.

The minister seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Conroy: Earlier today the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, who is the MLA for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, introduced a group of students who are now in the gallery with us today. They’re all from Maple Ridge Secondary School. I wanted, on her behalf, to introduce you again and welcome you to the Legislature. I hope you enjoy your afternoon.

Debate Continued

S. Gibson: It’s a pleasure to speak to this again, representing my constituents of the Abbotsford-Mission riding.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’ve made the point in earlier remarks regarding something called a pyrrhic victory. A pyrrhic victory, as probably most of you will know, is when you win all the battles but you lose the war. I’m afraid that, should this pass — I certainly hope it doesn’t — this, in many ways, will be a pyrrhic victory, because it’s setting the stage for another referendum, which could possibly change our political system forever. We can be victorious in the battle but lose the war, and I worry that this government has little regard for that.

My tenure in elected office has taught me that democratic accountability is everything. Most of you know someone who has been defeated for elected office. I’ve been defeated. I ran for office and was defeated. It’s okay to be defeated, but it’s better to keep trying. We’re all elected to this place today because of accountability and electoral democracy.

With all three of the proportional representation proposals, there will be appointed members. How will that accountability work? Nobody quite knows. In fact, there are over 20 dimensions to proportional representation that have not been explained by this government. Indeed, as I look at this Voter’s Guide, it’s really hazy as to how these three systems that are being proposed really operate. In fact, one of them doesn’t even exist. I’m not quite sure why it’s on there. I believe it was kind of dreamed up as some kind of ideal.

Our system works. It’s easy to explain. I was talking to a young person just the other day, and she expressed some support for proportional representation. When I asked her a few questions…. “Did you know there will be appointed MLAs?” She wasn’t clear on that. “What about the ridings? What about the sizes? Who’s accountable?” Now, I live in my riding. I have a listed home phone number. My office is in the riding, on a busy street. People just drop by to say hi. They know I’m their MLA.

One thing I never do when people come and see me for an issue, if they want to talk to me about something…. I never say: “Oh, by the way, did you vote for me last time? Are you a B.C. Liberal?” Of course not, because first and foremost, I’m an MLA for everybody in the riding — everybody. I believe that applies across the floor as well. We are MLAs first and, to some extent, the partisan side second. When we come to this Legislature, it’s magnified; it’s emphasized. But in the constituency, I don’t talk about my party affiliations. In the office, it’s irrelevant.

Under proportional representation, the system will be­come highly partisan. Remember: lists. Lists of what? Lists of favourite chocolate-chip cookie recipes? Lists of favourite names? No. Lists of parties. That’s what it will be. It’ll be lists of parties. You’ll have two or three MLAs. You’ll have, maybe, myself being elected, and then have a couple more representing two other parties, who may be appointed from lists. The tragedy is that it makes the system very partisan.

I worry, and this has been shared significantly here in this chamber, about the resurgence or the growth of micro-parties dedicated to divisive causes — the Vancouver Island Party or, maybe, the Vegetarian Party. Whatever it is, parties that have a very narrow constituency may get 6 or 7 percent of the vote and get seats in the Legislature. It can be highly disruptive.

Here’s the point on that, speaking to the amendment. We have, basically, two major parties in this House. One is centre-left, and one is centre-right, but we’re consensus parties. On the government side, there are three or four different camps represented within that party. That’s a good thing; that’s a healthy thing. That’s a consensus-building arrangement.

[2:25 p.m.]

On our side of the House, I would say, as an umbrella party, we have different folks that come under that umbrella — all for the good of consensus. We’re building consensus all the time. That’s a healthy thing — speaking to the amendment. We want to be united. We want to be together as one, because it’s for the good of the taxpayers.

Now, we’ve heard about the tragedy of proportional representation in some other areas. It’s often cited: well, what about Northern Ireland? Not a good example. They’ve gone for months without government.

Here’s the point that I want to share, which we haven’t talked about too much: proportional representation is more expensive, according to research. I’m advised that in countries that have proportional representation, they will spend 6 to 7 percent more because of all the negotiation with the smaller parties. Check it out; the research is available. In proportional representation, you’ve got a lot more spending because you’re always trying to aspire to serve the smaller party and make them happy. Well, the tragedy there is that you’re spending a lot more money unnecessarily.

If we’re going to add a whole lot more seats to this legislature, I’m not sure where we’re going to put them. We may have to have split-level seats. That’s going to be a lot more cost as well. If you ask the public, “Would you like to have more MLAs…?” If you surveyed them, I think most of them would say: “How about less MLAs? Why do we want more?”

Coalition governments struggle. We’ve seen that in Belgium, Germany, Northern Ireland, as I mentioned, and many other countries. Coalitions don’t give good government, generally. They can. I’m not saying it conclusively, but for the most part, having good, solid, majority government is good leadership. Now, if people are unhappy, they toss those folks out and replace them. That’s the basis of democracy.

One of the troubling aspects to the current vote which is taking place right now…. We have a week’s extension. This was noted a moment ago, and I want to just reiterate: Elections B.C. cannot confirm the signatures on the ballot. They can’t confirm them. If they get a ballot with a signature, they can’t identify it. They don’t know whose it is, but you’ve signed it. My question is: are they accepting that ballot? I’m wondering about that. Are they accepting a ballot with a signature they can’t identify?

The second thing is birthdates. Some of you know — all of you know if you’ve seen the ballot — a birthdate is required. Well, if a person doesn’t put their birthdate on and the ballot is found by somebody, it’s not very difficult to find the birthdate of someone, using Facebook or some other means. There’s a lot of information on the Internet.

I’m very worried. I’m questioning the veracity of the ballot process — troubling. You can’t identify the signature, and the birthdate can be found elsewhere. Now, we know that hundreds of ballots are just being discarded in apartment buildings, condo projects, just left in the lobbies. Well, suppose somebody intercepts these? I’m worried about that.

I’m alarmed that this process is really flawed. I think we definitely need more time on this. The government, I think, has done a very inadequate job of getting ready for this referendum. It was never requested. Nobody wanted it. Now here we are in the midst of something where it can be approved by only 50 percent plus one — to change the whole system, potentially forever. I’m alarmed, and those are the comments I want to make.

[2:30 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: It is always a pleasure to rise in this House and actually share my thoughts on behalf of residents of the Shuswap. Shuswap is an amazing riding. I know, Madame Speaker, you had the privilege of actually spending some time in Shuswap a number of years ago, and I know you can attest to just how amazing the Shuswap is.

Shuswap Lake is one of the most pristine waterways, the best boating in western Canada. Shuswap is about 8,400 square kilometres, comprised of five different communities, five different First Nations. Actually, all are part of the Shuswap. It is always great to stand in this House and speak on behalf of those hard-working individuals in the Shuswap.

Speaking to the amendment on Bill 40 that is before the House, I think it’s important to go back and, as my colleague just previously indicated…. Where is the demand for this referendum in the first place? I know back in the election in 2017, I canvassed a lot of doors and talked to literally hundreds upon hundreds of individuals in Shuswap, and not once did one individual in 2017, coming up to the 2017 election, ever mention to me any concern about the manner in which we actually elect governments here in British Columbia.

As has been canvassed here in the House previously, we’ve had two referendums previously — one in 2005, I believe it was, and the other in 2009. In both instances, there was a resounding no from British Columbians. They were not interested in moving away and deviating from the current electoral system that I believe serves both our province and our country extremely well.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Canada is one of the most sought-after countries around the globe. We’re recognized internationally as being a very robust democratic nation, and I’m very proud to be Canadian. When you have a look at the referendum that’s before the House, there certainly wasn’t a lot of demand for it, coming up to the 2017 election. So we see ourselves here with this referendum that’s been pressed upon British Columbians, and we have to take stock and actually give thought to the reason why that is.

I think we have to look no further than the three Green Party members and give thought to what would be in their interest and why they would be moving so hard and applying pressure to their NDP partners in order to see this referendum on proportional representation actually move forward.

As the three Green Party members, who had about 16.8 percent, I believe, of the provincial vote…. Under any form of proportional representation, the vote or the number of seats that they’d actually maintain in this House would be reflective of the provincial vote. At 16.8 percent of the 87 seats in this Legislature, the easiest and the quickest way for the Green Party to actually increase their seat count in the Legislature would be to move towards any form of proportional representation. I think this is certainly very self-serving from the Green Party in that it’s the way that they can actually increase their seat count in the House most dramatically.

I know that in previous referendums, both in 2005 and in 2009, there was a citizens’ assembly that was actually struck. About 160 individuals from across British Columbia were selected to actually canvass British Columbia to have a look at different forms of electoral processes that are undertaken around the globe and to make a determination on which form of proportional representation they felt was most desirable and the best to put before British Columbians as part of a general election in order to seek their advice and suggestions as far as whether they would like to actually see a different form of electoral process in British Columbia.

The citizens’ assembly — again, independent of any political players. As has been stated in this House, there are no less than 19 specific details that are not decided now and not presented to British Columbians. Those choices, those selections, those details would actually be determined after the referendum by what’s deemed to be an all-party committee, which is dominated by both Green and NDP members.

It’s really important when we have a look at something as fundamental as the way that we actually elect governments here in British Columbia that British Columbians are presented with all of the facts, that there is a clear choice. I think British Columbians, largely, have a good appreciation and understanding of the current electoral process we have in British Columbia — first-past-the-post. It’s adopted by all provinces in Canada, and it’s also used in our federal election. It’s something that’s well understood.

[2:35 p.m.]

When you look at giving British Columbians a choice, an option, to go away from the current first-past-the-post to another form of electoral governance, it’s important that they have all the details. But again, 19 specific details have not been identified, not been provided to British Columbians.

As the Premier has indicated, he’s asking British Columbians to take a leap of faith. As one of our esteemed columnists indicated, it’s more like a leap into the dark. I think that is something that we have to be cognizant of.

Again, just speaking to the amendment, this bill that’s currently before the House…. When you have a look at even this particular bit of legislation, in the midst of a referendum…. I believe it’s actually offensive for this legislation to be before the House and be discussed in the middle of a referendum of the magnitude, significance and importance that is before British Columbians now.

Back to the details in the 2005 and 2009 referendums. Again, an all-party citizens’ assembly was actually struck to identify which system. In the 2009 referendum, Elections B.C. actually went out and developed the riding maps so that British Columbians, when they went to the polls and had that option of potentially giving consideration to a form of proportional representation, had all of the riding maps so they could see how their actual ridings would be expanded. It’s my understanding that with the current three systems that are presented before British Columbians, the ridings would, at minimum, double in size.

At the outset, I indicated how the Shuswap riding is about 8,400 square kilometres. Some of the ridings in British Columbia are over 100,000 square kilometres already. So giving consideration to doubling the size of a riding that could be as large as 8,400 kilometres, or up to 100,000 square kilometres and doubling that, you would have a riding literally larger than Vancouver Island and larger than Prince Edward Island. The manner in which that representative would actually be elected is something that I think British Columbians are very, very concerned about.

I’ve resided in the riding of Shuswap for over 40 years. I attended elementary and high school there. I married my high school sweetheart over 30 years ago this year, raised our four daughters. We have seven grandchildren all still residing in Shuswap. I’ve worked and resided and spent time on non-profit organizations in the Shuswap. I think it’s that understanding of a community which provides you that, I guess, intrinsic knowledge of what actually makes the vibrancy of your community, to be able to properly represent them in this Legislature.

We know that with the three different forms of proportional representation, in any case, some of the members would actually not be elected by the residents or citizens within your riding. They would actually be selected from party lists. One has to wonder how you would have an MLA representing your riding that may not even reside in your riding, may not have spent any time within your riding. You have to take stock and give wonder to what kind of representation they would be able to provide.

Although I know the Shuswap extremely well, I certainly would not feel comfortable in moving to a new community on Vancouver Island, as an example, and suddenly feeling that I had all of the knowledge necessary to provide proper representation to those residents. But that is exactly what would happen under any form of proportional representation, should that referendum actually pass in favour of PR.

When we give consideration to the manner in which this referendum has actually been brought forward to British Columbians — the fact that there was not an independent, all-citizens assembly to actually create the options, that 19 different specific details have not been identified and are going to be left for the politicians to decide after the referendum — I think everybody is extremely concerned.

Then, also, you have a look at the manner in which this question is being put before British Columbians. There is nothing more fundamental, of importance, than the manner in which we actually elect our representatives, the way that we actually elect our governments, in this great province of British Columbia.

[2:40 p.m.]

One would certainly think that the government would have a responsibility to ensure that whatever manner in which they put that question to British Columbians, it would be designed in such a manner as to ensure maximum voter participation.

I believe that in the last provincial election we had about 57 percent voter turnout. We know from previous examples that whenever we go with a mail-in ballot, the voter participation rates are far less than that. Clearly, if the intent is to truly get the direction from the majority of British Columbians, you would certainly expect that the government would design the referendum in such a manner as to ensure maximum voter participation. By doing so, that would be by holding a referendum in conjunction with a provincial election.

But that certainly isn’t the case. They have chosen the one option, the mail-in ballot, which we actually know, historically, provides some of the lowest voter turnouts. I think that if we give that consideration to…. Why would the government decide to have such a fundamental question of such significance and put that question to British Columbians not in conjunction with a provincial election but through a mail-in ballot?

We certainly have seen, with the voter participation rates to date…. Today it was sitting around 32 or 33 percent — certainly far short of what we’d see as far as voter participation rates that would actually occur had it been in conjunction with the provincial election. As we’ve heard, Canada Post is actually expanding and extending the deadline by a further week, through to the first week of December.

I do hope that British Columbians take the time to ensure that they send their message to government to let them know what their thoughts are on the current referendum that is before us. It certainly has been the topic of all of the media outlets over the last five or six weeks now.

There wasn’t a lot of discussion early on. During the summer, there was very little discussion at all on PR. Even into September, when I was asking constituents in Shuswap — just asking them about their thoughts on the upcoming referendum — many, many constituents indicated that they had no knowledge of the referendum.

I’m happy to see that the media has been providing really good, solid coverage. They certainly are expressing their views. Even the Vancouver Sun editorial board felt that…. They were quite bold in their statement, saying that the manner in which the current referendum was put before British Columbians is something they can’t support. So not just the 19 details, but you also have to look at the level of threshold.

I was talking about the voter participation rates. That’s one concern. The other concern is that if you’re looking at fundamentally changing the way that we elect governments in British Columbia, you want to make sure there is a very strong and very clear mandate. Previous referendums had two thresholds. They both required a 60 percent threshold in order for a referendum to actually pass, and it also had to pass in 60 percent of the ridings.

If we look at the makeup and the geography and the different economies of British Columbia, it’s important that every riding in the province has a direct say in the actual outcome. Previous referendums had the 60 percent requirement in order for a referendum to pass, and as well, it had to pass in 60 percent of the various ridings around British Columbia. That only makes good sense. That would provide a strong indication to government that there actually was, indeed, a need and a desire to change.

However, what has the current government, on direction from their Green partners done? They’ve removed the regional threshold, which was something that the Premier actually promised during the election — that the regional threshold would still be maintained. Broken promise by the Premier. Broken promise to British Columbians. That regional threshold was actually removed.

In addition, they reduced the 60 percent threshold to 50 percent — a bare-minimum majority, the lowest-possible majority, that you could have. A 50-percent-plus-one vote could effectively change the way that we elect our governments. That’s extremely concerning.

[2:45 p.m.]

I know that the NDP party itself, their own constitution within their own party…. If they want to change the policies within their own party, it requires a two-thirds majority. A two-thirds majority in order to change the direction — I think that most people could actually understand and appreciate that.

Look, if you have an organization and you are going to fundamentally change the direction of that organization, you can’t have that pass on a bare 50 percent plus one because you could do the vote the next week, and it could go the other way.

There’s a reason why they have a very high threshold when you’re making a change as significant as changing the policy direction of the NDP party. Even the Societies Act of British Columbia…. The Societies Act of B.C., that all non-profit organizations are actually required to attain to and to follow and adhere to, also sets out a two-thirds majority for any direct policy change within those organizations.

If it’s important enough for the NDP party to have a two-thirds majority to change the direction of their own political party and if two-thirds is the requirement that we impose upon non-profit organizations if they’re going to fundamentally change the policy direction of their organization, one has to wonder why on earth the NDP would lower that threshold for something as important and significant as the way that we elect our governments. Why would they reduce that to a bare 50 percent plus one?

Well, I think, again, we have to look no further than the Greens. We know that the NDP were very anxious to get keys to the treasury, and the manner in which to do that was to form an alliance with the Green Party. In order to get that alliance and get that support of the Green Party, there was a whole series of concessions that had to be undertaken by the NDP in order to gain the confidence of the Green Party. That’s all set out in the confidence and supply agreement.

Again, you have three Green Party members representing only three out of 87 ridings in the province, attaining only 16.8 percent of the provincial vote. Yet, they have disproportionate influence on the current government in order to ensure that they have a way of actually imposing upon the government their desire for things that they see in their self-serving interest. That is exactly what we would see forevermore under any form of PR.

Let’s just think about the mechanics of this. As I indicated, 16.8 percent of the provincial vote by the Green Party who elected three members to this House, the representatives of the Green Party…. Their message only resonated with the majority of voters in three ridings in British Columbia. Now, under the last provincial election, had PR been in place, 16.8 percent of 87 seats…. Doing the math quickly, that’s probably around 17 seats. So the Green Party would actually be entitled to an additional 14 seats that they didn’t win. So where would those members come from? Well, those members would be selected off of a party list.

The leader of the Green Party, along with his comrades-in-arms, would actually have a look at their friends on this party list, and they would start to identify 14 of their biggest friends or contributors, and they would actually assign those people seats around British Columbia. These other 14 members would not have been duly elected by their residents or citizens of British Columbia. Yet, they would have an opportunity to take a seat in this House, representing constituents in a riding where they may not reside, likely would not reside, and may not have even spent any time. I think that is absolutely offensive.

The system that we have, first-past-the-post, in British Columbia serves us extremely well. Certainly, no electoral system is perfect. But there are lots of efforts that we could undertake in this House to improve the way that the current Legislature operates. I know that the NDP certainly speak a lot of rhetoric about a new way of doing business and about being collaborative.

I believe, currently, there are 21 pieces of legislation that are before the House, private members’ bills that are sitting before the Legislature that could get called. So if the current government actually believed in the idea of collaborating with all parties, they certainly would have the opportunity to bring forward any one of those bills for consideration here in the House in a collaborative, networking manner. But they have failed to do that.

[2:50 p.m.]

As we look to this current referendum and the current bill that’s before the House, even giving consideration in the middle of a referendum about imposing on a future government two elections from now, forcing upon a future government a form of referendum…. It’s ludicrous. A current government cannot bind a future government.

Again, what was the strategy? What was the reason why the NDP would make the determination of holding off the current bill that’s before the House until this fall session? It could have been brought forward last spring, but they chose not to. It was politically driven and strategically placed such that this bill was before the House in the midst of the referendum — which, by the way, was right on the heels of a municipal election. Again, just adding more complexity and confusion to voters around British Columbia.

I’m a proud British Columbian. I’m a very proud Canadian. The electoral system that we have both in B.C. and Canada, I believe, has served us extremely well. No system is perfect. There were certainly opportunities, and many opportunities that are available today to the current government, should they look to make some small changes to actually provide an opportunity for more collaboration with the opposition parties. But we certainly aren’t seeing that, and we certainly are seeing the three Green Party members have disproportionate influence on the current government.

With that, I will take my place.

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

As we approach the end of the voting period, it’s imperative that we raise concerns. I want to raise the concerns that I’ve heard from my constituents, concerns that are shared by the rest of British Columbia. What it really comes down to is simply a lack of information. There are still just too many unanswered questions for citizens to appropriately respond to the referendum question. Voters are frustrated with the process. The only thing that’s getting clearer is that this process has been absolutely flawed from the very beginning.

This referendum is one of the most significant things that British Columbians will vote on. It is imperative that citizens are given time to understand what exactly it is they are voting for and what the possible outcome of their vote might be. It’s only fair that they are given adequate information before they make their decision. This vote has the capacity to change the fundamentals of our electoral system. It will impact British Columbians both at the local level and across the province.

Citizens are beginning to understand the flawed process of this referendum and the lack of thought that went into it. In the last referendum, there was an independent citizens’ assembly that was comprised of 160 panel members. They consulted with British Columbians from all over the corners of the province to see what kind of improvements citizens would like to see and how the referendum question could be posed.

This is a far cry from the referendum that’s before us today. There was no independent citizens’ assembly, and there was no consultation with the public. There was only a skewed on-line survey that very few British Columbians were aware of or even participated in. Instead, the Attorney General and his staff decided what the process would be. He also decided how the question would be worded. The Premier promised citizens a clear ballot with a simple yes-or-no question: do you want to change our electoral system?

It should have been an easy question to respond to, and it should have been asked at the same time residents were voting in municipal elections. After all, they would already have been at the polls.

[2:55 p.m.]

This would have eliminated an additional cost of printed materials, postage for mail-out ballots, the need to hire additional electoral officers and the need to pay for return postage — all at an additional cost of about $15 million to taxpayers.

This referendum was called when citizens were busy considering local election issues. Convenient timing, really. Many citizens were busy informing themselves about prospective candidates and their platforms. They were also doing their due diligence and taking time to understand what the issues might be in their local jurisdictions.

Sure enough, the Premier did not keep his promise. There was no simple question, yes or no, and this question was not asked at the municipal election. It would have been easy to simply ask citizens if they felt there was a need to change our electoral system. That could have been the beginning of a reasonable process to determine what changes should be made to the electoral system, if any.

We know the timing of elections. Whether it is a municipal, provincial or federal election, we are given fair notice. Citizens should have been given fair notice for the referendum too. The government has a responsibility to organize its affairs and time in accordance with particularly significant events, such as a municipal election.

It was irresponsible of the government to dismiss how important municipal elections are to citizens, and it was unfair to have called a referendum in the middle of a municipal election. This prevented citizens from being fully informed on both local and provincial matters. Now that the dust is settling somewhat, citizens are asking why this referendum is being carelessly rushed through — trying to push through significant legislation that, according to Elections B.C., cannot be implemented any earlier than 2021.

It raises concerns. Voters would like to know why there’s so much urgency placed on holding a referendum vote right now and what the underlying motivation could be to rush through something so important, a decision so vital to our democracy and one that will materially change the way in which we govern in this province.

Who is pushing this agenda forward, and why? It certainly is not the citizens of British Columbia. I think I can offer a response for that question. As I see it, and many of my colleagues will agree, the only reason that this flawed referendum is being pushed through in such a rushed fashion is because there is an agreement between the Greens and the NDP that was made in June of 2017.

It was an agreement that was made after the election where the Greens would agree to support the NDP if the Greens could secure agreement to bring forward a referendum vote and further agreement that the NDP would support proportional representation. It’s quite clear that the rush is simply because the Green Party has one, single issue that they want to bring forward, and it is proportional representation.

The timing of this referendum vote was clearly intentional. Why not call for a referendum when voters would be distracted by another important election? This way, they would not have enough time to see what is really going on here, ensuring that most voters would be rushed to make a decision or, worse yet, that voters would not participate in the process.

The Premier has avoided answering questions from British Columbians. He waited until the last moment to engage in a leaders debate, and unfortunately, many of the questions that the voters had were not answered during the debate, so many questions remain unanswered. The biggest question that the province has pertains to the timing of this referendum. Instead of answers to this question, or any of them, we have a flawed process.

We also have a complex ballot, with three proportional representation choices. Two have never been tried anywhere in the world. Voters are being asked to vote on something so complicated that the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training admitted that she was not an expert on proportional representation and could not explain how it will work.

[3:00 p.m.]

We have already seen evidence that many voters will be excluded from participating. Ballots are being thrown into the junk mail box in condo units, easily accessible to others. Ballots are being mailed to incorrect addresses and may not be forwarded back to Elections B.C. in time to be re-sent to the proper address. And we have seen ballots that have been addressed to persons that are deceased.

A referendum should be taken as seriously as an electoral vote. Anything less diminishes the confidence that we should have in the process.

With so many important issues for government to address and work on — such as jobs, affordability, supporting B.C. businesses, cannabis, seniors issues and growing our economy — the motivation for the timing, the reason why the Greens and the NDP are calling for electoral change, is clear. It is simply because there was a conditional agreement between two parties, and not the public, to hold a referendum on proportional representation.

I support the amendment because there are other questions that remain unanswered, and voters have not been provided the opportunity to adequately educate themselves on this fundamental shift to our electoral process — the process as to how the referendum changed from a simple yes-or-no vote that the Premier promised in 2016 to a more complex question, which the Premier promised would not be the case. This raises concerns because it’s no longer a simple yes-or-no vote. This broken promise made by the Premier to keep voting simple is further complicated with the addition of three proposed proportional representation systems.

Voters will need to consider each option individually, and that makes the entire exercise much more complex. Further, the public has not received adequate information on what each choice would look like if it was enacted. These are questions that need to be answered before the public is asked to make a decision on them.

British Columbians deserve consultation on this process because the outcome of the referendum will impact how their votes will be counted in the future. It will impact their futures directly.

This province belongs to British Columbians, not to a select few political parties. This referendum should occur in the manner that is fair to citizens. They should be able to provide input on what kind of improvement should be made. How can we go forward with this referendum when there has been no independent citizens’ assembly or when independent consultation with British Columbians has been absent? What we have here is a flawed process, and it will surely result in minimal participation from citizens.

The Attorney General is calling all the shots here, deciding what the questions will be and which models of proportional representation would be on the ballot. There have been no substantial answers as to why there was a change in the consultation process or why the Attorney General — who has publicly stated that he supports proportional representation, claiming he is unbiased in the process — decided that the public should not be afforded an opportunity to comment on proposed changes or have any input whatsoever as to what model could be considered.

There are no substantial answers as to how the three options were chosen. Two of the three options have never been tried anywhere in the world before, and one of those two options was created by a university student.

My colleague the member for Surrey–White Rock, who holds an economics and business degree and has worked at the highest levels in the financial industry, along with my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano, who was the chief economist for the Royal Bank and a Harvard professor, say they could not understand the mathematical formula being used to determine exactly what method would be used to allocate seats. Well, if these folks are challenged with understanding the mathematical methodology used, how can we expect voters to understand?

[3:05 p.m.]

In response to a question directed to the Premier a few weeks ago, he clearly did not understand that a ranked ballot is a voting system and is distinctly different from proportional representation. If the Premier is confused between a ranked ballot vote and how it differs from proportional representation, again, how can we expect voters to understand what is being presented to them?

When the public has raised concerns and when legitimate questions are being put forward for clarification and more comprehensive explanations, there have been no answers. In response to these important questions being raised by the public, the Premier said that British Columbians should just trust him and take a leap of faith. The details will be shared after the votes have been cast.

I think most voters feel that taking a leap of faith is not the responsible thing to do. Voters should be given adequate time to comprehend each possible referendum outcome. They deserve the time to understand what a new voting system means, and they need time to fully understand how each of these proposed options will impact them directly.

There’s another reason that I support the amendment. In the last referendums, there was a minimum threshold that had to be met in order to make the referendum binding. The minimum level needed for voter approval was set at 60 percent, with a simple majority of 48 of the 79 electoral districts. In this case, referendum 2018, we’ve seen significant changes to the minimum threshold limits. In fact, the minimum threshold has been dropped to an alarming 50 percent plus one, with no regional thresholds whatsoever in place.

This means the population of Vancouver alone could change the way the entire province elects local representatives, how we govern in the province and how we hold governments accountable. How could this process be considered a fair vote for those who live in Quesnel or Salmon Arm or Vancouver Island? How will their voices be heard?

Everyone understands the importance of a minimum threshold. Even the policies of the NDP require a two-thirds majority to make a significant change. Why, then, is something as important as our democracy and how we elect our representatives and hold governments accountable allowed to be binding when there have not been sufficient voters to meet a minimum threshold?

Another important detail being left out is what the electoral boundaries will look like. All we know is that proportional representation will reduce the number of ridings. The four Tri-Cities ridings, for example, will likely be reduced to just one riding. Constituents in my riding are very concerned about what this means to them.

The rest of the province will experience enormous changes to their riding boundaries as well. Yet there is no clear indication or confirmation of where those boundary lines may change and, once those boundaries are in place, how representation in each region will be compromised.

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

Voters are worried about whether or not they actually understand the terms of this referendum. They are not sure who will actually represent them in their local riding. Will it be the MLA that they voted for? Or will it be a representative that has been appointed from a party list? Will voters be able to choose the option of voting from a closed list or an open list?

Most people are completely unaware of how their representatives may be elected or appointed in their riding under proportional representation. An appointed representative may not even live in your riding, and access to your MLA will be through a bureaucratic channel. Bureaucratic channels are not accountable to the people.

[3:10 p.m.]

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

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

Where is the information for those citizens who are trying to make an informed decision? Well, so far the information being provided lacks clarity, to say the least. The information being provided is intended to diminish valid concerns that the public has raised, concerns that voters have asked for in multiple questions. Instead of answers, they are being issued smirks, sneers and vague comments that don’t provide any actual information.

The fact that there are still so many questions is a clear indication that there has not been enough time for voters to understand the issues. It is no longer a simple vote, which we currently have under the first-past-the-post system. It is a much more complex vote with multiple options and multiple attendant consequences. We keep hearing that there is just no need to worry: there are already 90 countries that have proportional representation. The Greens, the NDP and the “yes” groups expect that voters will accept that statement, that that alone should be good enough and that you don’t need anything.

Well, if the voters want to accept that there are 90 countries that are already under proportional representation, they have to understand that sometimes there are unintended consequences that come with it. We only need to look at New Zealand, a country similar to Canada — it’s certainly worth repeating — where the leader of the New Zealand First party did not get elected in his own constituency because of his extreme views, including anti-immigration views. In fact, his constituents threw him out. He didn’t get elected, yet under proportional representation, the party reappointed him and brought him back. He’s now the Deputy Prime Minister, and he was even the Prime Minister for a time.

That’s probably what voters did not have in mind, yet the government and the public are left with unintended consequences. They have to deal with extreme issues, single issues and an appointed representative that cannot be removed. This is one example of the 90 countries that are under proportional representation.

Sweden is most interesting. In the recent election, 43 percent voted for a right government, 43 percent voted for a left government, and the remaining minority belongs to the Swedish Democrats. The Swedish Democrats are a very far-right group, which started off many years ago with a very small percentage of voters. Over time, their representation has grown to a substantial 17 percent. If you do accept proportional representation, you must accept the unintended consequences that are the reality in other countries.

[3:15 p.m.]

We’ve seen Belgium taking 589 days to form government. We’ve seen Iceland with the Pirate Party. We’ve seen Italy, and 70 government changes in only 65 years.

These are attendant consequences. We already know about these attendant consequences. And as the yes side tries to play down the negatives and the unintended consequences, they believe that they will get your vote because the NDP said: “If it doesn’t work out, we’ll just change it back in two terms.”

I don’t think that’s okay. We should not be figuring out anything after the referendum. Voters should know exactly what is at stake before ballots are counted, before they cast their ballot. Revisiting this issue two election cycles down the road, or eight or so years after the referendum, is not a good decision.

People have valid concerns and valid questions. They should be afforded the appropriate time to educate themselves in order to make informed decisions. The member for Prince George–Valemount made a very good point in her comments related to the public concerns. She summarized the public’s asking of legitimate questions: “That’s not fearmongering; that’s fact-finding.”

I don’t understand why the government is so determined to characterize any questions about this referendum process as fearmongering. Every citizen deserves the information to educate themselves as to what is before them, what the unintended consequences are, what the proposed systems are, what they are voting for. The public has every right to know and understand the fundamentals of proportional representation so that they can arrive at the understanding of what it means to them locally and around the province.

These questions still need to be answered. Because of the flawed process and deliberate intentions to stack the deck in favour of the outcome the NDP and Greens want, voters are being asked to make decisions that have serious implications even though they do not have, fully, the information that they need.

A few weeks ago someone shared with me that, while he was having dinner with some friends, the topic of proportional representation came up. He told me that his friends were well educated and that they were supporting proportional representation. When he asked them why, they confessed that they had seen a video that had talked about how great proportional representation would be and how everyone’s vote would count.

When my friend talked with them a little bit further, it became very clear that they were unaware of how the process came about. They were unaware that the number of MLAs would change. They didn’t know there might be a change in the boundary maps, and they certainly didn’t know that there could be a significant boundary change in certain areas across the province and that British Columbians living in the same province may actually be under two different voting systems. They were certainly unaware that MLAs could be appointed from a party list and that the appointed person may not even live in their riding. Of course, once they learned of these details and how local representation was compromised, their opinion changed.

Many people like to focus on the positive outcomes. It’s much easier to focus on the positive than think about negative outcomes or unintended consequences that can come from any decision.

It reminds me of my time working in the financial planning industry. I’d be talking to clients about their investments and the likelihood of projected returns and outcomes. This is at a time when it wasn’t uncommon to realize returns of 10 and 12 and even 15 percent.

Although I would point out the downside — the possibility of unintended consequences — and that, under certain extreme circumstances, they could even lose their investment, people would still focus on the positive — the positive that, possibly, they could get a sizeable return. It is just much easier to see the positive outcomes of a scenario than it is to focus on a negative outcome or plan for the worst scenario.

I’d like to hear some concrete answers. Because unlike a financial prospectus or disclosure statement, which have explanations in the small print, this referendum has no small print. A fair vote sounds positive, but when we get into the small print, when the details are exposed, it’s not a fair vote at all.

[3:20 p.m.]

Every vote does count. What is being presented and supported by the Greens and NDP is all about retaining power. It has nothing to do with better government, better representation, or even being more effective in government.

People have been getting their ballots in the mail. They’re still asking us how to vote. They’re still calling us with the same questions they got when the ballot first arrived. They’re still confused.

“How many MLAs will I actually have in my riding? What will the size of my riding be? What constitutes a rural riding or an urban riding? Do I know where my riding boundaries will be? How will they change after the vote? Will I be voting for a closed list or an open list, and how will I know? And what will be the options for what votes will be used?”

The biggest concern, of course, is: “Why should I trust government to figure it all out after the referendum? Don’t I have a say in this now?”

Many of these systems around the world do have voters directly voting for their representatives. The government included some of these systems in their feedback questionnaire that they supposedly used to inform the referendum. Yet, in the end, they discarded the systems that allow voters to choose their representatives and put in options that do not.

Two of the systems on the ballot are, as the Attorney General reports, not currently in use. Are we really asking British Columbians to vote on something that is currently not in use?

T. Shypitka: Thank you to my colleague from Coquitlam–​Burke Mountain.

It’s an absolute pleasure to speak for the southeast corner of the province, the only gateway to and from Alberta and the United States and the home of the fun-loving and hard-working people of Kootenay East and the shared land of the Ktunaxa First Nation.

Before I speak, I want to just give a quick shout-out to my cousin Jamie Shypitka. Apparently, he’s got the flu today, and I think I got a little bit of it too. I think it’s going around. I don’t know. We take those flu shots when we do, but it certainly didn’t help for me right now. I’m not feeling so hot, but we’ll plug away here.

It gives me great pleasure to take my place in the debate today and speak to the amendment of Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, motioned by my colleague from Skeena. I’ll try to read it here.

The amendment says:

“‘That this House declines to give second reading to the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 because the intent of the Bill to hold a subsequent referendum on whether to revert to the current first past the post voting system from a proportional representation voting system, if adopted, is meaningless when the government has failed to correct multiple deficiencies in the current electoral reform referendum legislation, including not seeking a clear majority approval from the electorate on a clear question, not providing for sufficient and meaningful public engagement, and using a confusing and complex referendum ballot.’”

I couldn’t agree more.

This has been a long, ongoing debate in the House. I’ve spoken personally to this bill three times, three amendments. Every time we come to speak, we bring different bits and pieces of information that are new and revealing. Some of it is the same messaging going back and forth, but overall we’re learning that this referendum just didn’t start as a botched referendum; it’s continuing and evolving as a botched referendum. So the amendment is valid, and I strongly support it.

It’s how we got here. I was watching TSN last night, and I was watching the misplays of the day, as we all kind of do sometimes. As I was watching all the different misplays, I was thinking about this bill. I was thinking about this amendment that’s before us right now and the fact that this is a series of misplays, with this referendum, that’s drawing really big concern on the validity of this referendum as a whole. I’d like to analogize it that way, as just being a series of misplays.

The first thing is the fundamental question to why we were having referendum at this specific time. The reason is quite clear.

[3:25 p.m.]

I went through and printed off a copy of the 2017 confidence and supply agreement between the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. New Democrat caucus. Essentially, this ten-page document has four chapters in it, and it addresses different ways and different themes and different relationships. The two parties, how the two parties are going to come together and form government. I’ll speak to that in a bit, but I guess that the first thing is that when you go and look at these four chapters, you think of all of the things that these two parties could come together on and decide. There are a lot of things that come to my mind that they could get together on.

Jobs would be one of them. Climate and sustainable economies. Fair wages. Workplace safety. Improving infrastructure. Maybe it could be about fixing the services that people count on, like health care and senior care or assisted living.

The number one thing that they addressed in this confidence and supply agreement was none of those things. It wasn’t even about K-to-12 education. It wasn’t about making life more affordable. The number one condition and the number one chapter in this confidence and supply agreement is on proportional representation and how important…. Putting forward a referendum on proportional representation is the number one deal in their agreement.

I found that really amazing because, I mean, I think there are a lot of things in this confidence and supply agreement I could wrap myself around. Lots of good stuff in here. Jobs and affordability and education, health care, senior care. Those are good things. But the number one thing is about putting a referendum together for the fall of 2018 on proportional representation. The time is actually spelled out. It has to be the fall of 2018. That is the first misplay of the day, in my opinion, on this referendum.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Those are 1 and 2. The third piece of bad form on this referendum is the blatant disregard the government and Green Party have for their own confidence and supply agreement. What I mean by that…. Even in this document here, subsection 3(1)(b)(ii) states: “The parties agree that they will work together in good faith.” And: “The parties agree to both campaign actively in support of the agreed-upon form of proportional representation.”

It says in the agreement that they are going to rally behind an agreed-upon form of proportional representation — not three forms of proportional representation, the “form” of proportional representation. The government can’t even abide by their own agreements, as we don’t have a single form but three forms on this referendum. More about those forms of proportional representation later.

The next three flaws or the next three misplays I’ve seen in this referendum kind of go together. Numbers 4, 5 and 6 in my misplays here are what the Premier promised before the referendum was even to start.

The first promise from the Premier was to have a fair, non-partisan, independent committee to decide the rules and form of proportional representation. That did not happen. We did not have, like we had in 2005 and 2009, a citizens’ assembly — a very unbiased group, a collection of 160 citizens from across the province, coming together, learning about different forms of proportional representation and what form would best suit British Columbians in the unique geographic, cultural, social diversities of this province.

That was done for the first two. The Premier said that he would do that again. He was going to put that unbiased committee to work, and they were going to come out with one well-thought-out form of proportional representation. But that didn’t happen. That was a false promise.

The second promise was to have a simple yes-or-no ballot on whether to move to a specific form of proportional representation, complete with maps and all details available for the public to view. Now we all know, through these debates, that did not happen. Now the public knows it as well. They’re asking questions all the time.

[3:30 p.m.]

I get constituents in my office all the time, and emails, text messages: “What am I supposed to do? What are these forms of proportional representation? How many MLAs will there be? Are they coming off closed party lists or open party lists? How big are the areas?”

Valid questions. I mean, if I’m buying a car, I want to look under the hood. We’re not allowed to look under the hood. This is just not clear, and that was the second promise that was broken.

The third was to recognize the importance of having regional thresholds so that at least half of the ridings would need to support a change in our electoral system in order for it to happen. That didn’t happen as well. I asked that question all the time — to members opposite, to people that support proportional representation.

I have no problem with somebody supporting something that they believe in, that they understand, and something that’s going to make us better. I’m all for that. Why wouldn’t I? I’ve got aging parents. I’ve got young children. I’ve got friends, if you can believe it. I’ve got skin in the game. I want us to be the best British Columbia we can be. But because there are no thresholds….

We’re so geographically diverse in this province. We’ve said it many times. We’ve got oceans and mountains and deserts and rainforests — everything. Cultural diversities as well. Social diversities. It has to be represented in the way that we vote. To eliminate geographical thresholds…. Saying that we need at least half the ridings in the province to go along with something like this — I don’t think that’s too hard to ask. I think that’s democracy at its finest.

To strip those thresholds away and say, “No, we’re just going to let it be just a general vote. And the 60 percent thing before? No, we’re going to reduce it to the most minimal support of 50 percent plus one,” really spits in the face of democracy. We need our regions represented, and we need to have a voice regionally. We cannot be controlled by a populist approach or an area of the province that has a larger geographic or larger voter base.

What makes us strong, what makes us unique, is how diverse we are. If that’s not represented, we’re failing British Columbians. That was misplay 4, 5 and 6. Actually, I threw 7 and 8 in there — the low threshold of 50 percent plus one and no minimal voter turnout. That would be screwup No. 8.

No minimum voter turnout. That blows my mind, and I think it does a lot of other people as well. We saw Prince Edward Island have a similar vote. I think they only got 37 percent of the vote out, and the Premier made a rightful decision and said that didn’t reflect the majority of Prince Edward Islanders. So they dismissed the referendum, based on that. I think that’s valid.

We’ve got right now…. As of yesterday, I think, about 32 percent of the electorate has weighed in, and I think that’s fine.

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, just wait. Please continue.

T. Shypitka: With no minimal voter turnout…. Right now we’re at about 32 percent, and I think, for the most part, the voting is more or less done. We have an extension to get those ballots in, but you can’t get any more. I think everybody has voted, for the most part. So we might get to 35, 36 or 37 percent, which is a lot better than I thought we were going to do at the beginning.

But because we’ve got three options and 37 percent turnout…. Say it’s split down the middle, 50 percent, on whether we have PR or first-past-the-post and, say, PR gets in by 51 or 52 percent. Then there are three options relating to PR. That splits it another three ways. Essentially — doing some quick math here — 5 percent.

Is that right, Member for Surrey–White Rock? She’s the brains on the numbers over here.

If we have, say, 36 percent voter turnout. Half of them is 18 percent. A third of that is six. We essentially have 6 percent of the electorate voting for one form of PR, and that is what we are going to have.

[3:35 p.m.]

Now, 6 percent doesn’t seem like a very strong number, in my opinion, on moving something as important as our electoral reform and how we elect representatives into this great place that we call the Legislature.

The mail-in ballot. Let’s talk about that misplay for a second. This is one of the greatest mishaps in this referendum. We’re living in the year 2018, and we have the greatest access to technology and speedy processing of election results. In my time running for city council, we had electronic balloting. It was efficient. It was fast. It did a wonderful job. We had the results within seconds. There was no real need for a recount because everything was done electronically and everything was placed properly.

This time we’ve got something really crazy with this mail-in ballot. It’s messy. It’s confusing. Some people don’t have access to…. In rural B.C., it’s a long way to mailboxes. We’re seeing now that…. I know in my riding, I’ve got constituents that have three or four ballots in their mailbox that don’t belong to them or any person in their family. They’re former or previous tenants that used to live there.

I’ve got one constituent at least that has two ballots in his name, and then, of course, I’ve got several or lots of constituents that have no ballots and they’re looking for them. They’re running down to Service B.C., or they’re trying to phone Elections B.C. to get another one mailed to them. Then we hear the stories of these big piles of envelopes and ballots that are sitting in dumpsters and recycle bins and all over the place.

Those are important documents that are going to decide on how we elect members to this place. So of course your mind can run wild, and I’ve had lots of constituents…. We’ve heard it here on fraud — the chances that fraud could happen. That’s a real thing.

I mean, when I filled out my ballot, I filled it out, put it in the secrecy envelope. You have to provide your birthdate and your signature, and then you put it inside the larger envelope that you mail — it’s a prepaid stamp — to Elections B.C.

Well, a birthdate is easy to access today on social media — one click on Facebook. I mean, how many people get clicks on people’s birthdays every day? “Oh, John Smith’s birthday is today. Wish him a happy birthday.” You know his birthday. You can go to his profile. You can see exactly when he was born if he chooses to put it on there.

Now, disturbingly enough, we’re hearing from Elections B.C. that they’re not going to be able to verify the signatures on the ballots. That was half of the secrecy envelope — the signature. We know how easily accessible the birthdate is, and now we’re losing the most important part of the secrecy ballot, which is the signature.

There are going to be some serious questions on how valid this referendum’s going to be, based on the mail-in ballot alone. And I’m just warming up to the greatest hits here on the other stuff. We’re at misplay No. 9, I think, right now on the mail-in ballot.

The mail-in ballot — that was the other thing. At first it was to save money. I think I heard that somewhere. They were going to save money with this mail-in ballot, and it was going to cost somewhere around $7 million to put through. Now we’re hearing it’s going to be around $15 million. Okay.

We just had a municipal election with electronic balloting. Why couldn’t it have just been placed, the referendum, on the municipal election? It would have been a little hurried perhaps, but it certainly would provide a lot more clarity than what we’re getting with a mail-in ballot.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: I can’t really hear the member on the other side….

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Yeah, well, we’ll see. The member on the other side says we’re going to have a higher turnout for this referendum than they did for the municipal elections. Perhaps.

[3:40 p.m.]

How many of those will be spoiled? How many of those will be questionable? How many will be fraudulent? Those are the things that we’ll be asking. So sure, okay. We’re going to have more of a turnout, but what is the quality of the turnout? That’s what I’m asking.

I’m glad to see some life on the other side, some questions being asked on the other side, because we’ve had this debate for quite some time. Something as important as this, and we have yet to see a member on the other side speak passionately about it. I’ll come to that a little bit later. How passionate actually are they with this referendum? Are they on board, or are they just kind of going along with this little piece here — the confidence and supply agreement?

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: They have to, right? It’s signed — signed and sealed and delivered.

The mail-in ballot. That’s bungle No. 9 in my greatest hits here, but the hits keep coming. We’re not done yet.

The promise from the Premier. I just saw the Premier. The Premier’s here. We talked about the three promises that were broken. I think he’s well aware of that. The other one was the promise that after two election cycles, we’re going to be able to do a redo here, if everybody’s not happy. We’re going to do a redo. We’re just going to vote to see if we want first-past-the-post back again.

I’ve got people in my constituency that like the idea of PR. I don’t blame them for that. I don’t blame them for liking or, like I said before, having a better way of doing something. I have no problem with that. But they’re hinging that whole decision on taking this leap into the dark — or leap of faith, or whatever you want to call it — on these three proposed systems, two of which have never been tried anywhere in the world before, and the third has been rejected by a citizens’ assembly two times. They’re willing to take that chance, that leap into the dark, because of this provision that says: “Don’t worry. Be happy. If all goes south, then you’ll be able to go back to where you were before.”

That’s a big promise, but that promise can’t be made. It’s impossible to guarantee that after two election cycles, we will have a redo.

Why do I say that? If we go to a system of PR, we will undoubtedly have minority governments. I don’t think anybody can question that. Any form of PR in the world is always based around minority governments. Once we get five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten different parties inside the Legislature here, they would essentially have to get together to form a majority, and then in order to pass a bill to bring about a referendum, they essentially would have to be voting against themselves. Because if we went back to first-past-the-post again, guess what: they’re all gone. Their guarantee for life, their job for life, is gone, because now they have to go back to the old system.

There’s just no way the Premier can guarantee that after two election cycles…. It’s a false promise. It gives me bungle No. 9. Sorry, that’s No. 10. We’re already into the double digits here.

What’s really crazy about this is it’s actually in the Elections B.C. manual, this promise, and we’re still debating it. We’re still here in the Legislature, and it’s already in black and white for people to read and to be further confused. There’s no real strong winner in any of these misplays of the day, but that one’s got to be up in the top three or four, anyways.

That’s No. 10. Number 10 is a current government cannot dictate to future governments what they must vote for. You can’t do that. You can’t legislate that. I’m sure the current government would probably have all kinds of ideas to put into future governments if that was true, but that’s just not the way it works.

Another goof-up with this referendum would be the Premier meddling and changing the characteristics of different forms of PR in the middle of the referendum. I used the words “goof-up” and “Premier” in the same sentence. I hope no one’s offended by that.

Interjections.

T. Shypitka: Oh, he didn’t mean to meddle. The Premier didn’t mean to meddle, but meddle he did. It was innocent meddling. Let’s call it innocent meddling by the Premier.

[3:45 p.m.]

He wanted to change the opinion of the characteristics of the forms of proportional representation, saying he was opposed closed party lists. Now, fair enough. Fair enough. The other party members don’t like closed party lists either — as the Premier gives me the thumbs up. But to say that in the middle of the referendum, when people have already made their votes one way or the other….

I’ll voice concern for the people that voted for first-past-the-post because they were opposed to closed party lists. They voted for first-past-the post, and then the Premier says: “No, we’re not going to do closed party lists.” They said: “I just voted for PR” or “I just voted for first-past-the-post because I thought there were going to be closed party lists.”

You can’t meddle during the referendum, even if it is innocent, as the Premier has stated. It’s just constitutionally wrong. I just don’t know how you can do that in the middle of a referendum. That’s screwup No. 11 in these misplays here.

The three options that are offered in this referendum have been noted earlier as being two options more than what the Premier promised — if you can remember back to the early part of the speech. As I said, the Premier promised only one form of PR: a simple yes or no on one form. Well, we’ve got three now.

However, on top of that, the fact is that two of the three options of PR have never been offered anywhere in the world before. Just think of that for a second. Two of the three forms of PR that are offered up to residents of British Columbia have never been tried anywhere in the world before. They’re theories, essentially, and that’s something that the government thinks is a responsible thing to put forward as a responsible option for British Columbians to vote on.

This is, I think, where the leap of faith and the leap into the dark came from. Surely it can’t be anything more than that, because it’s not an educated decision. That’s for sure, because we’ve got nothing to refer to. So that gets blunder No. 12.

For example, dual-member proportional and rural-urban proportional are virgin systems. They’ve never been used anywhere in the world. B.C. would be the guinea pig for either one of these two systems, if that was the chosen choice.

This once again speaks to the amendment that I’m supporting here today. It’s just a series of errors, a series of comedies. We cannot allow this to go back to second reading. We decline on that, and that’s why I support this amendment. They’re confusing. They’re unfounded. There is very little detail for anyone to make an informed decision, and most people are prepared to take, like I said, a leap into the dark.

Some people that I know want change just for the sake of change. Now, I don’t know why that is sometimes. But I think that’s a common thing for maybe…. I don’t want to categorize anybody, but sometimes younger people may think it’s just cool to change. I’ve even heard that some older generation people might say: “Yeah, let’s go for it. Let’s just do it. What’s the worst that could happen? What could possibly go wrong?”

I just find that is an irresponsible take. I think it’s not too hard to ask, to get educated, learn the systems with something this important. We’re not talking about the New Coke or a different type of shampoo or something like that. This is something very significant. It’s the way our province will, essentially, operate.

Going down to flounder No. 13 here, now, it would definitely be the lack of public consultation this referendum was based on. Consultation to reflect a simple yes-or-no question was not introduced, and this is a big concern for many people in the province.

The hits keep coming here. Now we’re on to No. 14. I categorized as misplay No. 14 the silly catchphrases that the proportional representation side branded to British Columbians. That, I thought, was really kind of misrepresentative in this whole referendum. You hear it all the time — catchphrases such as “Every vote counts,” “Forty percent of the vote gets 100 percent of the power.”

[3:50 p.m.]

Let’s look at “Every vote counts” for a second. First, under PR, there are thresholds that you need to legitimize or vilify your party’s existence if they are to sit in this House. In this referendum, it’s a 5 percent threshold. So any party that gets more than 5 percent, 5 percent plus one, will justify their position here in the Legislature.

Right now in B.C. we’ve got 26 registered parties — 26 or 27, something like that. I would suggest that there’ll be a lot more registered parties if PR comes into play. As a matter of fact, I can almost guarantee that there will be more parties.

We’ve heard of some of them here. I’ve got a list of them here somewhere. Maybe I’ll get to that in a second. Let’s look at some of them. For example, the Vancouver Island Party. It’s registered but not active. They are an actual registered party that wants to separate from British Columbia. It’s a legitimate party with real concerns.

Now this year we’ve got another registered party called the Rural B.C. Party. That’s a party that wants to separate. They want to have their own little kingdom, because they just, as this referendum is suggesting, don’t get their say. They’re going to let the populous decide for them. They’re going to have no representation on their geographical uniqueness in the province. So they feel like they’re left out.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: The warning light is on. The time has blown by here quite fast.

In a nutshell, I had about 18 different misplays of the day with this referendum, and that’s what’s speaking to this amendment that’s in front of us right now. It’s just too many questions, too many concerns. It just doesn’t make sense.

I’m going to put a different spin on it, if I can, at the end. I’m going to say that this isn’t botched at all. I’m going to say that this is masterfully designed. The other side knows the uncertainty. They know about what PR brings, so I think it’s actually a masterful design.

We have the Attorney General here. I think he’s actually brilliantly designed this to fail. I think he’s taken the confidence and supply agreement, as a condition of the power that the two parties need, and he’s used this botched system to make the deal with the Greens and still come out good in the end.

T. Wat: Thank you to the member for Kootenay East for having such an eloquent speech. He is lucky that during the Premier’s brief appearance in this people’s House, he listened to him. I hope it’s not too late for the Premier to do the right thing.

It is indeed my honour to stand in the people’s House on behalf of my constituents in Richmond North Centre to speak in support of the motion for second reading of Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, to be amended by deleting the text of the motion in its entirety.

Elections B.C. has extended the return for the referendum to December 7 because of the postal strike. Elections B.C. has released the latest update that about 30 percent of the ballots have returned. So with less than two weeks to go for the ballots to be returned to Elections B.C., the general feeling is that the voter turnout will be about 40 percent. The media do not expect the voter turnout to jump into the 50 percent range.

I really do not see any point for us to spend time debating on Bill 40, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, as tabled in this House. The intent of Bill 40 is to hold a subsequent referendum on whether to revert to the current first-past-the-post voting system from a proportional representation voting system.

As the amendment tabled by my colleague from Skeena said, Bill 40, if adopted, “is meaningless when the government has failed to correct the multiple deficiencies in the current electoral reform referendum legislation.” One of the deficiencies is not seeking a clear majority approval from the electorate on a clear question.

As members on this side of the House pointed out many times in our debate, in British Columbia’s two previous referenda on proportional representation, the B.C. Liberal government took steps to achieve a clear mandate. We required a clear majority of eligible voters, in a majority of ridings, to vote in favour of any change.

[3:55 p.m.]

Now the previous 60 percent threshold has been replaced with a 50-percent-plus-one threshold, the lowest the bar can be set. To vote for a new system that would change the fundamentals of our democracy and to vote for a new system to replace the current system that has been in use for over 100 years, shouldn’t the threshold be set higher? Even a strata council requires two-thirds of the landlords or residents to pass a change in the rules or regulations. How come the threshold for electoral reform is much, much lower than that?

I argue that the design of this referendum is obviously self-serving for the NDP and Green partnership. A government formed under proportional representation will be based on a backroom deal only after British Columbians have cast their vote. The deal bears only one goal in mind. That is to establish a partnership of power. Under such partnership, there will be promises of cabinet roles, but there will not be principles of governing. Instead of working on solutions to your problems, proportional representation means that MLAs have to worry first about what is best for their party and the parties they have formed a coalition with.

Coalition governments just don’t exist very long — certainly not for four years, as we are used to here. This instability is reflected in the length of government mandates. MLAs are forced to be shortsighted. In order to form a government, parties are forced to make deals with each other, and this is the norm. In cases around the world, this has led to enormous power being given to fringe parties and extremist parties. It’s not hard to find examples of coalition governments where religious, populist or even racist parties hold sway.

The system doesn’t reward consensus or compromises, and there’s none of the give-and-take that happens behind the scenes in a large party like the B.C. Liberals or the B.C. NDP. Fringe parties, fringe groups, are empowered and encouraged not to compromise. They are instead incentivized to dig in. What you get are hard-line parties setting the agenda. The system lends itself to chaos and confusion.

In New Zealand, the anti-immigration New Zealand First party failed to win even a single seat in parliament. Today they are a major force in New Zealand politics. New Zealand is particularly applicable to B.C., as they share our colonial heritage, Westminster model of parliament and long-standing democratic rule. It is especially pertinent as New Zealand moved to proportional representation in 1996, following a before-and-after analysis.

Peter Loewen is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto and the former director of the now-merged School of Public Policy and Governance. I would like to talk about Loewen’s study of the New Zealand electoral system as it relates to Canada. He looked at the last seven elections there under the same electoral system as Canada and British Columbia — that is, the first-past-the-post system — and the first seven elections after the transition to proportional representation.

Loewen identified an increase in the number of political parties winning seats under the PR system in New Zealand. He explained that with PR, “small parties can be given a disproportionate influence over policies.” Loewen also looked at the tendency of political parties to exploit social divisions, going beyond New Zealand to compile a list of the 15 western countries with the largest foreign-born populations, and Canada ranks fourth. His analysis is particularly relevant, as it involves countries similar to Canada in that they are “free, democratic, tolerant, liberal and developed.”

[4:00 p.m.]

Among those countries, Loewen found that “those with PR systems are more likely to have parties who exploit the social division of immigration and who are more successful in doing it…. The average seat share of anti-immigrant parties in proportional representation countries…is 10 percent.” An average of 10 percent of the total number of seats in a country’s legislature are held by anti-immigrant parties. This is indeed an alarming and disturbing phenomenon, especially to the constituents in my riding of Richmond North Centre, with over 60 percent of my constituents being immigrants.

This should be cause for concern for British Columbia, as we have a relatively high percentage of the population born overseas. If our province is going to adopt one of the three proposed PR systems, there is a very likely chance that the anti-immigrant fringe parties will occupy seats in the B.C. Legislature, and these fringe parties will push for their anti-immigrant agenda.

While members on the other side of the House may say that I’m fearmongering, this is indeed not fearmongering. I’m raising this possible scenario based on the research by Loewen, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. He studied the electoral system of 15 western countries with the largest foreign-born populations.

Loewen’s study found that in countries such as Canada that adopt the current first-past-the-post system, the number of seats occupied by anti-immigration fringe parties are 100 times lower than countries with PR systems. His study also substantiated the “no to PR” argument that PR electoral systems give fringe and extremist parties a great number of seats and disproportionate influence over policy.

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

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

The leader of the New Zealand First, who holds extreme views, was rejected by his own constituents. After the election, he was appointed by his party and became the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs in New Zealand. This is an example of how under PR, parties could appoint someone from their own list to represent constituents without the member actually being voted in by their constituents.

This is the case in each of the three proportional representation systems proposed by this NDP government. Right now I’m wholly accountable to my constituents in Richmond North Centre. I answer to them first. Under PR, voters will instead be represented by unelected MLAs answerable to nobody but their parties.

British Columbia is one of the most diverse provinces in Canada. We cannot afford the rise in anti-immigrant parties or extremist parties because even in a province such as British Columbia, we are not immune to racism.

As Loewen’s study shows, any one of the three proposed PR options could invite anti-immigration groups to have seats in our Legislature. And if you don’t think that could happen here, did you know that British Columbia now has 27 registered political parties? We need to consider those 27 parties exist under a system where the majority of these parties are never likely to win a seat.

PR will only increase the number of fringe political parties in our province. It’s one thing to laugh about the B.C. Excalibur Party, but the majority of British Columbians don’t want to see them given a single seat in the Legislature any more than I think we would like to see the Communist Party MLA given a seat.

Let me quote you a statement from the Communist Party of B.C. on June 10 of this year. While PR does “not guarantee more positive government policies,” it increases the chances to elect communists.

How about the Vancouver Island Party? A quote from Victoria News said: “Vancouver Island Party Lays out its Declaration of Independence from B.C.”

[4:05 p.m.]

Now let’s look at another fringe party, the Cultural Action Party. In an article published on October 16, 2016, the Vancouver Sun headline: “Anti-immigrant Party Registers for B.C. Election.” The Vancouver Sun reported that the leader of the Cultural Action Party, Brad Salzberg, “often puts out news releases against the influence of Chinese culture and Chinese-Canadian figures in B.C. In 2014, he led a campaign to get a well-known” — and well-respected — “UBC history professor fired. Dr. Henry Yu has lectured and written about politics and racism in B.C.”

I don’t think the majority of British Columbians want to see any credibility given to separatists or racist parties. But that’s how these parties start. In countries like Germany and Hungary, nationalist and extremist parties have gained a foothold because of proportional representation. In both countries, their influence increases with every passing election.

The advocates for PR argue that the lower voter participation is a direct result of the current first-past-the-post electoral system. Again, this is not true. It’s not the fact.

Peter Loewen, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, found that turnout in New Zealand elections “declined since the introduction of PR and suggests that ‘this should give pause to those who claim that PR has any large-scale effects on voter turnout.’ And counter to claims we will be happier with proportional reputation, Loewen found that New Zealand’s voter satisfaction ‘has never approached the high observed in the last election under first-past-the-post.’”

So here you are. We have all the research and studies to show that B.C. should not rush into any PR system without doing due diligence and providing sufficient information for voters to make an informed decision.

The ’09 survey that informed the referendum was created by four academics that the NDP has sworn to secrecy. Three of those academics felt the end result of the survey was biased and unfair.

The Attorney General, who is the so-called neutral arbiter of the process, campaigned in favour of PR, and his own staff have had input into the referendum process. Both the engagement survey and the final ballot questions were written by the Attorney General’s political staff and were finalized behind closed doors at the cabinet table.

British Columbians are being presented a piece of legislation that lacks basis in this reality. This bill is asking for British Columbians’ trust, for their leap of faith, as the Premier said, that if the proportional representation system turns out to be a mess, there will be an opportunity to fix it. Trust is only earned when action matches words. This government has not been doing that.

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

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

The citizens’ assembly rejected the party system, where parties get to choose their MLAs. The citizens’ assembly firmly rejected the mixed-member proportional system, MMP, that is the favourite of this NDP government. The citizens’ assembly rejected the MMP system because they did not want to move power from the voters to the parties.

In fact, of all the three proportional representation systems proposed by this NDP government, only MMP is in use in four countries, including New Zealand and Germany, which have seen the rise of anti-immigrant fringe parties holding the balance of power. The other two proposed PR systems have never been tried anywhere in the world.

[4:10 p.m.]

This NDP government has an obligation to explain to British Columbians why they are proposing these three forms of party-based proportional representation and why there are no details, including the number and size of the ridings and the maps of the ridings provided to voters.

Clearly, the NDP government is fully aware that once all the details of the three proposed proportional representation systems are known to the public, this PR referendum would be defeated by British Columbians. In fact, the three proposed PR systems contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to the Charter, every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election for members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly. If any of the three PR options were to be used, our voters will not be able to vote for their own chosen elected official. Instead, a political party will decide on which MLA will be assigned to the riding. I doubt if any British Columbian will be comfortable with a political party deciding on who to be their elected official. If the yes side of the referendum wins, British Columbians would not be able to choose their favourite MLAs. The political party would make the choice for you.

British Columbians don’t need a second referendum promise. British Columbians are asking for a clear, fair and transparent referendum with all of the information and the riding boundaries. They want to know if they will vote for one candidate or two candidates or if they will vote for a party with a closed list or open list.

It is appalling to see the Premier seeking to influence the outcome of the referendum, when voting is already underway, by stating that he will instruct his MLAs to vote for open lists instead of a closed list. Why didn’t the Premier come clean before the referendum even began? This is indeed very disturbing, discerning and disappointing for the leader of the government to have done so.

Without this basic information for the three proposed PR systems, this referendum is truly a flawed process, and it’s against the basics of democracy and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We saw this NDP government’s deliberate move to deprive British Columbians of information about the three proposed Premier systems. Voters are confused, frustrated and disappointed. This NDP government announced scanty details about this referendum only one day before the spring session ended on May 31. It is a deliberate move on the part of this NDP government and their junior partner not to allow MLAs to debate the referendum at length.

This NDP government introduced Bill 40, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act earlier this month, on October 2. The debate now underway should have been done at least in the spring session to generate more public awareness of this referendum.

I don’t understand why the debate we have now was not done in the spring session and has to wait until the voting is underway. Some British Columbians are already voting now. Again, this is extremely disturbing and disappointing.

In his response in question period last month, the Attorney General finally admitted that there’s not enough information provided to British Columbians about the three proposed PR options: “There are three specific systems that are being considered for proportional representation. If they feel they have enough information to vote in favour of the PR system, then they are going to do that. If they feel there is not enough information, they will vote to keep the existing system.” The Attorney General has finally admitted that this is a gamble for British Columbians. Just roll the dice and see what kind of system you end up with in the end.

[4:15 p.m.]

I made my decision 30 years ago to emigrate to Canada over other countries because of Canadian’s respect for democracy and for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a democratic country like Canada, our leaders should not have asked voters to make a leap of faith on proportional representation when it is actually, as Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun described, “a leap in the dark.”

I’m so proud to be on this side of the House. We have articulated so well the flawed process of this referendum. Members of this side of the House are standing up in this people’s House to point out how this NDP government, together with their junior partner, the Green Party, have been manipulating this referendum to ensure that an outcome will be in their favour and not in the favour or interests of British Columbians.

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

Let’s first take a look at how many factors won’t be considered until after the referendum — a total of 29, a staggering 29 factors. How are voters supposed to make an informed decision when so much remains unknown? We don’t know how many MLAs there will be. We don’t know what’s going to happen to our ridings. We don’t know, for example, for the municipalities that are represented, if the existing four Richmond ridings will be combined into one big riding. But one thing I can assure you: all ridings can be bigger.

As an MLA for Richmond North Centre, I’m so honoured and privileged, like all my colleagues in this House, that I can provide assistance to my constituents. When they come to my office for assistance or a meeting with me and my CA, we never ask them if they have voted for me or not. The MLA constituency office serves all constituents, whether they’re NDP, Green, B.C. Liberals or don’t even belong to any political party. That’s the way it should be, as the elected officials are the servants of British Columbians.

Under the three proposed PR systems, there’s a likely chance that the four existing ridings will be combined into one riding or, even worse, the neighbouring city of Delta might be lumped into Richmond. But we haven’t been able to get answers from this government. My constituents in Richmond North Centre, same as the constituents in the other three Richmond ridings, would like to know if their riding boundaries will remain the same if any one of the three PR options is implemented.

Richmond residents would also like to know if they can continue to vote for their own MLAs. Unfortunately, this NDP government does not provide this information. This NDP government has chosen to reveal as little information as possible, as they are fully aware that if all the information is provided, British Columbians will not be comfortable voting for a change to any of the proposed three PR systems.

This government has refused to provide maps of the three proposed PR systems. Without such details, how can the voters support the three proposed PR options? To call on British Columbians to make a leap of faith on PR is an insult to the intelligence of British Columbians. We don’t know what will constitute a rural or urban riding. Therefore, we don’t know which system would apply.

It is also appalling that all of the PR systems proposed by this NDP government are party-based, meaning that the three PR options would shift power from people to political parties. Even worse, many critical details would be decided after the vote.

This referendum is such a flawed process that even the Vancouver Sun came up with an editorial to urge British Columbians to vote against the NDP government’s proposed proportional representation. An editorial published on October 26 was entitled “Vote No in NDP’s Badly Flawed Electoral Reform Referendum.”

The position taken by the Vancouver Sun is very similar to the will expressed by members on this side of the House. If this NDP government doesn’t want to listen to this side of the House on the referendum, they should at least pay attention to the media’s commentaries.

[4:20 p.m.]

Let me quote Vaughn Palmer, also from the Vancouver Sun: “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.”

Another journalist, Keith Baldrey of Global BCTV, said: “This is a flawed referendum process. It was badly handled by the NDP, badly implemented. It is going to lead, I think, to potentially a tarnished outcome. I agree with Vaughn Palmer. It could end up that 10 percent of the population could be picking a new election model. I just don’t think that serves democracy very well.”

These are really words of wisdom. I hope that this NDP government and their junior partner, the Green Party, will ponder over their comments and do the right thing.

If members on the other side of the House don’t want to take notice of the media’s comments, they should at least take notice of their own former Premiers’ position on PR. Both Ujjal Dosanjh and Glen Clark spoke out against PR in the course of this current referendum. Dosanjh said: “Proportional representation is complicated and confusing. It creates perpetual minority governments, ongoing instability and constant background deals that exclude voters. It gives more power to political parties by taking it away from the voters.”

Mike Harcourt and the late Bill Bennett were also not in favour of PR when the two referendums on our electoral system were held in 2005 and 2009. So of the five NDP Premiers in the history of British Columbia, the current Premier is the only one who supports PR. This really gives food for thought.

Why would we buy a car when the NDP won’t tell us whether it’s gas, diesel or electric or how many doors it has or even what colour it is. They tell us to just buy the car, and they will make the choices for us. The NDP government cooked up the three voting systems they are proposing. Even their own cabinet ministers — including the Minister of Advanced Education, with a degree in political science — cannot explain how any of them work. How do you expect an average British Columbian to understand?

I really appreciate the opportunity to talk in the House about this referendum. In conclusion, I’m proud to support my colleague’s amendment.

D. Barnett: I am proud today to stand and support the amendment on the floor.

The amendment says: “‘That this House declines to give second reading to the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 because the intent of the Bill to hold a subsequent referendum on whether to revert to the current first past the post voting system from a proportional representation voting system, if adopted, is meaningless when the government has failed to correct multiple deficiencies in the current electoral reform referendum legislation, including not seeking a clear majority approval from the electorate on a clear question, not providing for sufficient and meaningful public engagement, and using a confusing and complex referendum ballot.’”

I represent the electoral district of Cariboo-Chilcotin. We have a population of people spread over thousands of kilometres in the central Interior of British Columbia. It is a diverse population with many different cultures, including First Nations communities spread throughout. In other words, we have a relatively small population compared to the vast geographic footprint that Cariboo-Chilcotin occupies.

When it comes to protecting our economic interests and promoting job growth in our region, it is vital that we have an elected representative who is directly accountable to our region. Our challenge has always been to make sure that our voice is not drowned out by larger urban populations in the province. Without that direct connection to our region, the needs of rural communities would surely get left behind. I deeply rely on my fellow rural MLAs to echo our concerns in the Legislature.

[4:25 p.m.]

People in the Cariboo-Chilcotin face many of the same issues that other resource-based economies in northern British Columbia do. We recognize the unique challenges of delivering health care services in remote locations. We are all too familiar that people in our region deserve the same access to educational and job opportunities that people in the Lower Mainland have. And we know we have to work a little harder, raise our voices a little louder and make sure the people who elect us get the representation they deserve.

Pardon me, hon. Speaker, but you can be damn sure that we will not allow our voices to be silenced, yet that’s exactly what this legislation will do.

In a quest of power last May, both parties compromised their principles. They signed a hasty prenuptial agreement to save their own interests — not too much thought to what mattered to the people of B.C.

No, what mattered was an agreement that satisfied two principals. In that process, they tossed away everything that distinguished the difference between Green Party members and what many thought the NDP stood for. Both parties ditched their platforms and the voters who took them at face value on election day. The so-called confidence and supply agreement signed between the Green Party and the NDP made any previous election promise null and void.

I can tell you that I’ve talked to lots of people who voted for the Green Party in my riding in the last election, and they are now furious. These are people that voted Green because they wanted a real alternative. They never signed on to an NDP agenda, but that’s the bill of goods they got.

You can see it in the legislation we have before us. The terms and conditions set forth in this bill stipulate that the Green Party has to stay in bed with the NDP for the next 4½ years. Otherwise, the marriage is over.

According to the October 4 press release: “If a new voting system is approved, it will require government to introduce legislation to implement the new legislation in time for a provincial general election to be called after July 1, 2021.” We have an NDP minority telling their junior coalition partners that you have to prop up government or else. And while the NDP like to say we are living in a new era of cooperation, that sounds like bullying to me.

This electoral reform act is not directed to benefit ordinary British Columbians. It clearly represents a veiled threat to the Green Party. It becomes more and more obvious when you look at the big picture. And when you look at their legislative agenda so far, we see that one-third of all current legislation is dedicated to rigging the outcome of the next provincial election. You have to wonder why a brand-new government suddenly makes it their first priority to change the constitution.

It is very frustrating, when you come from rural British Columbia, when your ridings are large, your people are vastly spread. There are very huge distances to try and get out there and speak to everyone and explain something that is so confusing that the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition had a debate on television, and the questions from the Premier could not be answered. So you can imagine somebody living way out in the middle of nowhere, who gets something in the mail — finally, if they can get it at all — and they say: “What in the world are they talking about?”

I find this not just frustrating. I find it could have been an opportunity for change. We all believe in change if it’s going to make the world better. I don’t think anybody in this House would want to see us go backwards. But if this bill passes, this province will go backwards for so many years.

[4:30 p.m.]

I’m an old senior citizen now, been to a few political wars in my life. Proud to have been there. But I worry. I worry about the children of today and the children of tomorrow.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let us not forget. We talk about Remembrance Day and those that fought for this country and gave up their lives and gave up what future they would have had for this country to make it a free democracy that it is today.

We have an amendment before us, an amendment that will help us stop this referendum for the time being. It will give us some time to have what we should have had in the first place — real public engagement.

I support this amendment, and I encourage everyone here to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, in accordance with the time allocation motion passed earlier today, I am now obliged to put all necessary questions for the completion of Bill 40.

Accordingly, the question currently before the House is the amendment to second reading of Bill 40.

[4:35 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[4:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The next question before the House is second reading of Bill 40.

Second reading of Bill 40 approved on the following division:

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered immediately.

Bill 40, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 40; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:42 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:43 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM
REFERENDUM 2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 40, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

[4:45 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 52 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 52, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered again?

Hon. L. Popham: Now, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time, Minister?

Hon. L. Popham: Now, hon. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 52 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 52, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018, read a third time and passed on division.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we are anticipating the arrival of the Lieutenant-Governor at about five o’clock, so we will take a brief recess. If people could be in here about three minutes before five.

[4:50 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.]

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

[5:05 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Acting Clerk:

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018

Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018

Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act

Professional Governance Act

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018

Environmental Assessment Act

Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018

Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2018

Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018

Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act, 2018

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

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

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): As always, thanks to all of you for your really outstanding work over this fall session. It’s been a very busy session. I know that it’s coming to an end today.

I know there’s much work ahead that remains for all of you, but I do wish you some time for rest and relaxation, some happy times with family and friends over the holiday season. I look forward to seeing you all in the new year.

Thank you all so much.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just before I adjourn, there are a couple of housekeeping things I need to take care of.

[5:10 p.m.]

One, we need to thank all of the amazing staff in these buildings who do such a tremendous job in allowing us to do our work. So please, everybody. [Applause.]

The second is that those amazing staff have instructed me to remind all of you to clean out your desks so they don’t have to.

With that, I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the 41st parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 5:11 p.m.