Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 159

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

Hon. D. Donaldson

L. Throness

J. Brar

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

Hon. J. Sims

M. Morris

Hon. R. Fleming

S. Thomson

J. Rice

Motions Without Notice

Response to climate change report

A. Weaver

R. Glumac

S. Furstenau

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Horgan

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2018

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just want to inform the House that pursuant to the Standing Order 35

application for an emergency debate made earlier today by the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head, agreement has been reached on the matter raised by all three

parties. Therefore, we will be having a one-hour debate pursuant to Standing

Order 35, and I will be inviting the member to move his motion at 5:25 this

afternoon.

With that, hon. Speaker, I also call, at this point, continued second

reading debate on Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act,

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m very pleased to take my spot at second reading debate on Bill

40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It might be likely no surprise to the people in this chamber or to

people who might be watching back home in Stikine that I’m in favour of

Bill 40, in favour of legislation that confirms a referendum after two

general election cycles. Therefore, our government is giving voters a

safety valve to revert to the previous voting system after an

opportunity to actually experience both systems.

I also want to say I’m in favour of improving democracy by

speaking in favour of proportional representation as well as Bill 40.

I’ve been following this debate over the last day and a half. I must say

I’m astonished by some, but not all, of the comments from those in the

official opposition that are opposed to electoral reform and have used

fearmongering, misinformation and even the argument that supporting

proportional representation is somehow unpatriotic.

I want to speak to Bill 40 and to proportional representation by

speaking a little bit to values, especially the values that are held

dear by people in rural areas and by people in northern areas that I

represent — for instance, the values of cooperation and collaboration

that we uphold.

[1:35 p.m.]

I’ll give a couple of quick examples about these values that

relate to proportional representation and to this second reading debate

we’re having of Bill 40. First of all, there’s a trail in the Hazeltons

called the Eagle Down Trail. It’s about an eight- to ten-kilometre trail

from the village of Hazelton up to the municipality of New Hazelton.

This trail was conceived, put together and put forward by the current

mayor of Hazelton, Alice Maitland, and others in the communities to

connect the two communities and provide a safe walking route between the

two communities, because many people are related through family and

extended family and through community activities.

The point here is that this trail that was constructed is within

the jurisdiction of two municipalities, one regional district and two

First Nations reserves and is on the territory of two Gitxsan Hereditary

Chiefs. So that’s two, four, six, seven different jurisdictions — seven

different types of lines we’ve drawn on a map.

You can imagine that in some other places, this would result in

gridlock and this project never getting completed, because there are

different views on projects within the community. However, it’s a

testimony to the fact that the values of cooperation and collaboration

are held dear in rural areas that this trail was built and is

functioning now and is used by many members of the community.

Naturally, in rural communities that don’t have a lot of

population…. Hazelton has a population of about 350. I live just outside

of Hazelton — a population in Two Mile of about 500. You consistently

rub shoulders with people that you may not share all your values with.

It’s impossible just to isolate yourself, as some people are able to do

in larger centres, with people who only share your values. So you rub

elbows with people who don’t share your values, necessarily, all the

time, but you find ways to disagree and live as neighbours.

I’ll also give another example of how the values of cooperation

and collaboration are upheld in remote and rural communities. We have to

do that to get ahead. The Upper Skeena recreation centre is being

constructed as we speak — an incredible project. It’ll be a project that

has been supported by seven different First Nations, Indian bands, three

communities in the regional district, two municipalities and over 60

Hereditary Chiefs.

Again, we work together in rural areas. We’re fiercely

independent. The people who live in those communities that I just

described are very, very proud of their communities, but because we have

no one else to depend on, the values of cooperation and collaboration

are really the foundation of rural communities.

That’s why I am in support of proportional representation —

because it encourages these values. It encourages cooperation and

collaboration, and the current system that we have discourages

cooperation and collaboration to a certain extent.

I’ll give an example of that — how the partisan nature of the

current system is exemplified and the cynicism that it breeds. The

example I want to point out…. There have been many, but this is a very

recent one and a very appropriate one, I think, considering the debate

we’re having today on Bill 40. It’s from an October 4 reporting in the

Dawson Creek Mirror . The headline says: “B.C. Liberal Leader

Campaigns Against Proportional Representation.”

At a meeting, a Rotary lunch in Dawson Creek, the opposition

leader, who was there, was quoted as saying…. “During the lunch, the

opposition leader was even more dramatic to the receptive crowd.” In a

response about proportional representation — and this is the direct

quote, not out of context: “If it passes, you will never have an MLA

again.”

[1:40 p.m.]

That’s what the Leader of the Official Opposition told the Rotary

lunch in Dawson Creek earlier this month. That is either shockingly

uninformed or it’s deliberately ignoring the facts. I know that the

Leader of the Official Opposition is a thoughtful person and a person

who has a high degree of intelligence, as exemplified by the fact that

he was a Rhodes Scholar. So I only have to assume that he was

deliberately ignoring the facts by saying: “If it passes, you will never

have an MLA again.”

In fact, under proportional representation, we will have — and it

preserves — the same levels of rural representation that we have today

in the north. In addition, it will also ensure that Dawson Creek

residents would still be voting for the local representative that they

want. To say that if it passes, you will never have an MLA again I think

is deliberately ignoring the facts.

What it speaks to…. I’m not saying that the Leader of the Official

Opposition was shockingly uninformed. I’m not saying that he was

deliberately ignoring the facts. What I’m using this example to point

out is that the current system encourages the kind of partisan campaign

that we see exemplified by the Leader of the Official Opposition’s

comments. It really puts a fine point on it that collaboration and

cooperation are not encouraged by the current system. Those are values

that are fundamental to rural areas.

Another very important point for me around proportional

representation is that I believe it will increase the number of young

people who vote. That is just such an essential and critical factor for

a healthy democracy.

I’ll give you another example, another story from the north, about

why I think proportional representation will lead to an increase in the

number of young people voting, a demographic that is on the decline as

far as turnout for all elections, including provincial elections. I

believe that in the youngest demographic, the 18 to 24s, it was far less

than a 30 percent turnout of registered voters in the last provincial

election. We need that demographic showing up. I’ll give you an example

from the Hazeltons, the area I represent, of how young people are turned

off by the current system.

As much as possible, I like to go into elementary schools and

secondary schools and talk in a non-partisan way about how our system

now works and how the Legislature is configured. I often get questions

from the secondary school students, but there was one really interesting

comment I had from the elementary school students.

I go in, and we decide on an issue. They bring up a topic that

they want to vote on. I think this time it was that the driver’s licence

should be lowered to 14 — this was an elementary school — or 12. I can’t

remember.

We took the classroom and set up desks like they are in the

Legislature here, where one side is the government, our side, and one

side is the official opposition. Then we divvy up the class, and the

children sit on each side. When the vote came for this motion that the

government decided to put on the floor in this grade 6 class…. The

government side put out their motion. I had somebody designated as the

Speaker — such as yourself, hon. Speaker — and they called the vote. The

government side stood up. So did half the opposition side. I said: “Why

are you doing that?” “Well, it was a good idea.” It points out the

fundamental belief of collaboration and cooperation.

When I explained to the class that in the current system — an

example being 40 percent — the party that gets 40 percent of the vote

gets 100 percent of the power, the young people in that class just found

that unfair. My word is “unbalanced.”

[1:45 p.m.]

Again, the current system we have, I believe, is unbalanced. I

believe that a vote supporting proportional representation will not only

lead to more young people voting because it’s fundamental to

collaboration and cooperation and fundamental to fairness; but it also

really fulfils the values that we hold in rural, northern and remote

communities.

I just want to conclude by saying that I believe it’s time for a

new way of voting that works for people, not political parties. We know

that the majority of functioning democracies around the world are using

some form of proportional representation. There are countries that are

close to us in values — Germany and Scotland and New Zealand — that use

a proportional representation system that’s working and working

well.

I also say that this fall we’ll have a provincewide referendum

that gives British Columbians a chance to replace the status quo with

proportional representation, a way of voting that puts people at the

centre of politics. With that, I’ll conclude my comments to Bill 40. I’m

voting in favour of Bill 40. I’m voting in favour of proportional

representation this fall, and I hope people in B.C. will do as

well.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 40, the Electoral Reform

Referendum 2018 Amendment Act. It didn’t take me long to go through this

bill. If British Columbians choose proportional representation, using

the mail-in ballot that they will receive beginning on October 22, the

bill says this: “A subsequent referendum must be conducted throughout

British Columbia after 2 general elections have been held using the

proportional representation voting system, respecting whether to

continue using the proportional representation voting system or to

revert to the first past the post voting system.”

Even though it’s only a few lines long, this bill was not part of

the initial legislative package that was passed a year ago at this time,

and I wonder why. The government was thinking about this all along, but

they timed, I believe, this recommendation for a second referendum, this

bill, as part of the report entitled How We Vote , a report and

recommendations of the Attorney General which came out on May 30. This

is part of the plan, and I think they did that on purpose to give them

the opportunity to bring forward this legislation during the campaign

period.

There are two considerations here, really. One is a policy

consideration, and one is how the policy is brought forward. First, I

want to talk about how it’s brought forward, and then I want to talk

about the policy. I see this bill as part of a larger plan that can only

be called manipulative. The policy of proportional representation is bad

enough in itself. I don’t think it stands scrutiny on a public policy

basis alone. The government is trying to steer British Columbians into

making a decision that they hope will benefit them and keep the Greens

and the NDP in power for a generation. That’s really what it’s all

about.

Why would manipulation be necessary? It’s because the policy can’t

stand on its own. It lost in two referendums already, most lately in

2009. It only received 39 percent support, well under 50 percent

support, after a long and intensive and objective process with a

citizens’ assembly and lots of funding and lots of public discussion. It

was rejected handily and, I hope, will be again.

I want to talk, first of all, about the elements of manipulation

that I see in this bill, to detail some of the elements. First, the

government declined to hold an objective citizens’ assembly which would

have assured that British Columbians would get objective and impartial

information and complete information. Instead, they’re getting biased

and partial information. Even the government’s report How We

Vote is ad­ver­tised as the recommendations of the

Attorney General. It’s not the recommendations of a citizens’ assembly

or some other objective group.

It’s clear that this is not an objective process; it’s a partisan

process. It’s driven by one who is well known to be one of the more

partisan members of this House, the Attorney General himself.

Second, the government has provided a referendum by mail-in

ballot. This pretty well ensures a low turnout, since the ballot itself

is complicated. It’s hard to understand. For instance, there’s no

information on the ballot that says that you can fill out the first part

but you don’t have to fill out the second part at all. People will look

at it — those who don’t throw it in the garbage immediately when they

get it — and think that they have to fill in the second part, which will

confuse things. They will think their ballot will be spoiled if they

don’t.

[1:50 p.m.]

Also, as an aside, this is a very expensive process. The whole

exercise is going to cost $15 million, the Chief Electoral Officer says.

It could have been done in conjunction with a provincial election. It’s

been done before. It would have cost virtually nothing. That’s because,

I would submit, timing was important to the government. They didn’t want

this to take place in conjunction with a provincial election.

The government has further manipulated the process by providing

partial information. For example, the government never provided riding

maps to show voters how they would be treated under proportional

representation. No one knows how many ridings there would be, how big

they would be, where their boundaries would be, how many members there

would be in each of the ridings, how many would be chosen by voters or

how many by party lists. It’s all a mystery. It’s purposely kept vague

and undefined by this government.

They did not even put before the voters a single, concrete

proportional representation system to vote on. In fact, there are three

options to choose from, and even among those three, details have yet to

be worked out in all of them. So voters, by definition, cannot know what

they’re voting for, nor can they look to the track record of other

countries, in the case of two of the three systems, because they’re

purely theoretical. They’ve never been used by any country in the world.

They’ve been invented by academics, and we have no idea if they would

even work. This, again, is part of the design of the government to

manipulate the decision of voters.

Moreover, any details of the proportional representation system,

if it is chosen by the mail-in ballot, will be worked out by a committee

of politicians, the majority of which will be Greens and NDP, the

government, so that they will be able to institute anything they

want.

The lack of resources devoted to the referendum also are an

indication, to me, of manipulation. Two formal groups, for and against,

were chosen, given $500,000 to spend, which is really hardly anything

these days in terms of advertising dollars. This will ensure that very

few British Columbians will even know about the referendum at all,

except those who are activists for proportional representation. They

will know all about it, because they’re keen for it. On the other hand,

the government, which supports proportional representation, has all the

tools of government at its disposal to push its will on the citizens of

B.C., including the introduction of this bill, as I’ll talk about in a

moment.

The process for registering a group to advertise about PR is

difficult, and the possibility of donations is restricted, which makes

it hard to get the message out. For example, in order to make a

donation, you have to fill out a long form, giving your personal

details, and sign it personally, approving of the advertising in

writing. That discourages people from donating and ensures a minimum of

donations. You can’t, for instance, donate on line. You have to be

physically present to give a personal cheque so that you can sign the

form at the same time. The government is determined to make it hard to

donate so that people can be kept in the dark.

The timing of the referendum is manipulative. It was set to take

place right at the end of provincewide municipal elections, when voters

will be rightly sick of politics, when local elections will have taken

up all their time, their energy, their attention, thought and donations.

The mail-in ballots will come in as an afterthought, and many of them —

I would say most of them — will go into the recycling bin without even

being considered.

The vote will also take place, coincidentally, just a few days

after marijuana is legalized. On Wednesday, tomorrow, when this happens,

all the headlines are going to be taken up for the next week or two with

that more interesting topic of marijuana. Who will be interested in the

technical matter of the way an election is run? Not many.

Freddy Marks, who is a realtor in Harrison Hot Springs and my

constituent, has registered a group with Elections B.C. called No

Pro-Rep Fraser Valley East. He held a proportional representation town

hall in Harrison Hot Springs a couple of weeks ago, and I attended so

that I could see the reaction of people there. And I can honestly say

that when people were told about the details of proportional

representation, they were horrified. They wanted nothing to do with it.

When they hear about it, British Columbians don’t like it. So this

government does not want people to hear about it.

Now we come to this bill. I find the timing of the introduction of

this bill to be particularly manipulative. The government could have

introduced it a year ago. It knew that it wanted it. But instead, they

introduced it at this crucial moment during the campaign

period.

Now, here’s what the regulations related to advertising during the

referendum say about this. They amount to 63 long clauses, complex

clauses describing all the stringent limits on advertising and including

a $20,000 fine for any abuse.

[1:55 p.m.]

Here’s what the regulations specify: “A referendum advertising

sponsor must not sponsor, directly or indirectly, referendum advertising

during the referendum campaign period such that the total value of the

referendum advertising is greater than $200,000 overall.”

What, I would ask, is the advertising value of introducing a bill

in this House, with all the apparatus of the government: the

government’s media machine cranking out the press releases and holding

press conferences and commenting to the media; putting stuff up on

official government websites; drawing media attention; debating it in

this place, hour after hour; having it come up in question period; and

all the rest? All of it is valuable advertising. It flouts at least the

spirit of the law, if not its letter, because the value of all that

advertising, I submit, would be far more than $200,000, for which the

government will pay nothing. It is using its advantage as government to

skirt the rules and push its manipulative agenda.

Now I want to talk a bit about the bill itself. Obviously, the

government knows that proportional representation is not an easy sell.

That’s why it’s reserved this bill for this moment. People don’t like it

when the learn about it, so the purpose of the bill is to assure those

who are wavering, who are uncertain about proportional representation,

that they will get a second chance to pass judgment on this new system

of voting in maybe nine, maybe ten, maybe 11 or 12 years from now. If

they don’t like it, they will get another shot at another referendum.

This allows voters to be lulled to sleep, to relax their guard, to

accept the bill without being afraid.

The government’s design here is abundantly clear. They are tilting

the field as far over as they can in order to ensure the imposition of

proportional representation on the province. This is in addition to

other ways in which they’ve done the same thing. I want to remind the

House of a few other ways in which they have tilted the

field.

First, there is no regional threshold. Vancouver can force

proportional representation on the entire rest of the prov­ince.

We know that Vancouver is more left-leaning than the rest of the

province. We can tell that by the distribution of seats in this House.

NDP were virtually shut out of rural areas, but that doesn’t seem to

matter to the NDP. The urban concentration of population makes it easier

and less expensive to reach and to organize voters in favour of

proportional representation.

Second, there is no super- or double majority required, even

though the two previous referendums on this issue, in 2005 and 2009,

both required an extra majority. Obviously, the government looked at

those referendums and said: “Let’s not do that again. Let’s forget about

a high threshold if we want to accomplish a radical, leftward change in

B.C.’s electoral system.”

The hypocrisy here is astounding. I would turn members’ attention

to the NDP’s own constitution, which deals with amendments to its own

foundational document. I quote from that: “Amendments…shall require a

two-thirds majority of delegates present and voting to pass.” To change

their own party’s constitution, they require a 66 percent majority, but

to change the foundations of B.C.’s democracy, the NDP only require a

simple majority.

That’s because they know they couldn’t get two-thirds. That’s why

they relax the normal principles of prudence and caution and safety with

regard to preserving what has provided stable, efficient government for

well over 100 years in this province. They will happily throw caution to

the four winds in favour of an untried and untested system in Canada,

based on a bare majority.

I go on. Third, there is no turnout threshold, so that if 25

percent of British Columbians return their ballots, just 13 percent of

the province will plunge all 4.7 million inhabitants into a new way of

voting.

Now, the NDP tries to cast this manipulative exercise as a

positive thing, but I don’t see it that way. I see it as a dark thing,

as an ominous thing, as a cynical ploy to tilt the balance of power in

favour of the NDP and the Greens on a permanent basis, to adopt a form

of government that is clearly detrimental to northern B.C., unworkable

in other countries, detrimental to the cause of free enterprise, clearly

detrimental to the accountability of local MLAs and very supportive of

much greater party influence.

I understand that up to 40 percent of MLAs could be appointed by

party leaders, who are not elected by the people, who are not

accountable to the people, and I see that as a dark thing. It is a

downgraded democracy.

Now I want to turn to policy in real life and talk for a moment

about New Zealand, because it is very relevant to what we’re doing here

today. I think we should take a lesson from it. I took a little while to

research this.

[2:00 p.m.]

New Zealand chose proportional representation in 1993, with 54

percent of the vote. They had a bare majority there. I think, in

retrospect, New Zealanders might wish they had imposed a higher

threshold. There are 120 MPs in that parliament; 49 of them are selected

by party lists, not voted in as individuals. They’re selected by party

bosses. That gives those bosses enormous power to drop in whoever they

want.

Listen more to the story of what happened in 2017 in New Zealand.

There is a party in New Zealand called the New Zealand First party. It’s

a small party with 11 members in parliament, because in 2017 in the

general election, they received 7 percent of the national vote, and 7

percent of the vote roughly equates to 11 members. The New Zealand First

party and the Labour Party together decided to do a deal and signed a

coalition agreement to form a government, but it took a long time to

make that deal.

Why is that? It’s because the New Zealand First party board — that

is, the governing board of the party — could not meet because some of

them had to ask time off from work. Some of them had to go to funerals.

Some of them had to fly in from different parts of the country. I’m not

making this stuff up. The whole country waited while the party board

took its sweet time to get its act together and meet to decide on the

government. Why should they hurry? They’re not accountable to the

voters. They couldn’t care less.

The leader of the party, Winston Peters, refused to say who sat on

that board. It was a secret. It was that secretive board who would

decide on the government, on who the New Zealand First party would form

a coalition with. What a democracy. It’s not even a minority of MPs

making the decisions. New Zealanders did not even know who was making

the decision about who would form the next government. It’s

appalling.

Well, the party board eventually met. They made the deal, and four

of the New Zealand First party became cabinet ministers. That gave them

enormous power in the government, even though they received only 7

percent of the vote. The people of New Zealand didn’t vote for them to

do that. In particular, they did not vote for the deputy prime minister,

Winston Peters.

Let me tell you about Winston Peters. Winston Peters is the head

of the New Zealand First party. He was first on the party list; he’s the

head of the party. In fact, in 2017 he did not win his own election. He

lost his own constituency of Northland by more than 1,000 votes, but he

was a party leader. So he was No. 1 on the party list.

Let me give you an example of his power. Winston Peters was mad at

one of his party members, an MP named Richard Prosser, so he demoted him

on the party list from third to 15th because of some controversial

comments he had made. That meant that Mr. Prosser did not rank high

enough to get a party seat in the legislature, one of those 49 out of

120 party seats. The lesson: under proportional representation, if the

party leader doesn’t like you, you will not get into parliament. Indeed,

Mr. Prosser is not in the New Zealand Parliament today. That is raw

power. It is undemocratic, it is unelected power, and I think it’s an

entirely negative thing.

While Mr. Peters did not win his own seat, and while his party

only received 7 percent of the vote in 2017, his party has four cabinet

ministers in the government and 11 members in the House. He himself, the

leader, Winston Peters, served this summer as acting Prime Minister for

six weeks, with all the powers of the Prime Minister, while the actual

Prime Minister — the elected Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern — was giving

birth. This bizarre and undemocratic set of results is brought to you

thanks to proportional representation.

One could say that a party with 7 percent of the vote really had

100 percent of the power, because the New Zealand First party decided

who would form the government, much like the Green Party in this House

today. You can count on it that if PR comes in, the Greens will dominate

this House for a generation, even when they’re a small minority. They’re

happy about that. They’re very happy about that.

We can look forward to situations like New Zealand’s situation if

we choose proportional representation in B.C. Why is that? It’s because

it happened in New Zealand. I want to point out that the mess in New

Zealand is caused by none other than the mixed-member proportional

system, which is one of the systems the government is recommending for

B.C. and the only one that has ever been used in real life. In fact,

mixed-member proportional is used in New Zealand. It’s used in Scotland

and Wales, also Bolivia, Lesotho and, for a while, Venezuela, until

2009, when they decided to can it.

[2:05 p.m.]

I wonder. Is British Columbia actually going to do this? I think

if British Columbians heard the explanation that I just made, they would

be horrified. They would say: “We’re not going to go near this system.

What a crazy system.” If they know about it, they will not choose

proportional representation. That’s why the government has carefully

tilted the field by giving partial information, incomplete information,

denying information, suppressing democratic participation by ordinary

British Columbians to institute a flawed and biased process.

Bill 40 is a smokescreen. It is a feint. It is a decoy. It is a

distraction. It is an attempt to divert the attention of British

Columbians from the real issue, which is a piece of very bad policy

called proportional representation — and mixed-member proportional, in

particular. That is why I will vote against Bill 40.

J. Brar: It’s a real honour for me to stand up in this House to support the

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, introduced in this House

by our government. This is an historic opportunity for the people to

make a change. This legislation will allow the people of British

Columbia the opportunity to vote in a confirming referendum on electoral

reform.

If people change B.C.’s voting system by supporting the referendum

this fall, these amendments require that the government conduct a

confirming referendum within 13 months after two provincial general

elections that use the chosen proportional representation voting

system.

For example, if scheduled general elections occur in October 2021

and October 2025, the confirming referendum would take place by November

30, 2026. The current 2018 referendum voting period by mail-in ballot

will run from October 22, 2018, to November 30, 2018.

The key questions we are debating in this House are: one, why the

outdated first-past-the-post system is not good for people…. That’s the

first question. Second, why we need to change the outdated

first-past-the-post system with the new proportional representation

system. That’s the second question.

I know the members on the other side have been making comments all

over the place. I just want to mention one. If I get the time, I will

come back to the other one. The member who just finished speaking before

me mentioned a story of a leader of a party in New Zealand who won, in

his opinion, because he was on the party list. He would not have

otherwise. The member described that as a bizarre and undemocratic

system.

I want to remind the member that in the 2013 election, right here

in British Columbia, their own leader, Christy Clark, lost the election

— her own election. She lost, and she had to go from Vancouver to

Kelowna to win the by-election. What was that? Was that democratic? That

was also bizarre and undemocratic, if they say she has to go and find a

place somewhere else. I will come back to some other comments made by

the members if I find time at the end of my comments.

I would like to answer the first question: why the outdated

first-past-the-post system is not good for people. The key role of the

government is to serve the people, but this outdated system has failed

to serve the people of British Columbia. For too long, the old, outdated

voting system has put too much power in the hands of too few

people.

[2:10 p.m.]

Let me tell you why this is so important. The Quebec election on

October 1 saw the conservative coalition receive only 37 percent of the

popular vote but 59 percent of the total seats. They got only 37 percent

of the popular vote, but they got 59 percent of the total seats. And

that’s what the member on the other side calls democracy, meaning they

don’t have to work with anyone while pushing through their

agenda.

Quebec results echo what happened in Ontario in June, when Doug

Ford’s Conservative Party took 61 percent of the seats with only 40.5

percent of the vote. Doug Ford won 61 percent of the seats with only

40.5 percent of the vote, and that’s not what we call democracy. Doug

Ford also doesn’t have to work with anyone, holding 100 percent of the

power.

These are two prime examples of the latest elections we have had

in this country. Clearly, the current system is broken. It’s completely

broken. It’s not working for people. In these two elections, each party

won 100 percent of the power with less than 50 percent of the vote.

That’s the main problem with the current system. The party won 100

percent of the power with less than 50 percent of the popular vote.

That’s where this whole issue is.

What this story tells us is that something is completely wrong

with the current system and that the current system is broken. Too many

people feel their vote doesn’t count. That’s the problem.

We have young people listening up there in the gallery, and this

is a good debate for them too. Too many people feel their vote is

wasted. Too many people feel that our current voting system isn’t

working for them.

They see a situation like Ontario, where Doug Ford ran a divisive,

Trump-style campaign, won 40 percent of the vote but took 100 percent of

the power. Sixty percent of people actually cast their ballot for the

other parties. He doesn’t have to work with anyone in the House, other

than his own members, and his decisions are hurting the most vulnerable

people in the province. That’s what the outcome of that election

is.

We saw something very similar happen in this province under the

B.C. Liberals, election after election. They would get less than half of

the votes but grab 100 percent of the power. And it was the hard-working

people of the province who paid the price. In four elections right here

in B.C., the B.C. Liberals took 100 percent of the power by getting less

than 50 percent of the popular vote. That’s what the problem of the

system is.

The B.C. Liberals made everyone pay more for everything, while

cutting important services like health care and education. But to be

fair, I have to give some credit to the B.C. Liberals, because they got

me into politics. Let me tell you, when they came to power in 2001, the

B.C. Liberals started cutting services that people counted on. On the

other hand, they gave a huge, huge tax cut to the top 2 percent of its

people.

That’s what happens when these parties come in power. On the other

side, they started closing schools. Particularly in Surrey, the

fastest-growing city in the province, they cut health care and forced

the people of Surrey to wait six long hours at Surrey Memorial Hospital

to access health care.

They went ahead and sold the land that was purchased to build the

new hospital. The B.C. Liberals forced….

Interjection.

J. Brar: That land was sold by B.C. Liberals that was purchased to build

the new hospital. That is a fact, and that stands there. The member

there has a problem. I know it’s a painful fact, but that’s a

reality.

B.C. Liberals forced the people of Surrey to pay unfair tolls on

the Port Mann Bridge and Golden Ears Bridge. They completely ignored the

needs of our fast-growing city. That’s what happened. They were out of

touch with our reality.

[2:15 p.m.]

The truth is that the outdated first-past-the-post voting system

only works for those at the top — for the rich people, the top 2 percent

of people, their friends, who used to fund their election campaign.

That’s the reality, and that’s why the B.C. Liberals and their wealthy

friends are desperate to keep the old way of voting system. It makes it

easier for them to control the government with a minority of votes.

That’s the problem.

With first-past-the-post, they can cut services and make your life

more expensive while doing favours for their rich friends. That’s what

happened in the past 16 years. We see the B.C. Liberals pretend to care

about people across the province at election time, only at election

time, only to largely ignore them after they formed the government with

a minority of votes. That’s the problem.

They pick and choose the voters they truly care about based on

where they’re most likely to win seats, and everyone else takes a back

seat. That’s what happens. And that’s why people would like to change

this outdated system with a new proportional representation

system.

Why we need to change the outdated first-past-the-post system with

a new proportional representation system — that’s my second question,

which the people of British Columbia would like to know. That’s my

question. I think we have young students there that would be interested

to know about that.

We’re trying to change the system — the way we elect people in the

province. That’s what we’re doing, and that’s the debate taking place

right now here. We are in favour of changing the system. Members on the

other side are not in favour of changing the system. They want to keep

the status quo, where less than 50 percent of the people can actually

elect the government, giving them a majority of power, even if 60

percent of the people voted against that government. So we want to

change that system.

Coming back to my script, proportional representation is a system

used by countries around the world to ensure that everyone’s vote

counts. The party that will get 25 percent of the votes will get 25

percent of the seats in the Legislature. Very fair system. I think the

member from the Green Party will agree with me.

The party that will get 25 percent of the votes will get 25

percent of the seats. It’s simple. It’s very simple. Pro rep provides

stable government where parties work together to get things done for

people.

One of the questions we hear about the political parties from the

people…. One of the biggest, biggest concerns we hear is that these

parties keep fighting with each other. They never work together. Pro rep

is a system where different parties have to work together for the good

of the people. I think that’s a very good thing of this new

system.

Most democracies in the world use proportional representation, but

B.C. would be leading the way in North America, if the people of British

Columbia choose the system in the coming referendum.

We have an historic opportunity to make a change that could have a

profound and positive impact on B.C.’s politics for generations. We will

lead the way for the rest of the country. British Columbia has the

opportunity to change our voting system so that everyone’s vote

counts.

Proportional representation can fix this. With pro rep, everyone’s

vote will be counted. Pro rep will strengthen the voice of people from

every region of the province, because every vote will count, and MLAs

won’t be able to ignore voters anymore. Parties will have to work

together to get things done for people in B.C. Parties will be more

accountable. They won’t be able to just ram through extreme agendas and

get away with it.

The majority of the countries around the world now use some form

of pro rep, and we have seen, from their experiences, that the

governments are more stable. People have a greater sense of satisfaction

in their democracies.

[2:20 p.m.]

There is a greater diversity among elected representatives. And

voter turnout, especially for young people, young voters, goes

significantly high in those countries.

Over the next several weeks, people are going to hear a lot of

misleading claims from the other side’s members. They don’t want the new

system because it does not favour, it does not serve, their needs and

their friends’ needs. That’s the problem. The no side — the B.C.

Liberals and their friends — we must remember, has a very personal stake

in keeping the status quo.

We have already banned big money from elections, and now we have

an historic chance to finish the job. I just want to say to the young

people out there, the elections are run, of course, with the money. And

there are parties that support big business out there, the top 2

percent. They get a huge amount of money from them.

We support the ordinary people. We get money from the public. We

get way less money than them under that system. They use that big money

to win the election, and then they go back to help those big people, the

top 2 percent rich people. That’s what happens. That’s how money plays a

role.

I’m proud to say, so you know, that we, the NDP government, after

coming into power, have actually banned both the union donations and

corporation donations. Big business cannot donate anymore. Unions cannot

donate anymore. We have done that job. Now we are on the second

chapter

so that we can clean up the democratic process in a way that works for

the people, for the young people, for the education system and all

that.

We have a chance to put power back in the hands of regular people,

not just the wealthy and well-connected, and elect a government that

works for everyone. That’s what we want to do. We have a chance to

finally put people at the centre of politics, and that’s what we’re

doing under this system.

Now, I have been listening to the members for the last, I think,

couple of days. One of the critiques I heard from the member from the

other side is that under this system, somehow all the promises the

different parties are going to make to the people of British Columbia….

They will forget them the next day because one party has to work with

the other party, and they will forget their promises. That’s the claim

they have been making.

I just want to say to the members, with respect…. I hope they will

listen to this. In the 2013 election — and Mr. Speaker will remember

that too — the B.C. Liberals made a promise to the people of British

Columbia that the province will be debt-free, that they are going to

build a mega-LNG project in the province of British Columbia, that they

are going to produce 100,000 jobs for the people of British Columbia —

that that will bring $100 billion of revenue to the province of British

Columbia.

That is a fact, my friends, and that was written on your bus, on

the campaign bus. That was the plan. The reality is this: not a single

project was done. Not a single job out of 100,000 jobs was created under

LNG.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. The member for Surrey-Fleetwood has the floor.

J. Brar: Not a single dollar from LNG came to the province of British

Columbia. So the outcome of the promise they made to the people of

British Columbia was zero.

They are concerned now that somehow if we change the system, the

different political parties will have to work together and that they

will somehow change completely the promises they made with the people of

British Columbia. That’s absolutely not true.

In B.C., although we don’t have this system yet, we, the NDP

government, have been working with the Green caucus for the last 15

months. People tell me every day that the government is doing a great

job.

[2:25 p.m.]

We have done all major promises that we made to the people of

British Columbia. We said we were going to get rid of tolls. We

eliminated the tolls in the city of Surrey that were actually introduced

by the B.C. Liberal government.

We said we were going to eliminate the MSP. We have eliminated the

MSP. We have eliminated the MSP 50 percent already, and 50 percent will

go in the near future. We said we were going to take big money out of

politics. Working together with the Green Party, we have taken big money

out of politics. We have done that too.

We are moving forward on various promises we made with the people

of British Columbia. That’s why I’m very proud today to stand in this

House to say that I will support this bill, because we need to get rid

of the old, outdated, first-past-the-post system, and we need to bring

in the new system that will work for the people of British Columbia,

where everyone’s vote counts. That will be good for the people. That

will be good for democracy. That will be good for

accountability.

That’s why we need to support the bill, and that’s why, Members

from the other side, you should support the bill. Forget about rich

friends — at least for the good of the people for some time — and

support this bill. Having said that, I will take my place.

J. Thornthwaite: I am actually quite enjoying the debates that we’ve been going

through for the last couple of days on Bill 40, and I’m honoured to be

standing here and talking about the Electoral Reform Referendum

Amendment Act.

The philosophy behind this bill imagines that somehow in two or

possibly three elections — actually, maybe 12 years from now — the

government of the day will be bound to hold a referendum based on this

legislation. On the contrary, I believe that we should be debating the

actual flawed referendum, soon to come to a mailbox near you, starting

October 22 — not to mention that the cost of this referendum, according

to Elections B.C., is $15 million. If we’re having one or two more

referendums, then that’s going to be exponentially much more

expensive.

Put the fact that there is very poor turnout in elections by mail,

and I fear that we’re not going to get the response, perhaps, that

British Columbians deserve. But maybe that’s the point.

The referendum is a question, I would argue, on our voting system

and what our province should be utilizing. It’s actually a question as

to a comparison of whether or not we want to change our current voting

system to something else that we don’t necessarily know what the details

are all about.

In this particular referendum, there are 29 different factors that

will be left until after the referendum to be clarified. These are

pretty important factors, including the number of MLAs, the size of the

ridings, what constitutes a rural or an urban riding, whether there will

be closed or open party lists or even whether there will be a list at

all. I don’t think we can fairly say that we are actually choosing a

system then. What we are choosing or not in this referendum is kind of a

concept, a concept of, perhaps, another system.

What we are asking is whether voters want to actually directly

vote for their MLA or whether they want to have their representative

chosen by the party that they are voting for. That is the definition of

the proportional system. It’s that there may be MLAs that are elected,

but the rest of the MLAs — and it could be up to 40 percent, we’ve heard

— would be appointed by a specific party, based on the proportion of

that party’s win, so to speak, in the election.

[2:30 p.m.]

In the end, after this government had done their on-line feedback

questionnaire, even the ones that had been recommended were not

included, and they discarded many of the systems — three out of four,

actually. Two of the ones that are on the ballot that we will be faced

with are proportional representation systems not currently in

use.

We’re being asked to vote on systems that have never been used

anywhere in the world, and we’re not being provided with details, maps,

how big the electoral districts will be or how many representatives will

be out there representing us.

Last week, along with the B.C. Liberal ridings on the North Shore,

all four of them, we hosted a proportional representation information

session, and we invited Bill Tieleman. Those on the other side will

definitely know who I’m talking about. As much as what’s been said in a

lot of aspects in this debate in the last couple of days has been

partisan, one side versus the other, in actual fact, the person that is

actually running the no campaign for proportional representation is an

NDP operative, and a very successful one.

He has got big pull, actually, in the NDP, and he’s very well

respected. So why would we invite him to come and speak? Well, we wanted

to make it a non-partisan event — non-partisan because the NDP was

speaking. We wanted to make it as open to everybody as we possibly

could.

Bill actually came up with a whole bunch of information that was

very, very telling. I would like to clarify that there are three main

points that the people that are proponents of proportional

representation say that we need to change in our current

system.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Number one is that every vote counts in proportional

representation, which implies that in the current system, my vote

actually didn’t count. We just need to ask, perhaps, the member for

Courtenay-Comox or the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain how much

individual votes truly do count, because the margin of them winning

those respective ridings was very, very small.

Then, when you look at what’s going on right now in the municipal

election, you notice that every single candidate that I know that is on

the North Shore is fighting for every single vote. So there’s actually

no truth to the premise that in this current first-past-the-post system,

not every vote counts. In fact, every vote does count, and it is

counted.

The other issue that seems to come up…. As I said before, there’s

one side here and another side there. In other words, it’s partisan. But

as I mentioned, we had Bill Tieleman come to the North Shore last week,

talking about why British Columbia should not be adopting a proportional

representation system.

If you look at the proportional representation systems that are

proposed…. If, in fact, the 87 ridings that we have now are to remain

the same, and if 40 percent, which we’ve heard is an estimate, would be

the number of MLAs that would be appointed, then that means that the

rest of them would be elected. But how would those MLAs, those 40

percent, be actually appointed? By party list. What that means is that —

and Bill brought this up quite eloquently last week — the number of

Liberals and NDPs would be very, very similar, but the amount of Green

MLAs would go way up.

That’s what I think this is all about. It’s not so much a

Liberal-NDP issue. It’s to get the Greens more seats. And if that is the

goal, then I think we should just be honest about it, instead of

pretending that it’s that every vote counts.

The last one that I keep hearing from the other side and the Fair

Vote people is: why should we have a system where a party can get 40

percent of the vote and 100 percent of the power?

[2:35 p.m.]

Well, our leader had a Facebook live town hall last week. He

actually looked at this with regards to kind of a math lesson. He said

that what happens when you have a very small percentage of the vote that

is actually taken…. If a third and a third and a third…. That is what

the general Angus Reid poll had said, that a third support proportional

representation, a third support the system that we’re in,

first-past-the-post, and a third are undecided.

If a third of the voters actually voted for the referendum, that

means that 50 plus one…. That is the very, very low level that the

government has put to actually win the PR referendum, as opposed to more

than 60 percent in the last two referendums that we did conduct in

British Columbia, which were done by a citizens’ assembly. That means

that only 16 percent of the voters of British Columbia actually voted to

support proportional representation.

That is significantly less than the 40 percent that the members

from the opposite side are saying is so-called unfair to have somebody

have 100 percent of the power. My point is it’s with this proportional

representation referendum that we have the potential of having 16

percent or less of the public actually voting to change to proportional

representation. That definitely isn’t fair and is

undemocratic.

What happened in Prince Edward Island a couple years ago?

Apparently, the electorate did vote — 52 percent of the people that

voted — to change to a proportional representation system. But in fact,

only 36 percent of the electorate actually voted, which meant that 18

percent of the electorate actually voted for that change. The P.E.I.

government at the time decided that that was not a mandate, and neither

is this referendum. I think that that is something that we should

definitely take into consideration, the decision that the Prince Edward

Island government made at that time.

What about all of these different types of PR systems? They are

very confusing. There’s dual-member proportional representation. What I

know about it is you’re given two options, appointed by political

parties. All losing votes are distributed to the parties to allow them

to appoint candidates elsewhere, which, of course, is what would allow a

fringe party with 5 percent of the vote to actually get in and have

seats in the Legislature, even if they had a marginal

showing.

Then, of course, there’s mixed-member proportional. This is the

only one that is on the list on the ballot that is actually being used

anywhere in the world. In this system, again, we have very little

details. But as I mentioned before, we’ve been told that there could be

up to 40 percent of the MLAs that are actually appointed. But we don’t

know, to this extent, whether or not that would be an open list — in

other words, you would actually know who they were — or a closed list,

to be determined later by the party brass.

The other system that is listed on the ballot is called the

rural-urban or two-tiered mix of an STV system that apparently British

Columbians actually rejected in 2005 and 2009. Whether or not a riding

is rural or urban, we don’t know. These sorts of details…. We have no

idea if where you live would actually be classified as rural or urban.

So how do we know, if somebody is interested in this rural-urban system,

how they would be classified? No, we won’t know until after the

referendum is closed.

Another video that I would encourage listeners out there to take a

look at is by our member for Vancouver–False Creek, who did a cute

little video. It was very well done. You could understand it just by the

animation. I would certainly recommend that people check that out. He

called it, “This referendum is of political parties, by political

parties, for political parties,” not for the people and not for the

voters.

[2:40 p.m.]

The other thing I wanted to mention…. I’m kind of digressing a

little bit here, because I wanted to talk about the member for Cowichan

Valley. She was talking about the benefits of proportional

representation being more kinder and gentler. I actually do admit that

she is probably one of the more kind, more gentle individuals in this

House, and I particularly take note of how calm she was when that mouse

ran across the floor during her speech, which was very

impressive.

She said: “Democracy has increasingly become a game of political

parties figuring out how to woo small pockets of potential voters based

on tapping into self-interest and less and less about parties and

politicians putting forward a coherent vision for the future that works

to forge consensus. Election campaigns are not about bringing us

together. They are sowing seeds of disunity and

fragmentation.”

Then she went on to speak about other countries in the OECD, which

were purportedly successful with proportional representation. I’d like

to bring your attention to an

article that was just published on October

10, very recently. It was published in Foreign Policy . It’s

called: “Is Sweden Ungovernable?” I would encourage anybody that is

actually considering voting for proportional representation to check out

what’s going on in Sweden right now, what’s going on in Germany right

now and what’s going on in New Zealand right now.

What they have said is: “Sweden is the latest example of political

gridlock…. All over Europe, in different multiparty systems, the

government formation process is taking longer and longer.” A researcher

at the University of Vienna — and I remember that the members of the

Green Party are talking in this House about evidence, so I’m quoting

research here — says: “Among other things, this has to do with populist

parties taking power.”

They talk about how in the Netherlands, it took 208 days to put a

new government in place. In Germany, after nearly six months, the

conservatives and the centre-left Social Democrats were finally able to

create the so-called grand coalition that rules today. In Italy — many

of us have known what has gone on in Italy — apparently there have been

65 governments since World War II. In June, it took them three months,

after the vote, to actually get a government.

It’s not just right-wing populist parties that are contributing to

the gridlock though. Politics in numerous European countries is becoming

increasingly fractured, with more parties entering parliament and

earning a bigger share of the vote. It isn’t just, as I said, the

far-right parties that have benefitted from the decline of the

traditional centre-left and centre-right parties either. The Greens,

far-left parties and other upstart movements have also gained vote

share.

“Should right-wing parties continue to make gains going forward,”

this

article goes on to say, “it will be increasingly difficult to

exclude them from the government formation process — or, on the other

hand, to form stable governments without them. That’s a general

phenomenon: the higher the number of parties that you have in

parliament, the more difficult it is” to hammer out a deal or get

something done.

Then the last point that I’ll make on this article: “The rise of

populists has slowed the process of government formation across Europe

and resulted in increasingly weak governing coalitions. And that

ultimately feeds the support for these populist parties.” I think that

those are some points that are important to mention while we’re having

this discussion on the referendum for proportional

representation.

Our member from Surrey-Panorama was very eloquent when he talked

about what was going on in New Zealand, and I’m just going to briefly go

over it. I’m not going to spend very much time. But we do know that New

Zealand First, which is a small party, received 7 percent of the vote.

They elected nine members in the 2017 election, all off of party

lists.

[2:45 p.m.]

Winston Peters, their party leader, came the closest by being the

runner-up in his riding of Northland, a riding he used to represent. But

he wasn’t actually directly elected this time. Nine MPs were appointed,

not elected. This Winston Peters, the party leader, has been the deputy

leader while the actual Prime Minister is on maternity leave.

The Alternative for Germany is the German political party

identified as the far right. Part of the AfD have racist, Islamophobic,

anti-Semitic and xenophobic tendencies linked to far-right movements

such as neo-Nazis and identitarianism. They are calling for an immediate

closing of Germany’s borders and to kick out Syrian refugees who have

found shelter in Germany. I might mention that this is Europe. This is

Germany. I don’t think that sounds kinder or gentler.

In

summary, then, I think that when we are all looking at whether

we are going to vote for a proportional representation system or not, we

should be looking at what the information is that we’re actually getting

from the referendum process. We know that there’s many, many things

missing.

The Premier actually did say, when he was speaking to the UBCM a

couple of weeks ago, to join him in this leap of faith and support the

proportional representation. But you know what? I’m not going to do

that.

I worry that we don’t have enough information from this

referendum. I worry that we don’t know how many MLAs will be actually

elected. We don’t know exactly how many MLAs are going to be appointed

from political parties. We don’t know how they’ll be appointed. Closed

lists? Open lists? How many of them?

We have no idea about the maps. We have no idea how big the

ridings are going to be. We know that they will be bigger, but we don’t

know how big they will be. We don’t know what the definition of a rural

riding is, and we don’t know what the definition of an urban riding

is.

I am very much looking forward to the debate. Our leader has

called on the Premier to debate this. It’s been a while, at least a week

I think, that the challenge was agreed on, and now we are waiting. The

Premier is here now. I will be looking forward to seeing the Premier

give us a date so that we can all get together in front of our

television sets and watch the two leaders duke it out. Then we’ll really

know the real show.

Hon. J. Horgan: It is an honour and privilege to rise in support of Bill 40 today.

I was delighted to hear the comments from one of the three, not four,

members from the North Shore — to offer her presentation and cite noted

scholar Bill Tieleman as the foundation of her argument. It is truly a

weird world that we live in when I hear B.C. Liberals quoting

chapter

and verse from the book of Tieleman. Nonetheless, it is the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia. Pretty much anything can happen

here.

Nonetheless, I am taking the opportunity to stand and speak in

support of changing our current electoral system. I’m doing that because

I believe, after too many times of having less than 50 percent of the

voters elect a government that has 100 percent of the power…. In fact,

every time since Confederation but one, that has been the case. I think

it’s time to put people back in the centre of our politics, and I

believe that supporting the proportional representation referendum this

fall will allow us to do that.

It’s a voting system that leads, in my opinion, to fairer, more

responsive governments that put people at the centre of politics and

have to ensure that they are fairer and more transparent. Just as we

have eliminated big money from politics, we believe we should take away

this notion that a small minority of voters can have all of the power

after an election, which has been the case time after time after time

here in British Columbia.

The next logical step, if you’re taking big money out, if you’re

saying that citizens should be the focus of election campaigns, then I

think that you should also say to citizens: “We want your values to be

reflected in this institution.” Not 40 percent of the values, not 37

percent of the values, but a majority of the values.

[2:50 p.m.]

We have the good fortune right now, with the first-past-the-post

system, to have a government that was elected with the same number of

votes, virtually, as the opposition party — the same number of votes,

almost the same number of seats. A government was formed when one of the

two major parties made an agreement with the third party, which had 17

percent of the votes in the last election campaign, to demonstrate a

clear majority of voters putting in place a government that will be

working for them. We’ve done a good deal of work since we were sworn in.

I’ll inventory some of that later on.

Why we introduced Bill 40 and why we’re having the discussion

today is because I wanted to make sure that citizens in British Columbia

understood that we have an opportunity to take a leap of faith, as the

member said on the other side, and turn our backs on a system that gives

power to the few over the wishes of the many and, instead, have an

opportunity to embrace proportional representation for two election

campaigns.

If we don’t like it, we’ll have a second referendum, and we can go

back to the system that we have now. Or we can ask citizens to vote in

favour of the system that they’ve selected this fall during the

referendum campaign. I believe that’s fair.

I believe that, again, gives the people the opportunity to make

these decisions, not just the people in this room. That’s critically

important. If we are going to be truly transparent in what we do in this

place, we should give power back to the people. We’ve taken big money

out. We are now allowing citizens to be the centre of election

campaigns. That’s as it should be, and I am very confident that this

November, the majority of people will vote in favour of changing from

what we have to a better way forward.

Now, the current system that we have…. I heard the member from the

North Shore talk about instability. I’m reflecting on how many different

federal governments we’ve had just in this century. There was an

election in 2000, an election in 2004 and then in 2006, in 2008, then

2011 and then 2015, and I think we’re going to have another one next

year. So that’s seven elections since the changing of the

century.

That, somehow, is more stable in the minds of many on that side of

the House than allowing a generous representation of votes to come

together after an election campaign to form a government that focuses on

the values and views of the majority of British Columbians. I think

that’s not only fair but it’s appropriate, and it happens in other

jurisdictions around the world.

I always rise up when I see members on the other side point to

anomalies in other jurisdictions but not point to the anomalies we have

right here in Canada. For example, we had an election in New Brunswick

recently where one party received 38 percent of the votes and another

party received 32 percent of the votes. The party with the largest

number of seats had 6 percent less of the vote. How does that make

sense? How is it democratic that one party with literally 32 percent of

the votes has the largest number of seats in the Legislature? It’s not

right. It’s not fair. British Columbians will have an opportunity to

change that in the days and weeks ahead, and I’m very excited about

that.

When we look at a whole host of other issues, what comes back for

me is my own personal view on this question. In 2005, I was running for

the first time to be a member of this place. At that time, there was a

referendum on proportional representation. I was too busy focusing on

knocking on doors. I was too busy doing the things that we as elected

representatives do. My view on the matter was: “Well, I don’t want to

learn more about what we could be. I’m going to go with what we have,”

and I voted against proportional representation.

For four years, I sat on that side of the House offering, I’d like

to think, on occasion, useful suggestions to the government, whether it

be in this place or in the budget estimates that happen annually,

bringing forward ideas from not just myself but from the people that I

represented at that time in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, and I got zero

response from the government.

They did not receive 50 percent of the votes — far less than that,

in fact — but they had 100 percent of the power and the ability to say

to me, as a member of this place, that my views didn’t matter and that

my constituents’ views didn’t matter because of the banner I carried one

day four years ago. I think that’s wrong.

You know what? People think that’s wrong as well. They would

prefer to see their elected representatives working together and

grappling with the very challenging issues that we face right across the

board. Whether it’s on climate action, social development and poverty

reduction or the opioid crisis, people want us to work

together.

The conflict that comes with our adversarial system is not what

they see today. Instead, they see cooperation when two parties came

together in the interests not necessarily of ourselves but of the

broader public. It’s working, and it will continue to work with

proportional representation.

[2:55 p.m.]

If you look across the spectrum at countries — some of them that

have been identified by the member from the North Shore — around the

world that have proportional representation, they inevitably elect more

women, and they elect more people of colour. At the end of the day, the

values and views of the disparate community that they represent are in

the Legislature — not outside the Legislature but in the Legislature. So

people can confidently vote for the candidate that shares their values

and know that those values will be represented in the Legislature after

the election.

I see my friend from West Vancouver–Capilano, one of the

longest-serving in the place, someone I hold in high regard. He wins his

constituency by an overwhelming number of votes. There have been times,

I believe, that he has topped all of the polls of all of the people in

this place, which says to the good citizens of West Vancouver–Capilano:

“If you have a divergent view from your member of the Legislature, the

likelihood of those views being reflected in this Legislature is zero.”

Despite the fact that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano is

thoughtful and compassionate and reaches across the aisle, at the end of

the day, people who chose to vote against his political party are not

represented here.

Similarly, I can look just to my immediate right to the member for

Victoria–Beacon Hill, who also gets elected with significant majorities

election after election. I can say confidently that all views in her

constituency are reflected and represented here, but that’s an anomaly.

By and large, when people go to vote and their candidate does not gain

success on election night, their views are shut out from this place.

That’s wrong, and we can change that.

Those that are talking about how somehow this is going to change,

that the citizens’ responsibility in our parliamentary process will

change because of the system that we use to fill the seats in here, are

just plain wrong. Under proportional representation, citizens will go to

the same church basement, the same high school gym wherever they live,

they will be given a list of names of human beings — fallible, all of

them — and they will make a deter­mination. They’ll put an X

beside one of those individuals. They’ll put it in the box, and they’ll

go home and say: “I wonder how that will work out.”

Well, what they will know, under proportional representation, is

that their views and values will be reflected in this place because all

of the votes will count. Not just the votes in West Vancouver–Capilano,

not just the votes in Victoria–Beacon Hill but all votes will reflect

the diversity of our community. That’s a good thing, not something to be

afraid of.

In 2005, I voted against proportional representation. In 2009, I

voted in favour of it. There was not one single change in the question —

not a comma, not a period, nothing. But I knew after four years of

opposition time without any influence — not personal influence but any

influence — on behalf of my constituents on the policies of government

that something needed to change.

When I was given the good fortune of becoming Leader of the

Opposition in 2014, I worked with my colleagues here and my colleagues

across the province who put their names forward and said: “We are going

to campaign on electoral reform because we need to make sure that this

institution reflects the values of 21st-century British Columbia — not

the 1870s but 2018.”

That’s why proportional representation’s time has come. The fear

should stop. The practical understanding…. You don’t need a degree in

statistics. You don’t have to be a political scientist. You continue to

do your civic duty by going to the polling place and exercising your

franchise by putting an X beside the person that best reflects your

values. After you do that, you can say with absolute certainty that your

values will be reflected in this place. That, again, as they say in the

business, is a good thing. Maybe not in Cariboo North, but everywhere

else, that’s the case.

I hear it every day as I travel around British Columbia. I hear

from people who are saying: “I’m really glad you guys are working

together. I’m really happy to see that. I like the idea that you’re

cooperating. You’re putting aside your personal differences, and you’re

working in the best interests of British Columbians.” I hear it over and

over again.

Of course, when you’re in government, you have an opportunity to

travel around and talk directly to people. When you’re in opposition,

you’re looking for a parade to lead, and I’m certain that someday a

parade will come by that the member for Cariboo North can join into. But

for now, the question before us is Bill 40 and the opportunity to say to

British Columbians: “You can embrace a change in our electoral process

this fall, and if you don’t like it, two elections hence you’ll have an

opportunity to vote against it.”

[3:00 p.m.]

That’s not so for the people of New Brunswick and not so for the

people of Ontario, who just elected a government with 40 percent of the

votes that now has 100 percent of the power. Regardless of how you feel

about Doug Ford’s politics — it’s really not important — the question of

whether one individual and his collection of MLAs should have all of the

power with only 40 percent of the vote clearly clangs like a bell in the

ear of those who want to talk about genuine democracy and genuine

parliamentary reform.

I believe we can and should be proud of our values when we go into

an election campaign and be proud of our values when we go in to vote.

And if the candidate of our choice in West Vancouver–Capilano is

unsuccessful, does that mean that our values are no longer going to be

reflected in the Legislature? I would think it should not, and I know

that the member would support me in this. He knows there are good people

in his constituency that choose not to vote for him. Should they be shut

out? I think not. And he agrees with me. He’s nodding his head in

favour. Thank you, Member.

I believe that in the 21st century, we should have an electoral

system that allows the diversity of our communities to come into this

place, to knock down those doors and be in here to talk about the

challenges people are facing in minority communities, the challenges

people are facing in poverty. The challenges of rural and remote

communities are better reflected by proportional representation, not

worse.

To have members on the other side say: “Well, we won’t be able to

find our MLA….” Goodness me, the member for Stikine represents an area

one-quarter the size of British Columbia. He tries his level best to be

in every corner of that, but there are days that his constituents can’t

find him because he’s in Dease Lake, not in Smithers. That’s a big

distance.

I know members are looking at their Google Maps right now. Those

of us who live in smaller communities can only imagine what the member

for Stikine has to do, the member for Peace River North…. These are

massive constituencies. So how do we put in place an electoral system

that will recognize our diversity and geography and also sparse

populations of some of those rural areas and burgeoning populations in

our urban centres? We need to find a way to figure that out.

The current system is not serving us well. That’s why we brought

forward changes, and that’s why we’re here today — to give citizens of

British Columbia the opportunity to change what they have and bring in

something that supports cooperation, rather than encourage

conflict.

I heard some of the members earlier talk about the partisanship

that’s coming to this debate. Partisanship is very much part of this

place, and I think that it serves us poorly as individuals and as the

body politic, because we’re constantly clashing with each other, even on

minute differences of opinion. I believe that proportional

representation allows those minute differences to disappear and,

instead, cooperation and consensus to emerge.

We’ve seen that in recent months with the members from the Green

caucus and the members from the NDP caucus. We’ve seen that with members

of the Liberal caucus who I’ve been working with since I had the

privilege of being sworn in as Premier. It can happen. It will happen

more frequently with proportional representation.

Instead of spreading panic and fear, instead of talking about not

taking risks, instead of saying, “You won’t be able to understand it;

it’s too confusing,” I would encourage the members on the other side to

say: “Let’s work together on making our electoral system more reflective

and representative of the values of 21st century British Columbia.”

Using a system from the 1800s is clearly not serving us well. It’s not

serving the citizens of British Columbia. At the end of the day, because

of the partisanship that emerges, the constant clash between government

and opposition, which….

I don’t want to diminish our parliamentary institutions

completely. Sometimes there’s value in that back-and-forth. But I think

all members, in moments of clarity and honesty, would also recognize

that we are better when we’re working together. Liberal, New Democrat,

Greens — we’re better when we’re working together. Proportional

representation allows those alliances to be formed after the election

rather than the rigid lines in the sand that are formed under our

current system.

“You shall not agree with the member on the other side,” says the

book when you arrive under first-past-the-post. Under proportional

representation, you come to this place with an open heart, an open mind

and a spirit of cooperation that will lead to better outcomes for people

at the end of the day.

What have we been able to do working together with our colleagues

in the Green caucus? We’re addressing the out-of-control housing crisis,

the challenges that we’re facing in British Columbia when it comes to

affordability of homes for people. We’re addressing the costs of

people’s medical services premiums by eliminating them by next year,

working together with other members of the Legislature.

[3:05 p.m.]

We’ve cut costs on ferry routes. Where’s my member from ferry

land? We’ve stabilized B.C. Ferries. There’s more work to be done there.

We certainly want to make sure we can get a ferry to Bella Coola

sometime soon. The guys on the other side promised it, and they’re still

promising. Unbelievable.

We need to work together to have bold action on climate change. By

the end of this year, my colleagues from the Ministry of Environment and

all members of this House will be working together to make sure that we

will have hard targets that we’ve already voted for. Those people on

that side of the House supported us in that instance. We will have hard

targets that we will realize — again, working together to make sure that

happens.

That’s what consensus government is all about. That’s what

cooperation is all about. Take the conflict out — the rigid line across

the middle of the floor that inevitably comes from first-past-the-post

because the winner takes all in those circumstances.

Surely, I am not out of time. Am I really? Good, I was worried

about that. You leaned forward. I thought: “My goodness, it’s been so

long.” I’ve still got pages to turn over, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you. I think I might.

One of the other things, of course, we’ve been able to work on

together, the Green caucus and the NDP, is bringing in the first

universal accessible quality child care program in B.C.’s history.

Again, putting people at the centre of the equation. Investing in skills

training. Investing in post-secondary education and K-to-12 education.

Making sure that our children get the best opportunity they possibly

can. Working across party lines to make sure that happens.

Proportional representation will allow us to do that not just by

random circumstance, which is what we found ourselves in after the May

2017 election, but after every election. All of the people that are

elected to this place will have to find their way forward together, not

for themselves but for the people that sent them here. The people of

British Columbia will have good government, cooperative government, not

the conflict we’ve seen too many times in the past.

Most importantly, we will not see again a government that has less

than 50 percent support of the people in this room having 100 percent of

the power. I don’t know how anyone could call that democratic. I’m just

perplexed that Bill Tieleman, my dear friend, who is quoted time and

time again by B.C. Liberals…. I believe he was denigrated time and time

again in the most recent past. Nonetheless, I’m surprised that members

on the other side of the House would prefer fear over a frank dialogue

about how we get ourselves into the 21st century.

Maybe that’s what separates them from us. Maybe that’s why they’re

there, and we’re over here. Maybe it’s because we put in our platform a

commitment to bring forward a referendum on electoral reform that says:

“Do you want what you’ve had all these years that gives you arrogant

majority governments that stop listening to you the minute the poll

closes? Or do you want to have a government going forward that will be

responsive every day to the values and wishes of the people of British

Columbia and that will work across party lines?”

I say yes. I say yes to the referendum this fall. I say yes to

making sure that cooperation is the value of the day, not conflict. They

want to fearmonger. They want to say the world will come to an end if we

vote for something we don’t understand.

My goodness, they make it sound as if this is complicated. We’re

going to the same church basement, as I said earlier. We’re going to the

same high school. You’re going to get a list of names. They’re going to

be fallible human beings, every one of them. Voters will make their best

educated guess on who will serve them and who will reflect their values.

They’ll put an X. They’ll drop it in the box. After that’s over, people

will come to this place, and they’ll work together in the interests of

all British Columbians. What could possibly be wrong with

that?

Only those who want to cling to the past and cling to their

big-money politics that allowed them, election after election, to form

majority governments with less than 50 percent of the vote. That’s what

they want to protect. We on this side of the House and the Green caucus

— everyone over here — and the majority of British Columbians will say:

“Thankfully, this November, we will have an opportunity to make sure our

values are in this institution, working for us, the people of British

Columbia.” What could be better than that?

[3:10 p.m.]

S. Bond: I very much appreciate the opportunity to join other members in

this House as we discuss something as important as a potential change to

the electoral system in British Columbia. I want to assure the Premier,

who….

I have to say that I appreciate being in this House, hearing

speeches that are passionate, that are emotional. They should be. In

fact, it sounds to me like this Premier is probably ready to take on a

debate. He took it on in the House, and we’d like to challenge him now

to take it outside of the House. Let’s have this conversation in a venue

where the Premier has a chance to bring these ideas right to the front

of British Columbians’ attention. It sounds like the Premier is ready

for a debate. He’s probably ready to give an answer to the fact as to

whether or not he’ll have that debate outside this chamber.

I want to assure the Premier that one of the things we want to

make very clear is that while the members on that side of the House,

including the Premier, want to characterize our comments in terms of

using the word “fear,” what we’d like to see from the members on the

opposite benches are some facts. The Premier continues to use the phrase

that most British Columbians are starting to get more worried about. He

continues to take pride in saying: “Let’s take a leap of faith.” In

fact, it’s been characterized as: “Let’s take a leap into the

dark.”

This is a place where there should be emotion in speeches, where

it is the place where we should have frank and timely discussions,

especially about something this fundamental. We’re about to make a

choice about the future of electoral reform in British Columbia. What

are we debating today? We’re debating a one-page bill that says to

British Columbians: “You might be a bit uncomfortable about where we’re

at. You may not have all the information you need. But you know what?

We’re going to give you a do-over.” On something as essential and

fundamental as how we elect the people who represent British Columbians,

we’re prepared to give them a do-over just in case it doesn’t work

out.

We should care deeply about how people are chosen to serve in this

chamber. I stand here as the 57th woman elected to this place. I still

find that a humbling thing to think about, much less say out loud — the

57th woman elected to this place. I take my job very seriously. While I

respect the Premier’s ability to insert humour and make comments about

how we serve our constituents, I want to clarify for the record that in

his comments about his time on the opposition bench when he brought

issues to the government of the day and he got no response — that is

simply not accurate.

I take my job seriously, and I have asked the people of Prince

George–Valemount five times, at the provincial level, to send me to

Victoria. I am grateful that each and every one of those times, they

said yes. It matters. People take their right to vote very seriously,

and they take the time to get to know the people whose names are on the

ballots.

Again, while the Premier stands here and tries to assure British

Columbians that, “Oh yes, they’ll get to pick the names on the ballot,”

he forgot to mention the part about each one of these models making a

fundamental shift. Each one of the models gives more authority to

parties to choose those names on the ballot. He left that part out of

his speech.

It’s not fearmongering; it’s fact-finding. There are three models

put before British Columbians, each of them transferring more of the

power about who chooses those names, who puts those names on the

ballots. That’s not fearmongering; that’s fact-finding. British

Columbians need to know that that happens in each and every one of those

three models.

[3:15 p.m.]

Recently, as I went to vote in the advanced polls, I was so moved

by watching a young man who is running for public office for the first

time in Prince George, for a position on the city council. You know what

his goal was? It was to be the first person in line at the advance polls

to cast his ballot.

I was in the lineup behind him. I have to admit I remembered what

it was like when I saw my name on a ballot for the first time. I watched

as he enthusiastically was the first person in our city to vote. I

looked, and I thought: “This is the future.” He’s excited about seeing

his name on a ballot. He is working hard every single day in our

community, one on one, meeting people, talking to them and meeting in

the community. His name wasn’t picked by a party and put on the ballot.

He felt called to public service.

Despite the Premier’s comments just moments ago, there are no

guarantees about whose name will be on the ballot in your riding or my

riding or any riding in British Columbia, because we do not know the

details.

I represent a riding not nearly as large as some members in this

House, but my riding is currently the size of Belgium. The rewards are

many. For 17 years, as I have driven up and down that highway, I have

gotten to know people by their names. I know what they do. I know where

they work. I know the issues that matter.

For anyone, much less the Premier, to suggest in this House that I

come to this House and completely ignore the issues that are important

to all of the constituents in my riding is simply offensive. Every other

member of this House should be standing up and saying exactly the same

thing.

I represent resilient, incredible people, and not once when they

have come into my office or they have called me or they have texted me

or they have stopped me in a parking lot or in the grocery store have I

ever asked them who they voted for. It doesn’t matter.

It is one of the things that upsets me most about the

presentations and the leaflets and the posts and the accusations — that

MLAs in this House serve only the ones that voted for them. Nothing

could be further from the truth. It is one thing that I think I can say

for every member of this House — that they probably agree with that.

They should be just as offended as I am about that.

Once our voters have chosen their MLA, we serve our constituents —

not our supporters or our members but our constituents, our citizens,

our residents. If there is an MLA in this House that uses that as the

principle of their public service, and I highly doubt that there is,

they should be embarrassed and shocked and shamed by that. That is not

what we are called to do.

When this debate sinks to the point that one of the key arguments

is: “Well, they don’t serve everyone….” In fact, we had, in a humorous

way, that very comment uttered by the Premier of British Columbia — that

that doesn’t happen. “Once you get elected, the rest of the people in

your constituency don’t matter.” Well, I want to put on the record that

I take offence to that, and every other MLA who does their job should as

well.

I don’t ask who they voted for. It doesn’t matter. I am here to

serve my constituency, my community, my region, and I will pour my heart

and soul into continuing to do that on a personal, intimate,

well-informed way.

[3:20 p.m.]

Today we have before us Bill 40. Now, I have been here for a long

time in my career, and there aren’t many bills that are one page long.

In fact, the Finance Minister today tabled two bills, and they are

hundreds of sections long. They are big. The Finance Minister and I will

have a chance to discuss those, I’m sure, at length over the next few

days.

If you look at the title of this bill — nothing extraordinary. No

reason to raise flags. Yet all of us, if we actually took the time to

think about it, should be concerned about the words on that one page.

You see, Bill 40 attempts to bind future governments to hold a

subsequent referendum on whether or not we should keep the proportional

representation system should there be a decision by British Columbians

to move to a new system.

This bill ignores the well-known and straightforward principle

that the Attorney General and this government are simply not in a

position to limit the power of future legislatures. It’s equivalent to

legislation 101. And this is coming from an Attorney General who stood

in this Legislature and told us and British Columbians that he was going

to be neutral in this process.

Let’s take a moment and consider that the Attorney General has

dropped this bill in the Legislature in the middle of an emotional,

contentious debate in our province about one of the most fundamental

pillars of any society — how we elect the people who govern.

In just days, envelopes are going to start arriving in people’s

mailboxes, asking them to carefully consider how they vote. The decision

to change an electoral system should be determined only after there is a

fair process, an independent process. There should be ample time for

education and discussion and to engage with British

Columbians.

Now, do you think it’s an accident that the referendum is tucked

neatly between the end of summer vacation, the return to school, the

fall activities, Thanksgiving and municipal elections?

While we’re thinking that maybe the only thing that people are

thinking about electoral reform is “I don’t understand it,” the most

common reaction I get when talking to my constituents, whether they

voted for me or not, is: “What referendum?” We’re about to ask British

Columbians to change the electoral process in British Columbia, and most

of them do not know there is a referendum. What on earth is the rush?

I’ll get to that in a moment.

In that context, the Attorney General, through Bill 40, says to

British Columbians: “Don’t worry about your decision. Let’s just

consider change. Let’s give it a try, and if you don’t like it, we’ll

change it back.”

On the one hand, we hear about how important it is that people

need to have education, information, take a thoughtful approach and

learn as much as they can before they mark their ballot. After all, in

my view, the outcome is pretty important.

On the other hand, this bill clearly sends a message that it’s

okay if you’re not quite sure. If you don’t have all of the information

you need, it’s okay. If you don’t have the details you need, just give

it a shot. To repeat once again the motto of this Premier’s approach:

take a leap of faith. If it doesn’t work out, we’ll do another

referendum.

Let’s be clear. It might be a one-page bill. It might have an

innocuous title. But if you look at when it was tabled and what it is

intended to do, it is to try to ease the concerns, the rightful

concerns, the rightful degree of discomfort that many British Columbians

are facing. “It’s okay. You get a do-over.”

[3:25 p.m.]

There have been rules put in place related to this referendum, and

the intent of those rules is to ensure that there is a level playing

field, that there’s no undue influence, that everyone plays by the same

set of rules — except with Bill 40.

While many think that most people don’t really pay attention to

what’s going on in the Legislature, and they would be right about that,

this bill, once forced through the Legislature, will be used to give

people who genuinely and rightly are considering how they will vote a

sense of false comfort by making a promise, which cannot be kept, that

there will be a subsequent referendum. “Don’t worry. Take a leap of

faith. Change the system. We can always change it back

again.”

Really? Does anyone actually believe that if a system is put in

place that encourages, mobilizes and brings multiple parties to this

Legislature, there will ever be a second referendum to consider

reversing the very system that gives power to those parties? Of course

not. So this bill, on a single sheet of paper, is designed to provide

some degree of comfort to voters that if they, to quote the Premier,

“take a leap of faith” and the outcome isn’t what they had expected,

they can have a do-over. “We’ll just change it back.”

Anyone who takes even a few minutes to think about this will

recognize that it won’t work that way. There won’t be a do-over. So

instead of spending our time debating a one-page bill that attempts to

bind future governments and promises a subsequent referendum, we should

be spending our time debating the flawed process that this Attorney

General and government have created.

Once again, apparently if you ask tough questions about the

process, apparently if you ask for more facts, apparently if you want to

have the models that have been suggested explained to you, that equates

to fearmongering, according to virtually every member on the other side

of the House. Actually, that’s our job. It’s our job to ask those

questions, to question the process on behalf of the constituents and

other British Columbians whose voices are not heard on that

issue.

If the Premier, his government and the members of the Green Party

want British Columbians to take a leap of faith, then they should be at

least prepared to answer the tough questions that a process like this

deserves. We are changing, potentially, the electoral system in British

Columbia. We’re not changing the colour of the carpet in the

Legislature.

Here’s what we know, and it was, again, interesting. Again, I want

to express my respect for the Premier being able to present his views

here in the Legislature, but I didn’t hear the Premier explain how he

promised British Columbians a simple yes-no ballot. That is not the

case. Fearmongering? No. Fact-presenting.

There are two questions on the ballot, including a grid for

ranking. And do you know what’s most disappointing? Considering the

stakes, considering the significance of this process, one would have

thought that on the ballot you could have at least had the words

printed, “You only need to fill out question 1,” so that people who were

confused about that at least had that certainty. Was that possible? No.

It wasn’t because that question was not asked. That is the second most

common reaction I get from people: “Do I have to fill out question 2?”

Promised a simple yes-no.

[3:30 p.m.]

The Premier also said there would be an independent process. Well,

that certainly isn’t the case. The Attorney General is the lead on this

file. The questions were approved by cabinet. Bill 40, introduced in the

Legislature in the middle of this debate in British Columbia, simply

saying: “It’s okay. Don’t worry. We’ll give you a do-over.”

We know that, as I said earlier, in just a few days, a voting

package will be arriving in mailboxes across the province and that many

people are not even aware there is a referendum. There is confusion, not

nearly enough time for people to get the kinds of information that they

need. We know that there are three forms of proportional representation

on the ballot. I don’t know if you’ve been to a forum in your community

or asked someone from Fair Vote or the government or the Greens or

somebody: “Which model would you recommend to British

Columbians?”

You know what the answer is? This was the answer in my forum in

Prince George on the weekend: “Pick any one. I’m not going to choose

one.” Well, if there is so much confidence that proportional

representation is going to make things so much better, then stand up and

argue on behalf of a model, with clarity and detail and specifics, and

let British Columbians have a fair and appropriate process.

Two of the models, two of the systems…. Maybe this doesn’t matter

if you don’t live in rural B.C. It matters to me. I’ve heard rural

members stand up on the other side with glowing praises, sending out

videos. There’s a model called rural-urban. I would challenge anyone in

this Legislature to describe for me whether Prince George, Valemount and

McBride are rural or urban. How are they going to choose when they don’t

even know how they fit in that model?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Dual-member. Who can explain it? Here’s the kicker. Those two

models were not even included in the government’s on-line engagement

process. British Columbians didn’t even get to have feedback about that,

despite the promise that there would be an engagement and a consultation

that was legitimate and valid. Two of the models on the ballot were not

included in the consultation dialogue. Even worse, from my perspective,

they are in place nowhere in the world.

I love my province. I love my constituency. I work hard to

represent all of my constituents. Yet the best we get to offer them are

three models, none of which most people can explain, all of which shift

some degree of authority to powers to choose their MLAs, and two of

which have never been tried in the world before. In my view, that is

simply not good enough for British Columbians.

I would absolutely love to hear the Premier stand up and explain

to British Columbians how no one will name a specific model. “Let’s

choose three, two of which do not operate in the world.” And when we ask

those tough questions, that’s called fearmongering? No, it’s called

actually getting information to British Columbians so they can make an

informed decision about one of the most important and fundamental things

that any province or jurisdiction can look at.

We also know that there are no regional or voter participation

thresholds. Now, we can say that. What does that mean? I, in this

Legislature, asked the Attorney General directly about participation

thresholds. What it means is this: it doesn’t matter how many people

participate. We’re going to have whatever number that is. It may be

small; it may be large.

We don’t know what it’ll be, but we’re prepared to change the

electoral system of British Columbia based on whoever participates, and

50 percent plus one is all we need. If you think about that, even for

another five minutes, when you break down the vote…. Let’s say for a

moment that British Columbians decide they want a system of proportional

representation. Are they choosing one model?

[3:35 p.m.]

No, that vote will be split between three choices. Do the math. We

start out with whoever participates, 50 percent plus one, and we break

that down even further if they choose a model of proportional

representation. How low will we go? When is this process considered

valid? When will this government, this coalition government, believe

they have a mandate from the people of British Columbia? What percentage

does it require? Apparently none. In my view, that’s simply not good

enough for British Columbians. Call it fearmongering. I call it

fact-finding. How on earth can this government suggest that it is fair

or reasonable to run this referendum without a participation

threshold?

Here’s one of the ones that the people where I live are grappling

with. I don’t stoop to fearmongering, but I can tell you, I’m going to

talk about this every single day with the people I represent, because

there’s no regional threshold. To those members who have small rural

communities in their ridings, I look forward to them going home and

explaining to their constituents how in heavily populated urban areas,

their votes will count more than ours will because there’s no regional

threshold.

Basically, you can tell people who live where I do that with the

stroke of a pen and the elimination of a regional threshold: “Thank you

very much. You get to participate. But by the way, if you live in a

large urban centre, that’s where the decision is going to be made.”

Fearmongering? No, fact-finding.

I guess something else that the Premier didn’t raise in his

comments…. I think that if we’re going to have an honest, legitimate

debate about this, we need to make sure that all the cards are on the

table. I heard and I very much appreciated the passion and the personal

views. But make no mistake about it.

I encourage people to turn to page 3 of the confidence and supply

agreement. There’s a motivation for having this referendum at breakneck

speed without proper details, without proper information. No regional

thresholds. “Let’s get it done. Let’s have a do-over.” This is what it

says: “A referendum on proportional representation will take place in

the fall of 2018, concurrent with the next municipal election.” Well,

not only that. “The parties agree that they will work together in good

faith to consult British Columbians to determine the form of

proportional representation that will be put to a referendum…. The

parties agree to…support…the agreed-upon form.”

Deciding to change an electoral system is one of the most

fundamental decisions that British Columbians can make. It is our job to

ask tough questions. There are simply not enough details. There are no

maps. No one in this House can tell me how many people, how many MLAs,

will represent my riding of Prince George–Valemount. No one can tell me

how big it is, where the names are going to come from. No one can even

answer the question: how low does the voter participation rate have to

be before can we say this is not legitimate?

Again, I say that while I appreciate the Premier having been in

this place and making his comments, he promised British Columbians it

would be independent. There would be a yes-no question. My question to

the members on the other side of the House, on behalf of all of my

constituents, not the ones that voted for me, because I don’t ask them

that, and neither do any of my colleagues, and I’m sure no one else….

What I say today is this is not good enough for British Columbians. What

is the rush? It is time to start over.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: It’s an honour and a privilege today to stand here and speak in

favour of Bill 40, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act,

Today we have a historic opportunity to make change that could

have a profound and positive impact on B.C. politics for generations,

and we will lead the way for the rest of the country. We have an

opportunity to change our voting system so that everyone’s vote can

count.

Let me tell you why this is so important. For years in my

professional life, I was a teacher. As a teacher, I taught socials 8, 9,

10 and 11. I had the privilege of teaching young children about our

democratic institutions. It was always very difficult to explain to

students how, in British Columbia, some party, any party, that only got,

let’s say, 40 percent of the votes could possibly end up with 100

percent of the power and could end up with more seats, because at the

same time, I was teaching the value of the individual’s vote.

I took time to teach that aspect, because I know that those who

went before us sacrificed a lot so that we could have the right to vote.

So for me as a teacher — and it’s definitely in the curriculum — it was

very important to teach our students about civic responsibility and

about the different forms of government that exist around the

world.

The one question that always stumped me and made me reflect was

when students would say to me: “How can you say my vote counts when a

political party that only has 42 percent of the votes gets to be in

power and basically gets their way?” They had the privilege of coming to

sit in these hallowed hallways and in the balcony and watch some of the

shenanigans from question period, I would say. For those students, even

at the age of 16, they realized the value of their vote.

I got to tell them the wonderful stories and heart-wrenching

stories of how women were not even recognized as persons when men first

got the right to vote, how the struggle ensued by women who went before

me, assisted by some men, to get the right to vote. I can tell you that

there is nothing more fundamental to a democracy than to exercise our

right to vote and for that vote to count.

While a Member of Parliament, I can tell you that I went regularly

to visit the five women on the Hill, with their teacups and all, and to

reflect on the journey women like myself have taken to be able to sit in

those Houses, whether it’s the House of Commons or here in British

Columbia, our Legislature. It’s that fundamental belief in our right to

have a vote and to exercise that vote. Then that drives me to how that

vote has to count for it to be meaningful for us to have a democratic

system that truly works.

Don’t get me wrong. The current system has worked in a variety of

ways. Sometimes it has worked better than others. But at the same time,

here we have a historic opportunity to ensure that every vote counts and

to make sure that we have democratic institutions that truly reflect the

diversity of beliefs that exist in our communities. And that is

fundamental.

[3:45 p.m.]

Let me talk a little bit about the general election that occurred

recently, October 1, in Quebec, and let’s see what happened there.

Coalition Avenir Québec received 37 percent of the popular vote but got

59 percent of the total seats. The Coalition Avenir Québec have 100

percent of power — 37 percent of the popular vote, 59 percent of the

seats yet 100 percent of the power. They actually don’t have to consult

with anyone, but only 37 percent of Quebeckers voted for

them.

What this story illustrates is that something in our current

system is broken. Too many people feel that their vote does not count.

Whether I’ve been in my riding or whether I’ve been travelling around

the province as part of my ministerial work, I do meet people who do

feel disenfranchised. They feel their vote hasn’t counted in the past,

that their vote is wasted. Too many people feel that our current voting

system does not work for them, and that’s a wake-up call for this

Legislature.

If we have voters out there in large numbers feeling that the

current system does not work for them, does not reflect their values,

and that very often their voices cannot be heard, then we have to pay

attention, because that is a danger to democracy. When people feel

disenfranchised, then they don’t exercise their right to

vote.

These voters see situations like Quebec. They see situations like

Ontario, where we’ve had a recent election that was very divisive — I

would say very, very divisive — where a political party that has won 40

percent of the vote is now in charge of 100 percent of the power and the

decision-making. There the new Premier in Ontario doesn’t have to work

with anyone, and his decisions are hurting the most vulnerable in that

province.

We saw something similar happen in this province under the

previous administration. Election after election, they would get less

than half of the votes, grab 100 percent of the power, and it was

hard-working people who paid the price.

We just have it look at what’s happened to our social programs;

the decimation that happened in the education system, both K to 12 and

post-secondary; the apprenticeship sys­tem; the cost of housing;

affordability issues that got way out of control. The B.C. Liberals made

everyone pay more for everything while cutting important services like

health and education.

To be fair, I have to give the B.C. Liberals credit, because they

got me into politics. It’s true. It was the cuts made by the federal

conservatives that got me to run to be a Member of Parliament, because I

didn’t like to see the changes that were happening to the country I

loved. Here in B.C., my political activism was fueled by what I saw

happen to public education, health care, working people, our social

safety net in the years 2000 and plus.

For 16 long years, we watched cuts and policies that affected

people: school closures, health care waits getting longer and longer,

lack of affordable housing, need for child care investment, poverty

issues. I could go on and tell some pretty graphic stories, but I think

I paint a picture.

[3:50 p.m.]

The truth is that the old, outdated first-past-the-post voting

system only really works for those on the top. The B.C. Liberals and

their wealthy friends are desperate to keep the old way of voting

because it makes it easier for them to control government with a

minority of votes. With first-past-the-post, they can cut services and

make life more expensive while doing favours for their rich

friends.

We see, right now, a lot of concern and a lot of anxiety about

changing the electoral system. But let me tell you, it is British

Columbians who will make that decision. That decision about a change in

the electoral system is not going to be made by the B.C. Liberal

opposition party or the Green caucus or those of us who sit in

government. That decision is going to be made by British

Columbians.

Every British Columbian, no matter where they live in this

province, will get the right to vote. They will have an opportunity to

vote. I will encourage each and every British Columbian to get informed.

Get your questions answered, and then go and vote, and have your say in

choosing an electoral system that will reflect the diversity of our

population.

This is not something that government is going to do in secret.

This was something that was in our platform while we ran. Our Premier

spoke about it passionately. This is something that we put out soon

after we became government. People have had lots of time to learn about

this. There were consultations done.

I would encourage British Columbians who are listening and all

around this province: do your homework. Do your homework and get your

questions answered. Make sure that you have the information you need.

But please, once you are informed, exercise your right to vote and

participate in this democratic decision to determine for British

Columbians — every single British Columbian determining — the kind of

electoral system they want.

It’s British Columbians who will pick and choose. It’s the voters

who turn out to vote. Based on the information they have, they are the

ones who are going to do the voting. Proportional representation is a

choice to be made by British Columbians, and I can say that I will be

supporting this referendum.

I’ll be honest. The first time this referendum came out, I did not

support it. I found it didn’t have the information I needed or the

understanding. But I have taken the time, and I’m sure British

Columbians will take the time so that they can make an informed vote.

They’re going to get to vote no matter where they live. Each British

Columbian who is eligible to vote will get a vote.

It is every person’s responsibility to make sure that they

exercise their right to vote, knowing that if they go for a change in an

electoral system, every vote will count, and votes won’t be wasted. It

takes away this idea of strategic voting, which I always find

bizarre.

Proportional representation will strengthen the voice of people

from every region of this province because every vote will count, and

MLAs won’t be able to ignore voters anymore. I want to say, with

respect, and to my colleagues across the way, I truly believe that all

of us, when we are elected, do our very best to represent every

constituent in our riding. We do our best when we’re in the riding. But

I also know that when we enter these hallowed rooms, somehow

partisanship kicks in.

[3:55 p.m.]

We want parties to be more accountable. I believe proportional

representation will take us there because it will force us to work

together and to collaborate. You know, collaboration is better if it

happens willingly, but sometimes you have to stage collaboration.

Proportional representation will stage collaboration, and it will

encourage people to work together. Those who hold a majority of seats

but not a majority of the vote, under the current system, will never

again be able to push through their extreme agendas and get away with

it.

We can all cite examples of extreme agendas — like, with a stroke

of a pen, stripping the working and learning conditions for students out

of teachers’ collective agreements, those that were duly negotiated just

removed with the stroke of a pen, to the point that even articles that

related to how we remove students with special needs, during an

earthquake…. Even those provisions were deleted. Those were acts of

extremism.

The majority of countries around the world now use some form of

proportional rep, like in New Zealand, Scotland, Wales, Sweden, Denmark

and Iceland. We’ve seen their experiences. We’ve seen the governments

that are stable and have a greater sense of satisfaction because they

are working together in collaboration instead of in a confrontational

mode. There is greater diversity amongst elected representatives, and

voter turnout, especially youth voter turnout, increases.

Over the next several weeks, you’re going to hear a lot of

rhetoric and misleading claims from the other side. The no side, the

B.C. Liberals and their friends, we must remember, have a very personal

stake in keeping the status quo. We all fear change to an extent, and I

think there is some anxiety.

We’ve already banned big money from elections, and now we have an

historic chance to finish the job and have a system where every single

person’s vote counts. We have a chance to put power back in the hands of

regular people, not just the wealthy and well connected. And we don’t

just have one choice; we have two.

It is up to British Columbians whether we change our voting system

to one where every vote counts, and it is going to be up to British

Columbians whether we keep that system in the second referendum. That is

critical. We get to try it out for two elections, and then we’re

bringing it back to a vote again, because we want to see whether it

works for British Columbians. They need to have that

assurance.

We have a chance to finally put people at the centre of politics,

not just temporarily but for good.

M. Morris: My pleasure to get up and speak in relation to Bill 40, the

referendum act, 2018.

When this first came about, I had to revert back to my days in the

RCMP where everything that we did as an organ­ization, as a police

force in enforcing the laws of Canada, had to be anchored in some form

of legislation or some form of authority.

When the hint of proportional representation was presented in this

House and people were speaking about it, I thought: what is the

authority that we can hang proportional representation on, that we can

link it to, to ensure that it’s something that we can move forward

with?

The glue that binds us together in this great country of ours —

it’s the greatest country in the world — is the constitution, the

Canadian constitution. In 1982, it was amended to include the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms. So from 1867 until 1982, we brought in the Charter

of Rights and Freedoms.

[4:00 p.m.]

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there is

section 3 that

states that every citizen has the right to vote for a member of the

House of Commons or of a Legislative Assembly and to be qualified for

membership therein. Pretty straightforwa