Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 194

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Petitions

J. Rustad

D. Routley

Orders of the Day

Standing Order 81.1

Schedule for debate on Bills 40 and 52

Hon. M. Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued)

E. Ross

B. Stewart

S. Gibson

G. Kyllo

J. Isaacs

T. Shypitka

T. Wat

D. Barnett

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018

Reporting of Bills

Bill 52 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 52 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018

Bill 47 —Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act

Bill 49 — Professional Governance Act

Bill 50 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act

Bill 52 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 54 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 56 — Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 57 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 52 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018

(continued)

I. Paton

Hon. L. Popham

D. Barnett

M. Bernier

D. Davies

A. Olsen

L. Larson

B. Stewart

M. Hunt

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2018

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Petitions

J. Rustad: On advice from the Speaker, I rise to present a petition. I have a

petition signed….

Interjection.

J. Rustad: I’m glad the opposition members are so interested, particularly the

Minister of Transportation.

It’s a petition signed by more than 250 people regarding the north

shore of Fraser Lake, particularly Stella Road. They are requesting that the

government consider seal-coating, especially in the light of the Shovel fire

and the challenges. Accompanying the petition, there are also letters of

support from the chiefs of both the Stellat’en and Nadleh Whut’en First

Nations.

D. Routley: I rise to present a petition from 536 residents in Nanaimo who are

concerned about the possibility that homeless people may be moved into a

supportive housing project in their neighbourhood.

[1:35 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE

ON BILLS 40 AND

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), all remaining proceedings

related to Bill (No. 40) intituled Electoral Reform Referendum 2018

Amendment Act, 2018 and Bill (No. 52) intituled

Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018 , including

any proposed amendments on notice standing in the Ministers’ names on

the Order Paper, shall be completed and disposed of on or before

Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:45 p.m. At 4:30 p.m. on the date

mentioned, the Speaker and the Chair of the Committee of the Whole will

forthwith put all necessary questions for the disposal of all remaining

stages of the said bills without amendment or debate.

Any divisions called on sections of the said Bills shall be taken in

accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1. Any division called on

any second reading amendments, second reading, or third reading of the

said bills may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16.

Proceedings under this motion shall not be subject to the provisions of

Standing Order 81, or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to times

and days of the sittings of the House.]

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill

40, the referendum act. In

Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 52,

the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

E. Ross: Before the lunch break, we were talking about the amendment to

Bill 40, intituled the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act. I

was just covering the point of why this should not be considered in

terms of the electoral reform in its current fashion.

It’s because it’s such a complicated issue. The ballot is

complicated. Many residents in my constituency are coming to me, asking

me for explanations and just wanting more information in terms of what

to expect. There are members on both sides of this House that don’t

truly understand the full nature of what will happen or, even under the

current process, what’s happening with the referendum on proportional

referendum.

Now, we know that there was a promise made for a simple yes-or-no

question for the ballot, and that didn’t come through. We were also

expecting, and all British Columbians were promised, an all-party

committee to consult with British Columbians. We know this didn’t

happen. Instead, what happened was an on-line survey that British

Columbians didn’t participate in, let alone hear about.

Basically, if you know your way around the Internet and are a

political junkie and care about Legislature business, then you are most

likely to participate. Unfortunately, nobody in my community

participated because none of the people that I represent in my own

community actually are political junkies or care what happens in this

Legislature and don’t know their way around the Internet.

It’s my opinion that the findings, whatever they were, were skewed

because they weren’t really a reflection of what British Columbians, as

a whole, were thinking about.

[1:40 p.m.]

The term “threshold” has been thrown around quite a bit. For those

many people watching at home, watching us right now, hello. Just to

explain to you what “threshold” means in this context. When past

governments held a referendum on proportional representation, they

included a term called “thresholds.” They understood this because they

understood what it meant to be changing the fundamentals of our

democracy.

It was said in the past that there was a 60 percent threshold

needed for the mandate to change our electoral system. So 60 percent….

Not many people understood this. In today’s context, if we applied a 60

percent threshold, that would mean 52 out of the 87 ridings in B.C.

would’ve had to vote yes for a mandate to change our electoral system.

That meant that 52 ridings out of the 87 ridings in B.C. had to

understand and, more importantly, had to want a system like proportional

representation.

This is not what happened in this current referendum. There is no

threshold in this current referendum. The government said that even if 5

percent of the electorate — not the ridings — voted, then the results

would be binding.

This is an unbelievable position to take, considering the amount

of information that has to be absorbed by the average citizen and isn’t

available to the average citizen. Combine that with a mail-in ballot

process, instead of in-person voting, where the rules are clear already,

whether it be a provincial or municipal election. Substituting an

on-line survey for actual meaningful consultation with voters is just

another mechanism to ensure a yes vote.

This is similar to the false promise that was made to British

Columbians just recently that somehow a future government would hold

another referendum if B.C. chooses to go back to the system that we

currently enjoy. I spoke to that earlier, and what I said was that

today’s government can’t get a future government to be bound by a

political promise made by politicians today. And that’s what it was —

promising a referendum to go back to a system.

What I didn’t mention, though, was: why would a future

legislature, made up of a number of parties in this House, choose to end

their chance at getting a seat in this House in the first place? If even

half of the registered parties of B.C. got into this Legislature under

proportional representation, that would be 13 parties, because there are

26 registered parties in B.C. right now. So 13 parties, all minorities,

all made up of maybe two or three members per party. Why would they vote

themselves out of this Legislature?

You couldn’t get the votes. Under proportional representation, it

would be just a process for politicians to save themselves and their

parties, to secure their seats in this House. It wouldn’t happen. With

all these fringe parties and these small, little parties, many in

alliances and agreements in this House to ensure B.C. never goes back to

first-past-the-post, it’s a politician’s dream job. All we’d see is

deal-making in this House, to make sure that we did not go back to

first-past-the-post, if it was even possible for this government to bind

the hands of a future government.

Proportional representation is a dream job for politicians, not

only for fringe parties, but it’s also a dream job for people that don’t

even have to run in an election, don’t even have to campaign, don’t have

to abide by the rules of Elections B.C. Under proportional

representation, there’s a tremendous opportunity to get appointed to

represent a riding. It doesn’t even matter if you live in that

riding.

Which begs the question: why have an election at all? If you can

just get on a party list — on a minority party’s party list — and they

get government, you can be appointed to be an MLA. Now that opens up the

door to a lot of different questions that come to mind, right out of the

gates.

[1:45 p.m.]

I don’t know if there are current rules or laws — I know it’s a

moral issue — when you’re talking about cronyism. For those at home, if

you don’t know what cronyism is, Wikipedia defines it as the appointment

of friends and associates to positions of authority without proper

regard to their qualifications. Is that not taking MLAs off a party list

and appointing them to constituencies across B.C.? You compare that to

our current system, where you must participate in an election under the

rules of the B.C. Election Act.

In my village, we call cronyism nepotism, and we’re always accused

of it in the villages around B.C. That’s the phrase I’m more familiar

with. Nepotism is the practice among those with power or influence of

favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them

jobs.

Who is going to be on these party lists, and why will they be

appointed? What will the criteria be? Let alone: will they have the

interest of the constituencies at hand when they’re appointed to a

constituency that they don’t even live in because it’s a party favour or

it’s a supporter? That is not democracy.

It’s absolutely incredible that the government of B.C. favours a

system like proportional representation, which is open to cronyism and

nepotism. These are serious charges when you are part of a band council.

It causes political chaos, in villages like mine all around B.C., when

you’re charged with nepotism. I see no difference here when you’re

talking about proportional representation except that it’s on a

provincial scale.

I know the government — the B.C. NDP, maybe even the Premier —

will put out more promises to put in protections against cronyism and

nepotism, but the promises made to date, so far, haven’t been lived up

to. So I have to err on the side of caution on this one. A promise

that…. I don’t even know what the promise would be. Appointing an MLA

that doesn’t run in an election, that doesn’t live in the riding is an

unbelievable position to take, especially in B.C., in Canada.

The only way to make sure that a referendum like this one that

we’re currently seeing is free from political rigging is to keep

politicians away from it entirely. In previous proportional

representation referendums, the government of the day formed the

Citizens’ Assembly to consider changes to our electoral system. The

process of forming the Citizens’ Assembly was to choose two randomly

selected citizens from each riding. In 2003, the members of this House

adopted this process unanimously.

It’s disappointing that this government completely ignored this

at-arms-length, non-political process in favour of a system that all but

guarantees the outcome they want. The amount of due diligence that was

done by the Citizens’ Assembly was gratifying, as a citizen of B.C.,

when I read up on this, not only by the process they put in place but

also by educating themselves on different electoral systems around the

world, including first-past-the-post and proportional

representation.

The result was a recommendation to change our current system to a

single transferable vote, which ultimately went to a referendum,

complete with a 60 percent threshold. Twice B.C. has voted on

proportional representation, and twice it was voted down — all because

the process itself developed by the Citizens’ Assembly was open,

transparent and free from political manipulation.

Now, there’s been a lot said in the media — and, more importantly,

the media in this House, which understands how this place works. They

live and breathe this stuff. They sit up in the gallery there, and they

watch our proceedings. They read Hansard , and they know,

without a doubt, what’s happening in here. I’ve read some of the stuff

they’ve printed over the years, and some of the stuff they printed I

didn’t like, but it was true. It was honest. It was factual. And just

about every major media outlet in B.C. has denounced this referendum,

because it’s rigged in favour of a yes vote.

[1:50 p.m.]

I think Bill Good said it the best. To quote Bill Good: “With the

ballots in the mail and people trying to make decisions, I think it’s

important to note that almost all the mainstream media and respected

political commentators are saying this referendum is flawed, without all

the information to make an informed decision.”

It is what I’ve been talking to people about for months: a flawed

referendum without the information needed. Even the Attorney General

said that if you don’t have the information, vote

first-past-the-post.

The opposite is happening today in terms of this referendum, and

it’s why I ask the members of this House to support my amendment to Bill

40, Electoral Reform Referendum Act, 2018.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure and an honour to rise today on something that’s

before the Legislature and before the citizens of British Columbia. I

just want to reach out to my constituents in Kelowna West. I know that

about 30 percent of them have returned their ballots, and I hope that in

the coming days, as they make their decision, this debate will help

influence their decision.

I want to speak today about the amendment that my colleague from

Skeena has introduced. I want to rise in support: that this House

decline to give second reading of the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018

Amendment Act.

The intent of the bill — to hold a subsequent referendum on

whether to revert to the current first-past-the–post voting system from

a proportional voting system, if adopted — is meaningless when the

government has failed to correct multiple deficiencies in the current

electoral reform referendum legislation, including not seeking a clear

majority approval from the electorate on a clear question, not providing

for sufficient and meaningful public engagement and using a confusing

and complex referendum ballot.

I want to talk about some of the things that I know we have

discussed in this House. There are many different deficiencies. Many are

still even unknown to myself, as an MLA here in the Legislature, but I

think they’ve been identified by members of this House. The Attorney

General has mentioned, as well as the Premier, that these things are

still yet to be decided.

I think, as we’ve seen, as this debate and the referendum

discussion has gone on across British Columbia, there is a lot of

concern from voters. I think the government — wanting to make certain

that they know the validity of what they’re choosing and going to

empower British Columbians with their votes in a coming election — needs

to make certain that there is adequate participation and understanding

of what it is that they’re choosing.

Now, there really are two choices on the ballot.

First-past-the-post is the first question, and then the second one is

proportional representation — some form of it. It’s not clearly

identified. As we all know, question 2 is a multiple-choice selection of

three different options that you can rank. What little is known about is

how these three systems will actually be put into place and how they

will be chosen.

I think that from the rigorous and aggressive kind of discussion

that we’ve had here in this House about the different types, etc., what

we’re really looking for is the answers that I think lots of British

Columbians, not all of them…. I think many are asking questions today

about what the differences are — dual-member proportional

representation, mixed-member proportional representation and rural-urban

proportional representation.

Of course, the two systems, dual-member and rural-urban, are two

that actually have never been used. They’re theoretical. They use

complex algorithms and mathematical formulas to redistribute votes. I

think for most people, they do want a voting system that they can easily

understand.

The current mixed-member proportional system — it is in use in

other countries — has a track record of certainly some confusion or

results that don’t always lead to what has been, I think, promoted as

one of the benefits of proportional representation.

[1:55 p.m.]

It’s not that just every vote counts…. It does under

first-past-the-post. It doesn’t count in the way that maybe some people

would like to see it, but the situation is that it leads to the type of

things that we’ve seen in this House over the last 18 months, where we

have a coalition that is effectively a proportional representation

system of sorts. We have two parties that have to work together to

maintain their advantage of being able to pass bills, as we see and have

been seeing here every day of the many weeks since we’ve been in the

Legislature.

It’s no different than today. This bill is being subjected to

closure because of the fact that the government has allowed for a debate

on this. However, it is not finished, and the bottom line is that

they’re using that authority and power and, blindly, the Third Party is

supporting the government without any kind of suggestion about

amendments or clarity or changes.

What we have in front of us is the example of where a system of

proportional representation is in action, and the bottom line is that,

really, even though this side of the House has 42 of the 87 seats in

this Legislature, we’re unable to suggest amendments or

recommendations.

I know that we saw one amendment, very minor, in terms of the

speculation tax, Bill 45. I think, if anybody was listening in the last

number of weeks, it is clearly a piece of legislation that many

communities, many businesses, many people in the business of creating

accommodation want to see, that they don’t put in rules that prevent

increased housing supply, which is, I think, the government’s noble

objective in that particular regard.

The situation is that the amendments, regardless of how sound they

are, are completely rejected. There’s no discussion. There’s no

committee work. So I guess the thought of collaboration, proportional….

What will change in the future?

The likelihood, as the member for Skeena pointed out, is that

we’re going to end up with many different…. Of the 27 registered

political parties in British Columbia, who’s to say that we won’t have

50 all of a sudden, within a few years? I think that the example of

those parties in other jurisdictions has shown that the growth in

political parties will grow.

Interjection.

B. Stewart: You’re correct, Member, in saying that they have to have 5 percent

so that they won’t be the real extremes, but on the other hand, we only

have to look to New Zealand, first, where they have the balance of

power. They have eight members, and of them, their Deputy Prime Minister

wasn’t even elected. He’s from a party list.

We can’t ignore that, and we can’t ignore the fact that we have,

in Germany, a similar system. We have the Germany-first party doing the

very same thing, with 91 of 94 members, not actually elected but

appointed from party lists — a very radical and extreme group — far more

than the 5 percent that the member is referring to that will keep the

fringe elements…. It will keep the most fringe perhaps, or the least

credible, but the reality is that credibility….

When you look at these other parties and their platforms, those

parties, obviously, were credible enough to garner enough support in a

proportional system to be able to put extreme views forward and make

certain that it was possible for them to be a part of that

coalition.

As the member for Skeena rightfully pointed out, the reality is

that it doesn’t lead to this panacea of cooperation. It leads to the

fact that often…. If we look at Italy — 66 elections since the Second

World War. How is it possible to think that that’s stability? Canada,

with 22 elections has had a third of the elections that have actually

gone on in terms of this.

The idea that we’re getting stability, a cost-effective

government, more collaborative and that every vote is going to make a

difference, etc., is conjecture at this point.

I think that one of the things that is clear…. I say this thinking

about what we have in front of us. One of the reasons for this amendment

is that we have a concept. That’s what we’re voting on. It is not clear

that we’re picking mixed-member proportional representation or

rural-urban or dual-member.

[2:00 p.m.]

I know that we had dual-member at one time in this province.

Knowing both MLAs in the Kelowna area that represented these ridings,

Cliff Serwa and Larry Chalmers, I asked Cliff, and Cliff tells me that

the dual-member ridings were very ineffective. It was unclear as to

where the boundaries were.

In my particular case, in Kelowna West, the boundary is very

precise between the ridings of Kelowna-Mission and Kelowna–Lake Country,

Vernon-Monashee, Shuswap. I have to say that the reality is that

although we work collaboratively, we know it’s the MLA in that area that

is the responsible MLA.

We talk about this concept. We don’t really know, with any of the

systems, this information, the most basic: how many MLAs are there going

to be in this House? I look around, and I don’t see vast amounts of

unused space in here, knowing that, Madame Speaker, you have yourself

shoehorned in here between all of our desks, as do the government. The

reality is that — you know what? — I don’t know where the space is for

these extra ten, 15, 20 seats that are going to come. So that’s one of

the things.

For the members that represent this House that come from ridings

such as Skeena, Stikine, in the north, Peace River North, these ridings

are the biggest, but they’re vast. The fact that we would even consider

diluting the representation of the people that have gone out and

pioneered areas, to be able to think that they’re going to have less

representation…. It would take them days….

Now, I’m not saying that that isn’t a problem in some of the other

ridings. As the member that’s speaking for Kootenay West…. I know that

in her riding, she has time as well. She has time to get around her

riding and constituents, etc., and it is difficult. But just imagine for

a moment that we triple or quadruple the size of that.

It’s easy enough if you’re in Vancouver or the Lower Mainland or

southern Vancouver Island. But the idea that rural ridings, maybe the

Okanagan…. As we’ve seen under the proposed maps of the 2009 electoral

referendum, the maps showed clearly that the Okanagan would be a riding

from Princeton all the way over to the border, up to Vernon. It’s

unbelievable. I think it’s delusional to think that this system is going

to give more on-the-ground, local people the ability to make the

decision as to who they want as their representative.

I think the other thing that we…. The size of ridings, as we’ve

seen from the work that was done by the citizens’ assembly back in

2003…. It showed the fact that there was…. We had larger ridings. There

was going to be a different approach, and that system that was

considered was off the table this time.

To the government, what’s going to constitute rural versus urban?

I know that I’m from an area that’s growing rapidly. Is it considered

urban now because of the fact that the population is nearing 200,000

people in that geographic centre? I don’t know.

Then, I guess, the bigger issue is: what’s going to happen with

the voters’ choices in terms of party lists? Is it going to be an open

or a closed list? I think we all know that the Premier spoke out about

the fact that he’s opposed to closed lists, and he wants to make them

open.

What I think is important and the reason that this amendment is in

front of us is the fact that we do not have clarity in terms of what it

is that we’re selecting. We’re being left to a committee that will

likely be controlled by the government that will make these decisions.

“Don’t worry. Take a leap of faith.” We’ve heard lots about that. As a

matter of fact, that’s what Bill 40 is all about. It was created after

and introduced after the referendum was actually started.

Here we are in the supposed last week, which has had an extension

because of how flawed this whole process has been, whether it’s ballots

that have been found in apartment recycling bins, etc. But we have

thousands and thousands of people that have talked about the validity of

the ballot.

[2:05 p.m.]

I think the fact is that there’s no question that there’s a danger

that we have grounds for, perhaps, a spoiled referendum. The validity of

those ballots, the fact that the signatures….

Members from our side of the House went to Elections B.C. They

were told by Elections B.C. that they’re not validating the signatures.

They are looking to make certain that that ballot, that that person, is

on the voters list and that the birthdate matches up, which is easy

enough to find out if you happen to be a good Facebook searcher. The

reality is that there is room for doubt in the minds of the people of

British Columbia that this vote will be spoiled. The fact is even

Elections B.C. has said that.

How is it that we could possibly consider altering our voting

system on the basis of the fact that we’ve got people that maybe are

willing to do anything to see their side win in a particular election

like this? This is not a democratic process in the way that it should

be.

To change our democracy in this type of thing, this should have

been a secret ballot, just the same as it is during a provincial

election. The idea that it’s been rushed, etc…. I mean, I know that

there’s a lot of contradiction about whether that’s true or not, but the

bottom line is that we even have the agency that is responsible — the

independent agency, not to be politicized by the government —

essentially in doubt of some of the things.

It’s fine if it’s an indication on a direction where the

government might go. I’m not certain that I believe in that type of

governance. More importantly, on page 8 of the guide from Elections B.C.

that was circulated to every household in British Columbia, there’s a

promise in here — when the ballots were actually already in the mail and

before Bill 40 had been introduced in this House — that we were going to

guarantee that there was going to be, in two election cycles, another

referendum, and you’re going to be able to change it back. That’s the

leap of faith.

Well, that’s wrong. That’s undemocratic. It just doesn’t make any

sense at all. The bottom line is that what happened to the system that

people actually told…. The citizens’ assembly told British Columbians

that they wanted to go with what they thought was the best proportional

system. That was the STV, which ran both in ’05 and ’09 in general

elections and was soundly defeated under the rules of where the

threshold was, at 60 percent of the voters having to support

it.

Now we have this referendum, and we’ve reduced the majority down

to a simple 50 percent of the ballots cast. The fact is that we’ve got

an agency like Elections B.C. that can’t verify or certify the fact that

every one of these ballots cast has actually come from the voter it was

intended for. To me, that stinks.

I do think that when we look at this referendum, there are

parallels today in the way that this has been run and the way that

certain things have started to take place, even in the past week, here

in the Legislature.

The situation is that we want transparency. We want to make

certain that when people see something from legislators, like myself and

the others here, that there is 100 percent certainty of the fact there

is clarity and truthfulness in that. The bottom line is that Bill 40

deserves to be delayed because of the fact, really, of these things:

multiple deficiencies, the fact that we haven’t had that meaningful

public engagement.

What happened on the meaningful public engagement? I filled out

the engagement back in February. I don’t recall being asked about STV

and where it ended up. I haven’t seen the results of that engagement to

show that STV was clearly not one of the preferred models, even after

the citizens’ assembly spent over a year going around and talking to

British Columbians. That’s the system that they believed that British

Columbians wanted, a system of being able to rank people within that and

essentially being able to elect elected representatives by voters

through a system that they designed themselves.

This system has clearly been rigged in the favour of party lists.

I mean, come on. This is about parties rather than the voters. The

voters should have the first right of being able to make the decision

about who they’re voting for. And the fact is that this party list is

going to lead to people probably getting less engaged in voting, rather

than being more engaged.

[2:10 p.m.]

I mean, if I don’t know anybody on a party list…. How many times

do you go to vote in a civic election — or municipal, regional district,

school board — and you know everybody who’s on there? I had to do as

much research as I could about each candidate.

To think that, on a party list, there are going be 20 or 30 names,

and I’m going to have, maybe, a choice at selecting or approving those.

I’m going to maybe have heard of some of them, but it is fundamentally,

democratically wrong. It is not the type of transparency. That’s what

people are saying.

The media, all week, have been talking about: “Let’s be clear and

honest and truthful about what it is that’s going on here.” I think that

this particular bill only adds another black eye to the government in

terms of what their objective is and in terms of what they’re

doing.

The bottom line is that they need to come clean on this in the

sense that Bill 40 is about this promise on page 8 of the referendum

guide that says: “Another referendum will be held after two general

elections to see if B.C. wants to keep the new voting system or go back

to using first-past-the-post.” How disingenuous is that?

The reality is that…. Let’s be clear. Why don’t we have

transparency right up front? Let’s have a debate. Let’s get on with the

idea that, if voters want a change, like everybody thinks that they do….

There’s no doubt there are people that are passionate about it both in

my riding and many ridings around the province.

The reality is that, at present, we still only have a voter

turnout, even if all those votes are legitimate, of probably just over

30 or 35 percent. We’ve extended the referendum for another week, and

hopefully, without any other postal interruptions, etc., Elections B.C.

will get that information.

I have no idea how they’re going to count. We know that they can’t

validate those ballots that may have come from the recycling bin in

apartment buildings where people have picked it up and sent it in. Who’s

to say that it’s not their ballot? It’s got the birthdate on it. It’s

got a signature. They’re not validating. I don’t think Elections B.C.

knows what my signature looks like. I think that the reality is that we

really do have a significant problem.

Speaking further to this amendment, I just want to make certain

that we give this sober thought, that it’s transparent. The fact is that

we move forward on the basis that we know that this referendum has some

imperfections — the imperfections of whether the ballots are legitimate.

There’s a possibility, as we have heard, that the ballots may not be as

truthful or as forthright or as honest because the system is not a

closed or secret ballot as it is in general elections.

I think that the idea that the voter turnout, if we’re going to

make this change…. Let’s just say that, as some polls suggest, maybe

it’s a dead heat. Is it worthy for the British Columbian voters to

change our electoral system on the basis of maybe 15 percent or possibly

20 percent of the voters saying: “We want to change”?

The fact is that they’ve been confused, lots of them. I know many

examples of people that have accidentally recycled their ballot because

it doesn’t look much different than a lot of mail that comes into

people’s homes today. The situation is that, if we’re going to make this

huge democratic shift, we want to make certain it’s done in a fair,

transparent manner that everybody understands and that we get full voter

participation on this.

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

amendment.

S. Gibson: I want to thank my colleagues, particularly hearing a good

presentation by my colleague from Kelowna West and thoughtful remarks

earlier by the member for Skeena.

Speaking to the amendment…. Yeah, it’s definitely in order that we

need to delay this process. It’s quite alarming. As the member for

Kelowna West just noted a moment ago, the real sense is that this

government was not prepared and rushed into this approach with the

electoral reform referendum, Bill 40, to the extent that the whole

culture of our province is disturbed and alarmed.

[2:15 p.m.]

I want to make a comment about young people today. The Premier has

alluded to the fact that this appeals to young people, perhaps more than

others. However, as someone who taught university for many years, I will

say this: young people, unfortunately, are cynical. They’re cynical of

sports heroes, they’re cynical of movie stars, and of course, they’re

cynical of politicians.

Here we are in our Legislature, this forum for democracy in our

province — this only, unique forum. It’s my sense that young people

today, as I talk to them, are cynical, and that cynicism is being

promoted by Bill 40. We know how partisan it is, how political it is.

The intentions are not honourable. We understand the roots of this

initiative. It’s all about keeping this government in power.

The tragedy is at what price. At what price will this marriage,

this temporary relationship between the NDP and Greens, unravel? All is

hanging on this Bill 40. I’m alarmed to see that, as someone who has

been involved in elected office for 37 or 38 years. I look across at the

other side of the House, and I’m disturbed. I really am

disturbed.

Now, the tragedy is that nobody really asked for this. If this

were only $300,000 or $400,000 and a random vote to test the public, I

suppose that would be defensible, but spending $14 million to $15

million of the taxpayers’ money with no request? I’m not

sure.

Hon. Member for Kootenay East, did you get anybody asking you for

this? I didn’t either. My suspicion, along with the member for Kootenay

East, is that probably most of us didn’t get asked for this, and here we

are, in the midst of something so disturbing and so

complicated.

Why do I mention cynicism? The first two goes at this, the first

tries at electoral reform, were done in a non-partisan way. There was a

citizens’ assembly, a lot of consultation. Well, the result was that it

was defeated on both occasions. Now here we are at it again, a third

time, not by request. I’m troubled by that. I think this government is

going in the wrong direction.

The likelihood is that there will be a relatively small turnout.

We don’t know the final figures yet, but this government has said it

doesn’t matter. A teeny, tiny turnout — not a problem: “We’ll abide by

the results, whatever they are.” Well, that’s troubling as well. It

really discredits the power of democracy. May I say this.

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

introduction.

The minister seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Conroy: Earlier today the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, who is the

MLA for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, introduced a group of students who are now

in the gallery with us today. They’re all from Maple Ridge Secondary School.

I wanted, on her behalf, to introduce you again and welcome you to the

Legislature. I hope you enjoy your afternoon.

Debate Continued

S. Gibson: It’s a pleasure to speak to this again, representing my

constituents of the Abbotsford-Mission riding.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’ve made the point in earlier remarks regarding something called

a pyrrhic victory. A pyrrhic victory, as probably most of you will know,

is when you win all the battles but you lose the war. I’m afraid that,

should this pass — I certainly hope it doesn’t — this, in many ways,

will be a pyrrhic victory, because it’s setting the stage for another

referendum, which could possibly change our political system forever. We

can be victorious in the battle but lose the war, and I worry that this

government has little regard for that.

My tenure in elected office has taught me that democratic

accountability is everything. Most of you know someone who has been

defeated for elected office. I’ve been defeated. I ran for office and

was defeated. It’s okay to be defeated, but it’s better to keep trying.

We’re all elected to this place today because of accountability and

electoral democracy.

With all three of the proportional representation proposals, there

will be appointed members. How will that accountability work? Nobody

quite knows. In fact, there are over 20 dimensions to proportional

representation that have not been explained by this government. Indeed,

as I look at this Voter’s Guide , it’s really hazy as to how

these three systems that are being proposed really operate. In fact, one

of them doesn’t even exist. I’m not quite sure why it’s on there. I

believe it was kind of dreamed up as some kind of ideal.

Our system works. It’s easy to explain. I was talking to a young

person just the other day, and she expressed some support for

proportional representation. When I asked her a few questions…. “Did you

know there will be appointed MLAs?” She wasn’t clear on that. “What

about the ridings? What about the sizes? Who’s accountable?” Now, I live

in my riding. I have a listed home phone number. My office is in the

riding, on a busy street. People just drop by to say hi. They know I’m

their MLA.

One thing I never do when people come and see me for an issue, if

they want to talk to me about something…. I never say: “Oh, by the way,

did you vote for me last time? Are you a B.C. Liberal?” Of course not,

because first and foremost, I’m an MLA for everybody in the riding —

everybody. I believe that applies across the floor as well. We are MLAs

first and, to some extent, the partisan side second. When we come to

this Legislature, it’s magnified; it’s emphasized. But in the

constituency, I don’t talk about my party affiliations. In the office,

it’s irrelevant.

Under proportional representation, the system will be­come

highly partisan. Remember: lists. Lists of what? Lists of favourite

chocolate-chip cookie recipes? Lists of favourite names? No. Lists of

parties. That’s what it will be. It’ll be lists of parties. You’ll have

two or three MLAs. You’ll have, maybe, myself being elected, and then

have a couple more representing two other parties, who may be appointed

from lists. The tragedy is that it makes the system very

partisan.

I worry, and this has been shared significantly here in this

chamber, about the resurgence or the growth of micro-parties dedicated

to divisive causes — the Vancouver Island Party or, maybe, the

Vegetarian Party. Whatever it is, parties that have a very narrow

constituency may get 6 or 7 percent of the vote and get seats in the

Legislature. It can be highly disruptive.

Here’s the point on that, speaking to the amendment. We have,

basically, two major parties in this House. One is centre-left, and one

is centre-right, but we’re consensus parties. On the government side,

there are three or four different camps represented within that party.

That’s a good thing; that’s a healthy thing. That’s a consensus-building

arrangement.

[2:25 p.m.]

On our side of the House, I would say, as an umbrella party, we

have different folks that come under that umbrella — all for the good of

consensus. We’re building consensus all the time. That’s a healthy thing

— speaking to the amendment. We want to be united. We want to be

together as one, because it’s for the good of the taxpayers.

Now, we’ve heard about the tragedy of proportional representation

in some other areas. It’s often cited: well, what about Northern

Ireland? Not a good example. They’ve gone for months without

government.

Here’s the point that I want to share, which we haven’t talked

about too much: proportional representation is more expensive, according

to research. I’m advised that in countries that have proportional

representation, they will spend 6 to 7 percent more because of all the

negotiation with the smaller parties. Check it out; the research is

available. In proportional representation, you’ve got a lot more

spending because you’re always trying to aspire to serve the smaller

party and make them happy. Well, the tragedy there is that you’re

spending a lot more money unnecessarily.

If we’re going to add a whole lot more seats to this legislature,

I’m not sure where we’re going to put them. We may have to have

split-level seats. That’s going to be a lot more cost as well. If you

ask the public, “Would you like to have more MLAs…?” If you surveyed

them, I think most of them would say: “How about less MLAs? Why do we

want more?”

Coalition governments struggle. We’ve seen that in Belgium,

Germany, Northern Ireland, as I mentioned, and many other countries.

Coalitions don’t give good government, generally. They can. I’m not

saying it conclusively, but for the most part, having good, solid,

majority government is good leadership. Now, if people are unhappy, they

toss those folks out and replace them. That’s the basis of

democracy.

One of the troubling aspects to the current vote which is taking

place right now…. We have a week’s extension. This was noted a moment

ago, and I want to just reiterate: Elections B.C. cannot confirm the

signatures on the ballot. They can’t confirm them. If they get a ballot

with a signature, they can’t identify it. They don’t know whose it is,

but you’ve signed it. My question is: are they accepting that ballot?

I’m wondering about that. Are they accepting a ballot with a signature

they can’t identify?

The second thing is birthdates. Some of you know — all of you know

if you’ve seen the ballot — a birthdate is required. Well, if a person

doesn’t put their birthdate on and the ballot is found by somebody, it’s

not very difficult to find the birthdate of someone, using Facebook or

some other means. There’s a lot of information on the

Internet.

I’m very worried. I’m questioning the veracity of the ballot

process — troubling. You can’t identify the signature, and the birthdate

can be found elsewhere. Now, we know that hundreds of ballots are just

being discarded in apartment buildings, condo projects, just left in the

lobbies. Well, suppose somebody intercepts these? I’m worried about

that.

I’m alarmed that this process is really flawed. I think we

definitely need more time on this. The government, I think, has done a

very inadequate job of getting ready for this referendum. It was never

requested. Nobody wanted it. Now here we are in the midst of something

where it can be approved by only 50 percent plus one — to change the

whole system, potentially forever. I’m alarmed, and those are the

comments I want to make.

[2:30 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: It is always a pleasure to rise in this House and actually share

my thoughts on behalf of residents of the Shuswap. Shuswap is an amazing

riding. I know, Madame Speaker, you had the privilege of actually

spending some time in Shuswap a number of years ago, and I know you can

attest to just how amazing the Shuswap is.

Shuswap Lake is one of the most pristine waterways, the best

boating in western Canada. Shuswap is about 8,400 square kilometres,

comprised of five different communities, five different First Nations.

Actually, all are part of the Shuswap. It is always great to stand in

this House and speak on behalf of those hard-working individuals in the

Shuswap.

Speaking to the amendment on Bill 40 that is before the House, I

think it’s important to go back and, as my colleague just previously

indicated…. Where is the demand for this referendum in the first place?

I know back in the election in 2017, I canvassed a lot of doors and

talked to literally hundreds upon hundreds of individuals in Shuswap,

and not once did one individual in 2017, coming up to the 2017 election,

ever mention to me any concern about the manner in which we actually

elect governments here in British Columbia.

As has been canvassed here in the House previously, we’ve had two

referendums previously — one in 2005, I believe it was, and the other in

2009. In both instances, there was a resounding no from British

Columbians. They were not interested in moving away and deviating from

the current electoral system that I believe serves both our province and

our country extremely well.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Canada is one of the most sought-after countries around the globe.

We’re recognized internationally as being a very robust democratic

nation, and I’m very proud to be Canadian. When you have a look at the

referendum that’s before the House, there certainly wasn’t a lot of

demand for it, coming up to the 2017 election. So we see ourselves here

with this referendum that’s been pressed upon British Columbians, and we

have to take stock and actually give thought to the reason why that

is.

I think we have to look no further than the three Green Party

members and give thought to what would be in their interest and why they

would be moving so hard and applying pressure to their NDP partners in

order to see this referendum on proportional representation actually

move forward.

As the three Green Party members, who had about 16.8 percent, I

believe, of the provincial vote…. Under any form of proportional

representation, the vote or the number of seats that they’d actually

maintain in this House would be reflective of the provincial vote. At

16.8 percent of the 87 seats in this Legislature, the easiest and the

quickest way for the Green Party to actually increase their seat count

in the Legislature would be to move towards any form of proportional

representation. I think this is certainly very self-serving from the

Green Party in that it’s the way that they can actually increase their

seat count in the House most dramatically.

I know that in previous referendums, both in 2005 and in 2009,

there was a citizens’ assembly that was actually struck. About 160

individuals from across British Columbia were selected to actually

canvass British Columbia to have a look at different forms of electoral

processes that are undertaken around the globe and to make a

determination on which form of proportional representation they felt was

most desirable and the best to put before British Columbians as part of

a general election in order to seek their advice and suggestions as far

as whether they would like to actually see a different form of electoral

process in British Columbia.

The citizens’ assembly — again, independent of any political

players. As has been stated in this House, there are no less than 19

specific details that are not decided now and not presented to British

Columbians. Those choices, those selections, those details would

actually be determined after the referendum by what’s deemed to be an

all-party committee, which is dominated by both Green and NDP

members.

It’s really important when we have a look at something as

fundamental as the way that we actually elect governments here in

British Columbia that British Columbians are presented with all of the

facts, that there is a clear choice. I think British Columbians,

largely, have a good appreciation and understanding of the current

electoral process we have in British Columbia — first-past-the-post.

It’s adopted by all provinces in Canada, and it’s also used in our

federal election. It’s something that’s well understood.

[2:35 p.m.]

When you look at giving British Columbians a choice, an option, to

go away from the current first-past-the-post to another form of

electoral governance, it’s important that they have all the details. But

again, 19 specific details have not been identified, not been provided

to British Columbians.

As the Premier has indicated, he’s asking British Columbians to

take a leap of faith. As one of our esteemed columnists indicated, it’s

more like a leap into the dark. I think that is something that we have

to be cognizant of.

Again, just speaking to the amendment, this bill that’s currently

before the House…. When you have a look at even this particular bit of

legislation, in the midst of a referendum…. I believe it’s actually

offensive for this legislation to be before the House and be discussed

in the middle of a referendum of the magnitude, significance and

importance that is before British Columbians now.

Back to the details in the 2005 and 2009 referendums. Again, an

all-party citizens’ assembly was actually struck to identify which

system. In the 2009 referendum, Elections B.C. actually went out and

developed the riding maps so that British Columbians, when they went to

the polls and had that option of potentially giving consideration to a

form of proportional representation, had all of the riding maps so they

could see how their actual ridings would be expanded. It’s my

understanding that with the current three systems that are presented

before British Columbians, the ridings would, at minimum, double in

size.

At the outset, I indicated how the Shuswap riding is about 8,400

square kilometres. Some of the ridings in British Columbia are over

100,000 square kilometres already. So giving consideration to doubling

the size of a riding that could be as large as 8,400 kilometres, or up

to 100,000 square kilometres and doubling that, you would have a riding

literally larger than Vancouver Island and larger than Prince Edward

Island. The manner in which that representative would actually be

elected is something that I think British Columbians are very, very

concerned about.

I’ve resided in the riding of Shuswap for over 40 years. I

attended elementary and high school there. I married my high school

sweetheart over 30 years ago this year, raised our four daughters. We

have seven grandchildren all still residing in Shuswap. I’ve worked and

resided and spent time on non-profit organizations in the Shuswap. I

think it’s that understanding of a community which provides you that, I

guess, intrinsic knowledge of what actually makes the vibrancy of your

community, to be able to properly represent them in this

Legislature.

We know that with the three different forms of proportional

representation, in any case, some of the members would actually not be

elected by the residents or citizens within your riding. They would

actually be selected from party lists. One has to wonder how you would

have an MLA representing your riding that may not even reside in your

riding, may not have spent any time within your riding. You have to take

stock and give wonder to what kind of representation they would be able

to provide.

Although I know the Shuswap extremely well, I certainly would not

feel comfortable in moving to a new community on Vancouver Island, as an

example, and suddenly feeling that I had all of the knowledge necessary

to provide proper representation to those residents. But that is exactly

what would happen under any form of proportional representation, should

that referendum actually pass in favour of PR.

When we give consideration to the manner in which this referendum

has actually been brought forward to British Columbians — the fact that

there was not an independent, all-citizens assembly to actually create

the options, that 19 different specific details have not been identified

and are going to be left for the politicians to decide after the

referendum — I think everybody is extremely concerned.

Then, also, you have a look at the manner in which this question

is being put before British Columbians. There is nothing more

fundamental, of importance, than the manner in which we actually elect

our representatives, the way that we actually elect our governments, in

this great province of British Columbia.

[2:40 p.m.]

One would certainly think that the government would have a

responsibility to ensure that whatever manner in which they put that

question to British Columbians, it would be designed in such a manner as

to ensure maximum voter participation.

I believe that in the last provincial election we had about 57

percent voter turnout. We know from previous examples that whenever we

go with a mail-in ballot, the voter participation rates are far less

than that. Clearly, if the intent is to truly get the direction from the

majority of British Columbians, you would certainly expect that the

government would design the referendum in such a manner as to ensure

maximum voter participation. By doing so, that would be by holding a

referendum in conjunction with a provincial election.

But that certainly isn’t the case. They have chosen the one

option, the mail-in ballot, which we actually know, historically,

provides some of the lowest voter turnouts. I think that if we give that

consideration to…. Why would the government decide to have such a

fundamental question of such significance and put that question to

British Columbians not in conjunction with a provincial election but

through a mail-in ballot?

We certainly have seen, with the voter participation rates to

date…. Today it was sitting around 32 or 33 percent — certainly far

short of what we’d see as far as voter participation rates that would

actually occur had it been in conjunction with the provincial election.

As we’ve heard, Canada Post is actually expanding and extending the

deadline by a further week, through to the first week of

December.

I do hope that British Columbians take the time to ensure that

they send their message to government to let them know what their

thoughts are on the current referendum that is before us. It certainly

has been the topic of all of the media outlets over the last five or six

weeks now.

There wasn’t a lot of discussion early on. During the summer,

there was very little discussion at all on PR. Even into September, when

I was asking constituents in Shuswap — just asking them about their

thoughts on the upcoming referendum — many, many constituents indicated

that they had no knowledge of the referendum.

I’m happy to see that the media has been providing really good,

solid coverage. They certainly are expressing their views. Even the

Vancouver Sun editorial board felt that…. They were quite

bold in their statement, saying that the manner in which the current

referendum was put before British Columbians is something they can’t

support. So not just the 19 details, but you also have to look at the

level of threshold.

I was talking about the voter participation rates. That’s one

concern. The other concern is that if you’re looking at fundamentally

changing the way that we elect governments in British Columbia, you want

to make sure there is a very strong and very clear mandate. Previous

referendums had two thresholds. They both required a 60 percent

threshold in order for a referendum to actually pass, and it also had to

pass in 60 percent of the ridings.

If we look at the makeup and the geography and the different

economies of British Columbia, it’s important that every riding in the

province has a direct say in the actual outcome. Previous referendums

had the 60 percent requirement in order for a referendum to pass, and as

well, it had to pass in 60 percent of the various ridings around British

Columbia. That only makes good sense. That would provide a strong

indication to government that there actually was, indeed, a need and a

desire to change.

However, what has the current government, on direction from their

Green partners done? They’ve removed the regional threshold, which was

something that the Premier actually promised during the election — that

the regional threshold would still be maintained. Broken promise by the

Premier. Broken promise to British Columbians. That regional threshold

was actually removed.

In addition, they reduced the 60 percent threshold to 50 percent —

a bare-minimum majority, the lowest-possible majority, that you could

have. A 50-percent-plus-one vote could effectively change the way that

we elect our governments. That’s extremely concerning.

[2:45 p.m.]

I know that the NDP party itself, their own constitution within

their own party…. If they want to change the policies within their own

party, it requires a two-thirds majority. A two-thirds majority in order

to change the direction — I think that most people could actually

understand and appreciate that.

Look, if you have an organization and you are going to

fundamentally change the direction of that organization, you can’t have

that pass on a bare 50 percent plus one because you could do the vote

the next week, and it could go the other way.

There’s a reason why they have a very high threshold when you’re

making a change as significant as changing the policy direction of the

NDP party. Even the Societies Act of British Columbia…. The Societies

Act of B.C., that all non-profit organizations are actually required to

attain to and to follow and adhere to, also sets out a two-thirds

majority for any direct policy change within those

organizations.

If it’s important enough for the NDP party to have a two-thirds

majority to change the direction of their own political party and if

two-thirds is the requirement that we impose upon non-profit

organizations if they’re going to fundamentally change the policy

direction of their organization, one has to wonder why on earth the NDP

would lower that threshold for something as important and significant as

the way that we elect our governments. Why would they reduce that to a

bare 50 percent plus one?

Well, I think, again, we have to look no further than the Greens.

We know that the NDP were very anxious to get keys to the treasury, and

the manner in which to do that was to form an alliance with the Green

Party. In order to get that alliance and get that support of the Green

Party, there was a whole series of concessions that had to be undertaken

by the NDP in order to gain the confidence of the Green Party. That’s

all set out in the confidence and supply agreement.

Again, you have three Green Party members representing only three

out of 87 ridings in the province, attaining only 16.8 percent of the

provincial vote. Yet, they have disproportionate influence on the

current government in order to ensure that they have a way of actually

imposing upon the government their desire for things that they see in

their self-serving interest. That is exactly what we would see

forevermore under any form of PR.

Let’s just think about the mechanics of this. As I indicated, 16.8

percent of the provincial vote by the Green Party who elected three

members to this House, the representatives of the Green Party…. Their

message only resonated with the majority of voters in three ridings in

British Columbia. Now, under the last provincial election, had PR been

in place, 16.8 percent of 87 seats…. Doing the math quickly, that’s

probably around 17 seats. So the Green Party would actually be entitled

to an additional 14 seats that they didn’t win. So where would those

members come from? Well, those members would be selected off of a party

list.

The leader of the Green Party, along with his comrades-in-arms,

would actually have a look at their friends on this party list, and they

would start to identify 14 of their biggest friends or contributors, and

they would actually assign those people seats around British Columbia.

These other 14 members would not have been duly elected by their

residents or citizens of British Columbia. Yet, they would have an

opportunity to take a seat in this House, representing constituents in a

riding where they may not reside, likely would not reside, and may not

have even spent any time. I think that is absolutely

offensive.

The system that we have, first-past-the-post, in British Columbia

serves us extremely well. Certainly, no electoral system is perfect. But

there are lots of efforts that we could undertake in this House to

improve the way that the current Legislature operates. I know that the

NDP certainly speak a lot of rhetoric about a new way of doing business

and about being collaborative.

I believe, currently, there are 21 pieces of legislation that are

before the House, private members’ bills that are sitting before the

Legislature that could get called. So if the current government actually

believed in the idea of collaborating with all parties, they certainly

would have the opportunity to bring forward any one of those bills for

consideration here in the House in a collaborative, networking manner.

But they have failed to do that.

[2:50 p.m.]

As we look to this current referendum and the current bill that’s

before the House, even giving consideration in the middle of a

referendum about imposing on a future government two elections from now,

forcing upon a future government a form of referendum…. It’s ludicrous.

A current government cannot bind a future government.

Again, what was the strategy? What was the reason why the NDP

would make the determination of holding off the current bill that’s

before the House until this fall session? It could have been brought

forward last spring, but they chose not to. It was politically driven

and strategically placed such that this bill was before the House in the

midst of the referendum — which, by the way, was right on the heels of a

municipal election. Again, just adding more complexity and confusion to

voters around British Columbia.

I’m a proud British Columbian. I’m a very proud Canadian. The

electoral system that we have both in B.C. and Canada, I believe, has

served us extremely well. No system is perfect. There were certainly

opportunities, and many opportunities that are available today to the

current government, should they look to make some small changes to

actually provide an opportunity for more collaboration with the

opposition parties. But we certainly aren’t seeing that, and we

certainly are seeing the three Green Party members have disproportionate

influence on the current government.

With that, I will take my place.

J. Isaacs: I rise today to speak to the amendment to Bill 40, the Electoral

Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act.

As we approach the end of the voting period, it’s imperative that

we raise concerns. I want to raise the concerns that I’ve heard from my

constituents, concerns that are shared by the rest of British Columbia.

What it really comes down to is simply a lack of information. There are

still just too many unanswered questions for citizens to appropriately

respond to the referendum question. Voters are frustrated with the

process. The only thing that’s getting clearer is that this process has

been absolutely flawed from the very beginning.

This referendum is one of the most significant things that British

Columbians will vote on. It is imperative that citizens are given time

to understand what exactly it is they are voting for and what the

possible outcome of their vote might be. It’s only fair that they are

given adequate information before they make their decision. This vote

has the capacity to change the fundamentals of our electoral system. It

will impact British Columbians both at the local level and across the

province.

Citizens are beginning to understand the flawed process of this

referendum and the lack of thought that went into it. In the last

referendum, there was an independent citizens’ assembly that was

comprised of 160 panel members. They consulted with British Columbians

from all over the corners of the province to see what kind of

improvements citizens would like to see and how the referendum question

could be posed.

This is a far cry from the referendum that’s before us today.

There was no independent citizens’ assembly, and there was no

consultation with the public. There was only a skewed on-line survey

that very few British Columbians were aware of or even participated in.

Instead, the Attorney General and his staff decided what the process

would be. He also decided how the question would be worded. The Premier

promised citizens a clear ballot with a simple yes-or-no question: do

you want to change our electoral system?

It should have been an easy question to respond to, and it should

have been asked at the same time residents were voting in municipal

elections. After all, they would already have been at the

polls.

[2:55 p.m.]

This would have eliminated an additional cost of printed

materials, postage for mail-out ballots, the need to hire additional

electoral officers and the need to pay for return postage — all at an

additional cost of about $15 million to taxpayers.

This referendum was called when citizens were busy considering

local election issues. Convenient timing, really. Many citizens were

busy informing themselves about prospective candidates and their

platforms. They were also doing their due diligence and taking time to

understand what the issues might be in their local

jurisdictions.

Sure enough, the Premier did not keep his promise. There was no

simple question, yes or no, and this question was not asked at the

municipal election. It would have been easy to simply ask citizens if

they felt there was a need to change our electoral system. That could

have been the beginning of a reasonable process to determine what

changes should be made to the electoral system, if any.

We know the timing of elections. Whether it is a municipal,

provincial or federal election, we are given fair notice. Citizens

should have been given fair notice for the referendum too. The

government has a responsibility to organize its affairs and time in

accordance with particularly significant events, such as a municipal

election.

It was irresponsible of the government to dismiss how important

municipal elections are to citizens, and it was unfair to have called a

referendum in the middle of a municipal election. This prevented

citizens from being fully informed on both local and provincial matters.

Now that the dust is settling somewhat, citizens are asking why this

referendum is being carelessly rushed through — trying to push through

significant legislation that, according to Elections B.C., cannot be

implemented any earlier than 2021.

It raises concerns. Voters would like to know why there’s so much

urgency placed on holding a referendum vote right now and what the

underlying motivation could be to rush through something so important, a

decision so vital to our democracy and one that will materially change

the way in which we govern in this province.

Who is pushing this agenda forward, and why? It certainly is not

the citizens of British Columbia. I think I can offer a response for

that question. As I see it, and many of my colleagues will agree, the

only reason that this flawed referendum is being pushed through in such

a rushed fashion is because there is an agreement between the Greens and

the NDP that was made in June of 2017.

It was an agreement that was made after the election where the

Greens would agree to support the NDP if the Greens could secure

agreement to bring forward a referendum vote and further agreement that

the NDP would support proportional representation. It’s quite clear that

the rush is simply because the Green Party has one, single issue that

they want to bring forward, and it is proportional

representation.

The timing of this referendum vote was clearly intentional. Why

not call for a referendum when voters would be distracted by another

important election? This way, they would not have enough time to see

what is really going on here, ensuring that most voters would be rushed

to make a decision or, worse yet, that voters would not participate in

the process.

The Premier has avoided answering questions from British

Columbians. He waited until the last moment to engage in a leaders

debate, and unfortunately, many of the questions that the voters had

were not answered during the debate, so many questions remain

unanswered. The biggest question that the province has pertains to the

timing of this referendum. Instead of answers to this question, or any

of them, we have a flawed process.

We also have a complex ballot, with three proportional

representation choices. Two have never been tried anywhere in the world.

Voters are being asked to vote on something so complicated that the

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training admitted that she

was not an expert on proportional representation and could not explain

how it will work.

[3:00 p.m.]

We have already seen evidence that many voters will be excluded

from participating. Ballots are being thrown into the junk mail box in

condo units, easily accessible to others. Ballots are being mailed to

incorrect addresses and may not be forwarded back to Elections B.C. in

time to be re-sent to the proper address. And we have seen ballots that

have been addressed to persons that are deceased.

A referendum should be taken as seriously as an electoral vote.

Anything less diminishes the confidence that we should have in the

process.

With so many important issues for government to address and work

on — such as jobs, affordability, supporting B.C. businesses, cannabis,

seniors issues and growing our economy — the motivation for the timing,

the reason why the Greens and the NDP are calling for electoral change,

is clear. It is simply because there was a conditional agreement between

two parties, and not the public, to hold a referendum on proportional

representation.

I support the amendment because there are other questions that

remain unanswered, and voters have not been provided the opportunity to

adequately educate themselves on this fundamental shift to our electoral

process — the process as to how the referendum changed from a simple

yes-or-no vote that the Premier promised in 2016 to a more complex

question, which the Premier promised would not be the case. This raises

concerns because it’s no longer a simple yes-or-no vote. This broken

promise made by the Premier to keep voting simple is further complicated

with the addition of three proposed proportional representation

systems.

Voters will need to consider each option individually, and that

makes the entire exercise much more complex. Further, the public has not

received adequate information on what each choice would look like if it

was enacted. These are questions that need to be answered before the

public is asked to make a decision on them.

British Columbians deserve consultation on this process because

the outcome of the referendum will impact how their votes will be

counted in the future. It will impact their futures directly.

This province belongs to British Columbians, not to a select few

political parties. This referendum should occur in the manner that is

fair to citizens. They should be able to provide input on what kind of

improvement should be made. How can we go forward with this referendum

when there has been no independent citizens’ assembly or when

independent consultation with British Columbians has been absent? What

we have here is a flawed process, and it will surely result in minimal

participation from citizens.

The Attorney General is calling all the shots here, deciding what

the questions will be and which models of proportional representation

would be on the ballot. There have been no substantial answers as to why

there was a change in the consultation process or why the Attorney

General — who has publicly stated that he supports proportional

representation, claiming he is unbiased in the process — decided that

the public should not be afforded an opportunity to comment on proposed

changes or have any input whatsoever as to what model could be

considered.

There are no substantial answers as to how the three options were

chosen. Two of the three options have never been tried anywhere in the

world before, and one of those two options was created by a university

student.

My colleague the member for Surrey–White Rock, who holds an

economics and business degree and has worked at the highest levels in

the financial industry, along with my colleague from West

Vancouver–Capilano, who was the chief economist for the Royal Bank and a

Harvard professor, say they could not understand the mathematical

formula being used to determine exactly what method would be used to

allocate seats. Well, if these folks are challenged with understanding

the mathematical methodology used, how can we expect voters to

understand?

[3:05 p.m.]

In response to a question directed to the Premier a few weeks ago,

he clearly did not understand that a ranked ballot is a voting system

and is distinctly different from proportional representation. If the

Premier is confused between a ranked ballot vote and how it differs from

proportional representation, again, how can we expect voters to

understand what is being presented to them?

When the public has raised concerns and when legitimate questions

are being put forward for clarification and more comprehensive

explanations, there have been no answers. In response to these important

questions being raised by the public, the Premier said that British

Columbians should just trust him and take a leap of faith. The details

will be shared after the votes have been cast.

I think most voters feel that taking a leap of faith is not the

responsible thing to do. Voters should be given adequate time to

comprehend each possible referendum outcome. They deserve the time to

understand what a new voting system means, and they need time to fully

understand how each of these proposed options will impact them

directly.

There’s another reason that I support the amendment. In the last

referendums, there was a minimum threshold that had to be met in order

to make the referendum binding. The minimum level needed for voter

approval was set at 60 percent, with a simple majority of 48 of the 79

electoral districts. In this case, referendum 2018, we’ve seen

significant changes to the minimum threshold limits. In fact, the

minimum threshold has been dropped to an alarming 50 percent plus one,

with no regional thresholds whatsoever in place.

This means the population of Vancouver alone could change the way

the entire province elects local representatives, how we govern in the

province and how we hold governments accountable. How could this process

be considered a fair vote for those who live in Quesnel or Salmon Arm or

Vancouver Island? How will their voices be heard?

Everyone understands the importance of a minimum threshold. Even

the policies of the NDP require a two-thirds majority to make a

significant change. Why, then, is something as important as our

democracy and how we elect our representatives and hold governments

accountable allowed to be binding when there have not been sufficient

voters to meet a minimum threshold?

Another important detail being left out is what the electoral

boundaries will look like. All we know is that proportional

representation will reduce the number of ridings. The four Tri-Cities

ridings, for example, will likely be reduced to just one riding.

Constituents in my riding are very concerned about what this means to

them.

The rest of the province will experience enormous changes to their

riding boundaries as well. Yet there is no clear indication or

confirmation of where those boundary lines may change and, once those

boundaries are in place, how representation in each region will be

compromised.

Without proper maps that show clear boundaries, how would the

public know and understand what region they will be voting for? Maps

showing the adjusted boundaries should be provided to voters before the

referendum vote, not after. If Elections B.C. needs time to provide the

maps, the time should be allotted. This is just another example of why I

support the amendment. Voters should not be casting votes in a

vacuum.

Voters are worried about whether or not they actually understand

the terms of this referendum. They are not sure who will actually

represent them in their local riding. Will it be the MLA that they voted

for? Or will it be a representative that has been appointed from a party

list? Will voters be able to choose the option of voting from a closed

list or an open list?

Most people are completely unaware of how their representatives

may be elected or appointed in their riding under proportional

representation. An appointed representative may not even live in your

riding, and access to your MLA will be through a bureaucratic channel.

Bureaucratic channels are not accountable to the people.

[3:10 p.m.]

I was at a recent meeting where someone said that if you are an

NDP and have an issue, you cannot go to a Liberal MLA for help. This is

not the case. Once elected, MLAs work for and respond to all issues that

are brought forward by constituents. MLAs work on behalf of everyone in

their constituencies. We need to pause and take the time to explain to

voters what is really at stake here and how the benefit of local and

accountable representation is at risk. There has simply not been enough

time for people to understand the magnitude of change that could take

place.

One of the biggest concerns is the question relating to the costs

and ineffectiveness of government when single-issue parties or fringe

groups end up with a disproportionate balance of power and end up having

control over public policies, even when those policies may not represent

the values and the principles of the majority. Parties with only 5

percent of the votes can promote their single-issue agenda over and

above the wishes of the majority, effectively stalling other important

issues, such as job creation and supporting B.C. businesses that

contribute to our economy and provide services to support our

communities.

Where is the information for those citizens who are trying to make

an informed decision? Well, so far the information being provided lacks

clarity, to say the least. The information being provided is intended to

diminish valid concerns that the public has raised, concerns that voters

have asked for in multiple questions. Instead of answers, they are being

issued smirks, sneers and vague comments that don’t provide any actual

information.

The fact that there are still so many questions is a clear

indication that there has not been enough time for voters to understand

the issues. It is no longer a simple vote, which we currently have under

the first-past-the-post system. It is a much more complex vote with

multiple options and multiple attendant consequences. We keep hearing

that there is just no need to worry: there are already 90 countries that

have proportional representation. The Greens, the NDP and the “yes”

groups expect that voters will accept that statement, that that alone

should be good enough and that you don’t need anything.

Well, if the voters want to accept that there are 90 countries

that are already under proportional representation, they have to

understand that sometimes there are unintended consequences that come

with it. We only need to look at New Zealand, a country similar to

Canada — it’s certainly worth repeating — where the leader of the New

Zealand First party did not get elected in his own constituency because

of his extreme views, including anti-immigration views. In fact, his

constituents threw him out. He didn’t get elected, yet under

proportional representation, the party reappointed him and brought him

back. He’s now the Deputy Prime Minister, and he was even the Prime

Minister for a time.

That’s probably what voters did not have in mind, yet the

government and the public are left with unintended consequences. They

have to deal with extreme issues, single issues and an appointed

representative that cannot be removed. This is one example of the 90

countries that are under proportional representation.

Sweden is most interesting. In the recent election, 43 percent

voted for a right government, 43 percent voted for a left government,

and the remaining minority belongs to the Swedish Democrats. The Swedish

Democrats are a very far-right group, which started off many years ago

with a very small percentage of voters. Over time, their representation

has grown to a substantial 17 percent. If you do accept proportional

representation, you must accept the unintended consequences that are the

reality in other countries.

[3:15 p.m.]

We’ve seen Belgium taking 589 days to form government. We’ve seen

Iceland with the Pirate Party. We’ve seen Italy, and 70 government

changes in only 65 years.

These are attendant consequences. We already know about these

attendant consequences. And as the yes side tries to play down the

negatives and the unintended consequences, they believe that they will

get your vote because the NDP said: “If it doesn’t work out, we’ll just

change it back in two terms.”

I don’t think that’s okay. We should not be figuring out anything

after the referendum. Voters should know exactly what is at stake before

ballots are counted, before they cast their ballot. Revisiting this

issue two election cycles down the road, or eight or so years after the

referendum, is not a good decision.

People have valid concerns and valid questions. They should be

afforded the appropriate time to educate themselves in order to make

informed decisions. The member for Prince George–Valemount made a very

good point in her comments related to the public concerns. She

summarized the public’s asking of legitimate questions: “That’s not

fearmongering; that’s fact-finding.”

I don’t understand why the government is so determined to

characterize any questions about this referendum process as

fearmongering. Every citizen deserves the information to educate

themselves as to what is before them, what the unintended consequences

are, what the proposed systems are, what they are voting for. The public

has every right to know and understand the fundamentals of proportional

representation so that they can arrive at the understanding of what it

means to them locally and around the province.

These questions still need to be answered. Because of the flawed

process and deliberate intentions to stack the deck in favour of the

outcome the NDP and Greens want, voters are being asked to make

decisions that have serious implications even though they do not have,

fully, the information that they need.

A few weeks ago someone shared with me that, while he was having

dinner with some friends, the topic of proportional representation came

up. He told me that his friends were well educated and that they were

supporting proportional representation. When he asked them why, they

confessed that they had seen a video that had talked about how great

proportional representation would be and how everyone’s vote would

count.

When my friend talked with them a little bit further, it became

very clear that they were unaware of how the process came about. They

were unaware that the number of MLAs would change. They didn’t know

there might be a change in the boundary maps, and they certainly didn’t

know that there could be a significant boundary change in certain areas

across the province and that British Columbians living in the same

province may actually be under two different voting systems. They were

certainly unaware that MLAs could be appointed from a party list and

that the appointed person may not even live in their riding. Of course,

once they learned of these details and how local representation was

compromised, their opinion changed.

Many people like to focus on the positive outcomes. It’s much

easier to focus on the positive than think about negative outcomes or

unintended consequences that can come from any decision.

It reminds me of my time working in the financial planning

industry. I’d be talking to clients about their investments and the

likelihood of projected returns and outcomes. This is at a time when it

wasn’t uncommon to realize returns of 10 and 12 and even 15

percent.

Although I would point out the downside — the possibility of

unintended consequences — and that, under certain extreme circumstances,

they could even lose their investment, people would still focus on the

positive — the positive that, possibly, they could get a sizeable

return. It is just much easier to see the positive outcomes of a

scenario than it is to focus on a negative outcome or plan for the worst

scenario.

I’d like to hear some concrete answers. Because unlike a financial

prospectus or disclosure statement, which have explanations in the small

print, this referendum has no small print. A fair vote sounds positive,

but when we get into the small print, when the details are exposed, it’s

not a fair vote at all.

[3:20 p.m.]

Every vote does count. What is being presented and supported by

the Greens and NDP is all about retaining power. It has nothing to do

with better government, better representation, or even being more

effective in government.

People have been getting their ballots in the mail. They’re still

asking us how to vote. They’re still calling us with the same questions

they got when the ballot first arrived. They’re still

confused.

“How many MLAs will I actually have in my riding? What will the

size of my riding be? What constitutes a rural riding or an urban

riding? Do I know where my riding boundaries will be? How will they

change after the vote? Will I be voting for a closed list or an open

list, and how will I know? And what will be the options for what votes

will be used?”

The biggest concern, of course, is: “Why should I trust government

to figure it all out after the referendum? Don’t I have a say in this

now?”

Many of these systems around the world do have voters directly

voting for their representatives. The government included some of these

systems in their feedback questionnaire that they supposedly used to

inform the referendum. Yet, in the end, they discarded the systems that

allow voters to choose their representatives and put in options that do

not.

Two of the systems on the ballot are, as the Attorney General

reports, not currently in use. Are we really asking British Columbians

to vote on something that is currently not in use?

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

Mountain.

It’s an absolute pleasure to speak for the southeast corner of the

province, the only gateway to and from Alberta and the United States and

the home of the fun-loving and hard-working people of Kootenay East and

the shared land of the Ktunaxa First Nation.

Before I speak, I want to just give a quick shout-out to my cousin

Jamie Shypitka. Apparently, he’s got the flu today, and I think I got a

little bit of it too. I think it’s going around. I don’t know. We take

those flu shots when we do, but it certainly didn’t help for me right

now. I’m not feeling so hot, but we’ll plug away here.

It gives me great pleasure to take my place in the debate today

and speak to the amendment of Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum

2018 Amendment Act, motioned by my colleague from Skeena. I’ll try to

read it here.

The amendment says:

“‘That this House declines to give second reading to the Electoral

Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 because the intent of the

Bill to hold a subsequent referendum on whether to revert to the current

first past the post voting system from a proportional representation

voting system, if adopted, is meaningless when the government has failed

to correct multiple deficiencies in the current electoral reform

referendum legislation, including not seeking a clear majority approval

from the electorate on a clear question, not providing for sufficient

and meaningful public engagement, and using a confusing and complex

referendum ballot.’”

I couldn’t agree more.

This has been a long, ongoing debate in the House. I’ve spoken

personally to this bill three times, three amendments. Every time we

come to speak, we bring different bits and pieces of information that

are new and revealing. Some of it is the same messaging going back and

forth, but overall we’re learning that this referendum just didn’t start

as a botched referendum; it’s continuing and evolving as a botched

referendum. So the amendment is valid, and I strongly support

it.

It’s how we got here. I was watching TSN last night, and I was

watching the misplays of the day, as we all kind of do sometimes. As I

was watching all the different misplays, I was thinking about this bill.

I was thinking about this amendment that’s before us right now and the

fact that this is a series of misplays, with this referendum, that’s

drawing really big concern on the validity of this referendum as a

whole. I’d like to analogize it that way, as just being a series of

misplays.

The first thing is the fundamental question to why we were having

referendum at this specific time. The reason is quite clear.

[3:25 p.m.]

I went through and printed off a copy of the 2017 confidence and

supply agreement between the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. New Democrat

caucus. Essentially, this ten-page document has four chapters in it, and

it addresses different ways and different themes and different

relationships. The two parties, how the two parties are going to come

together and form government. I’ll speak to that in a bit, but I guess

that the first thing is that when you go and look at these four

chapters, you think of all of the things that these two parties could

come together on and decide. There are a lot of things that come to my

mind that they could get together on.

Jobs would be one of them. Climate and sustainable economies. Fair

wages. Workplace safety. Improving infrastructure. Maybe it could be

about fixing the services that people count on, like health care and

senior care or assisted living.

The number one thing that they addressed in this confidence and

supply agreement was none of those things. It wasn’t even about K-to-12

education. It wasn’t about making life more affordable. The number one

condition and the number one

chapter in this confidence and supply

agreement is on proportional representation and how important…. Putting

forward a referendum on proportional representation is the number one

deal in their agreement.

I found that really amazing because, I mean, I think there are a

lot of things in this confidence and supply agreement I could wrap

myself around. Lots of good stuff in here. Jobs and affordability and

education, health care, senior care. Those are good things. But the

number one thing is about putting a referendum together for the fall of

2018 on proportional representation. The time is actually spelled out.

It has to be the fall of 2018. That is the first misplay of the day, in

my opinion, on this referendum.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Those are 1 and 2. The third piece of bad form on this referendum

is the blatant disregard the government and Green Party have for their

own confidence and supply agreement. What I mean by that…. Even in this

document here, subsection 3(1)(b)(ii) states: “The parties agree that

they will work together in good faith.” And: “The parties agree to both

campaign actively in support of the agreed-upon form of proportional

representation.”

It says in the agreement that they are going to rally behind an

agreed-upon form of proportional representation — not three forms of

proportional representation, the “form” of proportional representation.

The government can’t even abide by their own agreements, as we don’t

have a single form but three forms on this referendum. More about those

forms of proportional representation later.

The next three flaws or the next three misplays I’ve seen in this

referendum kind of go together. Numbers 4, 5 and 6 in my misplays here

are what the Premier promised before the referendum was even to

start.

The first promise from the Premier was to have a fair,

non-partisan, independent committee to decide the rules and form of

proportional representation. That did not happen. We did not have, like

we had in 2005 and 2009, a citizens’ assembly — a very unbiased group, a

collection of 160 citizens from across the province, coming together,

learning about different forms of proportional representation and what

form would best suit British Columbians in the unique geographic,

cultural, social diversities of this province.

That was done for the first two. The Premier said that he would do

that again. He was going to put that unbiased committee to work, and

they were going to come out with one well-thought-out form of

proportional representation. But that didn’t happen. That was a false

promise.

The second promise was to have a simple yes-or-no ballot on

whether to move to a specific form of proportional representation,

complete with maps and all details available for the public to view. Now

we all know, through these debates, that did not happen. Now the public

knows it as well. They’re asking questions all the time.

[3:30 p.m.]

I get constituents in my office all the time, and emails, text

messages: “What am I supposed to do? What are these forms of

proportional representation? How many MLAs will there be? Are they

coming off closed party lists or open party lists? How big are the

areas?”

Valid questions. I mean, if I’m buying a car, I want to look under

the hood. We’re not allowed to look under the hood. This is just not

clear, and that was the second promise that was broken.

The third was to recognize the importance of having regional

thresholds so that at least half of the ridings would need to support a

change in our electoral system in order for it to happen. That didn’t

happen as well. I asked that question all the time — to members

opposite, to people that support proportional representation.

I have no problem with somebody supporting something that they

believe in, that they understand, and something that’s going to make us

better. I’m all for that. Why wouldn’t I? I’ve got aging parents. I’ve

got young children. I’ve got friends, if you can believe it. I’ve got

skin in the game. I want us to be the best British Columbia we can be.

But because there are no thresholds….

We’re so geographically diverse in this province. We’ve said it

many times. We’ve got oceans and mountains and deserts and rainforests —

everything. Cultural diversities as well. Social diversities. It has to

be represented in the way that we vote. To eliminate geographical

thresholds…. Saying that we need at least half the ridings in the

province to go along with something like this — I don’t think that’s too

hard to ask. I think that’s democracy at its finest.

To strip those thresholds away and say, “No, we’re just going to

let it be just a general vote. And the 60 percent thing before? No,

we’re going to reduce it to the most minimal support of 50 percent plus

one,” really spits in the face of democracy. We need our regions

represented, and we need to have a voice regionally. We cannot be

controlled by a populist approach or an area of the province that has a

larger geographic or larger voter base.

What makes us strong, what makes us unique, is how diverse we are.

If that’s not represented, we’re failing British Columbians. That was

misplay 4, 5 and 6. Actually, I threw 7 and 8 in there — the low

threshold of 50 percent plus one and no minimal voter turnout. That

would be screwup No. 8.

No minimum voter turnout. That blows my mind, and I think it does

a lot of other people as well. We saw Prince Edward Island have a

similar vote. I think they only got 37 percent of the vote out, and the

Premier made a rightful decision and said that didn’t reflect the

majority of Prince Edward Islanders. So they dismissed the referendum,

based on that. I think that’s valid.

We’ve got right now…. As of yesterday, I think, about 32 percent

of the electorate has weighed in, and I think that’s fine.

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, just wait. Please continue.

T. Shypitka: With no minimal voter turnout…. Right now we’re at about 32

percent, and I think, for the most part, the voting is more or less

done. We have an extension to get those ballots in, but you can’t get

any more. I think everybody has voted, for the most part. So we might

get to 35, 36 or 37 percent, which is a lot better than I thought we

were going to do at the beginning.

But because we’ve got three options and 37 percent turnout…. Say

it’s split down the middle, 50 percent, on whether we have PR or

first-past-the-post and, say, PR gets in by 51 or 52 percent. Then there

are three options relating to PR. That splits it another three ways.

Essentially — doing some quick math here — 5 percent.

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

the numbers over here.

If we have, say, 36 percent voter turnout. Half of them is 18

percent. A third of that is six. We essentially have 6 percent of the

electorate voting for one form of PR, and that is what we are going to

have.

[3:35 p.m.]

Now, 6 percent doesn’t seem like a very strong number, in my

opinion, on moving something as important as our electoral reform and

how we elect representatives into this great place that we call the

Legislature.

The mail-in ballot. Let’s talk about that misplay for a second.

This is one of the greatest mishaps in this referendum. We’re living in

the year 2018, and we have the greatest access to technology and speedy

processing of election results. In my time running for city council, we

had electronic balloting. It was efficient. It was fast. It did a

wonderful job. We had the results within seconds. There was no real need

for a recount because everything was done electronically and everything

was placed properly.

This time we’ve got something really crazy with this mail-in

ballot. It’s messy. It’s confusing. Some people don’t have access to….

In rural B.C., it’s a long way to mailboxes. We’re seeing now that…. I

know in my riding, I’ve got constituents that have three or four ballots

in their mailbox that don’t belong to them or any person in their

family. They’re former or previous tenants that used to live

there.

I’ve got one constituent at least that has two ballots in his

name, and then, of course, I’ve got several or lots of constituents that

have no ballots and they’re looking for them. They’re running down to

Service B.C., or they’re trying to phone Elections B.C. to get another

one mailed to them. Then we hear the stories of these big piles of

envelopes and ballots that are sitting in dumpsters and recycle bins and

all over the place.

Those are important documents that are going to decide on how we

elect members to this place. So of course your mind can run wild, and

I’ve had lots of constituents…. We’ve heard it here on fraud — the

chances that fraud could happen. That’s a real thing.

I mean, when I filled out my ballot, I filled it out, put it in

the secrecy envelope. You have to provide your birthdate and your

signature, and then you put it inside the larger envelope that you mail

— it’s a prepaid stamp — to Elections B.C.

click on Facebook. I mean, how many people get clicks on people’s

birthdays every day? “Oh, John Smith’s birthday is today. Wish him a

happy birthday.” You know his birthday. You can go to his profile. You

can see exactly when he was born if he chooses to put it on

there.

Now, disturbingly enough, we’re hearing from Elections B.C. that

they’re not going to be able to verify the signatures on the ballots.

That was half of the secrecy envelope — the signature. We know how

easily accessible the birthdate is, and now we’re losing the most

important part of the secrecy ballot, which is the signature.

There are going to be some serious questions on how valid this

referendum’s going to be, based on the mail-in ballot alone. And I’m

just warming up to the greatest hits here on the other stuff. We’re at

misplay No. 9, I think, right now on the mail-in ballot.

The mail-in ballot — that was the other thing. At first it was to

save money. I think I heard that somewhere. They were going to save

money with this mail-in ballot, and it was going to cost somewhere

around $7 million to put through. Now we’re hearing it’s going to be

around $15 million. Okay.

We just had a municipal election with electronic balloting. Why

couldn’t it have just been placed, the referendum, on the municipal

election? It would have been a little hurried perhaps, but it certainly

would provide a lot more clarity than what we’re getting with a mail-in

ballot.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Yeah, well, we’ll see. The member on the other side says we’re

going to have a higher turnout for this referendum than they did for the

municipal elections. Perhaps.

[3:40 p.m.]

How many of those will be spoiled? How many of those will be

questionable? How many will be fraudulent? Those are the things that

we’ll be asking. So sure, okay. We’re going to have more of a turnout,

but what is the quality of the turnout? That’s what I’m

asking.

I’m glad to see some life on the other side, some questions being

asked on the other side, because we’ve had this debate for quite some

time. Something as important as this, and we have yet to see a member on

the other side speak passionately about it. I’ll come to that a little

bit later. How passionate actually are they with this referendum? Are

they on board, or are they just kind of going along with this little

piece here — the confidence and supply agreement?

Interjection.

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

delivered.

The mail-in ballot. That’s bungle No. 9 in my greatest hits here,

but the hits keep coming. We’re not done yet.

The promise from the Premier. I just saw the Premier. The

Premier’s here. We talked about the three promises that were broken. I

think he’s well aware of that. The other one was the promise that after

two election cycles, we’re going to be able to do a redo here, if

everybody’s not happy. We’re going to do a redo. We’re just going to

vote to see if we want first-past-the-post back again.

I’ve got people in my constituency that like the idea of PR. I

don’t blame them for that. I don’t blame them for liking or, like I said

before, having a better way of doing something. I have no problem with

that. But they’re hinging that whole decision on taking this leap into

the dark — or leap of faith, or whatever you want to call it — on these

three proposed systems, two of which have never been tried anywhere in

the world before, and the third has been rejected by a citizens’

assembly two times. They’re willing to take that chance, that leap into

the dark, because of this provision that says: “Don’t worry. Be happy.

If all goes south, then you’ll be able to go back to where you were

before.”

That’s a big promise, but that promise can’t be made. It’s

impossible to guarantee that after two election cycles, we will have a

redo.

Why do I say that? If we go to a system of PR, we will undoubtedly

have minority governments. I don’t think anybody can question that. Any

form of PR in the world is always based around minority governments.

Once we get five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten different parties inside

the Legislature here, they would essentially have to get together to

form a majority, and then in order to pass a bill to bring about a

referendum, they essentially would have to be voting against themselves.

Because if we went back to first-past-the-post again, guess what:

they’re all gone. Their guarantee for life, their job for life, is gone,

because now they have to go back to the old system.

There’s just no way the Premier can guarantee that after two

election cycles…. It’s a false promise. It gives me bungle No. 9. Sorry,

that’s No. 10. We’re already into the double digits here.

What’s really crazy about this is it’s actually in the Elections

B.C. manual, this promise, and we’re still debating it. We’re still here

in the Legislature, and it’s already in black and white for people to

read and to be further confused. There’s no real strong winner in any of

these misplays of the day, but that one’s got to be up in the top three

or four, anyways.

That’s No. 10. Number 10 is a current government cannot dictate to

future governments what they must vote for. You can’t do that. You can’t

legislate that. I’m sure the current government would probably have all

kinds of ideas to put into future governments if that was true, but

that’s just not the way it works.

Another goof-up with this referendum would be the Premier meddling

and changing the characteristics of different forms of PR in the middle

of the referendum. I used the words “goof-up” and “Premier” in the same

sentence. I hope no one’s offended by that.

Interjections.

T. Shypitka: Oh, he didn’t mean to meddle. The Premier didn’t mean to meddle,

but meddle he did. It was innocent meddling. Let’s call it innocent

meddling by the Premier.

[3:45 p.m.]

He wanted to change the opinion of the characteristics of the

forms of proportional representation, saying he was opposed closed party

lists. Now, fair enough. Fair enough. The other party members don’t like

closed party lists either — as the Premier gives me the thumbs up. But

to say that in the middle of the referendum, when people have already

made their votes one way or the other….

I’ll voice concern for the people that voted for

first-past-the-post because they were opposed to closed party lists.

They voted for first-past-the post, and then the Premier says: “No,

we’re not going to do closed party lists.” They said: “I just voted for

PR” or “I just voted for first-past-the-post because I thought there

were going to be closed party lists.”

You can’t meddle during the referendum, even if it is innocent, as

the Premier has stated. It’s just constitutionally wrong. I just don’t

know how you can do that in the middle of a referendum. That’s screwup

No. 11 in these misplays here.

The three options that are offered in this referendum have been

noted earlier as being two options more than what the Premier promised —

if you can remember back to the early part of the speech. As I said, the

Premier promised only one form of PR: a simple yes or no on one form.

Well, we’ve got three now.

However, on top of that, the fact is that two of the three options

of PR have never been offered anywhere in the world before. Just think

of that for a second. Two of the three forms of PR that are offered up

to residents of British Columbia have never been tried anywhere in the

world before. They’re theories, essentially, and that’s something that

the government thinks is a responsible thing to put forward as a

responsible option for British Columbians to vote on.

This is, I think, where the leap of faith and the leap into the

dark came from. Surely it can’t be anything more than that, because it’s

not an educated decision. That’s for sure, because we’ve got nothing to

refer to. So that gets blunder No. 12.

For example, dual-member proportional and rural-urban proportional

are virgin systems. They’ve never been used anywhere in the world. B.C.

would be the guinea pig for either one of these two systems, if that was

the chosen choice.

This once again speaks to the amendment that I’m supporting here

today. It’s just a series of errors, a series of comedies. We cannot

allow this to go back to second reading. We decline on that, and that’s

why I support this amendment. They’re confusing. They’re unfounded.

There is very little detail for anyone to make an informed decision, and

most people are prepared to take, like I said, a leap into the

dark.

Some people that I know want change just for the sake of change.

Now, I don’t know why that is sometimes. But I think that’s a common

thing for maybe…. I don’t want to categorize anybody, but sometimes

younger people may think it’s just cool to change. I’ve even heard that

some older generation people might say: “Yeah, let’s go for it. Let’s

just do it. What’s the worst that could happen? What could possibly go

wrong?”

I just find that is an irresponsible take. I think it’s not too

hard to ask, to get educated, learn the systems with something this

important. We’re not talking about the New Coke or a different type of

shampoo or something like that. This is something very significant. It’s

the way our province will, essentially, operate.

Going down to flounder No. 13 here, now, it would definitely be

the lack of public consultation this referendum was based on.

Consultation to reflect a simple yes-or-no question was not introduced,

and this is a big concern for many people in the province.

The hits keep coming here. Now we’re on to No. 14. I categorized

as misplay No. 14 the silly catchphrases that the proportional

representation side branded to British Columbians. That, I thought, was

really kind of misrepresentative in this whole referendum. You hear it

all the time — catchphrases such as “Every vote counts,” “Forty percent

of the vote gets 100 percent of the power.”

[3:50 p.m.]

Let’s look at “Every vote counts” for a second. First, under PR,

there are thresholds that you need to legitimize or vilify your party’s

existence if they are to sit in this House. In this referendum, it’s a 5

percent threshold. So any party that gets more than 5 percent, 5 percent

plus one, will justify their position here in the

Legislature.

Right now in B.C. we’ve got 26 registered parties — 26 or 27,

something like that. I would suggest that there’ll be a lot more

registered parties if PR comes into play. As a matter of fact, I can

almost guarantee that there will be more parties.

We’ve heard of some of them here. I’ve got a list of them here

somewhere. Maybe I’ll get to that in a second. Let’s look at some of

them. For example, the Vancouver Island Party. It’s registered but not

active. They are an actual registered party that wants to separate from

British Columbia. It’s a legitimate party with real concerns.

Now this year we’ve got another registered party called the Rural

B.C. Party. That’s a party that wants to separate. They want to have

their own little kingdom, because they just, as this referendum is

suggesting, don’t get their say. They’re going to let the populous

decide for them. They’re going to have no representation on their

geographical uniqueness in the province. So they feel like they’re left

out.

Interjection.

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

fast.

In a nutshell, I had about 18 different misplays of the day with

this referendum, and that’s what’s speaking to this amendment that’s in

front of us right now. It’s just too many questions, too many concerns.

It just doesn’t make sense.

I’m going to put a different spin on it, if I can, at the end. I’m

going to say that this isn’t botched at all. I’m going to say that this

is masterfully designed. The other side knows the uncertainty. They know

about what PR brings, so I think it’s actually a masterful

design.

We have the Attorney General here. I think he’s actually

brilliantly designed this to fail. I think he’s taken the confidence and

supply agreement, as a condition of the power that the two parties need,

and he’s used this botched system to make the deal with the Greens and

still come out good in the end.

T. Wat: Thank you to the member for Kootenay East for having such an

eloquent speech. He is lucky that during the Premier’s brief appearance

in this people’s House, he listened to him. I hope it’s not too late for

the Premier to do the right thing.

It is indeed my honour to stand in the people’s House on behalf of

my constituents in Richmond North Centre to speak in support of the

motion for second reading of Bill 40, the Electoral Reform Referendum

2018 Amendment Act, to be amended by deleting the text of the motion in

its entirety.

Elections B.C. has extended the return for the referendum to

December 7 because of the postal strike. Elections B.C. has released the

latest update that about 30 percent of the ballots have returned. So

with less than two weeks to go for the ballots to be returned to

Elections B.C., the general feeling is that the voter turnout will be

about 40 percent. The media do not expect the voter turnout to jump into

the 50 percent range.

I really do not see any point for us to spend time debating on

Bill 40, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, as tabled in

this House. The intent of Bill 40 is to hold a subsequent referendum on

whether to revert to the current first-past-the-post voting system from

a proportional representation voting system.

As the amendment tabled by my colleague from Skeena said, Bill 40,

if adopted, “is meaningless when the government has failed to correct

the multiple deficiencies in the current electoral reform referendum

legislation.” One of the deficiencies is not seeking a clear majority

approval from the electorate on a clear question.

As members on this side of the House pointed out many times in our

debate, in British Columbia’s two previous referenda on proportional

representation, the B.C. Liberal government took steps to achieve a

clear mandate. We required a clear majority of eligible voters, in a

majority of ridings, to vote in favour of any change.

[3:55 p.m.]

Now the previous 60 percent threshold has been replaced with a

50-percent-plus-one threshold, the lowest the bar can be set. To vote

for a new system that would change the fundamentals of our democracy and

to vote for a new system to replace the current system that has been in

use for over 100 years, shouldn’t the threshold be set higher? Even a

strata council requires two-thirds of the landlords or residents to pass

a change in the rules or regulations. How come the threshold for

electoral reform is much, much lower than that?

I argue that the design of this referendum is obviously

self-serving for the NDP and Green partnership. A government formed

under proportional representation will be based on a backroom deal only

after British Columbians have cast their vote. The deal bears only one

goal in mind. That is to establish a partnership of power. Under such

partnership, there will be promises of cabinet roles, but there will not

be principles of governing. Instead of working on solutions to your

problems, proportional representation means that MLAs have to worry

first about what is best for their party and the parties they have

formed a coalition with.

Coalition governments just don’t exist very long — certainly not

for four years, as we are used to here. This instability is reflected in

the length of government mandates. MLAs are forced to be shortsighted.

In order to form a government, parties are forced to make deals with

each other, and this is the norm. In cases around the world, this has

led to enormous power being given to fringe parties and extremist

parties. It’s not hard to find examples of coalition governments where

religious, populist or even racist parties hold sway.

The system doesn’t reward consensus or compromises, and there’s

none of the give-and-take that happens behind the scenes in a large

party like the B.C. Liberals or the B.C. NDP. Fringe parties, fringe

groups, are empowered and encouraged not to compromise. They are instead

incentivized to dig in. What you get are hard-line parties setting the

agenda. The system lends itself to chaos and confusion.

In New Zealand, the anti-immigration New Zealand First party

failed to win even a single seat in parliament. Today they are a major

force in New Zealand politics. New Zealand is particularly applicable to

B.C., as they share our colonial heritage, Westminster model of

parliament and long-standing democratic rule. It is especially pertinent

as New Zealand moved to proportional representation in 1996, following a

before-and-after analysis.

Peter Loewen is a professor of political science at the University

of Toronto and the former director of the now-merged School of Public

Policy and Governance. I would like to talk about Loewen’s study of the

New Zealand electoral system as it relates to Canada. He looked at the

last seven elections there under the same electoral system as Canada and

British Columbia — that is, the first-past-the-post system — and the

first seven elections after the transition to proportional

representation.

Loewen identified an increase in the number of political parties

winning seats under the PR