Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 73

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act (continued)

J. Thornthwaite

P. Milobar

R. Sultan

T. Shypitka

Hon. D. Eby

D. Davies

J. Martin

Reporting of Bills

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act

Supply Motions

Reports of resolutions from Committee of Supply

Funds granted for public service

Funds granted for capital expenditures, loans,

investments and other financing requirements

Hon. C. James

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Supply Act, 2017-2018

Hon. C. James

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Supply Act, 2017-2018

Hon. C. James

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Supply Act, 2017-2018

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Supply Act, 2017-2018

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 3 — Election Amendment Act, 2017

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act

Bill 8 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017

Bill 15 — Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act,

Bill 16 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2017

Bill 17 — Supply Act, 2017-2018

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2017

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate, committee stage, Bill 6.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; L. Reid in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On the amendment to

section 9 (continued) .

J. Thornthwaite: I wanted to continue with my remarks on the actual amendment. You

do recall the last series of referendums that we had. You needed 60

percent of the popular vote provincewide and majority support in 60

percent of B.C.’s electoral districts. These supermajority thresholds

indicated the significance of the decision and were designed so that a

change of this magnitude would have wide support.

We know now that not everybody actually votes that’s eligible. If

there’s a 50 percent turnout on referendum day and just 51 percent vote,

it means only one-quarter of the eligible voters will decide the outcome

for everyone. However, the Attorney General himself has confirmed that a

result will be binding even if voter turnout is as low as 10

percent.

You don’t need to listen to me. I’m quoting Mike Smyth in the

Province : “In both earlier votes, the government required a

60 percent yes vote for the referendum to pass. That’s all been thrown

out the window, along with any requirement for a minimum voter turnout

for the referendum result to be binding and carved into law. It’s a

political version of the three-card monte game. And the coming NDP-Green

‘engagement about democracy’ looks like nothing but a phoney public

relations exercise to make the game look fair.”

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to the amendment on Bill 6,

section 9. Really, I feel that the importance of this amendment is

around making sure we have a clear indication from the public as to

their preferred outcome of an electoral reform referendum.

No one on this side of the House is saying we should not have an

electoral reform referendum. What we are saying is it needs to be a

fairly run process that results in a fair result which actually

demonstrates very clearly what the direction of the will of the largest

possible portion of the population can be.

This amendment, taking into account the averaging of the last

three election voter turnouts for the provincial government, is sending

a clear message that we, both sides of this House, expect there to be a

high level of engagement from the public within a referendum and to make

sure that as a threshold of being met, we’re capturing, based on what

we’ve seen for historic turnouts for general elections, that same type

of turnout expectation for the referendum.

The reason that a double majority is typically built into

referendums is because that’s that firewall safeguard to make sure that

we do have, indeed, a clear direction for something as fundamentally

important as changing the way we may elect governments moving forward.

It’s to make sure that that system is well protected and that there’s a

very clear indication from the public around that.

[1:40 p.m.]

Going to the average of the three voter turnout results of the

last three provincial elections, which this amendment would do, enables

both sides of this House to be able to say with confidence that the

results of the election are in keeping with the voter turnouts we’ve

seen in past provincial elections. It’s not relying on the chronically

low voter turnout levels of a municipal campaign that we typically see

in this province.

It’s not trying to reach to the levels of what we sometimes see in

a federal campaign that comes out. It’s relying on the electorate that

typically sends 87 of us to this House to represent them and saying if

that same basic number of people over the last three elections shows up

in this referendum, then whatever the result is, it’s binding. People

will understand that and move forward.

Simply thinking that a 10 percent voter turnout is a good enough

threshold speaks volumes, I think, to the lack of respect towards the

overall voting process that we’re seeing in this bill when it relates to

trying to make sure that people have a fair opportunity to be able to

effect change but, also, and just as importantly, a fair opportunity to

say that they’re comfortable with the way the current system

runs.

If you have an electoral system, an electoral reform act, which is

heavily slated towards guaranteeing a change in the way that we elect

people into this House, you’re essentially saying that the people who

may very much want to keep the current system have to fight twice as

hard to try to see a desired outcome that they would like to see and

their wishes respected.

I find that very interesting. There’s a lot of conversation

throughout this bill and out in the public that somehow the proportional

system better represents people’s wishes in a vote. Yet here we are

trying to make sure that we do not have a fair system to try to make

sure that people who want to maintain the first-past-the-post system

have a fair way to make sure that their voice is heard within this

vote.

This amendment would enable that. It would enable a second

threshold to be met within this referendum, which would put the onus

onto the government, who have very clearly said that they are going to

campaign strongly in favour of this, in the way of their confidence and

supply agreement with the Green Party. The Green Party, obviously, has

said that they are going to campaign very hard in favour of it, and

they’re fully within their rights to do that.

If they’re that confident that so many people want to see this

change, and they’re that confident that they can influence people and

make sure that they get out and vote, this amendment simply says that

they need to put their money where their mouth is. Well, I guess they

put the taxpayers’ money where their election debts are lately. But this

really does make them stand up, and say: “Okay, we’re confident that not

only is this the right system moving forward for the public, but we’re

confident that the vast majority of people in this province — an average

of the last three municipal campaign election turnouts — will step

forward and the majority of them will think that this is a good

system.”

One would think that if you were confident enough in the system

that you’re proposing as a government, you would have no problem with

this amendment. The only reason I can see a government not wanting to

support this amendment is because you are worried that, in fact, what

you are trying to foist upon people is somewhat of a shell game, a

rigged game. The three-card monte reference is very fitting. In fact, on

Twitter last week, I tweeted out something similar — that they’re

playing three-card monte, but they’re playing three-card monte with five

cards. That’s as rigged as this election, this referendum act, is right

now, in my opinion.

This amendment goes a long way to try to make sure that we get

back to a balance, a level playing field, which sends a very clear

message, a very clear result to all of British Columbia. Let’s remember

we’ve already voted on this twice. It has been rejected twice. Now we

see a lowering of the thresholds to a point to try to get a desired

outcome that the members opposite have been very clear is the result

they want to see, by virtue of them campaigning so hard and saying

they’re going to campaign so hard for a desired outcome in terms of a

positive proportional representation system and first-past-the-post

being gone.

They are so bent on changing the democracy and the way we elect

people in this province that they’re willing to waive any semblance of a

fair fight. I think Canadians in general and British Columbians in

general can accept the results of competition — good, hard-spirited

competition — but they expect the rules of the game to be a fair game, a

fair fight. I think this goes totally contrary to those Canadian and

British Columbian ideals that we all share, in terms of trying to make

sure that things are done in a fair fashion.

I fully support this amendment of making sure that the minimum

threshold of voter turnout is the average of the last three provincial

elections, as well as the 50-plus-one percent for whichever side happens

to vote.

[1:45 p.m.]

R. Sultan: Let me add my voice of support to the passage of this amendment to

the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act and point out that the somewhat

stiffer hurdle being offered here — being the average of the turnout in

the last three provincial general elections — would give a hurdle rate

in the general vicinity of 60 percent. I believe that would be a

convincing demonstration of voter support for some very, very

significant changes which are being proposed in our democratic system,

changes which the Attorney himself has conceded are important,

significant and generate a great deal of passion.

Given the significance of the changes being proposed, it certainly

should not be trivialized by artificially low turnouts or no particular

turnout hurdle whatsoever. The legislation is more important than that,

I would suggest to the Attorney.

The other compelling argument that has great meaning to me,

ironically, is the argument made by one of the stalwarts of the New

Democratic Party, Bill Tieleman. He suggests that this proposed

legislation is tantamount to a confession of surrender on the part of

the governing party of the day, giving up on the idea that they would

ever actually achieve a majority government in British

Columbia.

Bill — who I admire, even though I don’t buy into all of his

political philosophies — points out if we had not had majority NDP

governments from time to time in Canada, we would probably not have

universal health care, we would probably not have the agricultural land

reserve, and we probably would not have public automobile

insurance.

Interjections.

R. Sultan: I hope my brethren on this side of the House don’t feel I’m being

treacherous by pointing out that these, in fact, were very important

advances in public policy in Canada, and we’re proud of them very much,

on both sides of the House, today.

Do not surrender, which is Bill Tieleman’s view, saying: “Well,

we’re never going to get there, so I guess we’ll have to patch together

some sort of shaky coalition from the odds and sods who show up at

election time and we form a convenient coalition with.”

The other reality that you’ve probably been reminded of endlessly

— I have not heard every word of the debate, of course — is the rather

bizarre results in such proponents of proportional representation as

Italy.

What struck me was the statistic that in the last four years in

Italy, fully one-third of the legislative assembly has either changed

sides, changed political affiliation, withdrew from the party that they

were elected under and so on — pure chaos and hardly a structure, if it

were to migrate into Canada, that would encourage the peace, order and

good government of which we are so proud in this country.

Finally, I would like to parse the government’s November 4 news

release entitled “Government Takes Action to Modernize Democracy.” “To

modernize democracy” — that’s a chilling phrase. Who writes this stuff —

George Orwell?

Their first point: “The government of British Columbia is taking

action to modernize democratic institutions and make government work for

the people.” No, no, no, no, no. That’s not what is being proposed.

What’s actually being proposed is taking action to make government work

for the NDP party and their coalition partners, the Greens.

The second point in the press release says they will give “people

the power to decide the future of our most fundamental democratic

institution.” No, no, no. That’s not really what this is all about. It’s

a far-reaching plan to divvy up fundamental changes into little slices

of salami and selling them piece by piece rather than as a complete

meal.

The third point of the news release says, “The Attorney General

will act as an independent official and recuse himself from cabinet

discussions” at critically sensitive moments. No, no, no, no.

[1:50 p.m.]

If you believe the Attorney General can overnight join the ranks

of independent officers of the Legislature and be relied upon for

independent advice, just like Elections B.C., making sure everything is

fair and square…. Well, if you believe that, I’ve got a tunnel under the

Fraser River that I’d like to sell to you.

To wrap up, the Attorney has referred to the restructuring at the

very front end of this debate, as he probably will recall. I noticed —

my ears perked up — that he certainly referred to the restructuring of

British Columbia’s political system as building on the traditions of the

Mother of Parliaments in Westminster.

Regrettably, with this bill unamended — certainly, once NDP

surgery has been completed — the mother will not recognize her

child.

T. Shypitka: It gives me great pleasure to speak today on the amendment to Bill

6 — that is, that the number of votes returned be equal to, or greater

than, the number of votes returned in the average of the last three

provincial general elections.

As a first-time MLA, I told myself, when I was first elected, that

the fall session was going to be a tenure in which I was going to listen

more than I was going to speak. I wanted to be committed to this

position for the long haul. I decided that it would serve myself and my

constituents best if I made no real, hard decisions on anyone or

anything and that observation for the fall session would give me the

best foundation to build a long life here in the Legislature.

When I was first given the honour to represent Kootenay East, I

had a lot of aspirations to work hard, listen to my constituents and

work collaboratively within my own party, as well as with whomever sat

on the other side. When my party was faced with the situation we have

now, as opposition, my spirit did not die. In fact, it was regained when

I saw what was perceived to be a collaborative approach to government

with the inclusion of the now Green Party.

I have heard from day one how this arrangement was going to work

for all British Columbians and that this coalition would always consider

the voices of all. We now sit at a crossroads on a bill that will

radically change the way we elect our representatives. The foundation of

our constitution has been in place — has been working quite well, I

might say — for over 100 years.

The amendment we have in place right now is one that will ensure

that all, or at least the majority, of British Columbians are heard.

Once again, the number of votes returned is equal to, or greater than,

the number of votes returned in the average of the last three provincial

general elections. This amendment will ensure that a fair, inclusive

threshold is put in place in order to validate such an important

vote.

I now find myself reaching out to those on the other side — that

they deliver on their commitment to be fair and have collaborative

government be upheld. I look to those on the other side to deliver their

vote on this amendment to be one not of party politics and toeing the

party line but, rather, to look at the very fundamental principles they

say they believe in and to allow a proper threshold of voter turnout to

validate this very important vote that changes our democratic

system.

Surely a 10 percent, or even 5 percent, voter turnout is not

including all British Columbians and is simply not fair. The member for

Saanich North and the Islands gives his default answer that he does not

support an amendment that is done on the fly, while the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head clearly stated that he recognized that amendments on the

fly are done all the time in the Legislature, and it’s true.

This default answer from the member for Saanich North and the

Islands is covering up a deal that is already made by this fringe party

that is totally calling the shots here for their own political gain,

pure and simple. It is obviously apparent that he is fooling no one.

Amendments are commonly brought forward from deliberation during

committee stage as flaws or omissions are discovered. Amendments on the

fly are not new, and this amendment presented is not complicated. This

amendment brings forward a commonsense approach to ensure that a

respectable, fair and collaborative model is used.

On this, our last day before we conclude the fall session, as we

all head home for Christmas break, I reach out to those that represent

fairness and equality to their constituencies to do the right thing for

all British Columbians and join me and those on this side of the House

to allow fair representation in our vote on electoral reform — a game

changer for our democracy. With that, I strongly support this

amendment.

A merry Christmas to all.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I spoke out of frustration the last time, before lunch. It was

probably a factor that it was right before lunch — the annoyance in my

voice.

The reality is that the government has provided drafting services

to the opposition. It’s confidential drafting services. They can use the

legislative drafters. The amendment that’s in front of us amends the

wrong subsection. It amends subsection (2). It should amend subsection

(1). It uses language that is not consistent with the Election

Act.

I know that the member feels that amendments on the fly are a

regular part of government. It wasn’t ever my experience in opposition,

but if there were to be amendments on the fly, if the member wants that

to happen, the key is to have an amendment that actually achieves the

intended effect, which means it’s properly drafted and amends the right

subsection.

The way to do that is to use the legislative drafting services. I

will underline that for the members on the other side. That is a very

key and important thing.

The average turnout of the last three elections was 58.38 percent.

To the members opposite who are speaking in favour of this, I know that

this must be the number that they’re endorsing. But there were 12 B.C.

Liberal MLAs that did not have that kind of voter turnout in their

constituencies when they were elected to this place. I don’t think

anybody is suggesting that those elections are somehow illegitimate or

that they’re not properly here.

The way that our system works is we give people the opportunity to

vote. They decide whether or not they want to vote. They decide how they

want to vote. That’s how it works. In fact, that’s how it worked in

2005, when the government held a referendum on proportional

representation. That’s how it worked in 2009, when the government held a

proportional representation referendum.

I do understand that the members clearly have a position with

respect to whether to keep the existing system or change to a new one.

My job, as the member from the North Shore mentioned, is to make sure

that all voices are heard, that there’s a fair referendum process

conducted, that British Columbians have the information that they need

and that there is a fair question or questions put to them that they

understand. We will make sure that happens.

This amendment creates a standard that in elections that elected

B.C. Liberal MLAs was not met, and I will not be supporting

it.

The Chair: Hon. Members, the question is the amendment to

section 9, put

forward by the member for Langley.

Amendment negatived on the following

division:

[2:00 p.m.]

YEAS — 37

Cadieux

Rustad

Bond

de Jong

Coleman

Wilkinson

Stone

Bernier

Wat

Johal

Lee

Hunt

Barnett

Tegart

Martin

Throness

Davies

Sullivan

Polak

Morris

Ashton

Oakes

Thomson

Sturdy

Ross

Isaacs

Milobar

Thornthwaite

Clovechok

Yap

Redies

Paton

Gibson

Sultan

Shypitka

Letnick

Foster

NAYS — 44

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

The Chair: Returning to consideration of

section 9, I’ll allow a minute

for the chamber….

[2:05 p.m.]

D. Davies: I’ll resume a few questions on

section 9, unamended.

Of course, recently the panel has been announced and talked about.

I think it’s no secret that it is somewhat lopsided. I’m sure most of

the public is aware of that. I’m wondering if the government has any

consideration, moving forward, to look at reviewing that panel and

either adding members to it or changing the panel.

Hon. D. Eby: Two points to the member’s question. The first is that although

that amendment failed, this is

section 9 as amended. There was a minor

drafting error that was corrected.

The second is that there was a group of four academics who were

consulted in preparing the survey, a survey which has been criticized

alike by first-past-the-post fans and proportional representation fans.

I think we struck a happy balance there.

In any event, this bill is not about that consultation. This is

the enabling legislation that puts into law the ability for regulations

to be set based on that consultation process, which is underway right

now. British Columbians who are interested in participating can go to

engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote to participate. I encourage them to do

so.

The work of that panel was voluntary, and it’s complete. I thank

them very much for their assistance, which they did on a pro bono basis.

All four are experts in this type of participatory consultation, and

their advice was invaluable to government, so I appreciate

it.

D. Davies: In

section 9(2) and throughout, there certainly is reference to

the proportional representation piece being looked at following the

referendum, but there’s no mention of a mechanism to uphold the

first-past-the-point if voters do indeed choose the status quo. Does the

government agree with that?

Hon. D. Eby: The current electoral system in B.C., the first-past-the-post

system that the member describes, would just continue. In the event that

people vote in favour of maintaining the current system, then it just

continues on.

The only reason that you would need to bind government to action

is if, in fact, people voted to change the system. This provision says

that government would be bound to act if people voted to change the

system. Otherwise, it just carries on.

[2:10 p.m.]

D. Davies: So just to make absolute certain, then: if the referendum is

defeated, the government, then, is committed to the status quo of

maintaining first-past-the-point.

Hon. D. Eby: The result is binding either way, just to clarify my earlier

remarks. The result is binding either way on government. If it says to

keep the existing system, then it’s binding on government to keep the

system, but there’s no action that needs to be taken. The system just

stays the way it is.

If the result is to change to a new system, then there is action

that needs to be taken, which is to implement a proportional system.

This

section talks about it by a certain date, which is to be “in place

for a general election called on or after July 1, 2021.”

D. Davies: I guess, going back to a piece of the amendments that we’ve talked

about and much of the debate that we’ve had on this bill in the first

reading, as well as the second, we’ve had lots of talk about benchmarks,

thresholds and lots of talk about the 10 percent voter turnout, the 20

percent voter turnout — whatever that looks like.

I still have this feeling or perception that there’s a piece

missing of this. It’s where we really see that mandate and where

government sees that mandate regarding: “This is what the province of

British Columbia needs. This is what the province of British Columbia

wants.”

Is there — mainly for the record, I guess — a benchmark that the

government will use, however low that might be, where the government

will concede that maybe they haven’t engaged enough British Columbians

to make this choice?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m in agreement with the member for Prince George–Valemount, when

she spoke yesterday and said that people have — certainly she had — a

great deal of passion about this issue and that she didn’t think that

the vote would be 10 percent, 20 percent or 30 percent. She thought it

would be higher. I agree.

In fact, that is the history of British Columbians voting in

referenda, especially in mail-in ballots, which is the mode we chose for

this. The reason we chose that was to encourage a high voter turnout. So

48.6 percent of registered voters in the 2015 transit plebiscite. The

2011 HST referendum, 52.6 percent turnout.

We will be taking all kinds of measures to encourage a high voter

turnout. I think people are very engaged on this. When you listen to the

speeches of the members on this side of the House and on that side of

the House about this issue, you will hear that there is a lot of energy

about this referendum on both sides. I think we’ll have a very high

voter turnout.

I thank the member for his question, noting simply that in the

2005 and 2009 proportional representation referenda alike, there was not

a minimum threshold.

D. Davies: Well, I guess I might have to argue with a high voter turnout. I

would suggest — I think I mentioned it in one of my questions yesterday

— that if you really want to gauge the public, I think this would be

better aligned with a provincial election, as an amendment question, if

we really wanted to gauge as many British Columbians as

possible.

A question very similar to my last one. I don’t think I got the

answer I was hoping for. What is the majority threshold where government

can clearly state: “Yes, we have a decisive voice of British Columbians.

The province has spoken loudly. The province has spoken clearly. The

province has engaged, and engaged the public”? What does that number

look like? We’ve heard some off-the-cuff remarks, I think, possibly, in

the media. But in this place, what is that minimum threshold?

Hon. D. Eby: An amendment to this bill was just defeated that proposed a

threshold of 58.38 percent, and I note that 12 opposition MLAs and six

NDP MLAs didn’t hit that threshold of voter turnout in their

constituencies. I don’t think we would say that their election was in

any sense not legitimate.

The way our system works is that we give people the opportunity to

vote. They have a couple of decisions to make. They can decide to vote

or not vote, and then they can decide how they vote. It is up to British

Columbians to decide that.

[2:15 p.m.]

Now, we are going to take all the measures that we can to

encourage a significant and large voter turnout on an important

question. If members have suggestions about how to increase voter

turnout, we would absolutely welcome them. We believe that there will be

a very good voter turnout on this referendum, because it’s an important

question. As far as I can tell, all members in this House are very

engaged on the question. They’re going to do their best to make sure

that constituents get out and vote.

The spirit of the member’s question is an idea that there will be

a very low voter turnout in this, that people aren’t interested in this.

I disagree. I think there will be a very good turnout, and I think that

we will get a clear indication from British Columbians because there

will be a clear question put to them, and they’ll have the information

they need to vote. That is the spirit of this bill. That is the intent

of my actions as Attorney General, as directed by the Premier to

administer this process in a fair way. We will do that, and there will

be direction that will be binding on government from the

public.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. We can all hope, we can all pray, and we can

all look into the crystal ball and wish for the best turnout. At the end

of the day, that’s all it is. We do not know, and I think,

unfortunately, we did not pass an amendment which would have put some

checks and balances in place to make sure that there is a

mandate.

I would like to believe that all British Columbians will

participate in this, just as, I’m sure, the Premier of Prince Edward

Island had hoped that he would have a large turnout. But the reality is

that that wasn’t the case.

I really don’t believe that this falls as an absolute top priority

for the average British Columbian working and playing throughout our

province, trying to make a go at day-to-day life. Again, I have grave

concerns that, without pieces in place and without a commitment on

behalf of government to make sure that there are certain thresholds put

in place…. I really worry that such a fundamental change in our

democracy could be changed with a very small turnout.

The United Kingdom has a piece in play, and it was used during

Brexit — a qualified majority. They have pieces in play to make sure

that there are some thresholds made and to make sure that they do have

the wishes of people being heard.

My question, I guess, would be, going back to my last question —

which, again, I don’t think was answered: is there a clear mandate? Is

there a clear piece where this government will state: “I’m sorry. We do

not have enough of a mandate to change this piece of our democracy”? Is

there a commitment to that?

Hon. D. Eby: The commitment of the government is really clear. The commitment

of the government, as will be implemented through my ministry, is that

there will be a referendum, that we will do our best to make sure the

voter turnout is as high as possible, that every British Columbian that

is eligible will have an opportunity to vote on this important question,

that they will have the information they need to vote and that there

will be a clear question — or questions, depending on the consultation —

put to them. So the commitment of the government is very

clear.

I note that legally in British Columbia, there’s no obligation to

hold a referendum, no obligation to do a consultation about the

referendum — none of that.

I do appreciate the member’s suggestion that he’s worried. I think

we should all be engaged on the question of how to get voter turnout up,

not just on this referendum but generally. I agree with him to that

extent.

I point out that the Referendum Act that was put in place by that

government has no thresholds. The 2005 referendum on proportional

representation put in place by that government had no thresholds. The

2009 referendum put in place by that government had no

thresholds.

None of the referenda done by that side of the House had

thresholds. The reason for that is the same reason that this bill

doesn’t have thresholds. It’s that we have a system in place where

people can choose to vote or not vote.

Now, my sincere hope is that people come out and vote in large

numbers. We will be taking the measures to encourage as many people to

vote as possible, which started with choosing a method that has high

voter turnout. We could have paired it up with municipal elections. They

have lower voter turnout. We chose mail-in ballot which has,

traditionally, a higher voter turnout.

[2:20 p.m.]

If there are measures that members on the other side can suggest

to increase voter turnout, I’m glad to hear them, because I think it’s

the duty of all of us to encourage a high voter turnout here. I hope

that assists the member with his worries.

D. Davies: No, it doesn’t. There are a couple of pieces that arise out of

this. And I’ll just make kind of an observation, I guess. If the

Attorney General feels and is very confident that we’re going to have an

incredible turnout, I’m not sure why he didn’t support our amendment, if

that was a worry of his. But if we’re really going to be looking at….

Again, it goes back to the worry that we’re not going to really be

representing the public out there. We’ve heard these numbers of 10 or 15

or 20 percent being thrown out as hypothetical numbers. But I really

think it’s important that we do have that consideration for a low

turnout.

The minister talks about the referendum act. That might be, but it

goes back to what I mentioned yesterday. It’s a matter of doing things

right, making sure that we are doing things for what is in the best

interest of the province. When we look at 2005 and 2009, we went above

and beyond what was in the act and what was needed. We had thresholds in

place to make sure that we were going to be judging and having a

mandate, having a decisive mandate to move forward with.

We had an independent committee, the citizens’ assembly, go out

and gather information. I appreciate the minister looking at some of the

legislation that the B.C. Liberals have created. We have the opportunity

to even go above and beyond to make sure we do what is in the best

interests of British Columbians, and that is not happening with Bill 6.

In fact, hon. Chair, quite the opposite is happening with this

legislation.

Again, if I could even just get a straight-up answer from the

Attorney General. If, for whatever reason, this turnout for the upcoming

referendum, should Bill 6 pass…? Is there a number…? If it’s 5 percent

of the voter turnout, let’s speculatively say, would the government

still move forward with this binding referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: There has never been an election or a referendum in the history of

British Columbia — I would wager in North America — that has had a 5

percent turnout. So while I appreciate that the member has concerns, I

think that the attention of the public and the attention of the members

is best turned to: how do we maximize voter turnout? How can we all get

together and ensure that as many people vote as possible?

I don’t know how else to assist the member with this, hon.

Chair.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

section 12.

J. Martin: Thank you once again, Attorney. In

section 12(3)(c), perhaps the

Attorney could clarify it for me. It looks like cabinet is going to be

involved in the referendum count, by the wording, and I’m sure that’s

not the intent. But perhaps that can be substantiated?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: No, cabinet won’t be involved in — obviously, perhaps — counting

the referendum vote. The member is right. This is a regulatory power

that’s established around powers for and rules around the ballot count.

It is routine that there are regulations related to counting ballots.

This is spelled out explicitly to ensure that there are regulatory

powers in order to establish regulations related to the counting of

ballots.

J. Martin: Does this suggest that cabinet is going to give direction to

Elections B.C. in terms of the methods of counting ballots, something

I’m sure they’re already well versed in?

Hon. D. Eby: The Election Act for general elections normally does this. For

this referendum act, this is the regulation-making power. It’s possible

that this

section will point to the Election Act. It’s possible that if

there is some sort of a ranked number system as part of the ballot

question, based on feedback from British Columbians…. That’s not

something that’s in the Election Act, so that would be something that

would have to be added — how Elections B.C. does that. But it’s not to

direct that it should be counted a certain way. It’s to give Elections

B.C. the authority to be able to count the ballots.

J. Martin: In the same

section a little further down, subsection (3)(e),

cabinet plans on limiting the amount of information that will be voted

on?

Hon. D. Eby:

Section (

e) relates to…. It would be mandated so that the Chief

Electoral Officer would have to make available the voting package

materials so that voters can make an informed decision. These would be

the materials that are being developed by Ministry of Attorney General

staff so that voters on voting day have information about each of the

different voting systems that might be on the ballot — the system or

systems — including the current first-past-the-post system.

This is part of our commitment to ensuring that voters are able to

make an informed choice when it comes to completing the

ballots.

J. Martin: In subsection (4), I’m curious why this isn’t being left entirely

to Elections B.C. I’m sure there are some very capable, learned people

among the 22 members of the front bench, but this is something Elections

B.C. would appear to and should have complete authority over.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Ordinarily, this would be a reference to the Elections Act, so

it’d say it should be counted consistent with the Elections Act. Staff

advised that there is currently no regulation or law in place that

describes how to count a ballot that has more than two answers — for

example, a ranked ballot system.

If that is a component of the ballot question, based on the

feedback from British Columbians, it turns out that Elections B.C.

actually needs legislative authority to direct them how to count ballots

— what’s a valid ballot, what’s a rejected ballot.

I agree with the member that the folks at Elections B.C. are more

than capable on their own of doing this, but legally there needs to be

an explicit law that directs them on how to count ballots in order for

them to have the legislative authority to do that and determine the

results of the election.

J. Martin: I have a similar question regarding subsection (5), and perhaps

that will be responded to with a similar response, but it would appear

that this type of process must be at arm’s length and be the purview of

Elections B.C. and not the cabinet.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct in that it’s a similar answer. This is the

same as was done in 2009. Elections B.C. needs legislative authority to

do the things that are described here, and that is by regulation. So

it’s a matchup of what was done in the 2009 referendum.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:33 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM 2018

ACT

The Chair: The committee on Bill 6 reports the bill complete with

amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. D. Eby: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, reported complete with

amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM 2018

ACT

Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, read a third time and

passed.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call for the consideration of the reports of resolutions from

the Committee of Supply.

Supply Motions

REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM

COMMITTEE OF

SUPPLY

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on

October 3, 5, 17, 18, 23, 25, 30, 31; and November 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20,

21, 27, 29 and 30 be now received, taken as read and agreed

to.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 41 billion, 957 million, 011

thousand dollars towards defraying the charges and expenses of the

public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,

2018. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of

the Supply Act (No. 2), 2017 .]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR CAPITAL

EXPENDITURES, LOANS,

INVESTMENTS

AND OTHER FINANCING REQUIREMENTS

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 856 million, 616 thousand dollars

towards defraying the disbursements for capital, loans, investments and

other financing requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 2018. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under

section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 2), 2017 .]

Motion approved.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — SUPPLY ACT, 2017-2018

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2017-2018.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 17 be introduced and read a first time

now.

This supply bill is introduced to authorize funding for the

operation of government programs for the 2017-2018 fiscal year. The

House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of

the resolutions from the Committee of Supply after consideration of the

main estimates. In addition, the House has resolved that there be

granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary

funds towards defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements of the

public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,

Mr. Speaker, after discussion, it is the intention of the

government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this

day.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I would ask that you remain in your seats for a few

minutes while the bill is being circulated.

Members, in keeping with the practice of this House, the final

supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one

sitting.

Bill 17, Supply Act, 2017-2018, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

[2:40 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — SUPPLY ACT, 2017-2018

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 17 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 17 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration forthwith.

Bill 17, Supply Act, 2017-2018, read a second time and ordered to

proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — SUPPLY ACT, 2017-2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; L. Reid

in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 17 complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — SUPPLY ACT, 2017-2018

Bill 17, Supply Act, 2017-2018, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the

precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was

admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

[2:45 p.m. - 2:55 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Election Amendment Act, 2017

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act

Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017

Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017

Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2017

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent

to these acts.

Supply Act, 2017-2018

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank

Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this

act.

Hon. J. Guichon (Lieutenant-Governor): Before I leave, I want to just take advantage of this opportunity to

say a few words.

I’m here to give royal assent. I left Kamloops a few hours ago and

will return there tonight, but I wanted to come because I presume it will my

last opportunity. Some of you may not be present when I say goodbye, so I

wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to wish you all a great holiday

season.

Thank you, all, for your service and for the fact that you all are

willing to sacrifice and would be willing to serve the people of British

Columbia. I wanted to thank you all for that.

Also, I would like to close as I began, with my favourite quote, by a

soil scientist, Charles Kellogg, who in 1938 said: “Do civilizations fall

because the soil fails to produce, or does a soil fail only when the people

living on it no longer know how to manage their civilization?”

May you all have a wonderful Christmas season. Thank you.

[Applause.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[3:00 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, before calling on the House Leader, I would just like to

thank you all for your patience this session. I know I’ve made a number of

errors, and I promise to make less in the spring.

I’d also like to wish everyone here — very, very sincerely, I mean

this — a very merry Christmas, the best of the holiday season and safe

travels.

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to thank you

for the work you’ve done, and all members of the House — opposition, Third

Party and government — and all of the staff that keep this place going — in

the Legislative Library, in the restaurant, keeping the halls available, the

security people. This whole place operates like a finely oiled machine. It’s

a credit to the people who work here. It’s a credit to British Columbia that

we have such an outstanding group of people keeping our Legislature

functioning.

In our parliamentary democratic system, we should all be fiercely

proud of the work that we do each and every day, and this session, I think,

has been exemplary. It’s been an honour to be a part of it.

M. de Jong: I wish to echo, on behalf of the official opposition, the remarks of

the Premier with respect to all of the people that we rely upon when we

gather here to make this democratic institution function — to thank them as

well and wish them the best of the season.

I might also, though, take a moment, in what is perhaps not intended

to be a partisan self-serving way, to pay tribute to the individual who

usually sits to my left. The Premier was very generous earlier today in

commenting upon the years of service, generally, but more particularly the

work that the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove has rendered — Langley

East; my goodness, I’ve been here a long time — in unique circumstances, as

a transition occurs within the ranks of the official opposition.

He is a unique individual. He is dedicated and passionate about not

just his community but the province as a whole, the party he represents and

the colleagues that he works with. I know it is contrary to the rules, but I

hope…. I think all members will join me in paying tribute and saying thank

you to MLA Rich Coleman for the service that he has rendered.

[3:05 p.m.]

He’s not gone, but he will not be sitting, necessarily, in this seat

when we reconvene, and I think we’d all like to say thank you for the

service that he has rendered this chamber. [Applause.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve waited 16 years.

I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it

appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the

government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or

until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to

prorogue the second session of the 41st parliament of the province of

British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has

been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in

such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had

been duly adjourned to that time and date. And in the event of the Speaker

being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker

shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I move the final motion, I am reminded by the staff who so ably

keep this place running…. Would members please remove their personal items

from their desks before leaving today. They would greatly appreciate

it.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 3:07 p.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada