Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 166

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 42 — Assessment Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 42 — Assessment Amendment Act, 2018

Committee of the Whole House

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

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Report and Third Reading of Bills

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

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued)

A. Wilkinson

T. Wat

J. Yap

S. Cadieux

N. Simons

T. Stone

T. Redies

J. Isaacs

M. Stilwell

M. Dean

M. Lee

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2018

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 42, Assessment Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 42 — ASSESSMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 42; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

section 1 (continued) .

[1:35 p.m.]

T. Stone: I certainly appreciated the information that was provided by the

minister and the ministry in the series of questions that we canvassed

before lunch in terms of this particular

section and its implications

for class 4 industrial properties.

The final area that, as the official opposition, we want to

address is this concern, which has been raised by lots of small

businesses, in so far as inequities that exist with respect to how

assessment is done in British Columbia. This bill, we can all agree,

does nothing to address the fact that 98 percent of the businesses in

British Columbia are small businesses. They’re facing significant

challenges in pockets of certain communities, particularly Vancouver and

other Metro Vancouver communities — challenges relating to rapidly

rising property tax bills.

While we understand the intentions of this bill and its laser-like

focus on addressing what appears to be a concern with one class 4

industrial property at this time, we can’t help but feel that there was

an opportunity here to also try to address the inequities that exist for

all of these small businesses.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a number of BIAs,

the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, UDI, chambers and many others —

not to mention thousands of businesses — have been asking for

modernization of how we do assessment in this province. They’ve been

asking for some relief. It’s incumbent upon all of us in this chamber as

policy-makers to, I think, acknowledge that challenge and to try to do

something about it.

We often talk about the hollowing out of our cities — particularly

in Vancouver and in the Lower Mainland — with small businesses having no

choice but to close due to the fact that the property taxes they have to

pay have escalated, and in many cases quite dramatically. We know that

that’s being driven in part by changes to official community plans. But

often, also, it’s just due to sheer market forces which, I think we all

acknowledge, have caused significant increases in the assessed value of

highest and best use, particularly in the Lower Mainland.

Notwithstanding the pleas of small business, there is nothing in

this bill that addresses that reality. We think, in the official

opposition — especially last week being Small Business Week — that there

was an opportunity to put a bill in front of the House that perhaps

could have taken some steps towards addressing these

inequities.

The fact is you can have a situation like in the city of Vancouver

two years ago, where the West End plan was passed. Assessed values under

the community retail properties throughout the West End plan increased

between 200 and 300 percent, not because of anything substantive or

practical that had happened on those affected properties but simply

because of market forces.

There is also, I think, a deeply rooted sense of unfairness here.

Your value is determined by highest and best use, but you’re going to

pay a tax rate, in the case of small businesses, on a much higher mill

rate than you otherwise would.

Mr. Chair, at this point, we would like to propose an amendment to

this section.

[1.1 The following

section is added:

20.01 The minister must establish a task force to advise the

minister on matters relating to assessment of property classes 5 and 6,

as prescribed under

section 19 (14) of this Act, and

(

a) the task force must include a representative from at least

each of the following groups including property classes 5 and 6 owners

and occupiers, local governments and the small business

community,

[1:40 p.m.]

(

b) the task force must evaluate assessment inequities of

property classes 5 and 6, incorporating a definition of ‘eligible

property’ in this Act such that an eligible property will include

property classes 5 and 6 where the highest and best use value exceeds

the value of the actual use,

(

c) the task force must issue a report to the minister no later

than September 30, 2019 and the minister must make the contents of that

report public no later than October 15, 2019, and

(

d) the task force recommendations must be implemented by the

minister in time for inclusion within the assessment roll for the 2020

taxation year.]

That’s the amendment that I would like to move. I’ve got copies of

the amendment here for you, Mr. Chair.

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have to say how fascinating I find it that the member opposite,

after 16 years in government, is saying now that something needs to be

done, when, according to his own quote two years ago, the West End plan

created significant challenges for those properties. If I recall, the

member for Vancouver–West End raised that here in the House, and it fell

on absolutely deaf ears. So I find it absolutely fascinating that

suddenly there’s an interest, an interest in small business and an

interest in the challenge of regular British Columbians, because for a

long time, those concerns went unheard and unheeded. I find it quite

fascinating to hear that suddenly there’s this interest.

I also want to remind the member — I know that he was listening

closely to my second reading comments — what I said, because he clearly

wasn’t paying attention. My ministry is undertaking a review of the

highest best valuation impacts on other property classes that are

dealing with similar issues in addition to ongoing work on identifying

property tax mitigation strategies for small businesses subject to

triple-net leases. We’ve already started to undertake that work, and

it’s work that’s going to continue to proceed going forward.

N. Letnick: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: I seek leave to make an introduction because, for the first time in

ten years, as far as I can recall, my brother, Robert Letnick, is in the

House. Robert is a dentist and has been my watchdog for — I don’t know — 60

years and has taken care of me, making sure that I don’t get into too much

trouble. It’s, indeed, an honour to have him here. Would the House please

help me make Robert Letnick feel welcome.

One more, if I may. I wanted you to applaud before for Robert here,

but he’s also here because we lost our mother this weekend.

Debate Continued

The Chair: Seeing no further speaker on the amendment, shall the

amendment as introduced by the member for Kamloops–South Thompson

pass?

[1:45 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Isaacs

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

NAYS — 42

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

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1:55 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — ASSESSMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 42, Assessment Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S. Robinson: I call Committee the Whole, Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2018.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 43 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 43; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:57 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to introduce legislative counsel who’s here with me. Sherie

Verhulst will be assisting me through this process.

I note we have quite a crowd in the gallery. Just for background

for those who are joining us in the Legislature here today, we’re doing

committee stage on the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections)

Amendment Act. This is not the most exciting bill that you are going to

see, but it’s necessary work for the Legislature to make sure that we

correct minor errors that are in laws. They have to come to the

Legislature for approval.

We’ll be working

section by

section through it, and my critic in

the opposition will be asking me questions about the sections possibly,

and we’ll see what happens. I’d just like to take the opportunity to

make everybody feel welcome.

M. Lee: Just to ask a question on this bill. Recognizing that it’s a

correction where you have a number appear alongside of a letter, as

opposed to two numbers together, is there a way for the ministry to do a

general review as to this sort of combination of numbers and letters,

just to ensure that we have the right formulation, let’s say, where it’s

intended, clearly — for this to be December 31, as opposed to December

3l, if that’s a little “l”? Is there a way that we can do a general

search to review this so that this isn’t done in a piecemeal

fashion?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The correction the member is asking about originated in 1979. The

section is supposed to talk about December 31, but instead it talks

about December 3, small letter “l,” because someone mistook the small

letter “l” for the number 1. So we’re correcting it to be December 31

instead of December 3l.

The correction was apparently noticed by a publications clerk. If

you can imagine, someone actually spotted it. It looked unusual to the

clerk, and they brought it forward to be corrected.

I’m advised that it would be incredibly time-consuming and

challenging to search the assembled statutes of British Columbia for

similar errors, but I can assure the member that staff has advised me

that there is a spell-check program in place that should catch this for

statutes that are going in currently and that whenever staff identify

similar errors, they will be bringing them forward to us for

correction.

Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

M. Lee: I know that the Leader of the Third Party decided, in his comments

on this bill, to raise attention to this particular subsection — 21(b).

Just out of interest, though, in terms of the B.C. Hydro plan, the way

that it’s utilized in this schedule…. Perhaps I could get a comment from

the Attorney General as to what that term is intended to cover, and the

way it’s defined currently as “B.C. Hydro Plan.”

Hon. D. Eby: The member is referring to…. There are two corrections in this

section. One corrects the word “hectares,” plural, to “hectare” because

it’s talking about a single hectare of upland. So it’s correcting the

plural to the singular.

The other one talks about the “B.C. Hydro Plan plan,” so it

removes one of the words “plan” from that duplication.

The B.C. Hydro plan is actually a document, and the B.C. Hydro

Plan in this

section refers to a document apparently prepared by a

gentleman named Fred Peters in 1999. It’s a specific document. It is

meant to be referred to, as opposed to a verb like “to plan” or “there

was a plan underway” or something like that. It refers to a plan like a

document. This is a very specific document that the legislation refers

to related to something called Fintry Park.

I’m not sure if that’s exactly what the member was looking for,

but that’s what we know.

Sections 21 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:03 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[2:05 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

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

2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call continued second reading on Bill 40.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

A. Wilkinson: This amendment is, of course, designed to ensure that we have a

proper and fulsome debate on the issue of the electoral reform

referendum. Sadly, we find ourselves in the position that the ballots

are already in the mailboxes of British Columbians. Some people have

received them already and found them to be confusing. This is the state

we find ourselves in, as this government has basically force-fed this

referendum onto British Columbians.

We need only review the history to see how much of a mess has been

made of this referendum. Back in 2004 when the issue was on the table

after the 2001 landslide election, the appropriate approach was taken. A

full year was taken for a neutral citizens’ assembly with no political

involvement at all. Political parties had nothing to do with the

citizens’ assembly in 2004. Members of that assembly were chosen at

random from across British Columbia, and they assembled in Vancouver

with the appropriate financial and academic support to make it possible

to have a properly developed referendum on electoral reform.

After a full year of deliberations, they produced a simple yes-no

question asking British Columbians if they wanted to change to a STV

voting system. That was put on the ballot in the 2005 election — a

general election, with maximum possible turnout of voters, with maximum

information available to British Columbians and with no political

involvement or manipulation at all. That was the right way to do

it.

That referendum vote did not prove to be successful, yet the

question was put on the ballot again, in 2009. By that time, fully

developed maps had been put forward so British Columbians would have the

ability to say: “Now I know what I’m voting for. I understand the system

that’s being proposed. It’s a simple yes-no question. It’s here on the

ballot at the general election, when I’m focused and paying attention,

and I know what my riding would look like. I know exactly what I’m

getting into.” That’s what British Columbians voted against in 2009, to

the tune of more than 60 percent rejecting the proposition, with full

information.

We then fast-forward to the current situation. Of course, we all

remember the 2017 election, where the Premier of today said, as the

opposition leader at the time, that there would be three critically

important features to any referendum on electoral reform.

First of all it, would be a simple yes-no question. That’s a

crystal-clear promise that is very easy to understand.

Secondly, there would be a citizens’ assembly. Bravo for the now

Premier — who has since broken his promise — because that was the right

way to go about it.

Thirdly, there would be regional thresholds so that regions of

British Columbia would not be steamrolled by Metro Vancouver. And lo and

behold, the Premier has broken all three of those promises flagrantly.

We need only review them to see how badly this has come across the table

from the government of the day.

The citizens’ assembly was proposed in an electronic mail to the

Attorney General, who normally sits in this room today, and that was

rejected by him in November of 2017. The answer from the Attorney

General was: “There’s not enough time.”

[2:10 p.m.]

Well, there was an abundance of time. It’s now 11 months later.

There could have been a full-on citizens’ assembly. It could have been

done properly — with integrity, with transparency — and the Attorney

General rejected that proposition in November of 2017.

The second issue, the yes-no question. We remained hopeful, as the

NDP deliberated these issues in secret in their cabinet room, that they

would bring the question before this House for a debate so that all of

the members of this elected assembly would have some input into the

question that was to be put forward on the ballot.

Lo and behold, the Attorney General, who is supposedly neutral in

these matters, turned around and did an on-line survey that was so

massively biased that the media folks, the people in the gallery here

who report on political matters, rejected it out of hand as a complete

sham. Lo and behold, the survey asked a few questions, which then played

no role whatsoever in the decision of the NDP cabinet as to what the

questions would be and how the referendum would be conducted. Clearly,

the survey was a sham. It was simply a way for the Attorney General to

say, “Oh yes, British Columbians were consulted in this,” which they

were in a completely fraudulent way.

So where are we left? In the spring, we heard that the question

would be put forward, as developed in secret by the NDP cabinet, and

they had already stacked the deck a year ago when they passed

legislation saying that it didn’t matter what the turnout was. Members

on this side asked the Attorney General on that side: “What if 10

percent of people vote?” He stood in this chamber and said, “It will be

binding,” because the legislation says that the result of the

referendum, no matter how many people vote, is binding. It must be

implemented.

We all know the story of Prince Edward Island. When it voted two

years ago, 52 percent of the people voted in favour of change, but only

36 percent of people voted. So 18.7 percent of eligible voters in P.E.I.

said they wanted change, and the cabinet wisely said: “That’s not a

mandate.” They’re going to have another look at this completely.

Instead, we have an arrogant NDP government pandering to the Green Party

and force-feeding this on British Columbians by saying that the result

will be binding, no matter how many people vote.

That, of course, brings us around to the issue of the whole

process in which they’ve set this up. We have, in this House, witnessed

the NDP suppressing conversation on this and arranging for Elections

B.C. to discipline people who try to discuss this in public. This is

fundamentally wrong. The right to vote, the structure of our voting

system, is the right of our citizens. It is not something that is owned

and operated by political parties.

Lo and behold, we have the NDP setting up a system whereby if

people spend more than a few nickels on this, they have to register with

Elections B.C. and provide financial statements. They get disciplined

and, possibly, prosecuted if they don’t. This is a way to suppress

conversation about this, to make it dangerous to get involved. MLAs on

our side of the House have been threatened with disciplinary action and

prosecutions for simply going out and informing their voters of their

views.

This is wrong, because our system of democracy is wholly dependent

on legitimate elections. What the NDP, to keep the Greens happy, is

doing is setting this up as an entirely biased process to lead to an

entirely biased result.

That, of course, brings us to the issue of the approach taken in

this Legislature. In the spring, we had the concern raised about the

question. The question disappeared into the NDP cabinet room and popped

out with three possible scenarios for proportional representation, two

of which no one had ever heard of before. This had no connection

whatsoever to the consultation that had been conducted before that

secret cabinet meeting. The sham consultation by the Attorney General

was a complete waste of time and money, in a duplicitous way, to mislead

British Columbians.

So what do we have? We have an NDP cabinet, some of whom are in

the room today, who’ve processed and passed a complicated ballot that

was then foisted on the people of British Columbia with no debate

whatsoever in this chamber. We asked for an emergency debate. The NDP

blew it off. We asked to debate the ballot. The NDP blew it off. The

media people have been pointing out, increasingly, that this whole

process has turned into a sham.

[2:15 p.m.]

Yet we have the shameless, slavish adherence to the plan by the

NDP members and the Green members. We notice that they have gone

conspicuously silent, because this works entirely in their favour. The

party that talks about collaborative government, that talks about

involvement of citizens, that talks about how we have to be democratic

in our voting process, has gone silent as this sham rolls

out.

We had the NDP also decide who is allowed to be funded to support

this process. One would think, in a democracy like ours, if you’re

agitated and concerned, you can just go out there and talk about the

democratic process. Surely, that’s something that comes in the Charter

of Rights in Canada. But no, we had the NDP attempt to legislate that

out of existence with tight rules, with spending limits, with a process

that is designed to oppress citizen involvement.

What have we got at the end of the day? The ballots are arriving

in mailboxes, and people are barely aware that this is happening at all.

When they open that ballot, they find a confusing package of multiple

documents that they’re supposed to sift through.

Hearing from constituents of mine, relatives of mine, people in

the far corners of British Columbia, they’re opening this package and

they’re offended by it, because they feel like they’re being

manipulated. The ballot is so confusing, and the series of packages they

high degree of voter dismissal and voter apathy. People will look at

this package and say, “I don’t even understand what this is about,” and

throw it out.

We’re going to see a huge amount of discarded ballots, and that,

in this situation, is a tragedy, because British Columbians are entitled

to have full involvement in this kind of thing. They are entitled to be

informed. They are entitled, as the citizens who are the core of our

society, to decide their own democratic fate.

Instead, we have people opening up a package and wondering: “What

on earth is all this about?” They’re barely aware it’s happening.

They’re presented with a package that’s confusing, and the easiest thing

to do is nothing. And that, I think, has to hang in the air, that the

easiest thing to do is toss it out.

It would appear from everything we’ve seen, from the behaviour of

the NDP and the Green Party, that that’s exactly what they want people

to do. Seeking a low voter turnout is ideal for the NDP because only

their motivated souls — and we’ve seen a few major public sector unions

getting actively involved in this to turn out their vote, just as they

did in recent municipal elections….

Voter suppression is something that the Left, throughout the

world, have decried everywhere they’ve been, except here. We have the

Republicans in the U.S., who are notorious for voter suppression, yet

that’s exactly what the NDP are doing here. There is a degree of malign

arrogance going on in this referendum that has to be pointed

out.

As part and parcel of this, what I’ve been trying to do with the

Premier is to get him into a public venue to be accountable for this. We

need some transparency around this referendum. We need disclosure. We

need heightened awareness in the public. People need information. They

need their questions answered, and telling them to go to a website is

the height of arrogance.

We also have to inquire as to why this was done as a mail-in

ballot — $40 million of taxpayers’ money that could well have been spent

on the many things this government extols, like homeless shelters,

higher education, you name it. Lots of things could have been done with

$40 million, rather than doing this the way it’s been done.

Why was this not done at the next general election? Let’s answer

that question. Why was this not done at the next general election, when

people are focused, when voter identification is done in a rigorous and

thorough fashion by Elections B.C., where we have the structure and

efficiency of the existing voting system and we have voters who are

focused on the general election?

Instead, we have a mail-in ballot. Well, how convenient. How

self-serving can that be? Forty million dollars down the drain solely to

make sure that the Green Party has their best possible shot at getting

more members in this Legislature.

[2:20 p.m.]

This is shameful that the members opposite sit and stare into

their laptops and ignore these questions and just wait for the results

to pour in, because the combination of an unaware public, voter

suppression, suppression of dissenting voices, a manipulated ballot, the

mail-in ballot system and suppression of the funding of campaigns is a

perfect formula for the members opposite to get their way with the

electorate. This is utterly shameful, yet we’re supposed to just suck it

up and talk to voters and encourage them to exercise their

franchise.

That’s exactly what we’ve been doing all over British Columbia:

encouraging people to realize what will go on in their community.

Whether you’re in Vanderhoof or Kimberley or Osoyoos, you simply have to

look people in the eye and say: “If they succeed, you will never have an

MLA of your own again because the ridings will be so much larger that

smaller communities, which get special treatment from the Electoral

Boundaries Commission today, will be completely consumed into large

ridings where those small towns will disappear.” Their electoral

representatives will fold into the cities, and lo and behold, we have a

much more urbanized assembly than we do now.

This is bad for British Columbia. We only have to remember that

the northern two-thirds of the province — everything north of Highway 1,

north of Cache Creek; two-thirds of British Columbia — has 7 percent of

the population. They have ten seats now, and that’s for good reason.

That wasn’t decided in a gerrymandered fashion. That wasn’t decided by

some crooked process. That was decided by the Electoral Boundaries

Commission because that area of the province needs provincial services

in a very special way. They are entitled to extra

representation.

Do you think those people know what will happen to them under any

of these three proposed systems? They have no idea how many ridings

there will be, how far they’ll have to go to see their MLA, whether

their MLA will be somebody they’ve ever even heard of and whether it’ll

be someone off a party list who’s foisted on them by the party bosses

after the election. This is so fundamentally wrong in a province as

complicated as British Columbia that the members opposite should be

ashamed of themselves.

We also have an Attorney General who glibly announces that under

the three proposed voting systems, there are only 23 unknown features

that will be decided by an all-party committee after the referendum

vote. What? Why aren’t these things known now, like how many votes will

you have? How many MLAs would be in an electoral district? We’re not

allowed to know.

Think of this. Assuming the referendum is successful, the people

on that side of the House will simply vote themselves the seats and

votes they need, because they have the ability to vote in the details

they want in an all-party committee. This is a complete sham. We’re

hopeful that the courts will see through this. They are very vulnerable

to judicial challenges on this because of the high-handed, arrogant,

condescending way in which they’re treating the voters of British

Columbia.

We also had this issue, which is only emerging now, of how deeply

offensive this is to the role of the citizen. Why is it that this has

been completely controlled by political parties? Why is it that a

razor-thin majority, as we just saw on a vote here that was 42 to 41…?

The most they can muster is 44 to 42. Is that a way to fundamentally

change our electoral system?

Shouldn’t this require more of a mandate from the public, from the

electorate, from the people whose rights are being diluted and taken

away by this high-handed government on the other side? They don’t seem

to have the slightest qualm in doing that. This combination of voter

suppression and lack of awareness feeds perfectly into the hands of a

high-handed, skin-of-their-teeth minority government who are trying to

rig things for their own benefit in the years to come.

I have been very clear for over a month, asking the Premier for a

public debate on this issue. Lo and behold, a couple of weeks ago, he

said: “Oh, under the right circumstances, with a few broadcasters, maybe

it could be possible.” Then on October 18, the Premier said: “Well,

okay, if you insist.” But they’ve never come up with a date. So the

cynicism continues to roll off their benches.

They’re going to clearly jig this to get a date after people have

voted. What a complete and utter sham that the Premier hasn’t got the

stomach to come out and portray the benefits of this to British

Columbians on prime-time TV before they vote. What’s the

point?

[2:25 p.m.]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let’s have one speech.

A. Wilkinson: So we’re left with the issue…. The members opposite now try to

shout down this issue. They’re uncomfortable with the fact that their

Premier doesn’t want to debate until the people have voted, so what

they’re doing now is trying to shout down this conversation, a further

step in their attempt to suppress the interests of voters.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We’re told that this is the right place to debate the issue. Well,

our side of the gallery is completely full. Where is the rest of our

Legislature at the time of a debate that they say is fundamental and

that should replace a television debate? Well, this is a shameless

display of arrogance on the part of the NDP.

They are prepared to completely dismiss the idea of a television

debate, to control the electoral process, to suppress citizen

involvement, to keep people in the dark, to have a sham consultation, to

rig the question, to control the entire process and to go through this

George Orwell world of theirs where they know what’s best for us and we

are just the poor peasantry who will be told what to do.

It’s time for British Columbians to wake up, look at their

ballots, have a look through them, come to the conclusion that makes the

most sense. This democracy has worked since 1871. It’s worked in Britain

for 300 years. Do not let these people opposite play games with your

franchise and overrule your fundamental rights. We have our Charter of

Rights and Freedoms for a reason, and we do hope that there are people

out there who will get out and litigate this, because it is a complete

sham.

It’s unfortunate to end on this kind of tone on something so

fundamental, because we should be celebrating the success of a citizens’

assembly. We should be celebrating the fact that people went to the

polls in a general election and made their selection. We should be

celebrating the fact that we have a dynamic democracy where people get

to choose their destiny rather than being manipulated by the members

opposite.

The question remains: can we have a debate with the Premier? If

so, when? When is he going to show up on television to debate this? It’s

time for the Premier to show his cards and time for us to have a fully

democratic approach to this. Even at this late stage, we can do better

if the Premier will just cooperate.

T. Wat: I’m so proud to rise today to speak in support of the hoist motion

for second reading of Bill 40, that the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018

Amendment Act “be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting

‘six months hence.’”

Many of my colleagues on this side, including the Leader of the

Opposition, have already articulated so well the flawed process of the

referendum. The MLAs on this side of the House have to stand up in this

House to point out how the NDP government, together with their junior

partner, have been manipulating this referendum to ensure the outcome

will be in their favour and in their interest, not in the favour and the

interests of British Columbians.

Essentially, the NDP and the Green Party partners are asking for

British Columbians’ blind trust. However, trust needs to be earned, not

just given. To earn trust, say what you mean and mean what you say. I

have not seen any evidence of why British Columbians should give their

trust. Here’s why.

Let’s first look at how many factors won’t be considered until

after the referendum. It totals 29, a staggering 29 factors. How are

voters supposed to make an informed decision when so much remains

unknown? We don’t know how many MLAs there will be. We don’t know what’s

going to happen to our ridings. We don’t know the map of each

riding.

[2:30 p.m.]

We don’t know, for example, for the municipality that I represent,

if the existing four Richmond ridings will be combined into one riding.

But one thing I can assure you: all ridings will be much

bigger.

The city of Richmond now has four ridings, as Richmond has grown

so much that the population exceeds 200,000. Many of my constituents

come to my office to seek assistance on various issues, such as how to

enrol their children in school, how to apply for a CareCard, how to

apply for a driver’s licence or how to export their product to the

market of Asia-Pacific, etc. As the MLA for my riding of Richmond North

Centre, I’m so honoured and privileged, like all my colleagues in this

House, that we can provide assistance to our constituents.

Many of my constituents are immigrants who are new to our

province. When a constituent comes to my office for assistance or a

meeting with me or my CA, we never ask them if they voted for me or not.

The MLA constituency office serves all constituents, whether they are

NDP, Green or B.C. Liberal or do not belong to any political party.

That’s the way it should be, as the elected officials are the servants

of British Columbians.

Under the three proposed PR systems, there’s a likely chance that

the four existing ridings will be combined into one riding. Or even

worse, the neighbouring city of Delta might be incorporated into

Richmond. The government has refused to provide maps of these three

proposed PR systems. The wider an area an MLA has to travel, the less

exposure they will have to unique local issues. The more constituents an

MLA has to serve, the less time he or she has to interact and serve the

constituents.

We don’t know what constitutes a rural or urban riding; therefore,

we do not know which system would apply. We also don’t know whether

there’s going to be closed or open lists of party candidates. But one

thing we are sure of is that a political party has got to choose the

candidates who will eventually become the MLAs that represent their

constituents, and the voters are stuck with the party’s favourites. The

voters cannot fire the MLAs chosen by the party even if they are not

happy with their performance.

Besides all these unknowns, there are no turnout requirements for

this referendum. To me, this is not only a sign of the NDP government’s

own insecurity but a distorted way to manipulate the public and entrench

their position. Changing Canada’s constitution requires two-thirds of

the provinces representing at least 50 percent of the population to be

in favour. Why is British Columbia considering changing our electoral

system with what could well be far less support than that?

I hosted and participated in several public meetings about the

referendum with my B.C. Liberal colleagues this summer. One of those in

attendance asked this very pointed question. She explained that her

strata council requires two-thirds of the vote to pass a rule change.

How come the threshold for electoral reform is much lower than for a

strata council?

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 majority of eligible voters and a majority

of ridings to vote in favour of any change. 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, a new system to replace the current

system that has been in use for over 100 years, shouldn’t the threshold

be set higher?

I argue that the design of this referendum is obviously

self-serving for the NDP-Green partnership. A government formed under

proportional representation would be based on a backroom deal only after

British Columbians have cast their votes. The deal bears only one goal

in mind, which is to establish a partnership of power. Under such a

partnership, there would be promises of cabinet roles, but there would

not be principles of governing.

In so 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 coalitions with.

Coalition governments don’t exist very long — certainly not for four

years, as we are used to here.

[2:35 p.m.]

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. This is

the norm. In cases around the world, this has led to enormous power

being given to fringe parties and extremist parties.

It is not hard to find examples of coalition governments where

religious, populist or even racist parties hold sway. The system doesn’t

reward consensus or compromise, 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 groups are empowered and encouraged to compromise. They are

incentivized to dig in. What you get is hard-line parties setting the

agenda. The system lends itself to chaos and confusion.

In Germany, 91 of the 94 MPs were elected from party lists. This

is a party with racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and xenophobic

tendencies. They are linked to neo-Nazism. Under PR, they have become

the largest opposition party in Germany.

I had the opportunity to visit New Zealand this summer and to

listen to what people there have to say about their electoral system. It

was a perfect time for discussion as New Zealand just had an election in

2017, using a mixed-member system, almost exactly like one of the three

proportional representation systems proposed here by the NDP government

in B.C.

The balance of power was held by the populist anti-immigrant party

New Zealand First with less than 8 percent of the vote, and it was

rejected en masse for their extreme views. A backroom deal was

negotiated between this party and the minority government. Such a

political arrangement was certainly not what New Zealanders voted

for.

The leader of New Zealand First, who holds extreme views, was

rejected by its own constituents. After the election, he was appointed

by his party and became the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of

Foreign Affairs in New Zealand. When the New Zealand Prime Minister was

on maternity leave, the leader of this anti-immigrant party was even

acting Prime Minister.

This is an example of how, under proportional representation,

parties could appoint someone from their own party list to represent

constituents without the member actually being voted in by their

constituents. This is the case in each of the three PR systems proposed

by this NDP government.

Right now, I’m wholly accountable to my constituents in the

Richmond North Centre riding. I answer to them first. Under PR, voters

will, instead, be represented by unelected MLAs answerable to nobody but

their parties. As over half of my constituents in my riding are

immigrants of Chinese descent, we cannot afford the rise of

anti-immigrant parties or extremist parties because even in a beautiful

province such as British Columbia, we are not immune to

racism.

If you don’t think that could happen here, I can tell you there

are 27 parties registered in B.C. already. We need to consider that this

lengthy list of parties exists under a system where the majority of

these parties are never likely to win a seat. PR will only increase the

size of this party list.

It’s one thing to laugh about the B.C. Excalibur Party, but I and

the majority of British Columbians don’t want to see them given a single

seat in the Legislature any more than I think we would like to see the

Communist Party MLA given a seat.

Let me quote you a statement from the Communist Party of B.C. on

June 10 of this year: “While PR does not guarantee more positive

government policy…it increases the chances to elect communists.” Another

statement on the same day was this: “The policy of the Communist Party

in Canada has always been to support a mixed-member PR

system.”

[2:40 p.m.]

How about the Vancouver Island Party? I wonder how many members

from the Island on the other side would jump ship and join this party if

the proportional representation electoral system was in place. A quote

from the Victoria News said: “Vancouver Island Party lays out

its declaration of independence from B.C.” Just think, for a second,

about our future Legislature comprised of MLAs from several fringe

parties focusing on single issues.

Now let’s look at another fringe party, the Cultural Action Party.

In an

article published on October 16, 2016, the Vancouver Sun

headline: “Anti-immigration Party Registered for B.C. Election.”

The Vancouver Sun reported that the leader of the Cultural

Action Party, Brad Salzberg, often puts out new releases against the

influence of Chinese culture and Chinese-Canadian figures in British

Columbia.

In 2014, this leader of the Cultural Action Party held a campaign

to get a well-known University of B.C. history professor fired. Dr.

Henry Yu has lectured and written about politics and racism in B.C. Many

of our MLAs in this House know Dr. Henry Yu, who was a co-chair of the

former government’s Legacy Initiative Advisory Council that was

established after an apology by former Premier Christy Clark, in this

Legislature, to the Chinese-Canadian community for the historic wrongs

committed by past provincial governments over 100 years ago.

I’ve also heard from leaders of the Chinese community. David Choi,

national executive chair of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians,

voiced his opposition on behalf of all members of his organization,

saying that this referendum is not open or transparent. By the way,

David Choi together with Dr. Henry Yu are the co-chairs of the Legacy

Initiative Advisory Council — same Dr. Henry Yu who was the target of

the Cultural Action Party.

Instead of a fair and transparent referendum process, we are

getting a rushed job that has only served to create confusion and anger

in our communities. I don’t think the majority of British Columbians

want to see any credibility given to separatist or racist parties. But

that’s how these parties all start. In countries like Germany and

Hungary, nationalist and extremist parties have gained a foothold

because of proportional representation, and in both countries, their

influence increases with every passing election.

The on-line survey that informed the referendum was created by

four academics that the NDP has sworn to secrecy. Three of those

academics felt the end result of the survey was biased and unfair. The

Attorney General, who is a so-called neutral arbiter of the process,

campaigned in favour of PR, and his own staff had input into the

referendum process. Both the engagement survey and final ballot

questions were written by the Attorney General’s political staff and

were finalized behind closed doors at the cabinet table. The NDP refused

to release the discussion on the referendum question, waited until the

last day of the spring session to release the results of the referendum

survey and then tried to stifle debate in the Legislature.

In an effort to ensure that British Columbians can make an

informed decision in the electoral reform referendum, the leader of the

B.C. Liberal Party, almost a month ago, on September 24, suggested to

the Premier that there should be a public, televised debate. This debate

is to raise awareness, to get the positions on record and to allow

people to make up their own minds. Even the media have offered air time

for the debate. The media are readily available. The Leader of the

Official Opposition party is available. The only missing item is a date

given by the Premier. Why is the Premier so scared to come up with a

date for the debate, before the voting for the referendum began

yesterday?

[2:45 p.m.]

I guess the Premier is well aware that once a public debate is

watched by thousands of British Columbians, the truth will come out that

this referendum is a flawed process and that British Columbia will vote

no to PR. That is what the Premier is afraid of. That is why he has

tried to delay the public debate as late as possible.

British Columbians are being presented a piece of legislation that

lacks basics in these realities. This bill is asking for British

Columbians’ trust — for their “leap of faith,” as the Premier said —

that if the PR system turns out to be a mess, there will be an

opportunity to fix it. Trust is earned when actions match words. This

government has not been doing that.

This government’s handling of the electoral reform referendum is

in sharp contrast to the 2005 and 2009 referendums when B.C. Liberals

were in government. Different from the NDP government, the B.C. Liberal

government handled the referendum in a non-partisan way.

A citizens’ assembly, with 160 average citizens chosen randomly,

was asked to look at all the forms of proportional representation. They

had 11 months to study the different systems of proportional

representation. They consulted the public and preferred a voter system

in which voters choose all of their own MLAs. The citizens’ assembly

rejected the party system, where parties get to choose MLAs.

The citizens’ assembly firmly rejected the mixed member

proportional, MMP, system that is the favourite of this NDP government —

one of the three systems they propose. The citizens’ assembly rejected

the MMP system because they did not want to move power from the voters

to the parties. In fact, of all the three PR systems proposed by this

NDP government, only MMP is in use in some countries, including New

Zealand and Germany, that have seen the rise of anti-immigrant fringe

parties holding the balance of power. The other two proposed PR systems

have never been tried anywhere in the world.

This NDP government has an obligation to explain to British

Columbians why they are proposing these three forms of party-based

proportional representation and why there are no details, including the

number and the size of the ridings and the maps of the ridings, provided

to voters. Clearly, the NDP government is fully aware that once all the

details of the three proposed proportional representation systems are

known to the public, this PR referendum would be defeated by British

Columbians.

In fact, the three proposed PR systems contravene the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms. According to the Charter, every citizen of Canada

has a right to vote in the election of members of the House of Commons

or of a Legislative Assembly and to be qualified for membership

therein.

If any of the three PR options was to be used, our voters would

not be able to vote for their chosen elected officials. Instead, a

political party would decide which MLA would be assigned to the riding.

I really doubt if any British Columbian would be comfortable with a

political party deciding on who will be their elected official. Would

you? Oh well. If the yes side to this referendum won, British Columbians

would not be able to choose their favourite MLA. The political party

will make the choice for you.

British Columbians don’t need a second referendum promise. British

Columbians are asking for a clear, fair and transparent referendum with

all of the information and the riding boundaries. They want to know if

they will vote for one candidate or two candidates or if they will vote

for a party with a closed list or an open list. Without all this basic

information for the three proposed PR systems, this referendum is truly

a flawed process, and it’s against the basics of democracy and the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For all the above reasons that I laid out in the last 20 minutes,

I support the hoist motion to postpone Bill 40 for six

months.

[2:50 p.m.]

J. Yap: I’m indeed honoured to take my place in this debate on the hoist

motion. That motion reads as follows: “That the motion for second

reading of Bill (No. 40) intituled Electoral Reform Referendum 2018

Amendment Act, 2018 be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and

substituting ‘six months hence.’” I appreciate the great speeches from

my colleagues, which I have been listening to carefully over the last

few days. I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver–False Creek for

his great speech and for introducing this amendment, which I

support.

This referendum is supposed to be based on a question on which

voting system our province should utilize. I have to ask: how has our

system not worked for British Columbians that we have to make this

drastic change to our democracy in such a rushed, ill-advised,

incomplete and unfair fashion? Hence, my support for this

amendment.

I heard the Premier speak about how, under the current system, he

felt his voice was not heard and that somehow this affected his

representation of his riding and constituents. The Premier

said:

“For four years, I sat on that side the House offering, I’d like to

think, on occasion, useful suggestions to the government, whether it be

in this place or in the budget estimates that happen annually, bringing

forward ideas from not just myself but from the people that I

represented at the time in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, and I got zero response

from the government.

“They did not receive 50 percent of the votes — far less than that,

in fact — but they had 100 percent of the power and the ability to say

to me, as a member of this place, that my views didn’t matter and that

my constituents’ views didn’t matter because of the banner I carried one

day four years ago.”

However, the facts do not support the Premier’s contention. It’s

why I support this amendment.

As we’ve heard from previous colleagues speaking to the amendment,

over the 16 years of our previous B.C. Liberal government, elected four

times under the current first-past-the-post system, the Premier’s riding

was the beneficiary of over $105 million in public investments by the

B.C. Liberal government. We’ve heard from colleagues what some of these

investments were. If I may, a brief rendition of some of the projects

that the MLA for Juan de Fuca was able to secure for his constituents as

their representative. It’s a very impressive list. I would almost envy

getting this type of support for my riding, and I’m sure you would as

well, Madame Speaker.

First of all, a whopping $53.9 million for Belmont Secondary

School, for 1,200 students. That was one of the projects funded. There

was $7.45 million in provincial funding for the extension of the

Westshore Parkway project; $7 million in capital funding to Pacifica

Housing Advisory Association, for 64 units of low- to moderate-income

families in Langford; $6 million for resurfacing projects in the Sooke

area, from B.C. on the Move; and $5.5 million in capital funding for the

Knox Vision Society, providing 40 units for low- to moderate-income

adults, families and seniors. The list goes on and on.

The fact is that all of us MLAs, whatever party we may be members

of — as my great colleague from Richmond North Centre said and as my

colleague from Abbotsford-Mission said so eloquently the other day —

serve and are at the call of all constituents. We will advocate for

them. We’ll try to solve problems for them and help them navigate

whatever bureaucracy of the provincial public service they need help

with. We do not only represent those that vote for us or are members of

our party, and I’m sure that that’s the case for every member in this

House, on whichever side of this House.

[2:55 p.m.]

When constituents come to my office, I serve them regardless of

their politics. I don’t ask constituents how they voted. Some may offer

that they did not vote for me, and that’s fine. I serve every

constituent. Maybe if I do a good job supporting them, that constituent

might change his vote in my favour next time. Or not, and that’s

fine.

However, as I talk to my constituents in my riding of

Richmond-Steveston and listen to their concerns, it’s becoming very

clear to me that this referendum has really become a question on the

trustworthiness of this government. After the hopes and lofty promises

made by this government in the 2017 election, the NDP has shown that

they cannot be trusted. That is why I support this amendment.

The NDP promised $10-a-day universal child care. Promise broken.

The NDP promised a $400 renters rebate. Promise broken. The NDP promised

114,000 new affordable housing units. Promise broken. The NDP promised

no new taxes other than what was in their platform. Instead, they’ve

instituted an increase in taxes to the tune of $8 billion. Promise

broken. The NDP promised an all-party impartial process to determine the

referendum rules. Instead, the Attorney General and the NDP cabinet have

been dictating the referendum rules. Promise broken. And the NDP

promised a simple yes-or-no referendum ballot question. What is being

delivered to homes as we speak — the ballots, the questions — is

anything but simple. Promise broken.

This is a government which has shown, in just 16 months, that it

cannot be trusted. Hence the need for this amendment. The referendum

ballots, as I said, are arriving in mailboxes and homes of voters around

the province, yet here we are in this House debating this bill and this

amendment, which I support. This referendum process has been rigged from

the outset, and this bill is a blatant further effort to tilt the scales

in favour of the yes side. British Columbians should be outraged over

this.

Bill 40 is a further testament to the untrustworthiness of the NDP

government. I suspect that there’s probably a simple reason for this

bill coming to us right now, in the middle of the referendum period.

That is, that the NDP might be fearful that they have lost the momentum

with the referendum. As rigged as the process was, as stacked against

the no side as it has been, they’ve gone from a commanding lead in the

opinion polls, a 2 to 1 margin just six months ago, to now a virtual tie

between the yes and the no sides.

We have Bill 40, which seeks to set a second referendum after two

elections under the new system, should proportional representation pass,

to allow British Columbians to vote again on the electoral system. The

NDP and their Green partners are essentially asking British Columbians

to buy now and hopefully see a return on investment later. Except in

this case, there is no buyer’s remorse. This referendum is legally

binding.

As we have heard, 29 different factors won’t be considered till

after the referendum. Given that, how are voters expected to make an

educated and informed choice, when they aren’t being offered all of the

relevant information? Hence the need for this amendment.

Major factors such as — I’ll just list a few of them — the number

of MLAs. We don’t know. The size of ridings. How big will they be? We

don’t know. What constitutes a rural versus an urban riding? We don’t

know. Whether we will use the so-called closed or open list for

candidates or even a list system at all, we don’t know.

[3:00 p.m.]

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

system. We’re instead asked to vote on the concept of another system of

how we elect MLAs. What we are asking is whether voters want to directly

vote for their MLA, which is the case now, or whether they want to have

their representatives chosen by the party they are voting for. As the

member for Vancouver–False Creek noted, that is what the question is

here. Again, I’m grateful to him for bringing this amendment, which I

support.

The government had many options from which to choose for the

proposed proportional representation systems. Many of them actually 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 on the referendum.

Yet in the end, they discarded those systems that allow voters to

choose their representatives, and they put in systems that do not, going

as far as to put out two systems on the ballot that, to quote the

Attorney General’s report, are “not currently in use.”

We are being asked to vote on systems that have not been used

anywhere in the world, yet the government is choosing to not even

provide basic information like maps of the electoral districts or even

the number of electoral districts and how many representatives each

would have. The information which we have instead is that political

parties will choose their representative. That is the case in each of

the three proportional representation systems proposed by the

government.

In dual-member proportional representation, you have two options

appointed by political parties. All losing votes are distributed to the

parties to allow them to appoint candidates elsewhere. This, of course,

is what would allow a fringe party with 5 percent of the vote to appoint

a candidate in a party in a part of the province where they may have

only had a marginal showing.

Then we have mixed-member proportional. This is the only

proportional system on the ballot that is actually in use anywhere in

the world. In this system, which we again have drastically few details

about, political parties choose 40 percent of the MLAs. Whether they

will do so from closed or secret lists or open public lists is still to

be determined. Basic information — to be determined. That’s why we need

the amendment, which I support.

Rural-urban is a two-tiered mix of the STV, or single transferable

vote, system that British Columbians rejected two times, in 2005 and

2009, and MMP, which is also on the ballot. It’s a mix of the two

systems. Whether a riding is rural or urban and, therefore, which system

they use is going to be determined after the referendum.

Voters are being asked to decide on a system when they don’t

actually know whether they will choose their representative by STV or

MMP. In other words, they don’t know what system they will get when they

vote.

This referendum is not a vote on which system British Columbia

should use. It is instead a question on whether voters should choose

their MLA or whether political parties will choose their MLA based on

their proportion of the vote. As the member from False Creek said, this

referendum is a referendum of political parties by political parties for

political parties.

My constituents in Richmond-Steveston are deeply concerned with

this flawed, rigged process. I have heard from many of them, and on

their behalf, we need to hit the pause button. That is what this

amendment will achieve.

[3:05 p.m.]

Let me just share a few examples of what I have heard from

constituents. My constituent Brian writes to me: “I want to go on record

with you as my MLA that I’m totally opposed to changing our FPTP,

first-past-the post electoral system. It’s simple. It’s uncomplicated.

It works. I want my MLA to represent the interests of my constituency

first in the B.C. Legislature and to be directly accountable to the

constituency that elected him or her. I want to encourage other people

to vote in the referendum and, hopefully, once and for all, end this

dispute so that government can get on with what they were elected to do

— govern.”

My constituent Neil writes to me: “As a matter of interest, last

week I toured the Reichstag in Berlin. There are six parties represented

in the Bundestag.”

I’m grateful to my colleague from Richmond North Centre for

sharing some examples of the situation there in Germany.

Neil writes: “I specifically asked about this with the upcoming

referendum in mind. I was told that the German Bundestag has not had a

majority government since 1957. Some people are suggesting that the

German model is an example where PR is working, but as things stand at

the moment….”

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, the Chair will hear the speaker.

J. Yap: My constituent Neil writes: “It is decidedly not. It took several

months for the current coalition to be established…”

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Ministers.

J. Yap: “…and even now, apparently, it is fraught with contention.” That

was from my constituent Neil.

And one more. There are many, but just three for brevity. Ian

writes:

“I am opposed to switching to proportional representation for

several reasons. I will comment on just two.

“First, the purpose of elections. Are we trying to elect a

government, or are we trying to elect some single-issue advocates? If

the latter, we will have to accept disproportionate influence of small

parties as they and the larger parties bargain their principles with

backroom deals. There are lots of examples of that occurring around the

world. With that dealing on the records elsewhere, there is the real

risk of unstable governments.”

Ian goes on to say:

“Recently Germany and New Zealand had hung parliaments. Italy has

had 62 governments in 72 years. In 2010, it took Belgium 541 days to

form a government.”

This is his second point, my constituent Ian:

“Secondly, the ‘my vote doesn’t count’ complaint only applies if one

believes in participation medals for the also-rans.”

He goes on to say:

“It is bizarre that parties attaining maybe 10 percent or 15 percent

of the vote could be granted seats that may gift them the balance of

power. Eighty-five percent or 90 percent of the voters did not vote for

them.

“The first-past-the-post system has given B.C. stable governments

for 146 years. It may not be perfect, but it’s better than all the

others. PR in a large province like B.C. would be disastrous.”

End of the letter from Ian.

We can address my constituents’ concerns with a pause, with this

amendment. Constituents value their direct connection to their MLAs.

That is true with all MLAs in this House, on whatever side of the House

you sit. If an MLA is not doing his or her job, that MLA could be

replaced by the voters in the next election.

With prop rep, as we’ve seen in other jurisdictions, this is not

the case. Unelected candidates can and are appointed to be members by

their parties. For example, in the case of the unelected New Zealand

deputy prime minister, he actually was a failed candidate but was

appointed, nonetheless, to Parliament and a senior cabinet

position.

[3:10 p.m.]

I’m honoured to serve the great people of my riding,

Richmond-Steveston. I’ve lived in my riding for over 32 years. My

constituents have the confidence that I understand their issues, as I

spend time and I live among them. Elected as their representative, I’m

accountable to them. So let us #savelocalrep.

We need to hit the pause button, with this amendment, because

moving to prop rep, proportional representation, would change this.

Unelected MLAs would be appointed by parties to ridings. British

Columbians deserve to learn more about the details of how proportional

representation would look; how it would operate in terms of the maps,

the size of the ridings and the number of MLAs; and how the selection of

MLAs appointed by the parties would work.

I agree with the mover of this motion that they deserve more time

to get that information, and that’s what this amendment will achieve —

more time. We need the details, which should have been provided months

ago, well before the referendum period which we’re in now.

The referendum process has been rigged from the outset. This Bill

40, this amendment act, is another attempt to slant the referendum in

the favour of the yes side, to help encourage voters who are on the

fence, who are thinking about the possibility of voting in favour of it,

to try out proportional representation. This is yet another blatant

attempt by the NDP to favour the yes side.

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a fairer process.

They need the time offered by this amendment, a mere six-month delay, to

be better informed. I will be supporting and voting for this amendment.

I hope all members will also support this amendment. This amendment

offers a chance for the government to hit the pause button, and that

would be the right thing to do.

S. Cadieux: I’m pleased to take my place to speak to the motion to amend the

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act. Isn’t it odd that just

six months after government rushed in the referendum act, we’re here

already because the government wants to amend the act? It’s exactly why

I support this hoist motion to move this debate six months

ahead.

Bill 40 is a blatant and unfair interference with the referendum

campaign, and I think the whole House should be supportive of this

motion.

The question is about Bill 40 and why it’s being introduced right

now. In my mind, as I said, it’s a blatant violation of the spirit of

the referendum act, in which it states and is made clear that there

should be fairness about who should be able to influence the referendum

and direction. It set out a “yes” committee and a “no” committee and

rules about funding. But instead, in the middle of this referendum

campaign that is now underway, the government is choosing to introduce a

bill. What’s the purpose? There could really only be one purpose, and

that’s to influence voters to vote yes.

The pro–prop rep people are losing momentum, so government has to

do something to entice voters, with a buyer’s remorse insurance policy.

They’ve brought this bill to amend Bill 40 forward, and we’re suggesting

now is not the time to amend the bill. The time to do that is later,

once the referendum is over and people have had their say.

[3:15 p.m.]

How did we get to this point where support for proportional

representation is dwindling to a point where government thinks they need

to buy themselves some insurance? Perhaps it’s because the more people

learn about the referendum, the more serious questions they start to

ask.

Now, this is not our first rodeo. We’ve done this twice before but

with a few significant differences, not the least of which was the 160

average citizens, chosen randomly, tasked with looking at all of the

forms of proportional representation. Now this time cabinet has decided

that they know best. They’ve put forward three systems of proportional

representation for people to choose from, two of which are just merely

hypothetical.

Last go-round the independent, representative citizens’ assembly

rejected the MMP system, which is now the favourite of the Green-NDP

government. They rejected it because they didn’t want to move power from

voters to parties. Each of the three systems that are being proposed in

the referendum have party lists — lists which the parties influence in a

very great degree who gets chosen to be MLAs.

Now, the referendum is asking the impossible of voters. If the

ballot information package is anything like the Elections B.C. website

information, voters are getting a single page of information about each

system. I received mine just the other day and took a look through it,

and in fact, that is true. There is a very little bit of information

available about each system.

If a voter goes to the Google, as the Premier has suggested they

do, to research dual-member proportional representation or urban-rural

proportional representation, what will they find out? Well, pretty much

nothing. That’s because these systems have never been used before. They

are totally hypothetical.

Dual-member proportional representation is a complete unknown. So

the government either has been grossly negligent or completely

deliberate in even putting this option out for discussion. Urban-rural

is a hodgepodge of the three systems — the effect of having three

different systems jumbled together, completely untested in a democracy.

But, yes, let’s go with that. What could possibly go wrong?

The mixed-member proportional on offer is what? Well, frankly,

nobody really knows, because even the most basic of details haven’t been

decided. If you’ve watched the Elections B.C. videos describing the

options, as I have, what stands out is the last minute of each video

where they state: “Many of these decisions will be made after the

referendum.” In fact, there are about 29 of these many things that have

yet to be decided and will be decided after the referendum, so in fact,

we’re not voting on first-past-the-post versus any definable form of

proportional representation.

No, we’re voting on first-past-the-post or some form of

proportional representation to be determined after the fact. It’s like

mystery meat. What is it? Is it pork? Is it ham? Is it turkey? Is it

meat at all? Who will define it for us? Who’s going to provide that

recipe if the electorate chooses one of the three forms of proportional

representation?

Well, it won’t be a citizens’ assembly. It won’t be an

independent, constitutional or voting system panel of experts. Nope. In

fact, it will be a multiparty process. Yes. What does that mean to the

average voter? Here’s the definition of that. Politicians from

self-interested political parties will get together and decide what they

think is best for citizens. That couldn’t possibly go wrong.

Now, I think it would be absolutely fine to ask voters to vote on

a potential change to our democratic systems if that potential change

was clearly defined, articulated and factual, and if the voters were

presented with a clear decision between two differing

systems.

[3:20 p.m.]

The fact, though, is that every day I see inaccurate information

being thrown about by citizens, and it makes me concerned that, indeed,

enough information and education has not been done. Not enough facts are

available.

Just the other day I witnessed, on Twitter, an exchange between a

number of individuals who purport to prefer one system or the other

going back and forth. A number of those individuals are continuing to

say that under proportional representation, you get to vote for your

MLA, and there are no party lists. Well, those people are

wrong.

They need to read the Attorney General’s recommendations to

cabinet. In that document, both dual-member proportional representation

and mixed-member proportional representation have party lists. In

dual-member proportional, each district has a two-person closed list

determined by the party. That’s a list prepared by the party.

Voters can’t vote for individual candidates. It’s not a

voter-chosen system. They only vote for parties. It’s a party system.

The party determines who’s at the top of the list. Being first on the

party list is critical in the dual-member proportional system for

candidates, so candidates will have to have their loyalty first to the

party. Their loyalty is essential to the party, not to the voters,

because that’s the only way they make it to the top of a

list.

In the multi-member proportional and in the multi-member

proportional part of the urban-rural proposed systems, from what we can

tell, there are also party lists, the exact form to be decided on by a

legislative committee — i.e., the NDP and the Green Party, with a

majority of members on a committee, will choose.

The options are for a closed list or an open list. But both open

and closed lists are party-ordered lists. That means that candidates

need to try to get their name high up on that list. The most important

thing they can do to determine whether or not they end up with a seat in

this Legislature is whether or not they are at the top of that

list.

To be a party favourite increases your chances of getting elected,

regardless of your popularity with voters. That comes second. The first

race is to be on the list, at the top of the list. That happens well

before any interaction with voters.

So who’s the boss? Who are the MLAs chosen this way most tightly

bound to? Clearly the party, not the voters. Voters don’t help

candidates climb higher on a list. Their popularity with the party brass

is what matters.

Now, I don’t think that makes for a more democratic system. That’s

why I’m not in favour of the referendum, and I’m certainly not in favour

of giving voters an out clause, an insurance policy, with the amendment

that’s being put forward by government. It’s why I support the hoist

motion and suggest that we push this discussion about providing another

referendum until after we’ve at least seen what the voters think of this

first very difficult and confusing one.

As I said, I’m not actually opposed to asking the voters if they’d

like a change. I just think the voters need to have the information to

make that change, and I think that the voters should be the ones to

choose that change. In this case, voters choose for something that will

be defined after the fact by politicians. I don’t think that’s

right.

I don’t like the idea, personally, of party lists. I made that

clear the other day, and somebody came back at me and said: “Oh, but you

were selected by your party as the candidate in your riding.” That’s

true. I was, as were we all. The difference, though, is that my loyalty

must remain with my voters. The voters, if they don’t like me as the

candidate picked by the party, do not have to vote for me. They can

place their vote elsewhere.

In fact, in elections past, I have voted for a candidate that was

not from my preferred political party because I believed that the person

who would best represent me was from a different party. That’s my right

as a voter.

[3:25 p.m.]

How would that work under proportional representation? If the

voters don’t like the person that’s been representing them, they don’t

even have a chance at the next election to vote that person out, because

the party determines who represents that riding. I don’t think that’s

fair.

Now, a few days ago, the Premier stood in this House and

said:

“For four years, I sat on that side of the House offering, I’d like

to think, on occasion, useful suggestions to the government, whether it

be in this place or in the budget estimates that happen annually,

bringing forward ideas from not just myself but from the people that I

represented…and I got zero response from the government.

“They did not receive 50 percent of the votes — far less than that,

in fact — but they had 100 percent of the power and the ability to say

to me, as a member of this place, that my views didn’t matter and that

my constituents’ views didn’t matter because of the banner I carried one

day four years ago. I think that’s wrong.”

Those were the Premier’s words. Now I’m sure he was using more

than just a little artistic licence in his performance the other day,

because I know for a fact that isn’t the case. Let me give two

examples.

I am in opposition. I am not a member of the governing party nor

of their partner’s. I am not politically aligned with the Premier. I

represent a riding, and by virtue of the Premier’s comments, my

constituents shouldn’t expect anything from his government because they

voted for me. Yet he’s already been to my riding himself to announce new

school funding, much needed and much appreciated.

Now a second example. The Premier suggested his riding got nothing

when he was in opposition. But you know, that’s incorrect. Why? Because

I was one of the ministers responsible for providing funding to programs

and services specifically in his riding — $52,000 to a B.C. early-years

centre, $10,000 to the Transition House Society for Annie’s Place

Transition House, two things that are really important for the

constituents of his riding, two things I know the Premier advocated for,

for his riding. Child care, early learning opportunities, domestic

violence support.

Let’s be clear, if anyone had reason to hold a grudge or ignore

someone, it might’ve been me. During that same period, the member from

Juan de Fuca was calling for my resignation and citing my incompetence —

his words, obviously, not mine.

But I didn’t. Those investments still flowed to his riding and to

his constituents, because government is for all of the people of B.C.,

and government continued for all of the people of B.C. despite the fact

that the member did not represent government. Despite personal

differences of opinion, politics or personal attacks, government

continues.

So there you have it: two examples, two governments, two

opposition members and two sets of voters benefiting from governments

that they may or may not have voted for or had a direct

part in

electing. Why? Because that’s our job as MLAs, to govern for all, and I

believe that we all understand that.

That’s why I’m so troubled by this referendum, and now, this

sideways attempt to slide in an insurance policy to sweeten the pot for

voters. It’s why I can’t take the Premier seriously at his word to trust

them and take a leap of faith. The arguments they make to support their

cause of proportional representation don’t pass the test.

If the government is so confident that PR is the right thing for

British Columbia, then they should support this hoist motion. There will

be plenty of time and opportunity to come back after the referendum to

debate the amendment to Bill 40. Obviously, I think that the House

should support the motion. But let’s break it down again, because it’s a

lot to swallow.

We have a razor-thin majority government, a minority coalition

government, which coincidentally, we are more likely to see in

perpetuity if the people choose to adopt a PR system.

We have a flawed process that led to flawed legislation — whew,

that’s a lot of syllables — that enables a sham of a

referendum.

[3:30 p.m.]

We have a politically derived flawed public consultation that led

to politically derived legislation for a referendum, and the politically

derived question proposing three potential and largely undefined

potential options to first-past-the-post.

We have a referendum and question with no clarity, no certainty, a

significant lack of detail and a Premier that says: “Take a leap of

faith, and trust me to tell you later what you voted for.”

We’re debating legislation to amend the legislation that this

coalition pushed through in the spring. Why did they do that? Well, to

meet the obligations of their confidence and supply agreement with the

Greens.

The legislation that enables the referendum itself to provide a

sort of insurance policy for the voters shouldn’t be necessary. But by

even presenting Bill 40, the government is suggesting that the voters

are not supportive of a change to proportional representation under the

rules and process that were set out in the spring. So they better make

some changes to entice voters to take that leap of faith.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Seriously, this is serious business. Changing our voting system is

a major decision, but we are being told by government that we should

take a leap of faith and that we will add this little amendment to the

voters to offer them a chance to change their mind two or three

elections from now. They can’t be serious. It’s ridiculous.

The government has bungled this from the beginning. They’ve been

rushing from the beginning. We can’t have maps, because it would take

too much time. We can’t have the details. The details could be worked

out later. There’s no time. We can’t have an independent citizens’

assembly. That would just take too much time. Rush, rush,

rush.

What’s the rush? I don’t think we should rush. My colleagues don’t

see any need to rush. But the Greens want to rush. In fact, the

confidence and supply agreement that keeps the NDP in power and able to

move forward with the other things that they think are important…. They

say there’s a rush. It has to happen. It’s politics. That’s the

rush.

Now, I know governments rush sometimes and don’t always get things

right. The government had a great number of those moments lately,

rushing to implement a speculation tax that they’ve had to make oodles

of amendments to, that still is not a speculation tax.

Rushing to deliver child care, scaring providers in the process,

leading to amendments to policy. Rushing to find a way to make up all

the money that will be lost by eliminating MSP, only to have to go back

and amend the plan because, oops, they forgot about charities and, oops,

we forgot about the public sector. Big oops. But hey, they were

rushing.

I accept that people make mistakes when they rush. But this is

bigger than an: “Oops, we missed that, and we’ll fix it later.” This is

a fundamental change to our democratic institution. This is potentially

switching from first-past-the-post to proportional representation, and

it is a big, big decision. It shouldn’t have been rushed. The government

is wrong here.

The referendum is a stacked deck, rigged game and, in my eyes, an

embarrassment. It’s a payoff to the Green Party, not a reasoned,

non-political, thoughtful process, as it should be.

Now, we’re already stuck with a referendum that I don’t support.

But to now ask me to consider adding an additional insurance policy to

appease voters that are ner­vous…. Well, that’s just too much.

That’s why I’m supporting this hoist motion.

Setting aside the fact that future governments can’t be bound by

legislation passed by previous governments, setting aside the fact that

under PR, minority governments propped up by fringe parties that are

only able to send members to this place because of the voting system….

What kind of logic is the NDP trying to sell here?

Before the other side gets too excited, because I can see they’re

getting a little antsy, I don’t want them to think I’m just trying to

keep first-past-the-post to keep my job. I’m not. Let me assure members

I respect the voters. I respect the public in making the decision on

what system we have. I would support a referendum on electoral reform,

like the ones we’ve held before that were taken seriously. I’d support a

referendum where citizens could truly make an informed decision, and I

would respect the results of that process, regardless of what it meant

for my political future.

[3:35 p.m.]

But how is it we are going to be asked to presuppose the outcome

of this rigged-game referendum and vote on a piece of legislation to

amend the legislation allowing that same referendum to take place to

bind a future government to hold another referendum to check if people

like the decision they made to change or if they want to go

back?

It seems very odd to me, and it’s why I support the motion to

suspend this legislation for six months. I frankly don’t think we have

enough information. I don’t think the public has enough information.

It’s time to shut this down.

N. Simons: I actually want to thank my friend and colleague from Surrey South

for her words — not that I agreed with most of them, but I respect the

fact that she presented her argument in a nice, succinct way, and I

think that she made her points. I just disagree with most of the points

she made.

For the benefit of those in the gallery watching here today, what

we’re debating is a hoist motion, a motion to change or to delay a piece

of legislation that we’re passing, that we’re hoping to pass, which is

Bill 40.

We said, all along, that the people of the province, when deciding

on potentially choosing a new voting system, would have an opportunity,

later, to say whether they want to stay with that choice or go back to

the other system. We’ve said that all along. My colleagues have said

that all along.

It should be of no surprise to anybody that when we talked about

having a referendum on proportional representation — something that I

might remind the opposition was in one of their throne speeches — we

said that we would have an opportunity for the people to have another

look later. Maybe they regret it. Maybe they didn’t like the way it

worked. But they would have an opportunity to go back and vote

again.

That seems to me pretty fair. That seems to me like it’s making

their concerns a little bit less strong. Because if they’re so concerned

about a system coming into place that may reduce their ability — I don’t

know why — to be represented, there’s another option for people to go

back to the polls later and decide that that wasn’t the decision they

wanted to make.

I will not support this motion put forward by the opposition, and

I know it’s not a surprise to any of them, because I don’t think we

should delay. I think we need to get on with this, and we need to ask

the people of the province if they would like to choose a different

system to get people in this House elected.

There are lots of systems around the world, and the one we have in

British Columbia is a little bit simplistic. Whoever gets the most votes

in every riding wins.

When I was first elected, I only got 43 percent of the vote, and

the other two or three opponents combined had more, together. Later,

obviously, because the government of the time was just ignoring the

people of the province, my popularity shot right up, and I got 57

percent. I’ve always managed to maintain a level of support from my

constituents, partly because they think I’m doing a good job and partly

because they didn’t want the Liberal Party to be elected.

That’s just the choice that people in the province have. They get

to choose between political parties and individuals, and that’s not

going to change. The only thing that will change is that when one party

gets 40 percent of the votes, they’ll get 40 percent of the seats. If

you get 20 percent of the votes, you’ll get 20 percent of the seats. And

the people being elected will be chosen very similarly to the way we get

chosen now. We will be seeking our nominations. We will be hoping for

the support of the people who are members of our party, and we’ll put

our names forward, and we will have representation in this

province.

Let me point out something that the opposition doesn’t want to

mention. They don’t want to mention the fact that for 16 years — and I

mean 16 years, 16 long years — they had all of the power. They could

make every decision they wanted, despite the fact that in opposition,

where I sat for 12 years, we represented a lot of voters in the

province. But did we get to make decisions? None. Did we ever try to?

Yes. But did government listen? Never. They had 100 percent of the

power. They knew it, and they would use it to their advantage at every

step of the way.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now, the argument that when you’re elected and you’re in

opposition, your riding still gets stuff, I find very simplistic. You

know what? I think this is what the member opposite said. It is not the

entirety of the argument, obviously. It is not the entirety of the

argument, because the Premier would also have said: “I would have

preferred it if government thought a little bit about the people who are

going homeless, thought a little bit more about the people who are

suffering in the systems that they were gutting until they were almost a

shadow of their former selves.”

We wanted to see efforts going into reduced poverty, but the

government wouldn’t listen. They had 100 percent of the power, and they

didn’t have any intention of listening to the opposition.

In a new system, where everybody gets represented according to the

number of votes they get, we’ll have to talk more amongst each other,

and maybe we’ll have to compromise once in a while. Instead of saying,

“No, no, no,” to everything, maybe say: “Well, that’s a good idea.” If

it’s a good idea, we should think about doing it. If it’s a good idea,

whether it’s from the Green Party or the Liberal Party or the NDP, we

should think about it.

Maybe there will be more parties. Maybe more people will run in

elections. I think more people will even vote in elections if they think

that if they vote, that one person will get one more vote, and if enough

people vote for a party that they like or people that they like, then

they’ll have representation.

Interjection.

N. Simons: A person or a party that they like. They’ll be able to elect the

person or the party — both.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order now. Members.

N. Simons: For my friends in the gallery: this sometimes happens. When we say

something they don’t like, they’ll just try to shout us down. But that’s

okay. I’m used to it. I think I might get under their skin.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take a seat, please.

Other members will have their chance when they get the chance to

speak. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has the floor

now.

Please continue.

N. Simons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes I do get accused of being the best heckler in the House.

It’s true, and they know that it’s always friendly. We have the best of

a lot in this House right now: the best barbecuer in the House, the best

Minister of Indigenous Relations — I could go on — the best Finance

Minister. Yes, I might be the best heckler. That’s okay. They know how

to take it.

But I’m talking about a motion that’s a serious issue in this

House. We’re talking about electoral reform. The opposition doesn’t like

what we’re planning, but unfortunately, it’s what the people of the

province knew was coming and the people of the province are happy to

have a chance to vote on.

I’m not telling people how to vote, and nor should the opposition

tell people how to vote. They should be helping to ensure that the

public of British Columbia is well informed — not scared, not deluded,

not misinformed and not misguided. But that’s not what’s happening.

They’re standing up in this Legislature, when they’re given a chance,

and they’re saying: “You should be scared of the options put before you.

You shouldn’t like the options put before you, and you don’t know all

the answers to all the questions.”

For that reason only…. It doesn’t really make sense. It really

doesn’t make sense, because there must be something else. There must be

something else that bothers the opposition about our proposed

legislation.

I don’t think it’s necessarily true when they say that it’s always

going to be politicians making decisions about ridings and things like

that. We have independent commissioners. We have Elections B.C.

Decisions about things like that are made by independent boundary

commissioners. We’ve don’t know, when they’re changing our boundaries,

how they’re going to be changed. We don’t have a say in that. We can say

what we’d like, but we don’t get a say for sure.

I think a system that doesn’t put all the power in one place,

necessarily, is a better system because we have a more moderate approach

to everything. We have a better opportunity to discuss. I think it’s

clear that it can work.

Now, when they talk about stability in government and

predictability in government, we have many examples of

first-past-the-post where that doesn’t work. Look at New Brunswick.

Who’s going to be forming government? What was their percentage of the

vote? It doesn’t seem to make sense. They have 22 seats versus 20, but

the ones with 20 got more votes.

I would say that for every example the opposition tries to bring

up to support or reject a particular jurisdiction’s voting system…. I

think you can find other examples, but we’re talking about British

Columbians. We’re talking about British Columbians who understand that

we’re a diverse province with geographical differences, regional

differences, even local community-to-community differences.

[3:45 p.m.]

In my particular constituency, we have a broad range of

communities. We have Gibsons, Sechelt, Pender Harbour, Powell River,

Lund — all those communities. All the way up the inside coast of British

Columbia, we see diversity of communities. They change, and they have

different needs over different times, and they have different

representatives. We expect that they will continue to have their voices

properly reflected in this place. There’s no reduction of the voice of

the people in this province. There’s only an increase to their voice in

the proposed system.

That is at the root of this issue — that we will be voting

potentially for a system that is proportional. The best thing about a

proportional system is that it’s proportional. What we have right now is

often disproportionate underrepresentation. We have disproportionate

underrepresentation. I don’t know why there’s such a fear of this

particular approach. I think that all parties stand to gain.

They still have to put their views forward. They still have to

make their arguments for the platforms that they’ll come forward with.

That’s not going to change. The people of the province will have an

opportunity to mark Xs on a ballot next to names. That doesn’t change.

Their views will be represented in this House in a more proportional

way.

I don’t see a problem with making it more possible for minorities

to be represented, for underrepresented groups to have a voice in this

place. I think that’s nothing but positive. And I don’t understand the….

Some call it fearmongering. I’ve heard so many arguments from the other

side that don’t seem to make sense to me. On one hand, they’re

criticizing the fact that we make changes to legislation when citizens

and representatives ask us to. I think that’s highly appropriate. Just

because we’re not a bulldozer doesn’t mean we’re not actively doing

things in a constructive way.

Previous governments might not have changed their mind when the

public spoke out loudly or when the public even mentioned things that

could have been done differently. They seemed to reject outright, for 16

years, proposals from well-meaning and thoughtful individuals from the

community or from the opposition. That was never considered. I don’t

understand why that would be…. Maybe that is their problem — that we do

listen. And maybe they don’t like the fact that the public seems to be

supportive of most of our policies — in great numbers, in

fact.

This hoist motion is just a delay tactic. We said we would have a

second referendum to decide whether the decision made was a good one or

not or one that we wanted to stay with or not. That’s exactly what we’re

planning to do. The question of legitimacy is laughable.

It’s laughable. When they want to talk about legiti­macy….

This is the same party that put forward to British Columbians decisions

on the rights of minorities as a referendum. If you want to talk about

illegitimate, that’s illegitimate. When you use a referendum to

determine whether minorities have certain rights or not, that’s not just

illegitimate; that’s a bit scary.

Then we had the member from Kamloops talk about the illegitimacy

of the municipal elections. They talked about the illegitimacy of our

government. They don’t understand illegitimacy. They don’t understand

it. They think that’s illegitimate. They should have a look in the

mirror and see what they did when they decided to have a referendum on

minority rights.

And you know what? They like the fact that we say 16 years.

They’ve been talking about fast ferries for a long time, and that’s a

lot longer than 16 years ago. The ridiculousness of that, everyone can

see. I think 16 years is understandable. For any child born when they

first came into power, they did not have the benefits of British

Columbians that had lived under a different government. They would’ve

had the appropriate services in their schools. They would’ve had the

appropriate number of teachers in their schools. They would have had an

opportunity to have hope and no rejection of a poverty reduction

plan.

[3:50 p.m.]

Just look at the cost of living. Look at the ferry fares. People

on the Sunshine Coast did not have a voice in whether ferry fares would

be increased or in the Coastal Ferry Act that the government rammed

through this Legislature when there were two members of the opposition

at the time. Did they even consider giving those two members party

status? No.

This is what ultimate power does. And this opposition, when in

government, was a perfect example of what you don’t want in an electoral

system — a government that cares absolutely not about the voices of

minorities or about alternative views or different

perspectives.

They had no interest in implementing policies that were in the

public interest. They were good at letting corruption run rampant all

over the place. ICBC costs skyrocketed. They didn’t do things that were

in the best interest of the general public. They did things that were in

the best interest of their own friends. So I find it a little bit

laughable to think that they’re going to be telling us anything about

legitimacy.

We have a good process in place. If they don’t want to vote for

it, they don’t have to. But I don’t think it’s appropriate to

fearmonger. If they want to explain the systems to people, they should

engage with citizens and tell them: “Here, you can go look at the

Elections B.C. website.” They have three good videos on the three

different systems, and if they don’t want to choose one of those

systems, they can just say yes or no. That’s the other

option.

I don’t know why they have a problem with double-checking with the

people of British Columbia. Maybe the opinion of British Columbians

isn’t really what they’re interested in. Maybe they just want to make a

political grandstand on this particular subject. You know what? Go for

it. It doesn’t seem to be working.

We have a hoist motion that’s solely designed to delay what is

good legislation — legislation that we said we would bring in,

legislation that goes with the referendum on proportional

representation.

I’m hoping that the people of British Columbia will get their mail

— look at their mail and not put it in the recycling — and decide,

because it’s an important decision, whether they want to stay with our

current system or move to a new system. That’s what’s on the ballot.

That’s what people have a decision to make about. I’m hoping that

despite the opposition’s efforts, people take

part in this part of the

democratic process, this important decision that’s being

made.

Instead of trying to scare people away or undermining its value or

its legitimacy, I think they would do better, if they don’t agree with

it, to tell people they shouldn’t vote for it, and if they do agree with

it, say why they agree with it. But to say that it’s too complicated or

that it’s scary or that it’s this or that…. All sorts of words have been

used to describe it that I think are unfair, not helpful,

counterproductive.

That’s their decision. That’s the way the opposition wants to be.

That’s the way the opposition wants to communicate with British

Columbians. That’s too bad. I’d rather be less cynical and have

expectations that British Columbians understand the decision that’s

before them and take

part in expressing their perspective by voting.

That’s what the referendum is about. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a

question that British Columbians are and will remain engaged

with.

I’m looking forward to this passing. I’m looking forward to the

decision being made by British Columbians. I’ll certainly encourage my

constituents to vote for a system that is more representative, more

proportional, and that reflects the diversity of voices in our province

so that we all have a voice in this chamber.

T. Stone: I rise today in support of this hoist motion which is currently

before us, with respect to Bill 40.

Sadly, in British Columbia’s upcoming referendum on electoral

reform, which is really about addressing the most sacred aspect of our

democracy — how we elect the members of this chamber, the people’s

representatives — this NDP-Green government has conveniently and

purposefully chosen as the key means of education in this entire

process, as a key strategy for British Columbians to get the details, to

understand what’s at stake, to understand what’s being

proposed….

[3:55 p.m.]

The government has suggested that British Columbians should get

that information by, as the Premier has said, going to Google — an

astonishing directive from the Premier of British Columbia. I would

suggest it’s a shocking display of leaderless leadership, suggesting

that British Columbians really are on their own to navigate this highly

divisive issue, to figure out his government’s intentions surrounding

our treasured democracy and to do so on an Internet search engine — a

blatant, irresponsible abandonment of education and fairness.

This brings me to this hoist motion in Bill 40. This amendment

that the hoist motion is attached to amends the referendum act to

provide for a requirement to hold a second referendum after two

elections. Of course, this would happen should British Columbians decide

in this current referendum to replace our current first-past-the-post

system with some form of proportional representation.

Now, the government wants us to believe that this bill is about

providing British Columbians with the assurance that if one of these

forms of proportional representation doesn’t work well for British

Columbia, if, indeed, the people of British Columbia find, after two

election cycles, that they don’t like it, well, they should not worry.

“Don’t worry. We can get rid of it at some point in the future.” Think

of this as some kind of warm and fuzzy blanket that British Columbians

are being asked to wrap around themselves as they take what the Premier

described recently as a great leap of faith.

We’re supposed to believe that a second referendum provides

citizens with some form of guarantee, a safety valve, an off-ramp. Well,

let’s just think about that. The message is, basically: “If we mess up,

if this proportional representation experience doesn’t work for us,

don’t despair, don’t worry. There’s a do-over. Don’t worry, be happy.

It’s not like anything of significance is on the line.”

Again, all of this is in the context of our democracy. All of this

is in the context of that most fundamental tenet of our democracy: how

we elect our MLAs. Well, the stark reality is that this manoeuvre by the

Attorney General and by the NDP-Green coalition is actually sad. It’s

sad for our province, and it’s sad for our democracy.

It’s sad that the NDP and the Greens would play so fast and loose

with the rules, that they would play so fast and loose with our

democracy — not to mention one small detail. It has been pointed out a

number of times by a number of my colleagues, and I will reiterate it:

this chamber cannot bind a future government. We all know this. The NDP

knows this. The Attorney General certainly knows this.

Can you imagine two elections after proportional representation is

in place? What would that landscape look like? Well, if every other

proportional representation jurisdiction is any indication, there would

likely be a plethora of smaller political parties — a whole bunch of

parties with five, ten, 12 MLAs and perhaps a few with more. Presumably,

no party would have a majority, and there would be a coalition

government in place, propped up by a collection of these small parties.

And the propping up only takes place when the small parties can extract

that pound or two of flesh from the larger parties, whatever that is

that they want in exchange for their support.

The NDP wants us to believe that the MLAs of that future

Legislature — a Legislature that would be characterized by a fractured

minority parliament — would play ball and that they would agree to hold

another referendum when the sole purpose for holding another referendum

would be to put their small parties out of business by potentially

having British Columbians vote to revert to

first-past-the-post.

[4:00 p.m.]

You know this isn’t going to happen. I know this isn’t going to

happen. Rather, by a simple amendment to the Referendum Act, the

coalition government that would likely be in place at that time would

more likely amend the act to remove the requirement for a second

referendum. In fact, it would likely be a condition of support from the

small parties in exchange for propping up that coalition

government.

That is exactly what we saw take place in this current parliament,

with the three Green members extracting their pound of flesh, as

detailed in the confidence and supply agreement that the Greens and the

NDP signed — those conditions that the NDP needed to meet in order to

assure themselves of receiving the Green Party’s support.

On top of this, it’s unbelievable that a government is bringing

forward this commitment to a second referendum in the middle of the

referendum campaign itself. We are in the middle of the referendum

period. In fact, we are now in the voting period. So I ask: how is this

manoeuvre, inserting an amendment into the referendum act in the middle

of the actual campaign period, not inserting the government’s resources

and the taxpayers’ dollars into the referendum period?

This provision for a second referendum could have very easily been

included in the last round of amendments that the government made to the

referendum act earlier in the life of this parliament, but they opted

not to do that, knowing full well that moving forward with this

amendment for a provision of a second referendum would have far greater

impact in the middle of the referendum period itself.

Ballots are being mailed out to British Columbians, and ballots

are being received by British Columbians. The Attorney General and the

NDP have the gall to inject this amendment, this measure, into the

middle of the referendum period. Again, we ask ourselves why. The simple

answer is: because they want to influence the outcome. That’s

shameful.

To recap, ballots are in the mail; they’re being received. The NDP

has injected into the middle of the referendum campaign period — and,

indeed, the middle of the actual voting period — a piece of legislation

that would promise British Columbians a do-over.

If that’s not enough, how about this? Before the promise of a

second referendum even becomes a binding legal requirement, this House

has to debate and pass Bill 40, the very bill that we’re still

debating.

With that backdrop, imagine my surprise — actually, disgust — when

I received, in my home mail, a voter’s guide from Elections B.C. several

weeks ago — before Bill 40 was even introduced in this House. On page 8

of that voter’s guide, it 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 could that be, when this House hasn’t even determined yet if

it is willing to endorse that commitment, in the form of the amendments

before this House? It’s an unbelievable manipulation of this referendum

process.

I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out at this point in my

remarks that I actually feel increasingly bad for Elections B.C. I feel

sorry for them, in a certain respect, for the professionals within

Elections B.C.

It can’t be easy to have the Attorney General, the person that the

Premier has declared as the “neutral arbiter” of this process, force you

into a box on this and many other details related to the referendum.

It’s inconceivable that the Attorney General would be this blatant in

his desire to tilt the balance and influence the outcome as much as

necessary to get the result that the NDP and the Greens want. Bill 40 is

nothing more than yet another feature of this entire referendum

sham.

Just to refresh your memory on how flawed this entire process has

been, the approval threshold was dropped from 60 percent plus one to 50

percent plus one.

[4:05 p.m.]

It was our party, the party that I belong to, that held two

previous referendums in this province on electoral reform. We’re not

opposed — never have been — to holding another referendum — this

referendum. But this lowering of the bar is quite something when you are

talking about the most important feature of our democracy — that we

wouldn’t have a slightly higher threshold requirement for

approval.

There’s no regional approval any longer. This was a hallmark of

our previous two referenda on this subject — 60 percent plus one

required of all ridings in the province. This was the voice of rural

B.C. This was the voice of the Interior and the north, so with its

removal, with this provision pulled back, one can expect that there has

been a pretty significant increase of frustration and anger and outright

worry in the Interior and the north, and in rural B.C. People are

nearing the end of their patience. People are worried that the will of

the mass-populated areas of B.C. will increasingly dominate and, indeed,

overwhelm rural B.C.

Since B.C. joined Confederation back in 1871, only 147 years ago,

there’s always been a grand bargain of sorts between urban and rural

B.C. There has always been accommodation of both urban and rural B.C.

There has always been recognition and respect for the sensibilities of

both urban and rural B.C. That has been thrown out the

window.

There’s no minimum turnout requirement. How can that be? We have a

Premier, on the record, who has said that a 10 percent voter turnout and

50-percent-plus-one support would constitute a mandate to move forward

with electoral reform, to move forward with change. The math on that is

5 percent. That would be 5 percent of eligible voters. That’s just not

right.

Many in this House have talked about the Premier’s commitment to a

simple yes-no question. That has been replaced with a confusing two-part

question. There’s a mail-in ballot, which is going to cost millions of

dollars, upwards of $15 million, to hold, that is nicely laying on top

of not just the recent summer but the municipal elections that we just

had.

There was no citizens’ assembly. This was, again, one of the

hallmarks of the two previous referenda in this province on electoral

reform. The details, the question, the maps, everything related to what

was eventually put in front of voters was determined by citizens.

Citizens should be at the centre of our democracy. Citizens should be at

the centre of any change to our democracy.

There were no riding maps this time around. We’re told there

wasn’t enough time to develop the maps. There wasn’t enough time to

develop the maps so that British Columbians — as part of educating

themselves, presumably, on Google — could access those maps and look for

their community and understand what each of the three proportional

representation options would actually mean to their community. There are

no maps.

There’s no advanced voting opportunity. The Canadian Snowbird

Association is a national, non-partisan, not-for-profit advocacy

organization dedicated to actively defending and improving the rights of

travelling Canadians — about 110,000 members across the country, mostly

senior citizens. They’ve said that in order to ensure eligible electors

who will be absent during the voting period could still participate,

there should be an advanced voting opportunity held. They say that an

advanced voting period will serve to increase voter turnout and enhance

democratic participation. They believe that without an advanced voting

period, there’s a risk of disenfranchising thousands of travelling

British Columbians who will be unable to participate.

They also say that requesting and receiving a mail-in ballot, a

voter package, while abroad is insufficient. I can understand why. The

response from this government and Elections B.C. has been: “Not going to

happen.” There’s not going to be an opportunity for advanced

voting.

[4:10 p.m.]

There are 29 details that we’ve canvassed in a great amount of

detail, on this side of the House, that will be confirmed after a vote.

But we’re told: “Don’t worry.” There’s a panel of experts that will be

appointed by, presumably, the Attorney General that will recommend what

those details should be. Then those details will come before this House

or specifically to a legislative committee.

They don’t point out that that committee would have five

NDP-Greens on it, and four B.C. Liberals. So I certainly know what the

results of that committee will be, and that can hardly be suggested to

be an independent and fair process.

We’ve no idea how many ridings there will be. We have no idea what

the boundaries will be. We have no idea what constitutes a rural riding

versus urban ridings. This is probably one of the most common questions

I get up in Kamloops. If, presumably, Kamloops is thrown into a much

larger riding that likely would span from Quesnel to Princeton and,

perhaps, Revelstoke to Lillooet — Kamloops is a city of 110,000 — does

that mean Kamloops is an urban riding, or will Kamloops fall within a

rural riding? Again, we don’t know. Those details haven’t been

determined yet. We don’t even know what the total number of MLAs will

be. We’re given a range, but we don’t know how many MLAs will actually

sit in this chamber.

Voters are just supposed to look at the ballot and know the

differences between mixed-member proportional representation, which is

in use in a number of jurisdictions around the world, and two other

forms that have never been used anywhere — urban-rural and dual-member

proportional. You don’t have to take my word for it. The Attorney

General’s own report says that those two systems are “not currently in

use.” But we’re just supposed to know what these are and rank them

accordingly.

Now, it was interesting to read the views of someone who has

really immersed himself in public life and in public policy, a gentleman

that is well known to most members of this House, Gordon Gibson. He has

spent most of his 81 years in British Columbia. He was elected to this

chamber twice. He ran five times. He was the leader of the B.C. Liberal

Party in the 1970s. He declared himself a non-partisan in the early

1990s. To put a finer point on that, he’s been very clear in recent days

that he supports candidates, not parties. The records will show that he

contributed $2,000 to the local campaign of the Minister of Finance, the

MLA for Victoria–​Beacon Hill.

But back in 2002, the B.C. government tasked him with designing

the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, a process that he put

together that was unanimously adopted in the B.C. Legislature of the

day. In his words, that process has since been studied the world over as

the “gold standard for making such important changes.” There were 160

members of that citizens’ assembly, and they studied and they engaged

and they consulted and they deliberated for over a year. What did they

come up with? They proposed a very specific form of proportional

representation called a single transferable vote or BCSTV. It was put to

a referendum vote.

Now, Gordon Gibson says about the process that was put in place

and followed throughout that referendum — throughout that citizens’

assembly at the front end of the referendum, in particular: “That is the

way to do it: citizen design, citizen approval. Democratic elections

belong to all of us, and if the rules are to be changed, they should be

changed by us.” Of course, he’s referring to the people of British

Columbia, to the voters.

[4:15 p.m.]

Fast-forward to today. We have an NDP-Green government that’s

taking a very different path, one that features all of the referendum

details being developed by the NDP in the back rooms of cabinet,

presumably with occasional visits from the members of the Green Party,

and an approvals process that was designed entirely by the NDP cabinet

as well.

When it comes to the most sacred of our rights and freedoms, that

is, how we select our MLA, one path that has been travelled before —

twice in this province — places citizens at the centre of any change to

our electoral system. The other path places politicians at the centre of

this change. Regrettably, this second path is the path that has been

chosen by the NDP-Greens, and that’s wrong.

Here’s what Gordon Gibson has to say about the path that the

current NDP-Green government is on.

“Now we have a new proposal for electoral change, but with a huge

difference. This one is designed by partisan politicians for their

benefit, however high-sounding their words.

“Anyone who follows sports knows the importance of detailed rules.

Even apparently tiny ones can tilt the playing field and rig the game.

To all but the closest students of the game, the tricks are invisible,

but they determine who wins.

“That is the basic problem of the current referendum on electoral

change. Specific details like community representation, what bosses will

choose party list MLAs, how many votes you will have and how they will

be counted — these essential