Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 42

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Constitution Amendment Act, 2017 (continued)

Hon. D. Eby

J. Rustad

G. Kyllo

Hon. R. Fleming

J. Yap

A. Olsen

A. Weaver

M. Bernier

N. Letnick

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act

Hon. D. Eby

J. Martin

Hon. R. Fleming

L. Throness

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

S. Furstenau

T. Wat

R. Singh

S. Gibson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

S. Bond

L. Larson

J. Thornthwaite

E. Ross

M. Morris

T. Shypitka

T. Stone

J. Tegart

C. Oakes

J. Rustad

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2017

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: I have the absolute pleasure today to welcome to this chamber the Hon.

Tom Osbourne. He and I met as Speaker colleagues. He’s currently the MHA for

the district of Waterford Valley in the lovely province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. He’s currently the Minister of Finance. I’d ask the House to

please make him welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to introduce a fairly large group of youth and their allies

from the group Fostering Change initiative. They work to support youth aging

out of foster care. I also want to thank them for the lunch they hosted

today for all of the members of the Legislature but, more importantly, for

the ones that stood up and shared their stories, their experiences and,

also, their solutions. They are also supported by First Call: B.C. Child and

Youth Advocacy Coalition and the Vancouver Foundation.

There are youth visiting from Victoria but also from across the

province. Would everybody please join me in welcoming them to the

Legislature today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on Bill 5. In Committee A, I call

continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; L. Reid in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

section 3 (continued) .

Hon. D. Eby: Joining me for continued committee stage on Bill 5, which is the

Constitution Amendment Act, and our discussion on

section 3 relating to

changing the general voting day from the spring until the fall and also

from a Tuesday to a Saturday, are Nancy Carter, the executive director,

civil policy and legislation office, justice services branch, Ministry

of Attorney General, and Renee Mulligan, legal counsel of the same

department.

Just before we begin. Prior to the break, my colleague across the

way raised a number of questions related to the timing of when general

voting day falls but, more particularly, in relation to the advance

voting days over the Thanksgiving weekend. His concern about vacations

and will people have adequate opportunity for advance voting — I think

he raises good points.

I have asked staff to go back and look at whether there is an

amendment that would address his concerns about the fact that the

proposed amendment in

section 6 would require Elections B.C. to hold a

block of six consecutive advance voting days, which would necessarily

take it over the Thanksgiving weekend. Staff are having a look at

that.

As we get to

section 6, if we get to

section 6, I’ll just advise

my colleague across the way that I’ll ask for that

section to be stood

down so that we can evaluate whether or not an amendment could address

the concern, while achieving the goals of the government in this

particular bill.

With that, I’m glad to hear any further questions the members may

have in relation to this.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for his comments. I’m glad to hear that.

This process of committee stage on bills is an important process,

because you do go through the bills line by line. Hopefully, there’s an

opportunity to be able to improve on bills and improve, in particular,

those components that could be potentially challenging or an issue that

could limit, especially in the case of this — people’s ability to be

able to vote. So I appreciate that.

I’m pretty sure we’ll get to

section 6 today, at some point.

Hopefully, we’ll get to that in a timely enough way that there should be

an opportunity for you to be able to move that amendment on the floor.

If not, of course, standing it down is an acceptable procedure, and we

can move on through the rest of the bill.

Still back to

section 3 in terms of this component. When we look

through, as I mentioned before, this issue of the fourth calendar year

taking it out 4½ years, the minister made mention about the

jurisdictions that have done that. However, given the circumstances that

we have in British Columbia at the moment, with the parliamentary

composition in the state it is….

The fact that we do have a minority government and that there are

significant changes that are being proposed by this government on a wide

range of topics, all of which are somewhat unusual in a minority

situation…. Usually, governments would be in a majority situation to be

looking at moving these type of things forward. In light of that and in

light of the arguments made before, I would propose to move an amendment

standing in my name to Bill 5, to

section 3.

SECTION 3, by adding the underlined

text as shown:

(2) Subject to subsection (1), a general voting day must occur

on the third Saturday in October in the fourth calendar year following

the general voting day for the most recently held general election

starting with October 17, 2020 .

(3) As an exception to subsection (2), if the campaign period

for a general election to be held under that subsection would overlap

with the campaign period for a general local election to be held under

section 52 of the Local Government Act or the election period

for a federal general election to be held under

section 56.1 (2) or

section 56.2 of the Canada Elections Act , the general voting

day for the general election must be held instead on a date to be

specified under the Election Act that the Lieutenant Governor

in Council determines to be suitable after consulting the Chief

Electoral Officer, the Leader of the Official Opposition and each leader

of a recognized political party.

(4) In this section, “general election” and

“general voting day” have the same meaning as in

section 1 of the Election Act .]

On the amendment.

J. Rustad: I believe it was on the orders of the day, so the member has a

copy of that. Now, in particular, when I look at the language that is

added to this, this actual language was taken from the federal act, the

Constitution Act.

[1:40 p.m.]

When they changed to their fixed election date, they specified the

specific starting date of the election as part of it so that it would be

clear with regards to how the next election would be held. It would be

clear in terms of the starting date, how the elections should be carried

on beyond that.

I know the member opposite has made the argument as to why it

should be 4½ years. But, as I mentioned, given the composition, given

the things that are happening, I think there’s no question in my mind,

in talking to constituents and talking to members around the province,

that they would be very comfortable with the date being an earlier date

so that such substantive changes that the government is proposing — in

the way that it’s managing and doing things within the province — would

have an opportunity to be able to garner a clear majority of the people

of the province of British Columbia before moving too far down its

agenda.

With that, I know there are going to be a number of people that

have an interest in providing some commentary around this amendment. I

hope it is one that all sides of the House will certainly take into

consideration in terms of when that next date was and being able to

provide, like I say, the electorate an opportunity to be able to voice

their perspective on what is happening in this chamber and what happened

after the last election, with a perspective as to where they would like

to see the future of the province of British Columbia.

I may have a few more comments to make in the closing part of

this, but moving this amendment forward, I’ll cede to some of my

colleagues to make some additional comments — unless, of course, the

minister would like to add some commentary in advance.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his amendment. I have read it, and I will

not be supporting it.

I don’t blame the member for wanting to have an election sooner.

When I was in opposition, certainly, I wished that elections happened

sooner. But the relatively straightforward reason for this is that when

you set in place a change from a spring fixed-term election to a fall

fixed-term election, the established precedent across the country —

there are many jurisdictions that have done this — follows the same

process, and we have followed the same process.

In Saskatchewan, the result was a four-year-and-three-month term

for government. In Manitoba, a four-year-and-five-month term for

government. In Quebec, their next election date is four years and six

months. Prince Edward Island, four years and four months. Newfoundland

and Labrador, four years and eight months. These are all jurisdictions

that moved from a spring election term, as we are in B.C., to a fall

election term, which we are proposing to move to under this

act.

Now, of course, we are in a minority parliament, and there is

certainly the opportunity for a majority of the members in this place to

decide that the current government is not operating in a way that they

believe is consistent with the public interest and for them to issue a

non-confidence vote and for there to be an election at any time. This

bill does not change that.

What this says is that as long as the government preserves the

confidence of the House, the next election will be October 16, 2021. The

math is quite straightforward, as is the date. That is the reason for

proceeding on this basis.

It is a minority parliament. This government operates with the

confidence of the House. Any member is able to test that — although,

hopefully, not too often, because it’s a lot of work for everybody to

show up and vote. Certainly, any member is welcome to test that at any

time that we’re sitting.

If the government is tested and fails, then so be it. But if not,

under the legislation as proposed, this is when the next election date

will be, which is consistent with all of the other jurisdictions in

Canada that have headed in this direction.

G. Kyllo: I’m proud to rise in the House today to support the amendment to

section 3 of Bill 5.

We are proud to have introduced fixed election legislation while

in government, putting us in line with other jurisdictions across

Canada, the Commonwealth, European nations — ranging from Sweden to

South Africa. However, three words come to mind when giving

consideration to Bill 5 as presented by the current government:

presumptuous, self-serving and disrespectful to B.C. voters. The

prospect of four years of the current illegitimate government is

reckless enough without adding a further six-month sentence for British

Columbians.

The NDP have developed an interesting pattern of delaying

decisions, citing a need to study, review, consult, revisit, reconsider

or otherwise postpone most every single other decision put before this

government: the George Massey Tunnel, Site C and ride-sharing, to name

just a few.

[1:45 p.m.]

But, hey, when it comes to consideration of a fundamental change

to the voting date for our next provincial election, extending our

incompetent government’s term for a further six months, the NDP

government is primed to do so without a hint of public input,

evaluation, consideration or consultation.

This bill, in general, is all part of the NDP-Green deal, the

proverbial green tail wagging the orange dog. The legislation that their

junior partners have forced the NDP to adopt, much as they forced them

to adopt taxpayer subsidies for political parties — another NDP broken

promise.

This behaviour appears to be consistent with a long list of other

broken NDP promises, including the renter rebate and $10-a-day daycare.

This illegitimate government will cause enough damage to B.C.’s economy

without the prospect of adding an additional six months to their term in

office.

Now, to be clear, I have little issue with the suggested move to a

fall election date. However, I am vehemently opposed to the NDP

utilizing Bill 5 to extend their term in office. Should the government

feel so obliged to move to a fall election date, the date of the next

provincial election should be moved to the fall of 2020 and every four

years thereafter.

Now, with respect to the prospect of establishing the fall

election date to fall on the third Saturday in October, my colleague

from Nechako Lakes did an extremely exemplary job of raising significant

challenges presented by holding a general election on a Saturday

following the Thanksgiving long weekend. I will not take a great deal of

time recanting the many valid concerns and sound arguments that were

posed by my friend the member for Nechako Lakes. However, I feel

incumbent to restate the obvious.

Many British Columbians take advantage of the Thanksgiving holiday

weekend as an opportunity to take an extended holiday to visit family

and friends, both domestic and abroad. Additionally, many British

Columbians, snowbirds as they’re often referred to, also head south

immediately following the Thanksgiving long weekend, to beat the

snow.

In both of these circumstances, British Columbians are either

fully denied the ability to take advantage of advance polling dates —

advance polling opportunities are greatly diminished — and denied the

opportunity to participate in the general voting day.

Previous bills brought forward by the now government suggested a

fall election date set for the first Tuesday in October. Now, there must

be significant considerations to the suggestion that the members

opposite identify the date as the third Saturday in October — both a

weekday and in the first week of October. Clearly, the direction set

forward in this bill, identifying the third Saturday in October, is

motivated by something other than increasing the opportunity for the

maximum number of British Columbians to fully participate in B.C.’s

provincial election, as the bill, as presented in this House, clearly

fails in this regard.

I, therefore, am supporting the amendment to

section 3 of Bill 5,

moved by the member for Nechako Lakes.

Hon. D. Eby: Just for members who may be making remarks and might have missed

my earlier comments, I agree that the member raised a good point about

the Thanksgiving week. We have staff that are looking at a possible

amendment to try to achieve addressing the member’s concerns as well as

achieve the aims of the government, which are informed by the former

Chief Electoral Officer in British Columbia.

So any members that are addressing that in your remarks, just so

that you know, we are aware of the issue. I’ve got a commitment to the

member that our staff are looking at a potential amendment to

section 6,

which is the

section that deals with that. As far as I understand, it’s

not dealt with in the amendment.

G. Kyllo: Yes, with all due respect to the minister, until such time as that

amendment has actually taken place, I feel it’s incumbent to make the

statement to ensure that the members at home watching and those in the

gallery are fully aware of the considerations that need to be undertaken

with respect to the fall election date.

Hon. R. Fleming: I look forward to my colleague’s comments in a moment. I’m sorry

if I upstaged him. I was told to rise at this time to speak on this

amendment, and I have to say that I disagree with it.

I have heard other members, at the early stage of this debate,

suggest, for their own reasons, which I think are quite transparent,

that they would like to have an election sooner. They would like to have

an election in 3½ years. That’s not surprising.

The member said: “Look, our government, when they were in

government, introduced fixed election dates as a reform” — not a bad

reform. I think there was unanimity in the House at that time, when it

occurred. We’ve had several election cycles in British Columbia now

where an idea that may have been dismissed originally as somewhat

Americanized has become well acquainted in British Columbia.

[1:50 p.m.]

The more significant reform — the most significant reform that has

happened around campaigns and elections in British Columbia, by the way

— is the one that was introduced by this new government to ban big money

in politics. I think that’s the most critical piece of legislation that

we’ve had the opportunity, at this early stage of the new government, to

introduce and pass.

On this amendment, I’m not persuaded. I find it a little bit

ironic that the former government across the way, the opposition, who,

after working with local government leaders, extended local government

terms from three years to four years, would now seek a shorter duration

between elections for the provincial parliament.

Now, I’m additionally not persuaded because this amendment comes

after a summer interregnum period where that side of the House tried to

cling to power for months and months and tried to impinge upon the

independence of the Queen’s representative at Government House to try

and get their way and cling to power. It’s in that context that they now

propose that the new government, which has a partnership with the Green

Party, should be robbed of an opportunity to govern for the full

term.

I don’t remember the B.C. Liberal Party voicing strenuous

objections when independent members of the House argued for a fall

election in the past. Indeed, they don’t argue with the wisdom of having

a fall election. The legislation that we propose, unamended, would not

conflict with local government elections, and that’s critically

important. It will not conflict with the public holiday around

Thanksgiving. That will be determined.

Let’s also look at additional elements that should be brought into

this debate. Another proposed significant change that will be considered

by the people of British Columbia in a year’s time is about their voting

system. British Columbians will be asked again whether they would prefer

an alternative to the first-past-the-post voting system, whether they

would like to see more pluralism in their Legislature, whether they

would like to see more opportunities for power-sharing between parties

to provide good governance in British Columbia. That’s the question that

is going to go before British Columbians.

It’s an opportunity for B.C. to say, “We’d like to stay with the

system that a very small minority of parliamentary democracies continue

to use” or: “We would like to join a much larger league of nations and

states that use a proportional representation voting system.”

That vote occurs in November of 2018. The counting of that ballot

and then the work that would be required by Elections B.C. and the voter

education going into an election would be better served in the fall of

2021. That’s why I support the original legislation.

I think the member’s amendment is entirely self-serving, although

I’m a little perplexed. For a leaderless party to…. I would caution them

to be careful what they wish for.

But again, to try and truncate and abbreviate the term of office

that this government will use to do great things for British Columbia,

in the naked self-interest of a party that had 16 years and failed on so

many issues that are important to British Columbia….

The Chair: On the amendment.

Hon. R. Fleming: I think that’s pretty important and an additional reason why we

reject that amendment.

The Chair: The Minister of Advanced Education seeks leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: There’s a delegation of young people in these chambers that have been

advocates for the rights of children and youth in care. They’re lobbying the

government to extend supports for youth in care across this province. I just

want to give a shout-out for their advocacy. Many of them are my

constituents. Some of them have attended Douglas College, Vancouver Island

University, UBC. They are the leaders of tomorrow. Would the House please

join me in welcoming this important delegation. Haawa.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1:55 p.m.]

J. Brar: We have very special guests today in the House. That is Baljit Brar —

she is my sister-in-law — and my beautiful niece, Jaspar Brar. I just want

to say here, because this is the people’s House. Baljit and her husband, who

is my brother Jaswant Brar, played a key role to bring me here from India.

Of course, they played a very, very important role in my own elections, and

I won four of them. I want to say thank you to them for that.

We also have with them a special guest from India, Gutcherising Brar,

and his beautiful wife, Riggitte Brar. I would like to ask the House to

please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Yap: It’s my honour and privilege to rise and join the debate on this

amendment. I am supporting this amendment in regards to ensuring that

should this bill pass, we amend this bill so that the next election will

happen in the year 2020, not 2021.

I do appreciate the comments of the Attorney General, his words of

understanding of why we would advocate for this, and I appeal to his

reasons. We’ve heard a lot of talk about a new way of doing things in

working with all sides of the House and hope that in that spirit,

members on the government side will consider this amendment and support

it.

Just a quick recap. As my colleague from Shuswap had mentioned,

the previous government, of which I am very proud to have been a part,

had introduced an innovative fixed election date. We were among the

first, if not the first, in Canada to introduce this. Now many

jurisdictions, if not all, have followed the lead of British Columbia to

have fixed election dates in a Westminster parliamentary

system.

This bill will also, as we know, change the voting to a Saturday,

which is believed to encourage greater turnout. That’s a good thing, and

we support that, subject to ensuring that it’s the right Saturday in the

fall that is selected. I appreciate the commitment of the Attorney to

work with his officials to find the right date that will not conflict

with other statutory days.

The matter at hand, for the benefit of those just tuning in on

Hansard or viewing in the gallery, is part of the line-by-line debate of

this bill in committee stage. We’re considering an amendment to one

subsection of this bill. The effect of this will be to have the next

election happen in the fall. We agree that we would support having an

election date in the fall but instead of in the fall of 2021, in the

fall of 2020. As my colleague from Nechako Lakes has said, there is

precedent for this with the change at the federal level when the

legislation was introduced to change the election date to the

fall.

We can discuss the effect of whether an election should be six

months sooner or six months earlier, and I know that the Attorney is

thinking that it depends on where you sit, right? But I can say, with

great confidence, that the majority of my constituents on whose behalf

I’m here in this House — I’m speaking on their behalf — would support

the amendment for the reasons that have been indicated.

[2:00 p.m.]

We do live in unusual times. And we have a very unusual

circumstance where a party that won fewer seats and a lower plurality of

seats was able to form government with the support of the third party —

an unusual circumstance in modern British Columbian history.

I do know for a fact that many of my constituents would like to

see an opportunity to have a chance to exercise their vote, to have

their say on the state of affairs of British Columbia politics. The way

to do that is through an election.

Now, the Attorney and the last speaker, the Minister of Education,

have said that the government will have to always, as a minority

government, enjoy the confidence of the House. We know that they do at

this point in time, and probably into the foreseeable future, because of

the robust arrangement that seems to be in place with the Green Party

and the secretariat. In effect, it’s a coalition government, if I may

say so.

The opportunity for my constituents to have a chance to cast their

opinion, to cast their vote, is somewhat limited because, to all intents

and purposes, the NDP and Green coalition government will probably serve

a full term. That’s what we’re debating here. Should that full term be

3½ years or 4½ years? My constituents would argue that this is simply a

power grab, nothing more than a power grab, to extend the life of this

coalition government.

On my constituents’ behalf, I know that they would like to see an

election sooner rather than later. That six months to have this

election, if this bill passes…. To have it happen in the fall of 2020 is

what I would support on behalf of my constituents. I urge all members of

this House to consider this and support this amendment as

well.

A. Olsen: I’m encouraged. I’m encouraged by the growing confidence that the

official opposition has in seeing that this minority government, which

is the first minority government in a long time in our province, is

going to last.

I mean, we’re starting to hear that story emerging from the

official opposition, and I encourage them to participate in this

minority government. After all, 87 members have been elected to the

people’s House here to do the work of the people. I’m looking forward to

the day — I said it during the campaign, and I’ll continue to say it for

every day that I’m here — where we’re actually able to work as a group

of 87 MLAs on behalf of the people of this province. I’m encouraged that

the confidence in this minority government is growing.

It is unfortunate, though, that we continue to hear the kind of

hyperbole. I was talking about it yesterday on another amendment

earlier. I have to address it again, because it just continues to appear

as almost a full-blown rewriting of history, frankly, and passing

speculation for rumour and fact.

The reality is that in our Canadian constitution, from my

understanding, elections are to be held once every five years. The

spring of more than a decade ago was when the election was called, and

then the legislation came in. They kind of formulated: “Okay, we’re

going to have spring elections in this province.” So then the next

election date was set to be the spring. This is my understanding. I’m

sure I’ll be corrected if I’m not getting this right.

Now we have this spring election date. In 2013, before the 2013

May election, we had three independent MLAs. They wanted to change the

fixed election time of the year from the spring to the fall.

[2:05 p.m.]

They said a few things: that it’s important for British

Columbians, important for the quality and integrity of our democracy, to

move the election date from the spring to the fall. They suggested that,

actually, the first time that they could do it would be on the first

Tuesday. So they didn’t quite agree to move it to a Saturday, but that’s

okay. But it was going to be in October of 2017, which would have meant

that the official opposition’s last term would have been the same length

as the one that we’re hearing so much disagreement with, basically a

4½-year mandate.

The most important reason for us to change this is for the

budgeting process. As I said in my speech at second reading, it’s

critical that we separate the budgeting process from the election so

that we then don’t use the pre-election budget for politics, but rather,

the budget is important because it’s the business of the

people.

In fact, one of the former Liberal leadership candidates and

former cabinet minister in this place agrees with that. I’m just going

to quote here. “Election budgets are always the most challenging for a

Finance Minister. The reason is that there’s the perennial struggle to

continue to try and do what’s right from a policy point of view and, of

course, the struggle between what is politically expedient. It’s

typically not a battle but a conversation that rages between the

Premier’s office and the Finance Minister’s office.”

That was former Liberal leadership candidate Kevin Falcon

acknowledging the fact that this change needs to happen. We’ve got

former members of this place suggesting that it’s fair, that the

Attorney General has done a good job of articulating the precedent. In

other jurisdictions in our country, it would be to extend it, rather

than to shorten the life of an elected parliament — a group of us, 87,

all elected to this place. Rather than shorten that, it would be to

simply move it further along in that year. Technically, there is still a

lot of room in that year for this province to have an election legally,

within the Canadian constitution.

That’s my response to the amendment, and it will probably be no

surprise to the members of the official opposition that I will not be

supporting it.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the members for the comments.

I want to make a few comments, particularly to the member for

Saanich North and the Islands. I understand why he wanted to keep it for

4½ years as opposed to 3½ years. I understand his perspective on that.

However, one thing he should note…. History teaches some interesting

lessons.

In this province, I don’t actually remember a centre-right party,

whether it’s Socred or Conservative or Liberal, that has actually gone

more than four years in a mandate. As a matter of fact, during the time

of W.A.C. Bennett, who was Premier in this province for about 20 years,

I think he had seven elections. He held an election about every three

years. Even the former NDP leader, in the first time the NDP formed

government in the early ’70s, held the three years for an election, not

four or not five, as what is allowed.

All the other governments that I can think of in the research that

I’ve done, going all the way back to 1903, when parties were first

recognized as an entity in this province, were all less than five years.

However, there are two exceptions. That is in the 1990s, when the

government of the day was in trouble, both going into the ’96 election

and the 2001 election, and went the full five years before they would

call an election, as opposed to doing what the tradition has been in

this province.

Here we have another example of a government, in terms of this

section of the bill, that have proposed to go longer than four years to

try to hold power for as long as possible, knowing that their time may

be limited and not willing to face the electorate in asking for an

election at an earlier time.

It’s disappointing when I hear those sorts of comments. To the

Minister of Education and his comments about the municipal election

going for three to four years, it’s probably worth noting that sitting

councillors and mayors were not asked to extend their term. However,

they ran a new election based on an extended mandate going from three

years to four years. They went out, and people knew well in advance what

that election time would be before people made a decision as to who they

wanted elected for that extra period of time.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, the member for Saanich North and the Islands is right. The

constitution does provide an opportunity for an election in a five-year

period. Having said that, though, that has not been the tradition in

this province, given the fact that the majority of elections held since

1903 — since there were parties, and even going back before then, since

British Columbia was formed — were well under four years — the vast

majority. It would make sense that this amendment, which asks for a

3½-year period of time, as opposed to a 4½-year period of time, would be

logical to support, especially given the changes that are being proposed

and the format that this government is bringing forward as a minority

government.

They did not win the popular vote. They did not win the majority

of seats, yet they’re governing as if they had. I understand why they’re

doing that and the decisions that they made. But I will warn the members

opposite associated with this: there’s a reason why they were reduced to

two seats in 2001. There was a reason. After holding on to power,

desperately clinging to power, for those extra few months, wreaking

havoc in legislation and things that they brought forward, people had

enough. They may find that may be the exact reason why a similar result

may happen in 2021.

In a way, offering this amendment to the members opposite is a way

to be able to say: “Look, have the confidence in what you’re doing.

You’re saying you’re bringing forward policy that the province of

British Columbia wants. You say you’re bringing forward policy that the

majority of people are interested in doing. Put it to a

vote.”

We’re giving you that opportunity to put it to a vote to the

people of this province by having this election held in fall of 2020, as

opposed to 2021. The amendment being brought forward is, I think,

reasoned. It is reasonable in terms of the approach that is being taken.

The significant changes, when you add them up — the changes to the

voting date; the changes to the way we vote; the welcome changes in

terms of the financing of elections, although not welcome from the

perspective of taxpayers being asked to fund political

activities….

That has been a no-no virtually everywhere. The only time it was

tried by the Canadian government, the next government that came in

immediately did away with it, and for good reason. That was what the

majority of people wanted. Yet this government ignores those types of

perspectives, ignores those history lessons, at their own

peril.

I invite the government to look at this amendment from that

perspective of: have the courage to ask the voters. Have the courage to

go out there early, and say: “You know what? We want to see what the

people of the province of British Columbia think of the policies we

brought forward. We are brave and bold in our perspective on it. We’re

willing to stand up and go to the voters and say that this is the right

thing” — in the government’s perspective — “that we want to bring

forward for the province, which is why we’re willing to go

early.”

When you look at the governments in the 1960s and 1950s and even

in the 1970s, those governments of the day had that courage. They went

out, and they went early. They could have gone five years, as the member

for Saanich North and the Islands suggested. They could have done what

the government is currently doing and tried to get an extra few months

of the term by changing the election date. But they didn’t. They went

early, because they wanted to test the confidence of the government, to

test the confidence in the policies they brought forward and to ask the

people of this great province to be able to bring forward a new mandate

for them so that they could carry on with bringing policies.

This government seems to be afraid to do that. I don’t know why

it’s willing to do that, as opposed to supporting the amendment brought

forward to give you the opportunity to move it forward. Even when we, as

a government, back in 2001, brought forward the date for fixed election

dates, what did we do? We didn’t pick a date that extended our mandate.

We picked a date that was four years out from when that election was

held. We didn’t go 4½. We didn’t go four and two months. We didn’t go

five years, as the members opposite. We could have. But we said this was

a fixed election date. This was reasonable.

With those comments, I would suggest that this is an amendment

that gives the government an opportunity to have the courage to put

forward their policies to the people of this province in a timely way,

fixing the election date for 2020 and allowing the province of British

Columbia and the people of British Columbia to validate whether they

truly support the idea of this unholy coalition that has been formed —

as it has been called in this House before — or whether or not they

would like a different approach in terms of how the province of British

Columbia is governed.

[2:15 p.m.]

A. Weaver: I rise to speak against the amendment put forward today by the

official opposition, for a number of reasons. The amendment, of course,

as we know, is to change the fixed election date to 2020 instead of

2021. The member opposite does himself a disservice when he continues to

refer to government here as a coalition.

The member opposite, as he tries to put forward his wealth of

expertise in democratic reform in British Columbia, should know at a

very fundamental level that a coalition is not what we have here in

British Columbia. It is a minority government, where the majority of

members in this House support the B.C. NDP in government.

It would do this member well — and it would do opposition members

opposite well — if they actually were to be factual in their responses

and debates. To mislead British Columbians by talking about things like

a B.C. coalition is not fitting of members of this place.

We know that it is a minority government, under the great vast

tradition of Westminster parliamentary democracies, where the government

of the day, the B.C. NDP, is supported by the three B.C. Green members

in a minority, not a coalition. So I correct that, for the

record.

We know that under the Constitution Act, we must have an election

every five years. The member opposite, again, in what I can only

describe as a somewhat revisionist history, forgets to point out that in

1986, the Social Credit government, the 1986 elected Social Credit

government did not have an election for five full years, until 1991.

Five years — not four years, as was suggested by the members

opposite.

Here, what is happening, and why I do not support the amendment

and why I support the original legislation, is as follows. Again, in the

tradition of Westminster parliamentary democracies, we stood here in

this House and pointed out to the B.C. Liberals this past summer that

they did not have the confidence of the House. We didn’t quietly spring

this on them at the last minute. In fact, shortly after we signed the

confidence and supply agreement…. As, I’m so pleased to say, is signed

in a similar manner in New Zealand, between the labour party there and

the Greens, celebrated today in some of their housing

policies.

We signed this agreement and told British Columbians that we would

have this agreement signed before the writ was returned because we

wanted to instil confidence, and we wanted to ensure that British

Columbians had certainty as we moved forward. So we messaged out to

British Columbians, through this government, that on May 31, we were

going to support a B.C. NDP minority government.

Hon. Speaker, members opposite, despite saying they would call

back the House soon, took their time. We waited months for this to come.

So to say it’s four and a half years is simply incorrect. We wasted

months by this government not willing to stand up and have confidence

tested in this House, somehow in denial that we live in a parliamentary

democracy. So to say it’s four and a half years is flat out wrong. That

is why I continue to support the bill as it stands and speak against

this amendment.

We talk about precedent. We had three independent MLAs in this

House: one who formally was with the B.C. NDP, Bob Simpson, who sat as

an independent; one who was formally with the B.C. Liberals, John van

Dongen, who also sat as an independent; and then, of course, our friend

and colleague Vicki Huntington, who was the only independent MLA in

British Columbia to be re-elected as an independent. The three of them

got together, and they made recommendations.

They made recommendations to bring the election to the fall, as we

did, but they also recommended and they also suggested that it was

important to recognize that we need to go a little longer because of

some time for Elections B.C. to adjust. So this is not some kind of

surprise, as suggested by the member opposite, the member for Nechako

Lakes. This is no surprise to British Columbians. This is precisely what

happened in 1986 when the Social Credit government served for five

years.

It’s what was recommended in the bill brought forward, which is

somehow not being raised by members opposite. They refer to previous NDP

opposition bills — not referring to the independent members’ bill, which

was truly independent, with one member from the B.C. Liberals, one from

the NDP, and Vicki Huntington, suggesting otherwise.

[2:20 p.m.]

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for your time. I do

appreciate the opportunity to speak against this amendment.

M. Bernier: I think it’s really important, when we look at this bill that’s on

the floor and the amendment that’s on the floor, to actually talk about

the facts. Everybody is trying to talk about the history here, but we’re

trying to talk about the future and the future of British Columbia and

what this means to the people in the province of British

Columbia.

The NDP government now is enjoying…. Even though the member for

Oak Bay–Gordon Head doesn’t want to officially call it a coalition, if

it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it’s a duck. Whether he wants

to call it a coalition or not, we truly have a coalition here that’s

actually keeping government afloat. We have an unelected minority

government in place making these decisions. All we’re asking is that the

general public, the voters in the province of British Columbia, get to

have a say — that they get to have a say on these bills going

forward.

Now, when we look at the government wanting to extend their term

in office, it’s not a surprise that the members from the

soon-to-be-called, I guess, Green Party here in the House of course

would be in favour of that. I would expect nothing less from them,

wanting to extend their term here as well.

The whole point here is giving that decision back to the

electorate. It is not democratic for this government to be extending

their term by six months. If they truly want to test the confidence,

it’s the confidence of the general public, the confidence of the voters

in the province of British Columbia they should be testing — which is

why we have this amendment on the floor. It’s why we are saying that if

they are truthful, if they are honest with themselves and they’re going

to be honest with the public in the province of British Columbia, they

should be going to the electorate sooner rather than later.

They should be going to them and saying: “We are confident as a

government. We’re confident with what we’ve put in front of you.” If

that’s truly the case, and if they’re going to be standing here for

possibly the next couple of years, talking about what they’re going to

do, they should not be shy, not be ashamed to go to an election in the

fall of 2020.

We’re not arguing that we’re going to move the election into the

fall. I think we’ve all agreed with that. If this bill was specifically

just about that, I think we’d have probably a full consensus here in the

House. But when we’re actually going to the fall and extending it by

another six months, that’s where we have difficulty.

As the minister who’s put it forward and other people have

spoken…. Again, if they truly feel that they’re doing the great service

that they talk about for the people in the province of British Columbia

and that they’re going to continue do that for the next few years, then

I have no idea why they would not be in favour of this.

In fact, you would assume, you would think, that a minority

government would want to actually get in front of the voters of British

Columbia to secure a solid mandate as soon as possible so they can

actually try to have a majority government. If they’re as confident as

they are, that they think they can do that, why would they not be in a

position where they’d want to secure that sooner rather than

later?

I do not understand why they would actually think that it’s

democratic to extend their term without actually going to the public and

allowing them a say in that. That’s why we’ve put this amendment

forward. We feel that it is appropriate. We feel it’s the best

democratic system.

We feel it’s the most fair system for the voters in the province

of British Columbia, where they can actually have a say of who their

duly elected government will be and allow them the choice to have that

at an election. To extend it again by six months is actually taking

those rights away from the citizens of the province of British Columbia,

and that’s why we’ve put this amendment forward.

Although the members opposite will continue to stand and talk

about why they want to stay in office longer and why they, even though

they were not elected with a majority of seats, want to use the now

coalition formed with the Green Party to allow them to stay in

government longer…. I can appreciate that. I can see why they would want

to do that. They weren’t elected by the majority so if they can now,

through this coalition, extend their time, why wouldn’t they? I mean,

obviously it takes the rights away from the public. I guess that doesn’t

matter. It takes the rights away from the voters, but I guess that

doesn’t matter.

[2:25 p.m.]

I think it’s important that they actually talk about going

forward, making a decision, and actually having the vote sooner rather

than extending their term. It’s unfortunate that the members opposite in

government don’t agree with this amendment of allowing the voters in the

province of British Columbia a right and a say.

We’ve talked about the municipal government elections. Well, the

municipalities knew what they were running for. They knew when the terms

were extended. They weren’t voting on extending their terms while they

were in office. Why? Because that would actually not be democratic. They

wouldn’t do that.

Municipal governments allowed the flow and the decisions and the

policies to be changed and then ran on a new system. That’s obviously

what the members opposite don’t want to do. They’d rather actually make

the decision here in this House rather than allow the general public to

have a say.

It’s disappointing that the members will not be in favour of this

amendment. We were hoping that they would be, because we thought it

would be the right thing for the voters and the people in the province

of British Columbia.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to all the members who’ve spoken to the amendment. I

have to agree with the member down the way that we have heard a lot of

hyperbole in relation to these various amendments.

I would like to remind the members who spoke in favour of this

amendment of a throne speech that was given in this place not that long

ago. It said the following: “British Columbians want a stable

government, and in sending us this result” — the last election’s result

— “they expect us to listen and find a way to work together. They expect

us to collaborate, while respecting the dignity, rules and traditions

that govern our constitutional monarchy, our democracy and this

Legislature.” With that in mind, “instead of focusing on areas of

disagreement, we should reflect on who it is that we are and what we

share in common.”

I didn’t find a lot to agree with Christy Clark on, but those

words made a lot of sense to me in terms of the minority parliament.

I’ve heard a lot of suggestions from the other side that make absolutely

no sense.

“Get out there and test this government with the voters. Collapse

the government, and go test whether you’ve got a majority of support out

there.” The voters sent us here with a clear message. They wanted a

minority parliament. They wanted a stable government. In fact, this is

the same throne speech that recognized the need for a fall election

date, which the member rightly pointed out would have been fall of 2021.

Now the members say: “Well, because there’s a minority, because it’s

your minority parliament, it should be a three-year instead of a

four-year.”

They are certainly entitled to that opinion, but it makes very

little sense to me why in one throne speech, it’s one way, and in

today’s amendment, it’s another way — except for exactly that. It

depends on which side of the House you’re sitting on.

With that, I will not be supporting the amendment.

J. Rustad: Thank you very much to the minister for the clarification. I find

it interesting that he raised the point that the people of this province

want to see members being able to work together, to collaborate to find

ways forward. What we have brought forward is a reasonable amendment

that instead of going for a four-year, goes for a 3½-year

period.

It would enjoy support from all sides of this House in terms of

being able to work forward and move this thing forward, but instead, the

government is proceeding with ignoring the opposition’s perspective that

this has brought forward, which obviously doesn’t change the way things

work. It is not a new way of doing things; it is the old way of doing

things. It’s unfortunate that this government feels that it doesn’t have

the confidence in what it’s bringing forward in its policies and

approach to be able to actually approach the voters.

With that, I will end my comments, and we’ll see if the minister

has any other that he wished to add before we get to the vote on

this.

A. Weaver: I just wish to address the comments raised by my good friend from

Peace River South, who suggested in this House a number of things. He

suggested that this was undemocratic — that it was undemocratic to not

support this amendment — when I would argue what is truly undemocratic

is to not actually listen to the will of the people of British Columbia

and to delay the testing of confidence in this House for so many months,

which put us in the situation where we are to this day.

In addition, there are a number of reasons that have not been

raised. Number one, of course, is that we are in the midst of debating….

I recognize we cannot debate other bills, but that other bill is

relevant because the time frame for change of proportional

representation, were it to pass and were the referendum to pass, would

be 2021. That gives time for Elections B.C. to actually put in place the

necessary rules and regulations and electoral boundaries and

consultation, if indeed we are to go to that bill.

The Chair: Speaking to the amendment.

[2:30 p.m.]

A. Weaver: It’s relevant, then, to this particular case. The 2021 date is

critical, as it actually is also critical for Elections B.C. as we move

forward there.

To suggest somehow that we cannot have another election…. I mean,

this is a minority government. We’re committed to working together, but

to suggest that there will be no election suggests, again, not

understanding how Westminster parliamentary democracies work.

We’re committed to work together for four and a half years. We

will work together. But it doesn’t mean there could not be another

election. It is within the government’s right, at any given time, to

say: “This is no longer working. We need to test the confidence of the

House, or we need to call an election.” They can do that.

In addition, we could say: “This isn’t working. We want to have an

election. We’re not going to support a budget.” We could do that. Those

options are still available, but those options have not been

acknowledged as existing in this present minority government that we

have here.

Finally, I take exception to the suggestion that this is all about

power. I come back to what I said earlier. What I come back to say about

earlier is: I understand why, in the mindset of the B.C. Liberals, it is

all about power. It’s because for them, government is about power. It’s

not about policies.

I come back to the member from Abbotsford here, who, at the

parliamentary democracy meeting with teachers, specifically stated to

the teachers of British Columbia visiting this House that the role of

the official opposition is to get into power. Shame. We hear it time and

time again emanating from members opposite that all this is about is

power. They don’t understand that it’s about good policy. So the longer

we have to actually assure that the policy measures are in place,

recognizing that it would have been four years….

Maybe there would be more of an appetite to listen to the

amendment put forward had this government actually tested confidence

months early, instead of losing four months of this government by,

essentially, desperately trying to hang onto power, despite the fact

that we’d given British Columbians certainty and said that this was not

going to happen and we were going to support an NDP minority

government.

M. Bernier: First of all, I have to correct the member for Oak Bay–Gordon

Head. He should know better, because he was actually here. He was duly

elected in May. He also knows the timelines of what it took for the

writs to be returned. It’s unfortunate that he’s not listening to me. He

might want to take notes, actually.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Thank you. I’m glad he is.

It’s unfortunate that members opposite, including the member for

Oak Bay–Gordon Head, continue to stand up in this House, trying to say

that we were delaying bringing the House back, when, in fact, he knows

the process. He knows we can’t do that until the writs have been

returned. He knows we had to wait until there was possibly….

It was a close election. We’ve all acknowledged that. We had to

wait for the writs. We had to look to see if there were going to be

judicial reviews. We had to wait for those final counts to be

in.

If memory serves, it was within only three weeks of all of that

that we called the House back. It’s not the three or four months that

the members opposite continue to say. It was three weeks.

The role of opposition is to hold government accountable. It’s to

bring forward ideas like this, where we show where something we don’t

agree with…. We show that we feel it’s serving the public’s interest

more accurately, better serving the public, if we actually bring forward

amendments.

It’s unfortunate when we keep hearing from the coalition across

from us that it’s all about working together. The only thing they’re

showing is that they’re working amongst themselves. If they truly want

to work together, then we’ll actually be looking at amendments that our

party will be bringing forward, seriously considering them and actually

having a good, honest debate about whether these things — like this

amendment and other amendments that we’ll probably bring by — have value

to the people of British Columbia. We feel that they do, and that’s why

we bring these amendments forward.

If it’s truly about working together, I’m assuming the member for

Oak Bay–Gordon Head is now inviting us to be part of the secretariat,

because we haven’t been involved in any of those discussions at all. Yet

he continues to say that it’s all about working together as government.

It’s only working together for them, not for everybody, which is not

representing the people in the province of British Columbia

appropriately.

That’s why we put this amendment forward. That’s why we will

continue to support this amendment. Again, it’s unfortunate that the now

government, through their coalition, don’t understand what we’re trying

to do to help the people of B.C. and make sure that they have a

say.

[2:35 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 39

Cadieux

Rustad

Bond

de Jong

Coleman

Kyllo

Stone

Bernier

Wat

Johal

Hunt

Barnett

Tegart

Martin

Throness

Davies

Sullivan

Polak

Morris

Stilwell

Ashton

Oakes

Thomson

Sturdy

Ross

Isaacs

Milobar

Thornthwaite

Clovechok

Yap

Redies

Paton

Gibson

Sultan

Shypitka

Reid

Letnick

Larson

Foster

NAYS — 43

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

[2:45 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The Chair: Committee on Bill 5 resumes. Shall

section 3 pass?

Interjections.

J. Rustad: Groans from the members opposite. There’s a purpose for doing

this, as the members opposite well know from when they had an

opportunity to be on this side of the House.

Carrying on with

section 3, I think we’ve canvassed as much as we

can in terms of the date.

Moving on to the next

section around this, which is, if I

understand this right, about the potential for overlaps and the movement

that’s in there. Can I ask the minister to explain why he felt the need

to put this

section into the legislation?

Hon. D. Eby: We canvassed, a little bit, the federal provisions around fixed

election dates, as well as general local elections and the fixed date

for provincial general elections. It’s not a surprise, at least to the

government, that many different jurisdictions have seen the benefits of

fall elections, so federal, municipal and soon, hopefully, provincial

elections will all be in October.

Now, although currently, each of these jurisdictions has elections

in a cycle on different years, ourselves included, there is the

possibility that in one of these jurisdictions, there could be — the

technical term, I understand — an on-demand election, which is an

election as a result of the government collapsing in one way or the

other in one of these other jurisdictions and there needing to be an

election outside of that regular cycle. That could cause an overlap

between our provincial fixed-date election and a general local election

or a general federal election.

This

section really responds to that possibility by setting out a

mechanism by which we could address a date overlap. The goal of it is to

ensure some level of transparency, because I think it seems, at least in

the debate, that members in this House generally support the idea of

fixed election dates for a number of benefits that accrue from

that.

When you can’t use your fixed election date because it doubles up

with another election that’s happening in another jurisdiction, how do

you achieve the goals of a fixed election date — the transparency, the

accountability — yet respond to an evolving situation?

For transparency, the new date that’s been set out…. The goal here

is to ensure that it’s determined by cabinet, but not by cabinet alone.

There’s a requirement of consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer,

with the Leader of the Official Opposition and with the leaders of any

recognized political parties that are in the Legislature. It’s our

attempt to ensure that the goals of a fixed election date and the

transparency of a fixed election date are included in a possible

scenario that is reasonable to anticipate, that one of these other

election cycles might move off their current cycle onto another cycle

and then suddenly interfere with the fixed provincial date.

[2:50 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for that explanation. I do find it

interesting, though, with British Columbia, of course, being the first

jurisdiction in Canada to go to the fixed election dates. Other

jurisdictions have followed since, including the federal government. For

the last 16 years, there wasn’t a need or wasn’t a perceived need to

have this in as part of the Constitution Act with regards to overlapping

potential election dates, even though that same circumstance that the

minister described could have happened at any time with regards to the

federal government. That is really the only place where there can be

overlap, unless, of course, there’s a change to the municipal election

and local governments.

Given that the confidence side…. The opportunity for that kind of

an overlap to occur is actually quite low, given how legislatures work.

If there’s ever to be a confidence vote, it’s usually around the budget,

usually around the springtime, which would then trigger an election at

that time, as opposed to something that would go into the

fall.

I’m just wondering why the rationale from the minister, given that

it wasn’t needed in the past. It’s something that…. We function quite

nicely without it, and the likelihood of something like that happening

is very small. It just seems to be an over precaution, but I’m just

curious with regards to that.

Hon. D. Eby: Certainly I can’t speak to what was in the mind of government when

they put forward the original fixed date legislation, but what I can do

is advise what the intention of this government was in putting this in.

There are many jurisdictions now that have fall elections. I can

speculate, perhaps, that when the previous fixed date legislation was

put in, municipal elections were in the fall. This was a spring election

cycle in British Columbia, so there wasn’t perceived that there would be

an overlap with municipal. I don’t know why there wasn’t concern about

overlap with federal.

In any event, it’s our feeling that it’s best practice to include

such an overlap provision. I can point to Saskatchewan, Manitoba,

Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut

and the federal legislation, which all have overlap provisions. As well,

it appears at a quick glance that every jurisdiction except for P.E.I.

that has a fall election also has an overlap clause. So Saskatchewan,

Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, P.E.I. — oh, they’re there —

Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Canada all

have fall elections. They all also have overlap clauses of the type that

we’re discussing right now.

J. Rustad: It’s clear in my mind. It’s sound rationale. But given that

municipal elections can’t possibly overlap with the provincial election

unless we change municipal elections…. There is, I suppose, the chance

that a federal government may decide to change things in terms of

those.

I guess the question I really have is: is this

section designed in

case government falls early due to non-confidence or perhaps at the call

of the Premier and executive council to have an election — that it

provides the ability for that date to be adjusted so that it wouldn’t

necessarily overlap? This sort of gives it that clause to be able to do

that. Is that what this is designed to do?

Hon. D. Eby: This

section that we’re discussing is actually if there’s an

overlap in the fixed election date, which is every four calendar years,

as we’ve discussed, the Saturday in October — if there’s an issue with

that overlapping with one of these other processes.

[2:55 p.m.]

If there’s a snap election, the date is not set by this

legislation for the snap election that happens as a result of the

government collapsing. If there is a snap election, though, let’s say in

May of 2018, then the next general voting day would be the third

Saturday in October 2022 — four years after the general voting day. This

legislation would set the next fixed election date, but it wouldn’t

determine when the snap election date was. So this provision doesn’t

relate to that kind of scenario.

J. Rustad: In essence, just to be clear, and I know it’s not specifically

here but with what the minister said, if there happened to be a snap

election called in February — pick a date, February or March or

something of 2018 because of a confidence issue or some other thing —

what this legislation would do is make the fall election basically five

years out from that date, given that it would be into the fourth

calendar year beyond that, as we had canvassed earlier in our

discussions around the first component of

section 3.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. If the government collapsed in February,

then the

section 3 provision would require an election in October of

I note that that would be a local government election year. So

there would be the snap election in 2018. And then the new government….

It would be a requirement of this act that they sit down with the Leader

of the Opposition, any recognized parties and the Chief Electoral

Officer in setting an election date for 2022 that did not overlap with

the local government election process.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

J. Rustad: I’m curious about this

section in the sense that I believe the

second component of this, under 4(b), talks about an amendment made by

section 6. I understand that there may be an amendment coming forward to

section 6. Would it be appropriate, at this time, to actually have the

discussion or does it need also to be stood down until the

section 6

amendment is presented to the Legislature?

Hon. D. Eby: I have very good news. Any amendment to

section 6 of the Amendment

Act has no impact on this section. We’re not looking at any amendments

that would result in adding an additional section. So this reference to

section 76 would be unchanged by any attempt to accommodate the member’s

concerns around Thanksgiving holiday days. We can go ahead with this and

still have the ability to amend

section 6, if required.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

J. Rustad: I’m just curious why the amendment is from the word after — if I’m

reading that right. No, I’m sorry. I wasn’t reading that right. Okay. It

was put in after that. So no, I don’t have any questions.

Sorry.

Section 5 approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to stand down

section 6. We are currently considering the

possibility of amendments to that section.

section 7.

N. Letnick: Yesterday we had quite a thorough discussion on the

section that

would propose to change the number of members of a political party from

four to two. A motion was provided to the minister that would see that

number change to three. That motion was defeated.

[3:00 p.m.]

Section 7 also deals with the same issue, the number from four to

two. At this time, as per the orders of the day, I would like to move

that the text be changed.

SECTION 7 by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

“ 2

3 or more

members ” . ]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Chair, thanks for your…. It just took a second there to

register. I was: “Didn’t we do this yesterday?”

I thank the member for his proposed amendment. I will not be

supporting the amendment. The reasons were canvassed quite thoroughly

yesterday. The intention here is to ensure that all parties that elect

two or more members have the opportunity to participate appropriately in

legislative debate as well as in the Legislative Assembly Management

Committee. That is the wish of the government, based on historical

precedent here in B.C.

The Chair: Shall

section 7 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

Interjection.

The Chair: There’s a question as to whether or not the amendment was

moved.

N. Letnick: I did move the amendment, as per the standing orders.

The Chair: Our apologies.

Amendment negatived.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

J. Rustad: I just need to have a bit of clarity in terms of procedure, if I

may, Chair, through to the minister. With regards to passing the

commencement component of this act, given that

section 6 has stood down,

I’m assuming what ends up happening from this is that we report progress

and ask leave to sit again as opposed to….

Okay, I just wanted to make sure of that. Otherwise

section 8

would have been a potential problem, so thank you.

The Chair: That is the proper course of action.

Section 8 approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I seek leave to report progress and seek leave to sit

again.

Seek leave twice — I will get this.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:03 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

[3:05 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

Hon. D. Eby: I am taking some advice, a request that it be called later

today.

Mr. Speaker: That’s fine, thank you. So ordered.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading on Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018

Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM 2018

ACT

Hon. D. Eby: I move that Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, now

be read a second time. This bill creates the legislative framework for a

provincewide referendum, in fall 2018, on whether to change from the

current first-past-the-post voting system to a form of proportional

representation.

The government believes that it’s time for British Columbians to

have their say on whether they wish to change to a voting system that

uses a form of proportional representation, and the referendum will give

British Columbian voters the opportunity to do just that. This is what

is called enabling legislation. It creates a number of enabling powers

for government, and it also prescribes some aspects of how the

referendum will take place.

To ensure that voters have adequate opportunity to consider the

options before them and cast their ballot, the referendum will be

conducted by mail-in ballot. This method of referendum voting is not new

for British Columbians. We’ve had two important issues conducted by

mail-in ballot, namely the 2011 HST referendum and the 2015 Metro

Vancouver transportation and transit plebiscite.

The referendum question or questions will be established by

regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and will be announced

with sufficient time for an informed and vigorous debate on the merits

of the current and proposed voting systems on the ballot. Government

will have more to say about how the proportional representation voting

systems on the ballot will be selected in the coming months, but I can

tell the House that it is the government’s intention to sponsor a public

consultation process to ensure that we are fully informed about the best

options to be put before British Columbians in the question on the

ballot.

The precise timing of the referendum will be announced following

the public consultation, but this bill requires that all ballots must be

returned no later than November 30, 2018. So we will know the result of

the referendum before the end of that year.

One very important aspect of the bill is that it confirms that the

threshold for success in this referendum will be 50 percent plus one,

provincewide. There will not be a so-called supermajority required for

change, nor will there be any thresholds established by region or

electoral district.

[3:10 p.m.]

If British Columbians do opt for a proportional representation

system, the bill requires government to take steps to implement the new

voting system for a general election called after July 1, 2021. Changing

the province’s voting system would be a significant undertaking, and

this length of time is necessary to ensure that appropriate legislation

can be passed to implement any necessary changes, and for Elections B.C.

to prepare to conduct a vote under the new system.

This bill provides a vehicle for the potential of public funding

to be provided to registered proponent and opponent groups to stimulate

debate on the referendum. Whether there should be funds provided, the

amount of funds to be provided and the process by which any groups would

be selected will be decided following the public consultation process.

The proposed legislation does require that any funds provided to

approved groups may only be used for the purpose of supporting or

opposing a proportional representation voting system. The regulations

will also establish any rules respecting how these groups and other

individuals and organizations may advertise in relation to the

referendum.

The legislation also provides for the repeal of legislation and

regulations that are no longer required respecting past referenda and a

plebiscite. I should note that this bill specifies that the Referendum

Act would not apply to this referendum. Instead, this bill is the sole

authority for this referendum.

Now, I’m going to use this opportunity of second reading to

encourage all political parties in this House and political parties that

are not in this House, as well as individuals across British Columbia,

to provide their submissions to the government about suggestions related

to the enabling provisions of this bill, should it pass into law — the

question of whether proponent and opponent groups should be funded; if

so, how groups should be selected for such funding; what the question

should be; and so on, as outlined in my speech. In order for this to be

a successful exercise and a fair exercise, all parties should be

heard.

This bill, by establishing the legislative framework for the

conduct of the referendum, begins the process by which British

Columbians will decide how they elect Members of the Legislative

Assembly, whether under the existing system or under a new system. I

look forward to the debate on this bill and on the referendum

itself.

J. Martin: Thank you to the Attorney for the introduction and kicking off of

what I’m sure will be a very informative and enthusiastic debate over

the next several days and weeks. I’m very happy to be able to be the

first responder for the official opposition.

It was about 70 years ago that a wiser fellow than myself said

something to the effect of “democracy is the worst form of government,

except for all the others.” You know, we’ve got a system that, despite

some hiccups here and a speed bump there, works pretty well across the

country and particularly in British Columbia.

When we talk about First World problems, I don’t think our voting

system really ranks up too high on there. In my limited 4½ years or so

of being an MLA, I haven’t had anyone come into my constituency office

or send me an email or a phone call that we need to get rid of the

current voting system.

That system has been tweaked over the decades. We started

recognizing official parties in the 1903 election. Basically, for the

first little while in British Columbia, it kind of looked like the

federal scene. We had Conservative governments and Liberal governments

enjoy a few consecutive terms in government, and then it would flip

back.

Things really changed in the 1945 election. That’s when there was

kind of a ragtag, informal coalition between the Liberals and the

Conservatives. That won two consecutive governments. It was in the 1952

election when Social Credit formalized that coalition and basically

kicked off one of the political dynasties in Canadian history. Social

Credit won 11 out of 12 governments from ’52 to ’86. There was one NDP

government in there, in ’72 to ’75.

[3:15 p.m.]

Things got interesting as we got into the ’91 election. The

dormant B.C. Liberals, who really hadn’t been a political force for

quite some time, pretty well came out of nowhere and seized official

opposition status. There was another election five years later, and

until 2017, it was probably one of the most tightly contested elections

in British Columbia history. That resulted in a second consecutive NDP

majority.

Since then, we’ve obviously had four B.C. Liberal majority

governments, and we now have, for the first time, a minority government

in this province. We have the unique situation where we have the NDP

forming government in a minority government supported by the three

members who, very shortly, will be not independents but part of the

Green Party. [Applause.] I thought you’d like that.

The previous government is now the official opposition. Well, what

we have learned over that period of time is that the system works.

Governments change. Governments fall. New parties come. Old parties go

by the wayside. Social Credit is little more than a name registered with

Elections B.C. now. Who knows, in ten years, what the political

landscape will look like in British Columbia? Will new parties emerge,

new alliances between different stakeholders? The system does not

protect the status quo.

Let’s look at it this way. In the last six consecutive elections,

the B.C. Liberals won a majority of the vote. Not a pure majority but

they won more of the vote than any other party in the last six

elections, yet they only formed government in four of those.

Somehow this evil first-past-the-post that we’re supposed to turn

our sights on is what’s hampering democracy. Somehow that doesn’t seem

to be a problem after all because, as I just said, the B.C. Liberals

only formed government four of the last six elections, despite winning

the most votes in every single one of those elections.

I think we need to be cognizant of the power of language. Using

this term “first-past-the-post” is one of the things that I’d like to

focus on a little bit during my time here. So what does

first-past-the-post actually mean? Well, it’s only recently that we’ve

actually applied that moniker to the political realm. Actually, the

definition, one that I found, was “of a contestant, usually a horse in a

race, winning that race by being the first to reach the finish line.”

Imagine that. The horror — the horror. The first horse to cross the

finish line is declared the winner. Well, that’s no good. We’ve got to

do away with that. Something’s got to change at Exhibition Park. I mean,

that just won’t work.

This first-past-the-post tends to work well for thoroughbreds, and

it tends to work well in political campaigns. That has not been a

problem in British Columbia, let alone in the rest of Canada. So why are

we here? Why are we at this particular point, going through this

process, where we’re going to have a spirited debate? We’re going to

have a vote at some point, on the referendum legislation that the

Attorney just outlined. Depending on the outcome of that referendum

vote, there may be a referendum within 13 months. There may not. We’ll

be staying tuned for that.

It’s important to recognize why we’re actually here. One of the

many agreements between the NDP and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head

and his colleagues, in gaining their support, was to move forward with

the commitment to hold a referendum and to attempt to get that

legislation passed. This tends to be the one, and the only one, item

that for the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, is non-negotiable. He will

compromise on ride-sharing. He’ll compromise on tolls, on patronage

hiring. But on this one, he’s holding his ground. So we are going

through this. This one he’s not backing off.

[3:20 p.m.]

I’m sure if the NDP brought forward an announcement that they were

going to log Stanley Park, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head would

support that, that being negotiable as well. But on proportional

representation and holding a referendum, there’s absolutely no wavering

there whatsoever.

We are going to be moving into a very interesting period in

British Columbia. We’ve been down this road twice in the not too distant

past, and both times, voters made their intentions clear. This is kind

of reminding me of the referendum process by the separatists in Quebec.

We’re going to keep holding referendums until we get the result we want.

We’re not going to recognize the last referendum. It’s only the next

one, if it turns our way. That will be the good referendum. That’ll be

the right one. Those other ones in the past don’t really

matter.

What is taking place right now…. I don’t want to minimize it

whatsoever, but it’s significant. It’s important. It’s a process that

could fundamentally and significantly change the way we elect

governments in British Columbia, and that is something that is of vital

importance to everybody. It literally changes the fabric of our

democracy, and it affects British Columbians, regardless of who they

will support, even if they don’t support anybody. On this side of the

House, we have some serious concerns about how this process is going to

take place and what the question will ultimately be.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

What we do know so far…. I have to give thanks to the ministry

staff. They were very kind in giving me a full briefing on the

legislation and were outstanding in responding to my questions and

clarifying a number of points for me in the legislation. Again, I thank

them very much. It was a great group of people that I had an opportunity

to spend some time with.

But we do have some concerns about how that question will be

determined, because the question on the actual ballot, should it go that

far, will not be determined by British Columbians. It will not be

determined through the consultation processes that the government is

becoming quite renowned for. It will be decided by cabinet. At that

point, we’ll understand what the question is and how the question will

actually be voted on. That’s an enormous ability to manipulate this

process.

It’s not going to be open. It’s not going to be something that is

determined by the populous. It’s not going to be something that is put

to an all-party committee — or go on a travelling town hall information

process. It’s going to be solely decided by the cabinet, which is their

prerogative, and I don’t begrudge that, but we need to recognize

it.

It’s the third attempt at a referendum in British Columbia in

recent times. We did this in 2005. We did it a mere four years later,

and proportional representation was not successful when the votes came

in.

We also have concerns with the nature of how this process is going

to be laid out, the timelines of it, and exactly what information is

going to be available. We’re hearing about…. There’s going to be

proponents and opponents of the legislation funded, and it’ll be very

curious about the application process for that and how some groups are

successful in getting their funding and how other groups may find out

that they didn’t pass muster.

I’m also very concerned that, this time around, it’s not a 60

percent threshold, which is perfectly reasonable when we’re talking

about fundamentally changing a key component of our democratic system,

the way that we elect governments. It will be simply a mere 50 percent

plus one, and that’s really lowering the bar about as low as it can get,

as far as possible. A bare majority can literally turn our democratic

process and how we elect governments upside down.

It ignores the need for regional support. It’s simply a

winner-takes-all. There’s no regional support. There’s no recognition of

different parts of the province. It shows a lack of respect for both the

public and the desperation to change the voting system, which is

something that was agreed upon during the negotiations to prop up a

minority government.

[3:25 p.m.]

Again, that is all perfectly legitimate in our system, and I don’t

begrudge that. I recognize and accept that. But it is pretty serious

that we find ourselves in that particular situation.

It should not be this easy: 50 percent plus one, no minimal vote

turnout, no regional recognition. It should not be that easy to change

something as critical and as long-lasting as how we elect governments in

the province of British Columbia.

The minister outlined some of the key components of this

legislation. It will be a mail-in ballot. That was kind of interesting

during the last time we had a…. No, it wasn’t the last time, but one of

the referendums we had, I guess. There was a mail strike, a postal

strike by Canada Post. The Chief Electoral Officer, I believe, had to

extend the deadline for getting submissions in, due to the postal

strike.

That’s kind of interesting. I mean, I’m trying to think of the

last time I licked a stamp and dropped a letter in the mailbox. Right

now, to be honest, if I had to mail a letter in ten minutes from my

house, I’m not really sure what direction out the door I should go. I’m

not really sure where the nearest mailbox would be. But this is

interesting. We’re supposedly modernizing the voting system, supposedly

moving it forward, and we’re using snail mail, the most antiquated

system of registering votes possible. But so be it.

Now, what we’re also faced with is that there’s a possibility of a

ballot with more than one question. That is problematic. I’ll get into

that a little bit further on. But for the first part, it’s going to be

very awkward. It’s going to be very confusing. I’ve spent an awful lot

of time looking at the different systems in the different countries. I

hope that before the red light comes on, I have an opportunity to delve

into those.

We also see in the legislation that the new system for the next

general election will be on or after July 1, 2021. That’s kind of

interesting because we just heard a rather spirited debate about,

possibly, with the amendment, moving the next fixed election date prior

to that. That would be very awkward with the referendum, so it was

little left to the imagination of one of the reasons why that particular

amendment was defeated.

During my briefing with the ministry staff, I also learned that

should, for some reason, the government have to go to the polls prior to

July 1, should the minority government fall apart before the 21st,

should the Premier see an opportunity to go for an election prior to

July 1, 2021.... For whatever reasons, even though the legislation says

that the new system for the next general election on or after July 1,

2021, the government does reserve the right, as long as the mechanics

are there and get an assurance from Elections B.C., to actually use this

new system prior to July 1, 2021. There’s nothing in the actual bill

that lays that out. That’s something I discovered through discussions

with staff. So that’s a little bit disturbing, because it’s

misleading.

Say we have an election in two years, and if the referendum had

passed, even though the legislation says we would be bound to use the

current voting system, well, apparently the government isn’t bound to

that at all. There is the possibility of using the new system prior to

when it was supposed to be available.

We also have a bit of a difficulty with the provincial cabinet

ordering the ballots be counted on a preferential voting basis. This is,

obviously, a way to help determine a preferred turnout. Clearly,

advocates of proportional representation recognize that there’s one,

two, three, four or five different models of proportional

representation. People could rank-order those. Those of us that are very

happy with the first system wouldn’t really have a second choice. We’re

quite content with the current system, and we wouldn’t have a second

choice of transferable vote or mixed representation.

[3:30 p.m.]

Clearly, the deck is stacked. It’s not an honest game. It’s

rigged, and it is going to be designed to get a particular desired

outcome. We see, through the legislation, that if no option reaches 50

percent on the first count, then we go to the second count. We go to the

third count. Under that model, it would be very likely that one of the

proportional representation models would be successful.

We also have a big problem here when we look at what happens with

proportional representation in other jurisdictions. Proportional

representation might sound nice on a bumper sticker: “Make every vote

count.” That sounds good. No one can argue against that. I think it

would be very difficult to argue that, right now, every vote doesn’t

count. But that’s a nice bumper sticker.

I think a better bumper sticker for proportional representation

is: “Instability.” Minority and coalition governments tend to produce

instability for voters and investors. They are more expensive to run

than governments that don’t operate under that particular model. I’ll

outline these a little later on in more detail.

Belgium went almost 600 days without a government after using the

proportional representation model and being unable to come to a working

agreement with the ragtag scattering of parties that had some

representation in the new parliament. They were unable…. All they could

do for almost 600 days was keep the lights on and pay the bills — no

legislation, no reform, no ability to tackle any of the country’s

concerns. It was just simply paying the bills as the parties strove to

form a coalition. While day-to-day government operations continued,

those critical decisions that governments are responsible for and people

elect them for were ignored: migration, legislation, the eurozone

crisis. All of this was delayed for well over a year, and it was a

totally unnecessary delay.

We have an issue with accountability under proportional

representation that is very different than under the system that we

currently use in British Columbia. It makes it very difficult for voters

to hold their governments and representatives accountable, because many

of the representatives have nothing to do with the community, with the

region they’re supposedly representing, instead of this system that we

have now, where, generally, most MLAs have deep roots in the community

they run in.

When I talk to members on both sides of the House, these are

people that understand their communities, that are connected to them,

and they care about those communities. They were school trustees. They

were small business owners. They went to church there. They raised

family there. They volunteered. They coached baseball and soccer. They

helped with the non-profits. They volunteered. Their kids were involved

in the communities.

That is a great pedigree to becoming an MLA, understanding what

takes place in your community, knowing who the stakeholders are, having

a familiarity with the different sectors in the community, how they’re

connected and what the challenges are. That’s what makes part of the

proving ground for a successful MLA — to have those roots in the

community.

That is very different than a party having a binder with a list of

40 or 60 names, and, at the end of the day, depending on how that party

in particular does in the election, they’ll just start picking names off

that list and assigning them to different regions in the province. They

may have no history whatsoever in that jurisdiction. They may be fine,

great, outstanding citizens that are not necessarily connected to the

communities.

When I’m asked — as I have been, shortly after I got elected in

2013 — what is the best thing about the job, I don’t have to think long

about it. It tends to be the same thing a lot of other MLAs say to me,

maybe in slightly different words. At the end of the day, you can help

make someone’s problem go away. Some of the best days I’ve had since

I’ve been elected in office were when I was able to fix a problem. It

might not have seemed like a huge problem to anyone else, but it had

been a burden on this individual for months, maybe years.

[3:35 p.m.]

It might have been an issue with accessing health care. It might

have been an issue with trying to work through WorkSafe B.C., some of

the red tape, some of the bureaucracy of government, the frustrations of

people who maybe aren’t as nimble as many of us in this House at

navigating through legislation and bureaucracy.

For instance, I had one individual a few years ago. She was a

single mom, early 40s, a hairdresser. She had a serious, serious dental

issue. Basically, she got an infection — bacteria. Her teeth were

horrible. She was in pain and agony. She was taking Tylenol 3s all the

time. She didn’t have an insurance plan that was going look after it,

and she was looking at about probably a 14-month wait to actually have

it done in the hospital, where she would be covered.

We made rounds in the community. We found an opportunity where her

problem could be fixed, and it wasn’t going to cost her anything. I

mean, for her, that was one of the happiest days of her life. A huge

problem was taken away. She actually said to me during one of our

discussions: “John, if I was a meth head and I started working the

streets, the government would pay for this. You know that.” I just sat

there. I didn’t know what to say, because she’s right.

When you have a case like that come in and you can fix someone’s

problem, can make it go away, that is a very good feeling at the end of

the day. Well, that’s what we as MLAs are supposed to be doing. We’ve

got jobs over here to do. We’ve got assignments over here to do in

Victoria, but when we’re back in the riding, those are the types of

problems we’re supposed to be fixing. Those are the types of people we

are supposed to be trying to make a positive impact in their life and

improve and enhance the quality of their day-to-day

existence.

Proportional representation has no time for that. It’s not about

representing communities. It’s not about representing individuals. It’s

not about being in the community and fixing problems in the community.

It’s simply about having different parties represented in the

Legislature that have no necessary commitment to the community which

they may not have even set foot in previously, as they’ve been selected

from a list provided by the party. For no other reason, if it was just

that, is why I would not support proportional representation.

Some parties in this system of proportional representation tend to

be ever-present. They’re always there. They have weak electoral

performances, election in and election out. But over the long haul, they

can play a

part in governance. In Germany, the Free Democratic Party has

held the balance of power for 45 of 64 years. Their average first vote

was only 7 percent. It has never eclipsed 12.5 percent. yet at the end

of the day, this small fringe party holds the balance of power for

decades.

There is another problem that I think every one of us should be

concerned about when we talk about proportional representation, even its

advocates. It’s that it’s a system that legitimatizes and gives voice to

far-left and far-right fringe parties.

We’re seeing this throughout Europe, where parties that under the

current system would never, ever have a possibility of serving in the

legislature, of being in the parliament, actually are part of a

government, or they are part of the negotiation of the coalition. And

we’ve seen far-right leaders and political parties rising in popularity

around the world. I don’t want to have to work with communists. I don’t

want to have to work with Nazis. I don’t want to have to work with white

supremacists. I don’t want to have to work with separatists.

Under proportional representation, that is a very real

possibility. It is not that difficult to get 1 percent of the vote if

you have a very motivated base. And that means 1 percent of the seats in

this Legislature. There are some scary, scary possibilities and

consequences to that.

[3:40 p.m.]

Let’s just revisit something I alluded to not that long ago about

the actual referendum question. Well, apparently there may be two

questions. There may be three questions. We’re not really sure. That is

very, very different than what the Premier said on May 1 of this year, a

week to go in the election, wind in his sails. Things were looking good,

and here’s what he said. He was asked: “You’re

going to have 50 percent say yes or no. So you give them one system to

vote on?” The Premier says: “Yeah, exactly.” “You’re going to give them

one system to vote on.” “Yeah, exactly.”

Well, I’ve looked at the legislation, and that is not what is in

there. It is something very, very, very different that is in there. This

is one more broken promise. When we’re talking about the future of our

democratic system and we are talking about the way we elect governments,

we need something a little more reliable than a broken promise to base

that process on.

I see that my time is just about up. I’ve got very limited

opportunity to get through everything that I did want.

I want to conclude by saying that we in British Columbia are so

fortunate to live in this province, to live in this country. I don’t

think government of any persuasion has an awful lot to do with that.

It’s British Columbians that are responsible for us being as prosperous,

for us being as comfortable as we are. We fight our challenges, and we

meet and we exceed expectations. We punch above our weight, and we’re

going to continue doing that.

It’s going to be an awful lot more difficult under a system that

literally turns our democratic process upside down and gives voices to

those who would be extremely destructive and would poison the

Legislature.

I look forward to the rest of the debate and hope to have more to

say at a later date.

Hon. R. Fleming: I think I’m pleased to follow the member for Chilliwack. He did

speak at length on a number of areas around his fears, I think I would

call them, around the proportional representation. I think a lot of them

were…. In illuminating his fear around extremist representation, which

I’ll deal with later in the debate, he tended to pick, I noticed, the

most extreme examples he could find the world over to illustrate his

point and completely deviated from the norm of the experience in the

over 81 democracies that have some form of proportional representation

system.

I understand why he might cherry-pick certain democracies or

situations to illustrate his point, but I think that he has not been

persuasive at all in making an argument for what this debate on this

bill is in favour of.

First of all, he gave his reasons and his perspective, and I

respect it, on why he would be voting no and presumably urging others to

vote no when we get into a referendum campaign on proportional

representation in British Columbia. But he didn’t give very good

reasons, or any reasons at all, as to why he fails to trust voters on

deciding what their voting system will look like. That’s what this bill

is about. It’s about giving opportunity and voice to the electorate on

how they elect their elected leaders.

He would rather keep the current status quo that presumably suits

him very well, and he articulated that — regionally, and in other ways.

He would rather preserve the status quo than give constituents — writ

large, British Columbians — a chance to have a say on reforming their

election system. I don’t find that a persuasive reason to vote against

the bill.

[3:45 p.m.]

I can go along with his reasons or respect his reasons as to why

he’ll be a vocal and vigorous participant on the no side, presumably, in

a referendum. I also found it quite interesting that he accused the NDP

of holding a series of referendums on changing the voting system that

have failed. He didn’t exactly come clean on the fact that it was his

government in 2005 and 2009 who, in this Legislature, set the people of

British Columbia onto having a referendum on a system called single

transferrable vote, a form of proportional representation.

Because the New Democrats in coalition with the Greens are giving

British Columbians an opportunity to change their voting system here and

now in 2017, that’s somehow different than what Gordon Campbell and the

B.C. Liberal Party did 13 and eight years ago. Unbelievable.

By all means, I say to the member for Chilliwack. Fill your boots;

get out there and passionately debate why we should stick with one

voting system over another. But don’t condemn those who would pursue

voting reform in this jurisdiction or others and give the people that

matter the most input into that — that is, the voters of this

jurisdiction or anywhere else. It’s their decision to decide. It’s not

elected officials who dictate what their democratic chambers look like

and how representatives arrive here.

I am actually very excited about this bill. I think British

Columbians are going to welcome the opportunity to have a discussion and

cast a ballot on what British Columbia elections look like.

The very first ballot I cast was in a national referendum. It

wasn’t perhaps the most interesting question of all. It was around the

Charlottetown accord and a series of constitutional amendments proposed

nationally. But it was a novel use of a referendum to get the

temperature and the pulse and to give Canadians an opportunity to shape

their constitutional future. I participated in that election.

We’ve had referendums on a number of items in Canada throughout

history, and I think that 2017 is an opportunity to revisit that

tradition. It’s absolutely essential, of course, that if you’re going to

propose to change the voting system, you’d better have a vote on that,

and that’s exactly what we propose to do in this bill.

Let me offer a couple of arguments as to why I think the current

first-past-the-post system is problematic and why I think there is a

recurring interest in British Columbia, in Canada, to look at voting

system alternatives.

First-past-the-post democracies — it can’t be said they are any

more robust than mixed-member proportional systems or other forms of

proportional representation. In fact, I think one of the most persuasive

arguments against the first-past-the-post system is that typically….

This has been studied by the international electoral agency and other

groups, with extensive research. The chief distinction between

first-past-the-post and proportional representation, aside from how the

system actually works, is who participates.

There is a measurable gap in terms of overall voter participation

rates in the first-past-the-post system versus a proportional rep system

where, typically, the voter will have two votes: one for the local

candidate that they support and one for the party that they prefer. Then

proportionately, those votes count in different ways to make sure that

the parliament is more reflective of the voter sentiment. Not

surprisingly, the chief advantage of a mixed-member proportional system

is that the Legislature looks a lot more like the electorate when you

make your parliament based on an MMP system.

What is a noticeable trend, and this is well documented, is that

over the last 30 to 40 years, we have a seen a visible decline — year

after year, election after election, with a few punctuated exceptions —

where first-past-the-post sees a precipitous decline in voter

participation. We’ve seen that here in British Columbia. We’ve seen it

in Canada where some elections have hovered in the mid-50s in terms of

turnout rates.

It’s gotten so bad that we cheer and celebrate when we get an

election that is up to 60, 65 percent, even though that’s fewer than

two-in-three voters casting a ballot. But what we see consistently

throughout the western world and the democratic world where MMP systems

are used is voter participation rates typically in the 75 to 95 percent

range.

[3:50 p.m.]

We don’t see in MMP jurisdictions a voter participation rate

amongst 18- to 24-year-olds like we see here in Canada and British

Columbia that hovers around one in four young people turning out to

vote. You smooth over the demographic inequities in participation in MMP

systems, because, as the slogan goes — but in actuality as it goes in

these countries — “Every vote counts” in a mixed-member

system.

Those are some arguments I advance as to why I’m open-minded and

supportive of having a referendum, even if it’s the will of the people

of British Columbia to look at a different way of electing MLAs. The

debate on this bill is really about enabling British Columbians to be

able to choose, and that I fundamentally support.

I don’t need to persuade the members opposite today as to which

system is better. Our job is to persuade them that giving British

Columbians a choice on what their voting system looks like, which this

bill does, is the best path forward to continually reinvigorate and

legitimatize the democratic system that we all enjoy, no matter what its

voting system looks like.

Let me get into some additional arguments made by the member for

Chilliwack. He had the advantage, of course, of speaking first and laid

out a few concerns that I think were presented, really, as red

herrings.

I can’t imagine or think of a proportional representation system

in the world where 1 percent of the vote gets you a seat in a

parliament. There is a concern in a first-past-the-post democracy, as

well as an MMP system, that during certain times, usually times of

extreme economic duress and uncertainty, there’ll be a rise of extremist

parties. Indeed, he’s correct. We’re seeing that in different parts of

the world. But to make the correlation that pro-rep parliaments give

additional voice to extremist parties relative to first-past-the-post

countries is wrong.

We have seen fascist and far left representatives get elected in

traditional Westminster-style first-past-the-post parliaments, and we

have seen coalition governments that work — and this is a very current

example — to exclude and diminish the rise of extremist parties in their

own countries.

It’s very important to remember our history — as an Allied country

that shed blood and worked with a number of other Commonwealth nations

and other Allies to defeat fascism and Hitler in Europe — that when the

Marshall plan and the democratic institution–building happened in

postwar Europe, the most important thing was to make democracy enduring

forevermore, to restore those countries that were occupied and where

civil society was destroyed and visible minorities literally sent to the

gas chamber and wiped out — that modern Europe be rebuilt on a

fundamental respect for parliament, the rule of law and respect for

minorities within the national context.

It’s worth noting in this debate, because the member for

Chilliwack I think raised some inaccuracies, the unbridled period of

peacetime in western Europe and the North Atlantic following this

reconstruction. Most of those countries that have rid themselves of

authoritarianism and embraced democracy have chosen proportional

representation systems as the best way forward — the best way to ensure

that language and visible minorities, national minorities, are

represented in parliament; the best way to ensure that a pluralism of

political interests are heard within their jurisdictions.

I can’t remember if the member raised the issue of Italy, but that

one is thrown out there all the time. It’s worth noting that in

first-past-the-post Canada, since 1945, we’ve had 21 national elections

to the House of Commons. In Italy, since 1945, they’ve had 18

elections.

[3:55 p.m.]

Let’s put facts on the table about this debate. I’m sure the

member intended to do so. I’m sure he will do so when we get to a formal

referendum campaign in Chilliwack and throughout the rest of British

Columbia.

This debate is about whether you believe in letting British

Columbians have the ability to decide on their voting system, whether

you believe democracy is a living, breathing, organic process or whether

you believe it’s always tradition and hidebound and can never be

improved upon.

That’s probably why the other side rejected, on six occasions, the

wishes of British Columbians to get rid of big money, out of politics.

They were dragged kicking and screaming into a realization that this had

reached an absurdity.

Now, not surprisingly, they’re closed-minded to any other type of

political reform that we might pursue. Never mind that they conveniently

forget and have selective memories about their one-time interest in

changing the voting system. They unleashed a process that allowed

British Columbians, on two occasions, to vote for the single

transferrable vote system. Now that they’re on the opposition side and

no longer enjoying being in government, they’re dead set against British

Columbians having a say on a different model of voting

system.

When somebody makes an argument like that, I think it strains

every level of credibility. To say, “It’s okay when we do it, but when

somebody else talks about an issue and proposes a solution that is

related, they’re out of order. They’re wrong” — forget that argument. It

doesn’t cut ice.

What is of interest to British Columbians now is to have a look at

how we can improve the voting system here — how we can prevent, as we

have seen, various election results that give a huge distortion between

the value of one citizen’s vote which is overcompensated in the

influence it brings and the diminished value of another citizen, whose

vote counts for very little. If we believe in having more pluralism,

more representation in our chambers and if we believe that our system

can retain some of its most appealing elements….

I actually share the views of the member for Chilliwack that

having constituency-based MLAs is critically important. But I believe

that we can have a hybrid of both. We can have the best of both worlds.

We can have directly elected MLAs in this chamber, and we can have

proportionately elected people who are elected by the party preference

of the individual voter.

That is I think what is at issue here today. Do we believe that

British Columbians should have control over what their voting system

looks like? Absolutely. Do we believe that this Legislature legitimately

is able to offer British Columbians a chance to vote on what their

voting system looks like? Yes, that’s in the bill too.

If you want to agree with what the Liberals are saying…. It’s a

very confused message. It’s pro-STV one year, anti–pro rep another year.

It’s okay to have a referendum when they’re in power. It’s not okay when

a different group is in power. Well, I guess that might be persuasive if

they’re talking in a little echo chamber over there, but it’s not

persuasive out on the streets of the British Columbia, where people do

want to talk about electoral reform….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. One speaker at a time, please.

Hon. R. Fleming: And they’ll be able to talk about electoral reform, because when

this bill passes, there will be a referendum campaign in British

Columbia. It’ll be in the fall of 2018. If it passes, we’ll be writing

legislation that defines what the voting system looks like. And then

British Columbians will be able to elect members as they see fit in the

2021 general election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

L. Throness: It’s always a pleasure to rise in this House to share the opinions

of my constituents, as well as my own. I certainly think that my

constituents’ opinions will mirror my own on this legislation. I’m

speaking today on Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. It

lays out the parameters of a referendum on proportional representation

that will be held before November 30 of next year. Of course, I’ll be

speaking against the bill.

[4:00 p.m.]

We’re beginning today a debate not just about the bill but about a

larger concept, the concept of proportional representation. It’s about

the way that citizens are represented in this House, the people’s House.

The way we run our democracy is a cornerstone of our society. There

could be few more fundamental issues than the one we’re discussing

here.

Now, the bill before us doesn’t attempt to change the Constitution

Act, but it is a bill to change the way we are constituted as a

province, because the constitution of our province doesn’t just refer to

one act of this Legislature. It’s the way government is

structured.

It includes all the elements of our government: the Legislature,

its standing orders; its laws, how they’re passed and enforced; the

function of the Speaker, officers of the House; the cabinet, how it’s

made up; the judiciary, how judges are appointed, how it’s funded and

operated; the public service, with all of its dizzying complexity; the

rules of democracy, of elections; the budgetary process; the Premier and

his office; and the Lieutenant-Governor, who, we learned this summer,

has a very important and crucial role.

It includes the levels of government, municipal, regional

governments. I could go on. Our constitution, the way our government is

made up, our vast and pervasive structures throughout our society…. And

that means that any time we want to amend the constitution of our

government, we’re talking about the underlying rules that form the

foundation, that form the basis of the way we govern ourselves. Any

amendment should be subject, then, to a lot of scrutiny. It always

warrants a close look.

We don’t want to do anything that would shake the foundation of

government. We’ve enjoyed very stable government in B.C. for over a

century. To shake that foundation would send a tremor through our

society, our social policy and even our economy. To shake the

foundations of government brings uncertainty, brings changeability and

brings unpredictability to all the institutions of government that

constitute our government.

The constitution that I’m speaking about also includes political

parties, which were first instituted in B.C. in 1903. Before that, there

were none. Every member was an independent, just as they are today in

most municipalities and regional governments. But political parties were

begun for a reason, and I want to talk about that reason for a moment,

by waxing philosophical for a moment and taking the view from 30,000

feet.

This House is all about accommodation. It’s about the reconciling

of differences. If you were to consult every member in this House

privately about any public policy, you’d no doubt get a different

viewpoint from each and every member. We’d have 87 different opinions.

That’s going into the Legislature, but what comes out of the Legislature

can be only one thing. Just one policy can result for the entire

province on any issue. Either you raise taxes, or you don’t. You build a

new road, or you don’t.

As in our own lives, the Legislature is involved every day in

choosing from a panoply of choices, a direction on each issue. That

means that at some point, people have to agree on a policy, but how do

we come to that kind of common understanding when we have 87 different

opinions? Eighty-seven different wills, all of them strong enough to

catapult them to this place, which of course, is no easy

feat.

In a dictatorship, you only need one will, one person to make all

the decisions. I always say that Mr. Stalin and Chairman Mao never took

opinion polls. They didn’t care about other people’s opinions. And it

made for marvellously efficient making of public policy, even if the

policies themselves were stupid and cruel and inhumane and all those

things we reject in our society.

If you had an imaginary society, though, where you had two people

who were making all the decisions, that would require a degree of

accommodation. Those two people would have to meet and argue, come to a

common understanding about a future direction. And every time you add

another decision-maker, you also have to add another degree of

accommodation, as people need to soften and change their views rather

than tow a hard line on everything and insist that their will be done on

each and every point.

A free and democratic society is based on the notion of consensus,

people freely choosing to come together to this place, deciding great

questions of public policy and hearing everybody in that

process.

In that way, democratic politics, I’ve found, is a broadening of

the mind. It requires a change in character. As the rough edges of our

personalities are shaved off, we become less introspective, less

egocentric, less selfish, as we are forced by the system — I think in a

very positive way — to understand how the other person thinks and to

adjust our own positions in order to come to some kind of agreement with

them, often even with people with whom we would normally

disagree.

That’s where political parties come in. It’s very important that

we act in groups in this place, groups that come to a common

understanding about a policy, nail it down as a plank in the party

platform. It results in clarity for the people of B.C., helps them

decide how to vote and results in a more general policy that shaves the

rough edges off of opinions and pushes our province forward in a united

fashion.

[4:05 p.m.]

Proportional representation would alter all of that. It would

allow and even encourage smaller and smaller groupings in this place.

What would be the impact of proportional representation on how this

place works?

Let’s walk through, on a microbasis, how that might work. We have

a perfect illustration, a perfect case in point, afforded us by the

presence of the Green Party in this House before us today and the

current debate in this chamber over the recognition of a party of two

versus three.

What would happen if a party of three could go to a party of two

and still enjoy full recognition as a party in this House? That’s what

will effectively happen with proportional representation. The Green

Party has three members, but if this House decides that a political

party can have official recognition with only two, the Green Party could

be decimated. It could lose a third of its members and still remain a

recognized party in this chamber.

Let’s say that one of those Green Party members disagreed with the

other two, as may happen from time to time. The two who agreed with each

other would be less willing to accommodate and reach agreement with the

third, because they won’t lose official party status if that person

leaves. They risk very little. So the two would be more likely to dig in

their heels and not change their position. That’s the incentive that a

system favouring smaller parties will give to political parties. It’s an

incentive to disagree, to be less accommodating of each other’s

viewpoints.

If we encourage the proliferation of smaller and smaller parties

in this place, there will be less accommodation required. There will be

more disagreement, more time spent on process and negotiation between

parties, as parties try to agree on a way forward. At the same time,