Today in the legislature the BC Liberals caught the BC NDP off guard during the monday morning Private Members’ Motions section of the Legislative Orders of the Day. Normally, and standing practice is, that Private Members’ Motions are debated but never voted upon. These motions are only debated on Monday mornings.

What normally happens is that the last speaker to the Private Member’s motion moves adjournment of debate just prior to the lunch break. A new Private Member’s motion is then brought forward the following week. Unanimous consent is required before that new Private Member’s motion is debated in light of the fact that none of the previous motions have been voted on and so dispensed of. This week, and contrary to normal practice and without notice, the last BC Liberal Speaker decided not to move adjournment. The BC NDP were caught off guard by this “political trick” and nobody subsequently rose to speak. The Speaker then closed the debate and the bill moved immediately to a vote. A standing vote was called which occurs 1/2 hour before the end of the normal end of debates on Monday evening.

The motion that was being debated was put forward by John Rustad, the MLA for Nechako Lakes:

Be it resolved that this House recognizes that foreign influence on B.C. public policy issues is unacceptable, and that organizations should be banned from using foreign money for political activities.

Below I reproduce the media release our caucus issued immediately following the vote.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus statement on official opposition motion on “foreign influence” in politics
For immediate release
November 19, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, released the following statement on MLA Rustad’s motion on “foreign influence” on B.C. public policy issues.

“While we certainly welcome any opportunity for a good faith policy discussion on how to strengthen the integrity of B.C. politics, we are unclear of the policy implications of this motion,” said Weaver.

“Last year, working with the B.C. NDP, we banned overseas donations to B.C. political parties, along with all corporate and union donations. This is the single most significant policy change ever made to limit direct foreign influence in our politics. Under the previous government, any individual or corporation from anywhere in the world could donate any amount of money directly to the coffers of political parties. We are proud to have been a part of making this change.

“The vague language used in Mr. Rustad’s motion makes it unclear how we could advance a policy on this issue. ‘Organizations’ could apply to businesses, academic institutions and other types of international institutions like the United Nations. Advocating for legislative and policy changes is an important part of the work that both charities and businesses do as members of our vibrant civil society. At the same time, it is important that this advocacy be transparent and fair, and we are proud to have worked with the B.C. NDP to strengthen the rules governing lobbying done by all types of organizations in B.C.

“Canada is proud of its international reputation as a good place to do business and of its engagement on the international stage on important issues like human rights and climate change. Canadians routinely donate to international charities, and Canadian charities do incredible work that our friends abroad support. Similarly, Canadian businesses welcome international investment, as well as the opportunity to do business in other countries. Canadian non-profits and registered charities are already entirely prohibited from engaging in partisan activities. They are restricted to only engaging in non-partisan political activity if it represents no more than 10% of their resources. The contours of this issue are thus far more complex than Mr. Rustad’s motion suggests, and we must ensure that our rules reflect Canada’s openness and are fair for business, non-profits and the public.

“We continue to welcome the opportunity to collaborate with all Members from all parties on sensible, legally enforceable reforms that will strengthen the integrity of B.C.’s democracy.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature Bill 53: Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018 was up for debate at second reading. Recall that this bill aligns advertising and financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act.

As I noted earlier, the BC Liberals continue to oppose banning big money out of BC politics. They seem to think that it is alright for a single corporation or a wealthy individual or MLA to be able to put any amount of money into either supporting or opposing a recall campaign or a citizen’s initiative.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech in two parts. The first part occurred before the lunch break; I picked up immediately after lunch.

The video might be entertaining as the BC Liberals were heckling so loudly I found it difficult to hear myself at sometimes.

Videos of Speech

Text of Speech (Part 1)

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. True to form, frankly, the official opposition once more stood up today and rallied against taking big money out of politics. It’s remarkable.

I wonder if, after almost a year and a half, they’ve learned anything from the last election. I’m wondering whether the official opposition have not learnt the lesson that put them in the time-out where they’re sitting now, a lesson which is to have them realize that what matters to British Columbians is not the games and the cynicism but actually ensuring that their interests are front and centre in our democracy.

Now, listening to the member for Vancouver-Langara, moments ago, discuss another bill, frankly, and not actually address the substance of this bill, which is taking big money out of yet another aspect of B.C. politics, I had a lightbulb go on. The lightbulb was this. I realize now why the B.C. Liberals are so cynical, are throwing allegations of gaming the system, are actually claiming that this is undermining this and that. It’s because that’s the mindset by which they operated government for the last 16 years, and they recognize and realize….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Vancouver-Langara said he wasn’t here for 16 years, and I understand that.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, Oak Bay–Gordon Head has the floor.

A. Weaver: The member for Vancouver-Langara wasn’t here for 16 years, but I suspect the person who wrote his speech was.

The cynicism embodied in what we hear today is classic. It is exactly what I’ve come to now realize. It is the way that they operate.

They accuse others of being them, because the only frame that they understand is one of a few select people doing what’s in the best interest of the people that they want to represent. I understand that. It was a lightbulb, and I expect to hear more about that as we discuss this bill further.

I’m not sure what, if anything, as I said, the official opposition have learned. We, in British Columbia, were called the Wild West of political financing by the New York Times. That’s not exactly a brand that we would want to actually take some pride in. It’s an embarrassing brand.

One of the first things that was done with the new government was reflecting the will of election campaign promises of both the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens to ban big money. What was truly remarkable is that the B.C. Liberals voted against that as well. They voted against banning big money in provincial politics. Talk about self-serving, the gall.

To be in this Legislature, today again…. We listen to B.C. Liberal after B.C. Liberal go on about how somehow this proportional representation campaign is self-serving, after they voted against the bill to ban big money, at first reading of this bill. Without even having the opportunity to see what was in the bill, they voted at first reading against taking big money out.

Bill 53 complements Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017, which was passed and which again, as I pointed out, was voted against by the B.C. Liberals. It also complements Bill 15, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, which was passed in the fall of last year as well, which took big money out of local government elections. So big money is now gone from provincial elections, from local government elections and from school board elections. What’s happening right now is that the final aspect of that is being closed — in recall and initiative campaigns.

When this bill was introduced, my office put out a press release applauding this bill. What was stated in our press release — and attributed to quotes which I gave — was: “Recall campaigns should be about making politicians accountable to their constituents, not to making them subject to big money–funded hit jobs.” That was one of the quotes I gave for that. Another quote I suggested was: “These rules will apply to both proponents of recall campaigns and politicians who are attempting to stay in power.” It’s conveniently forgotten by members opposite that big money can be used not only by a proponent of a recall campaign but by a defendant in a recall campaign. That is being cleared up in this particular legislation.

This legislation will assure that a sufficiently motivated electorate is able to recall their elected officials without risking the process being corroded by the influence of big money. Politicians should be accountable to voters, plain and simple. Unions, corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals should not have a disproportionate say in our democracy, whether they support an elected official or the recall campaign against that elected official. Right now, any person, any union, any corporation — any entity anywhere in the world — can give any amount of money, any time they want, to any recall campaign. I think we don’t want that. I truly think we don’t want that here.

As I said in our press release, I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the B.C. Liberals voted against this legislation. This is the same party that refused to act while our province was internationally derided as the Wild West of political fundraising, only to make a 180 reversal in their summer of 2017 throne speech, in a desperate attempt to cling to power.

It’s remarkable that the official opposition continues to fail to understand that democracy should reflect the views of citizens as equal members of society, not the ability of special interests who happen to have slightly deeper pockets.

Coming back to this legislation. Under the Recall and Initiative Act, when a recall petition is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, the voter becomes the proponent of the recall petition and has up to 60 days to garner signatures and submit the petition for verification.

There have been 26 recall campaigns that went through. The 27th was actually not followed through on, because the actual MLA at the time resigned before votes were counted. No recall campaign has been successful. One, where the proponents thought that they had enough signatures, turned out not to be successful — because, as we know with petitions, you’re in a mall somewhere and anybody can sign, and of course, you have to be in the riding that you were. In fact, after they counted, a substantial number of the votes were deemed to be ineligible, and it was not successful. So there has not been a successful recall campaign.

It’s remarkable, again, that the member for Vancouver-Langara suggested that there was one. He suggested that in fact there was a successful one. There was not. Again, alt-facts. This is very similar to what we’re seeing in the self-serving discussion by the opposite side about proportional representation.

As mentioned, a voter can only petition to recall the member for the electoral district in which they are registered to vote. That doesn’t stop people anywhere in the province, any corporation, donating any amount of money to that initiative, right now. But that will change. We also know that there’s a very high bar in recall campaigns. Forty percent of voters eligible to sign the petition in that electoral district must actually sign. If the petition meets the criteria, a by-election must be called within 90 days.

Now, I know that the B.C. Liberals are all salivating about the opportunity to have a recall campaign — a recall campaign here and a recall campaign there.  The reality, I suggest, is that they should actually be worrying about recall campaigns in their own ridings, based on their performance in this Legislature over the last session — where we have spent almost 36 hours debating a bill that is actually being debated solely in the self-interest of a party that is made up of multiple factions that are clearly warring within themselves.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: They’re warring within themselves. You can hear it in the banter in this room. It’s a party that’s afraid of the future, a party that is afraid of British Columbians actually having a say in their own democracy — because they might not like what the outcome is.

No other Canadian jurisdiction provides a legislative framework for voters to remove an elected member from office. We are unique here. Successful petitions, as we note, do result in the immediate removal of an MLA. A recall petition cannot be initiated until at least 18 months after an MLA is elected. In the present case, that date would be November 10. It’s incredibly easy for a citizen to initiate a recall campaign. You basically need a 50-buck processing fee and a statement not exceeding 200 words setting out why, in the opinion of the applicant, the recall campaign is warranted.

We have an initiative…. It’s very similar for initiatives. I’ll come to that in a second. We still have an initiative that just stopped — an initiative to basically stop Site C. I don’t know what happened to that, because we still haven’t seen the signatures. It didn’t get a lot of attention.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, we have no idea. I never saw that.

Anybody can do these. That’s the point I’m raising. Whether they’re successful or not, anyone can do it. The point of the matter is that what’s being done here is that certain rules are applied to ensure that vested interests — that have been so embraced by the former government, now official opposition — cannot use their deep pockets to actually influence.

I do note the time, though, and I reserve my right to continue my position in debate.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Text of Speech (Part 2)

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party.

Leader, Third Party.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I continue my place in this debate after the demotion I just received over lunch.

For those in Hansard, I was introduced as the House Leader, Third Party instead of the Leader of the Third Party.

Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Third Party.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I rise again to continue my place as designated speaker from the Third Party on Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018.

I want to summarize where I left off at the last, just before lunch. As I left off, we were standing here in this Legislature essentially debating this. On the one side of this House, we have a party and a third party — a government and a third party — who are supporting legislation which will eliminate big money from recall campaigns and initiatives. What that’s saying is that this act — that is, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act — will come into compliance, in essence, or come in to be similar to the elections act — which the Liberals voted against, mind you — to ban big money from B.C. politics.

Now, what the official opposition is arguing, in summary, to this is they’re arguing against this bill. In essence, this is what they’re saying. They’re defending the ability of one individual or one corporation with deep pockets to spend millions of dollars because he or she may have a personal grudge against an MLA. They’re aggrieved by the affronts to democracy that this would have by not allowing one individual with a grudge against an MLA or one individual with a grudge against a government’s policy to be able to spend their millions to actually recall an MLA or put forward an initiative.

You know, members opposite laugh. I mean, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who seems to find this all very funny, should probably spend more time talking to British Columbians about how happy they were that big money was finally from B.C. politics. Let’s see him defend and stand up there, stand up and defend the fact  that they, the B.C. Liberals, continue to argue that it is okay. A year after we banned it from B.C. elections, they continue to argue that it is okay for a corporation to intervene in our electoral process and spend millions of dollars because they don’t like an MLA or they want an initiative. This, to the B.C. Liberals, is democracy. On this side of the House, we’re saying: “Enough of that.”

You clearly — you being the B.C. Liberals — have learned nothing from the last election. You have not listened to British Columbians for the last year and a half. You continue to think that British Columbians think it is okay that you seem to see that your only goal in this Legislature is to stand and complain about the fact that you’re in the opposition. At some point…

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member. Through the Chair.

A. Weaver: …the B.C. Liberals need to recognize that they’re in a time-out, that they’re going to be sitting in opposition for a long time. As soon as they come to realize that, they might actually start to debate issues that matter here in the province of British Columbia, not issues that come to the foundation of their existence as a party and their quest for power.

I cannot believe this. They seem not to have learned anything. They seem to not recognize that people in British Columbia are cynical about the B.C. Liberal approach to politics. They seem to not recognize that it is not okay for friends and donors to that party — through you, hon. Speaker, the other party that’s not on this side of the House…. It is not okay for them to have corporate donors give them hundreds of thousands of dollars and then them make decisions — some of which I hope to explore in the weeks and months ahead — that are clearly not in the best interests of British Columbians but are clearly in the best interests of the donors to the party making those decisions.

This is what we’re hearing. We’re hearing a defence of the status quo from a couple of years ago, the status quo that put opposition where they are. In the debate, their critic to this file, the member for Vancouver-Langara, did not once mention the fact that this bill is actually banning big money. His remarks to the debate were a diatribe, a continuation of the 36 hours we’ve had to sit here and listen to the drivel — yes, drivel — misinformation, alternate facts emanating from members opposite as they try to campaign on a quest of fear over proportional representation.

Again, they clearly haven’t understood that in British Columbia, the largest voting demographic are the millennials now. The largest voting demographic are the millennials. And what they don’t understand is that millennials are voting out of hope — the hope expressed by the two parties over here working together. They are not reacting to the fear of a dynasty from the last century, struggling to find a mandate for itself, unable to define who they are but united under one quest — the quest for power.

They have the gall at times to suggest that ride-hailing not being brought in — it’s going to be brought in this fall; it’s not being brought in now — was somehow not their responsibility.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

A. Weaver: I sat in this Legislature, and not once, not twice, but three times brought in a private member’s bill. They had every opportunity to enact to bring in ride-hailing three years ago. But ah, they didn’t do it. Why? Because as I pointed out before lunch, the cynical framework that governs the party opposite is one in which it is all about power.

Heaven forbid they actually bring in ride-hailing in the lead up to the 2017 provincial election and alienate a few key ridings south of the Fraser that they were hoping to get. Fortunately, they were trumped out by removing some tolls on those same ridings. But nevertheless, it wasn’t brought in. There is simply no high ground for the members opposite on this file. In fact, it’s almost humorous when they bring it forth.

Coming back to this Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. Again, we’re seeing nothing more than consistency here, eliminating the ability of big money to influence politics in B.C. in its final form.

Coming to some of the changes that I outlined earlier that are happening. We know that the Election Act was amended last year and that this area, this particular component, the Recall and Initiative Act, was not. Right now, all that’s happening, all that’s happening…. This is what we’re debating here, not proportional representation that they’re hung up on.

Honestly, I come back to 36 hours in here. I’ve heard the same speech for 36 hours. For those riveted to Hansard, just go back and type in the words “stacked deck” and see how many of the members opposite have been reading their media lines.

Change game. I mean “rigged game.” Look up “rigged game” as well. They have a 22-year-old staffer down in the basement who is writing them speeches, and we have the puppets opposite who are reading the same speech member after member after member. It’s frankly embarrassing that we have 42 members opposite who collectively cannot write an independent speech, and we have to listen to that here.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. Let’s get back to the bill please

A. Weaver: Coming back to the financing window, we know that this act aligns financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act and changes that were made last year in the Election Act amendment changes last year that, of course, members opposite also voted against because, of course, they still want big money in politics.

We know that this bill before us is banning union and corporations just like has occurred in the local government elections, school board elections and provincial elections. We know that it’s setting a $1,200 limit to contributions for individual British Columbians just like exists in the Elections Act, just like exist in local governments and school boards. We know it creates a third-party spending limit of $5,000 for advertising during the recall petition period.

Frankly, these were needed changes. Frankly, I do not think it is okay if somebody with a grudge or an MLA who happens to have access to a deep corporate sponsor could somehow in the case of an MLA who can — there might be a recall campaign — perhaps go to somebody and get several $100,000 to prop up a campaign and spread disinformation.

I don’t think that is right. I don’t think it is right that the opposite could occur — that a particular vested interest could solely fund a campaign initiative in British Columbia. These are common sense changes. Again, I get these common sense changes make the Liberals feel uncomfortable. They make them feel uncomfortable because they’ve been playing by this rigged game with a stacked deck for far too long. What they’re finally seeing is that rigged game with a stacked deck is being fixed. They can’t take it.

They can’t take it because they know that the reason why they were able to remain in power and the reason why they were able to ignore British Columbians for so long was because they could appeal to their corporate donors for vast quantities of money to ensure that they got the airways filled with their message, went on character assassinations with anyone who opposed them. That’s the way they go. That’s the way they operate.

Look at where we are now. Corporate donations no longer. The B.C. Greens are nipping at the tails of the B.C. Liberals in terms of annual funding. We are not too far from them in terms of annual funding. That’s what happens when people have to support parties, not vested interests.

As I said, the bill is common sense. Only one recall campaign can exist at a time. Now, I heard the member for Vancouver-Langara somehow thinks this was an affront to democracy, clearly not even listening to his own arguments during his diatribe. On one hand, he would suggest that it’s important for people to actually have an attempt to follow through with a recall and that maybe now it might be misused. Well, in actual fact, the best way to misuse a recall campaign, as soon somebody did one, is to start three others. You’re just going to get people not knowing which petitions they’ve signed.

This is actually cleaning up a problem that existed with the GST initiative that went forward and passed — the HST one. What if we had four that were running at the same time? Four initiatives like that? How would that initiative have been successful? There would’ve been many people who signed and said, “I already signed it.” Confusion would abound. That’s commonsense rule 1. Again, B.C. Liberals hate that because it’s not the kind of status quo of their cynical party politics from the past.

Another smart change. We’re getting a prohibition of a recall petition six months before general voting day for a scheduled election. My understanding is that I think there was a recommendation for a year, but this is a compromise from what was actually asked for by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Six months makes sense. It’s kind of ridiculous to be able to have a recall campaign initiated in six months so that after you have the 30 days, you’ve got a few months left. You call a by-election, and the person basically may not even come into the Legislature, or very much. And then you swear him in; you swear him out. Back to the election. It’s consistent, again, with by-election legislation. The six-month time frame is entirely consistent with that.

Makes some positive changes, this act does, to violations of the act. And it provides the Chief Electoral Officer with regulation-making authority. What it’s not doing, despite the fact…. If you listen to members opposite, you’d think the world was going to end. Chicken Little and his or her friends opposite would suggest that the sky is falling. This bill does not provide any new protections for MLAs. It actually creates a level playing field that ensures the interests of British Columbians are front and centre, not vested corporate and union interests.

You know, 40 percent — if people wanted to make this harder, they would’ve pushed it up to 50 percent, to 60 percent. Forty percent — nothing has changed with that requirement, 40 percent of the electorate. It’s a very high threshold, a hard threshold, but it is still the only threshold that exists in Canada. We are the one jurisdiction that has that.

I don’t hear us today saying: “Let’s repeal this legislation.” I don’t hear government today saying: “Oh, let’s make it 60 percent.” I don’t hear government today saying, let’s ban donations. All I hear in this bill is government putting forward a very, very reasonable approach to protect our democracy from the influence of big money and special interests.

To conclude, I have sat here now for, it must be, two weeks listening to members opposite in question period, in speeches. It seems that they have forgotten what it means to govern in this province, what it means to be in opposition. The role of an opposition is not to try to solely argue for everything in terms of trying to actually save a party and get back into power no matter what. It’s about representing the will of the people of British Columbia.

The will of the people of British Columbia is that big money be gone out of politics here.

[Applause.]

Aw, thank you to — I don’t know whether I’m able to acknowledge somebody not sitting in their chair, but to — somebody who normally sits down in the Premier’s chair for the support of this.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Of course, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson is shocked that the Premier would support this bill.

What should be shocking to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson is the fact that they, their party, are yet again standing up before British Columbians and saying that it is okay for one corporation to donate whatever they want, because they have a grudge against an MLA, to try to out that MLA. Or it’s equally okay for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson to go to a corporation and say: “I have a recall campaign against me. Can you give me a million bucks to fund the no campaign.”

He’s essentially arguing that that’s okay. That is the essence of the argument that we have before us. The members opposite think this is funny, but what is funny is their lack of moral compass, the fact that their wind vane is broken. It’s spinning. There’s no direction. There are no values.

British Columbians don’t know what they stand for, apart from trying to get back into power to ensure that their vested corporate interests are at the table, through donations, to actually ensure that their friend’s interest, as opposed to British Columbians’ interests, are put front and centre in this Legislature in decision-making in British Columbia.

With that, I and my colleagues proudly stand in support of this bill, and I look forward to continued debate.

True to form, the BC Liberals once more stood up today and voted against taking big money out of BC Politics. Recall last year they also voted against taking big money out of our provincial election campaigns. This time it was at First Reading of Bill 53: Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. This bill aligns advertising and financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act.

I’m not sure what, if anything, the BC Liberals have learned since the last election. British Columbians were well and truly fed up with the “wild west” of BC political financing: Any person, union or corporation anywhere in the world was able to donate any amount of money to any political party any time they wanted.

Bill 53 complements Bill 3: Election Amendment Act, 2017 and Bill 15: Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017 which were passed last year to ensure provincial, local government and school board elections were free from the influence of big money.

Below I reproduce the press release my office issued on this topic.

Media Release

Weaver: Taking big money out of recall campaigns will strengthen our democracy
For immediate release
October 30, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, today commended the government’s legislation that would take big money out of recall campaigns. Weaver says the legislation builds on the work the B.C. NDP government and his Caucus are doing to make the B.C. political system more responsive to voters rather than special interests.

“Recall campaigns should be about making politicians accountable to their constituents – not to making them subject to big money-funded hit jobs,” said Weaver.

“These rules will apply to both proponents of recall campaigns and politicians who are attempting to stay in power. This legislation will ensure that a sufficiently motivated electorate is able to recall their elected officials, without risking the process being corroded by the influence of big money. Politicians should be accountable to voters – plain and simple. Unions, corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals should not have a disproportionate say in our democracy, whether they support the elected official or the recall effort in any given campaign.

“I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the B.C. Liberals voted against this legislation. This is the same party that refused to act while our province was internationally derided as the “wild west” of political fundraising, only to make a 180 reversal in their summer 2017 throne speech in a desperate attempt to cling onto power. They continue to fail to understand that democracy should reflect the views of citizens as equal members of society, not the ability of special interests to pay more.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Today the voting packages start getting mailed out for the 2018 refendum on proportional representation. My colleague Sonia Furstenau and I released a joint media statement on this topic. It is reproduced below.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus statement on proportional representation referendum
For immediate release
October 22, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, and Sonia Furstenau, spokesperson for electoral reform, issued the following statement on the beginning of the referendum on proportional representation.

“Proportional representation is a chance to give British Columbians a greater say in what goes on in Victoria,” said Weaver.

“Pro Rep will deliver a Legislature that actually reflects how people voted. This means that governments under proportional representation are much more representative and responsive to the views and desires of citizens.

“Our province and our world are facing major shifts, manifesting in challenges like technological automation, climate change and growing inequality. Proportional representation will make it easier for citizens to get engaged in the entire political process, including running for office. One of my greatest hopes is that proportional representation will inspire more young people to run for office and to get elected. The decisions we make today will have a far greater impact on the youth of our society than on anyone else – they deserve more seats at the table and I believe prop rep will make that a reality.”

Furstenau emphasized that proportional representation leads to more collaborative, cooperative democracy.

“With the first minority government in 60 years, British Columbians are getting a chance to see the benefits of collaboration in action. Just one year into our Agreement with the B.C. NDP, we have gotten big money out of politics, made historic investments in education and child care, taken action on the housing crisis and are eliminating MSP premiums.

“Proportional representation will enable us to shift away from a combative, hyper-partisan majoritarian system to one where politicians are required to work together. This means elected officials can focus more on policy outcomes, rather than simply on scoring partisan wins. Voters will feel the benefits the first time they go to cast their ballots under Pro Rep. Proportional representation will end strategic voting, because it gives people a chance to vote for what they want, instead of against what they don’t want. It will end the cynical vote-buying in swing ridings, and greatly mitigate negative campaigning because politicians will no longer be playing a zero-sum game for all of the power. Voting ‘yes’ on prop rep will lead to a healthier, kinder democracy, which in my view believe is exactly what the world needs right now.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Yesterday in the BC Legislature we debated Bill 40: Electoral Reform Referendum Amendment Act. This bill requires a second referendum to occur, should the proportional representation referendum pass, after two general elections conducted under proportional representation. It gives the electorate a chance to determine whether or not they want to stay with the new system of proportional representation.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech in support of the bill. I was very surprised to listen to the BC Liberals strongly oppose it. Whether you are in support of, or opposed to, proportional representation, it seems to me that it is important to give British Columbians a say in their democracy.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Well, that certainly was half an hour of righteous indignation on display for us today. I had not planned to start my speech with this quote, but I think I will, because it’s fitting after the member from the Langley area just went on that diatribe.

This is a quote from a video by Justin Greenwood, named the interim deputy leader of the B.C. Conservative Party. This is with reference to Bill 40, which is before us, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, and which is, in essence, adding a new, second referendum to elections after now, within 13 months, to validate, if proportional representation passes, that British Columbians want to stay with the system.

This is what Justin Greenwood said, and I think it’s apt and fitting for me to read this into the record. On a video available on YouTube, he said this on behalf of the B.C. Conservative Party:

“As a party, we have chosen not to take a stance on the referendum at this time, other than to ensure our membership and fellow British Columbians have the information needed to make their choice. I felt it necessary to make this video because of the vote ‘no’ side, which is mostly supported by” — he used the name; it’s the Leader of the Official Opposition — “the B.C. Liberals by using fearmongering tactics laced with misleading statements in order to tell you how to vote. This is solely because if prop rep passes, their party will implode. It’s purely for self-preservation purposes only.

“Those attributes and tactics are not the ones I would support in a party leader, let alone someone who is assuming to be the next Premier of British Columbia. Indeed, the Leader of the Official Opposition should be helping spread the information needed for British Columbians to make an educated vote on an electoral system that suits them best, a choice you can make by using your freedom and agency.

“The Liberals have stated that the ballot is very confusing and lacks direction. Luckily,” he says, “I’ve gathered an elite team of problem-solvers which consists of a crossword puzzle superstar, a word search champion and a sudoku master to help crack the code of the confusing ballot.“

Therein, he went on to show quite clearly how easy it is for British Columbians to read the ballot.

I, frankly, am shocked at the language I’m hearing from members opposite. I’m shocked that they have so little respect for the intelligence of British Columbians that they feel they need to try to mislead, to fearmonger and to stand up and ensure that they vote the way the B.C. Liberals want them to vote, without actually trusting that British Columbians might actually be interested in learning.

What’s also remarkable about what I’m hearing is…. If I take you back to the throne speech of June 22, 2017, this is what the B.C. Liberal throne speech said. It said the following:

“The results that British Columbians delivered in the May election require cooperation. Your government is committed to working with all parties in the Legislature.

“Following referenda in 2005 and 2009, there remains a desire by many members in this place to revisit electoral reform.

“With the confidence of this House, your government will enable a third referendum on electoral reform. It will require extensive public consultation to develop a clear question and will ensure rural representation in the Legislature is protected.

“It is vital that the referendum reflect the views of British Columbians, not just its political parties.“

This is precisely the process that government has gone through over the last many months in an unprecedented consultative process leading to, I believe, 91,000-some-odd submissions — incredible consultation. What’s remarkable, too, is that we hear the rhetoric emanating from members opposite. Let me take you back a few months to what these same members, two of whom have already spoken, said in response to the throne speech.

Here, for example, the member for Richmond-Steveston, who hasn’t spoken yet, said in response:

“Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized in recent years. We held referendums” — it’s grammatically incorrect; it should be “referenda” — “on electoral reform in 2005 and 2009 — both times of particular importance to me because I was either a candidate or seeking re-election as a member of this assembly. The discussion around electoral system is a key facet of our democracy, and renewing a healthy debate on our system is important. That’s why we have committed to a third referendum on electoral reform.“

That’s the member for Richmond-Steveston arguing passionately for another referendum on electoral reform.

Here’s what the member for Chilliwack-Kent said:

“We said that the people of British Columbia will decide that question, and we will provide a path to that decision point. I have no problem with that.“

The member for Abbotsford-Mission said the following:

“Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized by our time in government. The discussion about electoral reform will allow us to open up that dialogue, and it’s been a source of discussion around the province. Our government is addressing that. It’s something we make a top priority.

“We are also looking,” he went on to say, “at electoral reform. Electoral reform, I know, is something that is of particular interest to our friends….

“We’re going to develop another referendum and develop a clear question, which reflects the needs of British Columbia, but protecting key populations and ensuring that rural areas are treated fairly here in the assembly….“

Precisely what government has done.

How about the member for Penticton? He says the following:

“We know that if there is a reform that takes place in the future on how people are able to govern out of this wonderful building…. There is a promise that has been put forward for electoral reform no later than November 30, 2018. I hope we work together” — I love those words — “through that extensive consultation that should take place, to develop a clear question that British Columbians can understand….“

Sidebar. Do you want…? And this is part of the parody in the interim B.C. Conservative deputy leader’s video. He shows the ballot. “The question is, basically: do you want proportional representation, or do you want to stay with first-past-the-post? Yes or no?” Pretty clear, if you ask me.

This question, in this other referendum, Bill 40 — we haven’t seen the exact wording — will essentially be: do you want to stay with the system we just went through, assuming that prop rep passes? These are pretty clear questions.

Coming back to what the member for Penticton said, he said:

“A clear question that British Columbians could understand and can see that it is 100 percent in its meaning and depth and also that not only protects urban areas but also protects the rural areas of British Columbia. I think that’s really important, because sometimes rural B.C. is forgotten.“

I agree with the member for Penticton. In fact, that is being reflected in the options that have been put forward.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who was over the top with his enthusiasm — opposite — for this referendum today, rhetoric that’s screaming out of the windows and off the ramparts, said the following in the throne speech:

“We are committed to enabling a third referendum with a clear question and absolute protection for rural representation.“

Seemed okay at the time.

The critic, the member for Vancouver-Langara, who spoke first in this debate, said:

“For many, it’s important that we conduct a third referendum on electoral reform to give British Columbians an opportunity to consider, once again, what is the best electoral system for the province and its people. Again, we listened, and we’ve acted.”

On and on and on it went in the response to the B.C. Liberal throne speech — quite frankly remarkable. You would never have known it, given the vitriol that was thrown government’s way today.

Again, coming back to the interim deputy leader of the B.C. Conservative Party, Justin Greenwood, he says it all. He says…. Here again it summarizes the reason why he felt he needed to speak. He needed to speak out because he felt that: “The B.C. Liberals are using fearmongering tactics laced with misleading statements in order to tell you how to vote, and this is solely because if prop rep passes, their party will implode. It’s purely for self-preservation purposes only. Those are not the attributes and the tactics that one would want in a leader.”

I’ve listened to the arguments. I’ve attended a debate with the member for Richmond-Queensborough, a debate on prop representation. I’ve listened to the no side. What saddens me is that these debates — not the case of the member for Richmond-Queensborough; he did a very fine presentation — are not constrained by facts.

Even today, we heard statements of truth that are nothing more than conjecture, fearmongering about boundaries. I don’t know what the boundary is going to be for my riding if there’s a first-past-the-post election in 2021, because Elections B.C. periodically reviews the boundaries. I found out that I had parts of Victoria in this election not too long before this past election. It happens all the time that we look at electoral boundaries.

They talk about rural B.C. and “can’t draw maps.” Well, in fact, if they actually read the document, you would see that it’s quite clearly outlined about how ridings would likely double in size. You basically bring two neighbouring ridings together in most of the cases, with the exception of the rural-urban one, where you would have slightly different changes. It’s very clearly described what would happen there.

It’s also very clearly outlined as to how a process would go forward to determine open versus closed lists. My own preference is open list. Open list is my preference. They, the members opposite, seem to suggest that somehow it’s pre-decided that it must be closed list, that somehow there’s party elite that are going to be put in to become Premier without ever being elected.

In the world, there are — I’m not counting Myanmar and Venezuela — only a couple of examples of western democracies that still retain first-past-the-post: the United States and Canada. Even in Great Britain, Scotland is on a form of proportional representation, whereas England is not. New Zealand. Australia, in the Senate, and it has a preferential balloting system in the House. Virtually every single democracy in the world has a got a form of proportional representation.

Heck, the latest result in Bavaria showed a doubling of support of the Green Party there, a surge of support in the Green Party in Bavaria, a state within Germany that has proportional representation. Prince Edward Island went through the referendum. It passed. They decided not to do it.

B.C. has the potential here of being a leader in Canada if the people of British Columbia want it to change. It’s very simple. Do you want to change or not? If it changes, two elections from now, there’ll be another referendum to say: “Do you like what you saw? Shall we keep it?”

We go back to the New Zealand example. The ballot here in British Columbia is very similar to the ballot that was done in New Zealand when they went for proportional representation.

I can tell you, from somebody working in the Legislature in a minority government, that it is hard working with another party. It is not easy at all when you come together with very different backgrounds and ideas. But you get better policy, better public policy, when you’re forced to collaborate, forced to listen. Sometimes you have to give more than you want, and sometimes you get to take more than you thought you would get. But it’s about collaboration and cooperation. It can get testy at times. People can be firm in their positions.

But good public policy arises when politicians are forced to work together, and we’ve been demonstrating that here in this Legislature for the last 18 months or so, much to the chagrin of members opposite, who can’t fathom the fact that different political parties can actually work together.

Instead, they have to create some fearmongering approach that somehow the world as we know it is going to end and evoking the raiding of Normandy, for heaven’s sake. I mean, this is just so offensive — evoking the troops in Normandy as somehow being affronted. One member opposite talked about how the people who made the greatest sacrifice wouldn’t be able to vote. Of course they can’t vote. They’re not here today. They made the sacrifice. The rhetoric that was coming was just outrageous.

This is really about a referendum, and do we trust the people of British Columbia, as we have twice before in two votes on the single transferable vote? Do we trust them to have enough information? Do we trust them to be able to determine what’s in their best interests? The B.C. Liberals don’t. They don’t trust British Columbians to actually think for themselves. It’s not the B.C. Liberal way. The B.C. Liberal way is: “We’ll tell you because we know best. Not only that. It’s a small section of us — the elite in the party.” Even the backbenchers: “We’ll tell you the way it is, and it shall be that way.” This is what we’re seeing modelled here in the objections of the members opposite to this referendum.

Remarkable. Even if they didn’t like proportional representation, why would they not support this? This is giving British Columbians a way out if they don’t like it. Even if you don’t…. Again, I understand that there are 17 years of nefarious kinds of activities and backroom deals and conniving. For them, everything that’s done has to have a Machiavellian outcome. I recognize they think that this is some kind of Machiavellian approach to actually influence things. How about: it’s actually listening to what people have said? People have actually said they wanted a chance to have an election.

Have they ever thought that maybe government is listening to people? I know that the B.C. Liberals had a difficult time listening to people, but here we have a government listening to people, bringing in legislation that says: “You know what? If you do vote for this system and you don’t like it, we will give you a way out two years from now.”

I’ve heard so many examples of misinformation being put forward on this referendum. For example, I’ve heard people say that somehow party elites will choose who’s coming in. Well, let me tell you right now, if you were in a number of ridings in British Columbia where you could essentially run anybody from a particular party and you know they will get elected, the person who actually gets appointed is from the party. It is the party right now that already determines which members represent that party in certain ridings. In some ridings, getting the actual nomination from the party is pretty much a shoo-in to being elected. So right now….

Frankly, we just have to go back to the referendum when the Premier at the time lost her seat in Vancouver–Point Grey and was parachuted into Kelowna West, where she was able to get a seat. This is already happening in terms of the claims that the members opposite are making.

The other things that they have said are things like: “Well, you’ll lose local representation.” The irony — to hear that coming from the members opposite about losing local representation. How do the people in the Okanagan feel right now, knowing that there is not a single MLA sitting on the government side? Not very good about that, I can tell you. How do you think the people of the Okanagan, who didn’t agree with government policy, felt — not ever having somebody sitting on the opposition side for the previous 17 years? Not very happy.

While some of these Liberal MLAs might think that they represent all people, I can tell you, as an MLA serving the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, that I was inundated from emails, from constituents in Liberal ridings, because their MLAs would not take on the issues because they contravened the political party of the day’s policy.

This isn’t about access to health care systems. You know, maybe you have a person who needs help accessing. All constituency offices work in that regard. This is about…. Perhaps there’s an overpass in a region where there’s a concern for a natural ecosystem, and the MLA for the area is not willing to actually entertain meetings with concerned citizens. They come to us.

If, in these regions, you had representation from both opposition and government, you’d actually get better local representation. The Okanagan. Pick nine MLAs who are serving in the Okanagan right now. You probably would have had…. Of those nine, five of them would have been B.C. Liberal. Three of them would have been B.C. NDP, and one of them would have been B.C. Green. The Okanagan would be served by members in opposition, members in the Green and also members in the government. Healthy for democracy.

Vancouver Island right now has but one representative in Parksville-Qualicum. There is nobody in opposition from the Victoria region, and prior to that, there was nobody in government in the capital regional district. That’s wrong. Liberals in the capital regional district need representation. They need representation in this Legislature, but they don’t have it.

Again, it comes back to what was so succinctly pointed out by Mr. Greenwood, the B.C. Conservative Party interim deputy leader, who essentially says: “The fear is really an internal fear that the B.C. Liberals know that their loosey-goosey coalition of conservatives and liberals is going to fall apart.”

To be honest, there’s hardly any Liberals left, actually, over on that side, but that’s okay because they’ve been…. I know there’s one over there. I know there’s one.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I do have a lot of time for that one federal Liberal over there. But there’s not many left in that party.

This would be healthy for democracy. It would be healthy for there to be a party that actually represented the views, the prevailing views, of people in the Fraser Valley, front and centre when issues come up that they feel are not being dealt with. It would be healthy for people to feel like their views in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and elsewhere were actually represented in a manner that puts…. Not having to be diffused by competing interests, by certain ridings here and certain ridings there, but are actually able to speak out passionately for these issues in both opposition and in government.

If you’re an opposition MLA, you can speak out directly. If you’re in government, you can’t speak out directly. It’s much more difficult.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I like the chippery over there.

I understand that the Liberals….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s 8:30, true. Whose idea was this to go till nine o’clock?

Coming back to the point, much of the information that has been put forward, I fear, is actually doing the no side an actual great disservice. I have talked to many people, and people feel very suspicious as to information that they can quickly check today themselves on the Internet to be factually incorrect.

When factually incorrect information is put forward, it does a disservice — talks about these splinter parties somehow rising out of nowhere when you need to have 5 percent of the vote in order to actually get representation. Again, a misrepresentation that is being put there.

People have talked about the fact that there would be party lists — that all these people will just be appointed from backroom deals. Misrepresentation there.

People talk about loss of local representation. Again, misrepresentation there, because you have the constituents. People somehow think that this is unique in the world when, again, what’s different is actually the fact that in British Columbia we are very much unlike the rest of the world where forms of proportional representation exist.

With that, I really, truly cannot understand why members opposite…. I feel they have lost their moral compass. Why they would not vote in support of a bill that actually gives British Columbians a choice to go back to the system if they don’t like proportional representation and it passed is really mind-boggling to me. I wish I could understand it. I look forward to some more of the commentary coming our way in the debates of this bill.

Video of Speech