The committee met at 8:33 a.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Jessie Sunner. I am the MLA for Surrey-Newton, the Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives and the Chair of the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform, which is a parliamentary committee comprised of members of the government, official opposition and Third Party.

I’d like to acknowledge that today we are meeting on the traditional, unceded territories of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and səlilwətaɬ peoples here in Vancouver.

Today we’ll be continuing with presentations related to the first part of our mandate regarding democratic engagement, voter participation and electoral reform. The committee is also accepting written input until July 25. To participate, please visit our website at bcleg.ca/consultations.

I’ll now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with the Deputy Chair.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Good morning, everyone. Ward Stamer, MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson and opposition Forests critic.

Amna Shah: Good morning, everyone. My name is Amna Shah. I’m the MLA for Surrey City Centre and the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health and Addictions. Thank you for being here today.

Rob Botterell: My name is Rob Botterell. I am the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands and the House Leader of the Green caucus. Welcome to a great day of hearings. Thank you.

Sheldon Clare: Good morning. I’m Sheldon Clare. I am the MLA for Prince George–North Cariboo, and I am the Conservative caucus Deputy Whip.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Assisting the committee today are Karan Riarh, Kayla Wilson from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Danielle Suter and Dwight Schmidt from Hansard Services.

We will get started with our first presenter, who is Arthur Klassen.

Good morning, Arthur. Welcome to the committee. Just a reminder that you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions. Please get started.

[8:35 a.m.]

Presentations on Voter Engagement
and Electoral Reform

University of British Columbia

Arthur Klassen: My name is Arthur Klassen. I was born here in B.C., right here in Vancouver. I lived in 13 different addresses before my parents moved away from home. That included 5½ years of in and out of Ocean Falls up the coast, down to Abbotsford. It included 3½ years on the Island, in the Comox Valley. From 1975 to 2010, my stomping grounds extended from east Abbotsford to Langley city.

I haven’t actually lived in any of the ridings that you guys are representing. I’ve driven through the north Cariboo because my parents eventually went to Fort St. John. I have friends and relatives all over the province. The Ocean Falls diaspora extended to Quesnel, where one family went. So I’ve heard things here and there.

In trying to prepare my remarks for today, I got daunted in shortening it. My words won’t fail, but the time might fail. So I decided to scrap it and try something else.

I really have only three things I want to ask you guys to do. I appreciate the time that this government is allowing for this. We desperately need proportional representation, and I’ll enlarge on that in a bit. What we don’t need is single-member alternative vote. What we need is proportionality, and single-member alternative vote will not deliver that for us. If you look at the Australian Parliament, the Lower House is single-member alternative vote, and it’s not proportional at all. If you look at the Australian Senate, it’s STV, and it’s very proportional.

I’d also ask that we not have another referendum.

There’s a podcast called The Strategists. I’m not sure if they’ve continued, because one of their members has become an MP in Alberta. But as a test, they ran some Google polls for proportional representation, largely the same scheme as being asked about, but one question was slightly different from another, and the result was wildly skewed.

We have good polling that says Canadians and B.C.’ers want proportional representation of some kind at the rate of 68 percent nationally. I’m not sure what it is in B.C. But this is a win. A government that brings this in will be popular, okay?

Unfortunately, in some ways, proportional representation is coming for your seats, because in all likelihood, the scheme will be different, and some of your seats will be at risk just because the numbers are different. But I still ask you to consider it.

Why is proportional representation so important? We’ve had so many false majorities. For starters, if you get a 40 percent mandate from the voters, that typically gets you a majority government. With the collapse of the parliamentary committee system, both in Victoria and in Ottawa, that really means you don’t have a lot of accountability over the course of your term. If you can successfully run a “you hate or fear me less than you fear or hate them” campaign, you may very well be able to game the system.

But somebody who really cares about democratic values ought to be a little bit nervous about getting 40 percent of 55 percent of the voters.

When I first started to vote, the turnout was about 70 percent, but it’s been a long downward trend. I think the reason is that people don’t believe their voice is being taken seriously. Everybody that I talk to, and I don’t just talk to people who agree with me about a lot of other issues, but universally there’s: “We’ve got to do this differently.”

So I would ask for any proportional representation system, whether it be a rural-urban hybrid, where you collapse the — and I ran a test of this against the 2017 election…. If you collapsed the urban ridings into large closed list proportionals, we would get a much more proportional result. You would preserve….

In my impression, the rural areas really want their own personal member. They don’t want to be clumped. Prince George–North Cariboo is huge. Why would you collapse that with something else? I think they would really value the local representation, and yet I wouldn’t want to deprive them of a proportionality if they wanted it. You guys have to figure that out.

But we already have a scheme that got almost 60 percent of the support of British Columbians, admittedly 20 years ago. So you got an easy win with STV, or you have other easy wins, like collapsing the urban ridings into single zones like the CRD, the GVRD and the Fraser Valley regional district. The names have changed now, so I don’t know.

[8:40 a.m.]

But if you collapse those into multi-member ridings, we get a lot of proportionality. We can at least see how it works.

So that’s it. I’d like to go for questions. Anything you guys want to ask. I’ve been thinking about this for 20-odd years.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Arthur, for your presentation.

Are there any questions for Arthur?

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. I’m wondering. You had mentioned you’ve been looking into this for 20 years. What would you say has been your experience in the sentiment of the people that you know, your community, around their views about change to the electoral system? Is the appetite a lot more now than it was before, or vice versa?

Arthur Klassen: I think it’s on a constant upward trajectory. I sounded like a bit of a crank about it 20 years ago. I’m not sounding like a crank to people anymore. I see a lot more smiles, and some kind of change is acceptable.

Our government is the best we could do at the time, and the times have changed, and there’s much better we could do than first-past-the-post.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation.

What, specifically, don’t you feel is being accomplished the way we have the system today? Yesterday we had multiple speakers, and one of the points that I brought up was more free votes, inasmuch as that the way the system is now, almost anything that we do at the Legislature, leadership or government, can determine whether that’s a confidence vote or not.

Would you feel that by having confidence votes only specifically on budget items or on special occasions would give the MLAs more opportunity to get feedback from their constituents and be able to have more on-the-ground, grassroots attachments to those representatives?

Arthur Klassen: Perhaps. I think actually even more important is to disempower the PMO or disempower the Premier’s office, to decentralize the power and put the powers back into the committees. Yeah, making fewer things confidence votes, but I think even more important….

What was the best mandate we’ve ever had in any level of government in Canada? I would maintain that it’s Pearson and Douglas. In fact, Tommy Douglas was voted the greatest Canadian ever, and he was the junior partner in a coalition. They must have had a lot of votes there that weren’t whipped to make that work. The whipping thing is a thing, but I think you get more of a consensus being generated in the open when there are smaller chunks of parties.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): If I can add, one thing that was quite interesting to me when I realized that we have committees that are set up in legislation for specific reasons, for exactly what we’re talking about, with having accountability and transparency…. Yet we do not have a mechanism to have those committees sit legislatively. Basically, the committees can be formed. They can elect the Chair, and then the next meeting is at the discretion of the Chair.

Personally, I would like to change that, where the committees have to meet so that these questions are brought out into the public, because that’s how those committees were originally designed in the first place. Through subsequent governments, that has been watered down. Again, like you mentioned, the Premier’s office has more control over those kinds of questions and answers than they used to in the past.

Would you suggest we should be doing that?

Arthur Klassen: Well, I’d suggest that anything that decentralizes power is a good thing. Especially If the committee is meeting on a regular basis, based on the calendar, rather than the whim of the Chair, it sounds like a great idea. But I think you get more transparency, like I say, when you have a more diverse House, when you have coalition partners that are actually strong.

In the case of 2017, with some kind of proportionality, you’d have had a wedge of ten Green members, and with that, you’d actually have to craft a coalition, not just go for support and supply.

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation.

Yesterday we heard from one of the presenters that: “Oh, we’ve got bigger things to deal with than pro rep or democratic reform.” What’s your view on the importance of tackling this issue?

Arthur Klassen: I view this issue as the meta-issue. This issue lies at the back of so much else. The community is not being heard. So these other issues are being dealt with by broad brushes in one direction under one mandate, one direction under another mandate, and then it goes whipsawing back and forth.

[8:45 a.m.]

If the community were being heard from, election by election, then some of these things might not be so urgent because they’re actually being discussed in depth, as opposed to being pounded on from one point of view or another and then whipsawed. I mean, look at the policy changes that happened between Bennett to Barrett to Campbell. That’s not healthy for us. That’s the other thing, too.

Sheldon Clare: How would you see independents participating in this process?

Arthur Klassen: That’s going to be the one that’s got to be fixed. I think that’s one reason why STV…. When I ran the model and when my wife saw that I was doing closed list PR, that was her question: “What about independents?”

I think that may be one of the pieces of genius of the STV scheme: if you have a large enough riding and you have a popular independent like a Chuck Cadman, in an STV world, a really strong, independent candidate might come to the forefront much more easily, because he’s widely known over the region. If the threshold is 1/16th or 1/20th of the population of this thing, well, that’s actually not a very high bar to reach for a good independent.

Sheldon Clare: I’m not necessarily talking about a popular independent. I’m talking about…. If you have multiple independents running across the province and they each get a percentage of the vote, how do you measure their participation? How would one select who would be the representative of independents who may have widely disparate views and politics?

Arthur Klassen: For starters, I don’t just want people with my voice to be heard. I want people with all voices to be heard. Independents across the province are one reason why an open list or closed list might not be the right solution for B.C. We’re not the Netherlands. We’re not Israel or Italy either, okay? We’re more like the Netherlands or like Germany. But maybe this is the reason why we should go to MMP.

But you guys are going to…. We have these solutions all over the place. I think the STV does allow the independents in. A local proportional list would allow the independents in from a local area as well. There are creative ideas all over the place.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): All right. Thank you, Arthur, for your presentation and for taking our questions today.

Arthur Klassen: Thank you for your time.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Next up we have Dan Kiwi. Good morning, Dan. Just a reminder, you’ll have five minutes for your presentation followed by five minutes for questions.

Dan Kiwi

Dan Kiwi: Good morning to the committee, and thank you for your time and listening to me today. My name is Dan Kiwi. I grew up in Aotearoa–New Zealand and moved to Canada eight years ago now. So I grew up in a place that already has proportional representation.

I wanted to take some time to share my personal feelings in how that influenced me and, obviously, then open up to some questions from maybe a viewpoint you haven’t had as much of an opportunity to hear from today.

In Aotearoa–New Zealand, we do have MMP, which is the system with top-up seats. My lived experience there was that has given growth to a more varied selection of parties. Therefore, I felt that my views were very well represented in New Zealand, because there is a wide range of parties, multiple parties on both the left and right. It gives them more variety, which means that there tend to be the more centre-left and centre-right parties, as well as slightly more left and right parties.

Therefore, you can feel that your views are actually truly represented by the party you’re selecting, because they’re not trying to have to cater for such a wide range of viewpoints within a single party. It also gives more predictability as to how the parties will act once you’ve actually elected them as well.

Seeing New Zealand both before and after proportional representation, I felt like the change was really positive. I felt like when there were coalition governments, when no single party got a majority, that the compromises were fair and that it meant that a variety of viewpoints, sometimes from both the left and right, got taken into account to build a government that was able to enact some good progress without some of that pendulum back-and-forth that you sometimes see from majority governments as well.

[8:50 a.m.]

It felt like people trust the process more in New Zealand as well because they could see their viewpoints being represented, being elected and then being enacted after the election as well. It also led to more Māori parties, the New Zealand Indigenous people, being represented in new ways.

I know that B.C. and Canada are going through a truth and reconciliation process, and I actually think proportional representation would help that here as well.

I’ve been a citizen of B.C. now for two years, so I voted in the most recent B.C. and federal elections, and I didn’t really feel like my vote counted because neither of the ridings I’m in for either B.C. or the federal election were particularly close, and none of the parties that were running really quite represented my views. There were kind of a wide range of views within the party, and it wasn’t quite obvious what they would really do after being elected.

I, honestly, compared to New Zealand, feel a little bit disenfranchised here, because I don’t feel like my specific views are represented in any of the major parties. I’d like to see a more wide selection of minor parties pop up and be able to grow here in order to make more people feel engaged in the democratic process, myself included. That’s what I believe has happened in New Zealand.

I have a couple of specific asks that I’d love to see out of this government. Number one, obviously, is proportional representation itself.

I do want to take a moment to address the question that the Deputy Chair asked the previous speaker around committees and confidence. I think committees here are a little bit of a distraction because they can be done in any way, in any process. I do want to point out that most people voting do not necessarily have the time to engage in many committees between elections. Elections really are the time that people put their emotional energy into selecting a party. I feel like I’m in a privileged position by being able to take some time off work to come and present to the committee. Not everyone is going to be able to do that. To keep everyone engaged, we should have proportional representation.

I was also here through the 2018 referendum. And despite coming from a country with proportional representation, the paperwork, the options were confusing. And that leads me to think that another referendum wouldn’t be the right way of progressing this, because it is a challenging topic for people, even for someone that has voted in proportional representations, to try and answer the different options that are available. I’d recommend leaving that to experts. I don’t want to recommend a particular system, but I do know that proportional representation has worked. I’d like to ask the committee to kind of put aside what’s best for your parties and do what’s best for the future of B.C. and for democratic engagement.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Dan.

Any questions from the committee?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Dan, for your presentation. I had a couple of specific questions.

When you talk about more individuality…. I mean, politics is a compromise. You talked about that. Can you give us…? You talked about specific views and specific examples. Can you share with us what you believe I wouldn’t be able to bring to the table on your behalf as your MLA, regardless of whatever party I was in?

If I had more flexibility in being able to have the conversation with you…. You mentioned committees. Well, the thing is with committees is that they’re live, and Hansard has everything on audio and video. When we have our committee meetings, even during estimates, I had the opportunity to engage with individuals. I had opportunities to engage with business through the process because they were able to see what I was able to do. If you weren’t able to actually be there in person, I could bring those questions and concerns through committee. That’s how the process works. You don’t have to be here today. You know, we can have it…. Like next week we’re going to be doing virtual out of Victoria.

So what specific views or values are you not being able to see represented by myself? I mean this isn’t like Starbucks where everybody has a different kind of coffee. Can you give me a couple of specific examples?

Dan Kiwi: Yeah. I kind of actually disagree with that. I think everyone that wants to vote does have a little bit of a different type of coffee, and we have mixed all of those coffees together to try and make a left and a right, in a way. And that, personally, to me, isn’t working very well, because it’s stopping…. On the left, it means the more progressive views are not really able to be representative. MLA Shah, I believe you’re from the Green Party. That’s a party I don’t see able to succeed in many of the ridings, because your voters are really dispersed across the region but doesn’t get the representation that it feels like it deserves.

[8:55 a.m.]

And then, on the right, the more extreme anti-government views that maybe need a light shined on them to either die out or potentially make compromises with the government…. They aren’t able to bring their views, and therefore they just become festering issues in the democracy. We’re pouring all those coffees together right now, and it’s a blend that’s honestly quite bitter to me as a voter.

So yes, I appreciate you can have conversations with people outside of the committees. However, like I mentioned before, most people don’t have the time to engage with their MLA between elections. Like, it takes quite a bit of emotional energy, time, preparation for someone, and I’m in a relatively privileged position to be able to do that. Most people working, especially if someone’s working a second job, they’re not going to have much time to engage with the MLA on the process between elections.

A lot of it…. It’s those views that are very dispersed across the province, and no single MLA is going to pick them up and run with them because they’re only hearing it from 5 or 10 percent of people that it’s a problem. But maybe if it’s 5 percent or 10 percent of the problem across all of the ridings, maybe it should be addressed in some way.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): We’ll go to MLA Botterell, who is actually the member of the Green Party.

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation.

Deputy Chair Stamer has raised some questions, and we’ve discussed around the linkage between the MLAs and their constituents. One thing I’d appreciate perhaps some of your thoughts on, based on your New Zealand experience, is that through this last session, which is certainly fresh in all our minds, there was a great difficulty in the NDP and the Conservative opposition in finding pathways to consider amendments to fairly contentious bills. And it was a first-past-the-post environment.

Would you see proportional representation, based on your experience in New Zealand, fostering more collaboration across party lines or less?

Dan Kiwi: It varies. So in contentious bills, it honestly doesn’t really solve that problem, but it does mean that there is a spotlight and ability to collaborate for things that multiple parties do want. So in New Zealand I found that there are things that some parties are very strongly for, other parties are honestly quite neutral or ambivalent about, and those bills are able to get across the line.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay, I see no further questions. Thank you so much for your presentation.

Dan Kiwi: Thanks for the time.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Next we will have Simon de Weerdt.

Simon, you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

Simon de Weerdt

Simon de Weerdt: Thank you very much, hon. members of the committee, for this opportunity to speak to you.

I would favour any form of proportional representation as being better than first-past-the-post. I’m concerned about the level of vitriol that emerges in our campaigns and how people tend to vote against the person they don’t want or the party they don’t want rather than for what they do want. I think it’s a serious problem. STV might be a solution to that, and I would urge you to consider that.

I was born in Ottawa, grew up in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories to the age of 15 and came here in 1973. I’ve mostly been in Vancouver since, but I’ve also worked in the North, Fort St. John, Chetwynd in my youth. And so I have insight into different people around the province. I have friends who are very strongly conservative and friends who are very strongly socialist. And I get along well with all of them despite our strong views. And I appreciate, I enjoy people who have strongly different points of view, and we can find ways to work together.

[9:00 a.m.]

I would encourage you to present to the voters — if you must, in a referendum — simple choices that they can understand, and I would really like it if we could get beyond fearmongering. Everybody is in their own way, I’m sure you all know, trying to do their best for the interests of the people.

That’s my presentation.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Simon.

Are there any questions from the committee?

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation.

You mentioned a referendum, if you must…. A simple question: what is your view on the need for a referendum…? If — and it’s a big if — the committee recommended PR, would you see the need for a referendum? I understand, in some other jurisdictions, PR has been tried out, and then there’s a referendum to sort of ratify it after actually experiencing it. What’s your view?

Simon de Weerdt: I certainly agree with the idea of trying it out so that voters know what they’ve got, as opposed to going straight to a referendum. But if we must go straight to a referendum, and you know better from your constituencies and from legal requirements, then it should be a simple question rather than a complicated question, because a complicated question predisposes it to failure. I think we know this from experience.

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation.

You mentioned that you have friends across the aisle, from one side to another. I’m wondering if you’ve ever had any conversations with them about our democratic system, electoral system, and whether you all have consensus around first-past-the-post.

Simon de Weerdt: It’s not highly contentious, because I haven’t brought it up often. When I have brought it up, I don’t recall strong opposition to actually doing first-past-the-post. Because I’ve identified as agreeing, I’ve been accused of simply wanting more representation for the smaller party, and that’s essentially the limit of it.

Almost everybody else is comfortable either with first-past-the-post…. Less with first-past-the-post, but with some form of proportional representation.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): What are your thoughts on ranked choice voting, inasmuch as…. We had this conversation yesterday — that in many of our municipalities, that’s exactly what we have on the councillor side of things, inasmuch as that, as a resident, you have the ability…. Say you’ve got eight councillors and a mayor. You can actually vote up to eight separate councillors at one vote. Most people don’t do that. They usually do three or four or five, and then it’s basically a ranked-vote system through that. The mayor, of course, is a first-past-the-post.

Could you see us using municipalities as an opportunity to possibly do the ranked-vote system with even the mayor to see if that…? An example is… I know of communities where somebody with only 30 percent of the vote ends up becoming the mayor. They’re not at 45. They’re not at 55. They’re only at 30 percent because of the multiple candidates that were running for mayor.

Is that a way that maybe we could encourage the opportunity for the public to see how that would actually work? They’re already kind of doing it now, inasmuch as that the majority of the of the councillors are getting picked through that process.

Simon de Weerdt: Thank you for that question. That’s an excellent idea — to start and to build on the familiarity we already have, essentially, with the choice of councillors. I would urge you to go beyond that, but that’s an excellent start to make our system more democratic. Thank you.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): You’re welcome.

[9:05 a.m.]

Sheldon Clare: In the idea of the city councillor and mayor example, suppose you had multiple candidates for mayor, and a lot of people have one candidate they like, and they don’t like any of the others at all. They’re not interested in the other candidates. Because of how the numbers all crunch down, the largest segment of the population doesn’t have their candidate elected. Whoever gets elected is elected, say, on the third or the fourth ballot, and they end up with someone who they really don’t like, yet this is somebody that is everybody else’s fourth choice.

Simon de Weerdt: Right, that’s interesting. We have the case in Vancouver of the left side shortening their team so that they have a better chance of getting in. In that case, they could run a little bit longer slate. If more of the votes were, broadly speaking, on the left, then one of those candidates would win, versus perhaps a populist alternative — or the other way around.

It would definitely change things. I’m not sure if that would mean that some independent coming up the middle or around the side would have less of a chance because they were not part of a team. I think that people have a sense of whom they’re voting for in the city, and they’ll often go from one side to the other and the ranked choice voting might be different than you’re suggesting it could be.

Sheldon Clare: As a follow-up to that, in the elections in the 1950s when the Social Credit with W.A.C. Bennett won, he was basically everybody’s second choice, because the other parties hated each other so much. They had something new with a relative unknown.

Rob Botterell: Green could be the second choice for everybody.

Sheldon Clare: I think that’s highly unlikely. However, I just want to point out that this would not be a perfect solution, and there are mathematical problems that could arise.

Simon de Weerdt: That, of course, is noted, but I suggest it would be a better solution. I love the idea that Greens are everybody’s second choice, even though it may not be true.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): If I could, I’d just like to make a point and I’d like to know what you have to say. As a municipal leader — I’m not from a large area like Vancouver, with slates, and I’m not really a fan of slates, quite frankly. I think that as a municipal leader or a municipal councillor you should have the flexibility and not have a slate.

Just to put a twist on MLA Clare’s point about not having the majority of the people for you, I can know of examples where, if you don’t get 50 percent and the other ones end up getting enough on the second and third and fourth, that tells me that the majority of the people in the community don’t want you. If they want you and there are four or five other people, you will get that 50 percent.

I know of an example where if we had used this system, the current mayor wouldn’t have got in. Even though that person got 30 percent, the second and third votes would not…. I can tell you right now, if you canvassed the community, 70 percent of the people don’t want that person. So it would have worked, inasmuch as…. Because you had other councillors that were incumbents running against each other, they basically cancelled each other out, and somebody came up the middle.

The people are not happy with those results, because that person only represents 30 percent of the people that are actually supporting in that community. If we had gone the ranked system, that person wouldn’t have been elected.

Simon de Weerdt: That’s a good point. I think what you’re saying in some ways is going back to what I was originally saying — people voting against something. With ranked choice voting you can bury that “against” vote. It doesn’t have to be your first vote. You don’t have to vote first for somebody who you think is most likely to defeat the person you don’t want. So if you’re voting against, you can bury that vote behind who you prefer.

I’m not sure I’ve heard of any cases, other than perhaps Wacky Bennett, who have come up the middle just on the basis that everybody dislikes the other two.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Well, thank you so much, Simon, for your presentation.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the conversation.

[9:10 a.m.]

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Next up we have Francis Fruin.

Welcome, Francis. You’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

Francis Fruin

Francis Fruin: My name is Francis Fruin. Most people know me by my middle name, Fruin, and I was raised on unceded Gitdumden clan territory of the Wet’suwet’en peoples.

I do not know my maternal ancestry, but my two youngest siblings, aged ten and five years old, still reside within the Skeena watershed as Wet’suwet’en-Gitxsan youth.

I’m a 2018 UBC Centennial Scholar. For the last two years, I have been a research technician and data analyst at the Biodiversity Research Centre at UBC. I have been studying seagrass ecology and planktonic models for the O’Connor lab, and I’m a data analyst working with intertidal ecologists and kelp restoration scientists for the Martone lab. I am also a scientific diver.

For the last three years, I have been returning to my hometown of Smithers to be the head coordinator for a music education program. In the next two years, I really hope to return home to engage in place-based restoration of wetlands and tributary streams along the Skeena watershed. This is due to my strong place-based relationship with the Bulkley, Babine and Kispiox rivers and their associated wetlands.

I want to see my siblings develop a sense of stewardship and reciprocity for the Skeena watershed alongside other youths and community members.

I’m sure that all of us in this room can agree that first-past-the-post is not working. I know very little about electoral reform and what needs to happen then. However, I am here, hopefully, to engage in dialogue about resource management in B.C. and how it is siloed. I was told this was an excellent opportunity to engage with MLAs, so I’m here from a call to action within UBC forestry.

Forestry management is siloed from the DFO. The DFO is federally managed, and forestry is provincially managed. I’m sure you’re aware of this. We are currently in crisis in the forest systems of B.C. We are in crisis because we are seeing more frequent floods and forest fires around B.C., as well as an ongoing, tragic decline of Pacific salmon and other aquatic organisms along all watersheds.

Speaking on floods and forests, clearcutting forests and shifts in peak flow of snow melt have been studied by hydrologists in western North America for more than 50 years. Data from as far back as 1932 to 1987 show clear trends between clearcut harvesting, peak flow rates and the frequency of flood events.

Alila et al, in 2009, did a wonderful job outlining the lack of attention given to the frequency of major flood events in clearcut forested watersheds. Another study — by Younes Alila, Andrew Whitaker and Jos Beckers, from 2002 — shows from the data of the Redfish Creek catchment that the temporal variability of peak flow changes is due to clearcutting, and it is substantial.

I hope you can catch my drift for the impacts of rapid snow melt when clearcutting removes forest cover from watersheds. If we don’t have forest cover, the land becomes warmer. That snow rapidly melts, flooding watershed basins. I don’t know if you remember the floods in Grand Forks from 2018 to 2023. Those were because of how the water catchment basin was logged nearby.

Another paper, by Alila and Weiler, from 2012, shows that the largest flood events recorded from 100-year time windows are now going to be anywhere from 5 to 6.7 times more frequent with a treatment of only 50 percent harvest area.

The Alila watershed experiment spans four decades of research about the impacts of forest practices on water quality, quantity, habitat quality and aquatic organism populations. Similarly, clearcut logging increases the temperature of water without shade, and also the water quality drastically decreases with runoff from roads and clearcut management shortfalls.

[9:15 a.m.]

With clearcutting, also — I don’t know if you know — if there are fewer trees, the windfall of trees is more frequent. Buffer zones are not usually respected, especially in the Interior, but more and more often, those watershed riparian areas cannot withstand wind.

The last thing I want to share, very briefly — I don’t feel the need to cite any publications or studies for this last note — is that clearcut logging drastically increases the probability and intensity of wildfires. The reason why I don’t want to share any publications on this right now is because I feel like my lived experience will be sufficient. I’ve spent a lot of time on logging roads growing up. I’ve worked in mineral exploration because of a family business. My father was a fly-fishing guide. Those industries have their own conversations to have.

Because of the time I’ve spent on logging roads, I have driven past hundreds and hundreds of large cutblock sites, and I feel like it’s common sense to understand that when you clearcut a region of the forest and you leave any carnage from that forestry practice, the amount of sun that is coming in dries out that wood very quickly, and large piles of very dry wood are the ideal fuel for large forest fires.

I am done and out of time, so thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): The mandate of our committee’s work is on voter participation and electoral reform. In terms of questions and any input on that, that’s what we’re focused on. I think you started a little bit with that. If we have any questions on those portions, we can take those.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): For the record, I totally disagree on some of the points that were made on the clearcut side of things. I can ask a very simple question.

Regardless of the size of the clearcuts, when you look at what our forest fires are doing, at least with smaller clearcuts, we’re getting an opportunity to have extensive reforestation in a very short period of time. In many of these fires, there is no reforestation for generations. I’d love to have a conversation with you off air about clearcuts, because there’s a very big misconception of what a clearcut actually is.

My question to you: when you mentioned at the beginning about proportional representation, what do you see is not able to happen in the current system that we have, with an MLA being responsible for an area of the population? What aren’t we able to accomplish in what we’re doing right now?

Francis Fruin: To rephrase your question, you are curious as to what the current system is unable to accomplish in terms of resource management and engagement?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): No, just from a personal perspective. If you’re looking at resource management, I think that there’s more than enough opportunities for some forms of public engagement, but right now what’s happening is that most of those responsibilities are now being transferred strictly to the government. They’re not being allowed, but we don’t get an opportunity to discuss a lot of those things.

What else are we missing in not being able to address your concerns when it comes to the environment and industry?

Francis Fruin: I’ve taken opportunities to try to speak with MLAs in the past, and I have had very little…. I have never been able to feel like they would directly address the crises that we are facing in British Columbia. As you said, there are points that you disagree with, and that will often be the case. Only once have I had a positive interaction with.... Well, actually, no. He wasn’t…. He was an MP.

I’m not sure how to answer your question exactly because, like I said, I am a biologist and data scientist. I know very little about these electoral systems. I just know that first-past-the-post sucks. Yeah, it’s devastating to see the number of Conservative ridings in B.C. due to lack of voter participation.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): All right.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Francis, for joining us. Have a wonderful day.

Francis Fruin: Thank you for engaging, despite the fact that I don’t have much to say on electoral reform.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): There may be other opportunities to directly speak about this. You can always check our website for other consultations that come up.

[9:20 a.m.]

Francis Fruin: Yeah, absolutely. I’m just happy to take an empty spot, so thank you.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): And feel free to engage your MLAs, regardless of their party — your MLA specifically.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Next we have Sacia Burton from the B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition.

I’ll just let you know you have 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by ten minutes for questions.

B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition

Sacia Burton: Good morning, committee members. My name is Sacia Burton, and I work with the B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition.

I wish to ground my presentation in the knowledge that we are on unceded xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ territory, particularly on the site known to the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh people as K'emk'emeláy.

I don’t want my land acknowledgement to just be a passing remark or viewed as a checkbox before we move on to the real business of this discussion, because in acknowledging the unceded territory that we’re on, we can also call out the colonial roots of the political systems that we operate in and the political choices that led to the dispossession of these lands from their original stewards.

I hope that in hearing the recommendations today and throughout this consultation, you will reflect on the necessity of integrating reconciliation and decolonization in our political spaces in the boldest and most innovative of ways. Much of the colonial harm that continues to impact our communities today has been perpetuated by people in elected positions and spaces of power. Pursuing equity, fair participation and decolonial practice is long overdue in all spaces of power in this country.

I’m here to present on behalf of the B.C. Poverty Reduction Coalition. We bring together experts from across sectors to develop and advocate for policy recommendations that will improve the lives of low-income people in B.C. Our coalition members range from front-line workers to economists, union leaders and people with deep knowledge of their local and professional spheres in health, transportation, housing and human rights.

On behalf of the coalition, I’m here to make four recommendations. One, that B.C. legislate permanent residents’ right to vote in municipal and provincial elections. Two, that the voting age be lowered from 18 to 16. Three, that steps are taken to ensure fair access to democratic participation for unhoused and precariously housed people in B.C. Four, that B.C. move to a system of proportional representation for elections at the provincial and municipal levels.

First off, voting rights are long overdue for permanent residents at the provincial and municipal levels. The right to vote is essential to one’s feeling of belonging and responsibility in a democratic society. Permanent residents live, work, study, send kids to school and pay taxes in our province and in our communities. They are integral members of our society and should have the right to weigh in on who they want to represent them in spaces where decisions are made about their everyday lives.

On the topic of voter enfranchisement, it’s similarly worthwhile to extend the vote to young people. Let me paint a picture. At 16, I was contributing half the rent for my household each month from a steady part-time job while attending my last year of high school classes full-time, caregiving for a younger sibling and participating in a slew of extracurricular activities.

Many 16- and 17-year-olds today juggle similar slates of complex commitments and responsibilities, and they engage with their communities in profound and impactful ways. Whether they have those responsibilities or not, it is worthwhile to have them as part of the political conversation.

Lowering the voting age to 16 is a valuable opportunity to establish a generation of habitual, lifelong voters and connect to young people at a crucial time in their lives, when they have a mix of responsibility and wraparound support from home and school. A voting age of 16 could seamlessly integrate civic education for students in high school with civic participation during elections.

[9:25 a.m.]

Young people are already running campaigns and being part of political life. They’re advocating for better transportation for themselves, for environmental protections and for lowering the voting age. We should listen to what they want, and it’s time we make space for them to be heard at the ballot box. If we trust 16 year olds to drive a car, hold a job and join political parties, we can and should extend the opportunity for them to cast votes on how they want their communities to be run.

Extending voting rights to permanent residents and lowering the voting age to 16 are both strategies aimed at improving civic engagement by widening the voter base and ensuring that our elected leaders are truly representative of our communities. This is particularly relevant at the municipal level where voter turnout has been consistently stuck between 25 to 35 percent over the last 20 years in both urban and smaller communities across B.C. We can do better.

While we navigate the topic of inclusion in our electoral systems for younger people and permanent residents, it’s important that we also consider the barriers that many people face when trying to engage politically. For people experiencing housing precarity and homelessness, even one barrier to participation can be insurmountable, leading to exclusion and disenfranchisement.

Voter eligibility rules, such as the need to present a piece of current government-issued ID or similar place-based utility bill reference, keep many people away from polling stations if their ID or files are missing, expired or show a previous address. Given the turnover, instability and low vacancy rates of temporary shelters in B.C., the provision that unhoused people may use the address of a shelter, hostel or similar institution as their mailing address is great in theory, but it isn’t very reliable in practice. People living in tents, vehicles, on boats or sleeping rough without a reliable fixed address face the challenges of bureaucracy when trying to vote, despite meeting all other eligibility requirements of being a voter within their jurisdiction.

Similarly, people experiencing invisible homelessness by couch surfing or staying with family or friends may be reluctant to use the address of their temporary accommodation for the purpose of voting for fear of overstaying their welcome or overextending the kindness that has been extended to them.

The option for voters to be vouched for by someone within their electoral district relies on community ties, trust and the availability of that someone who has more structures available to them and having the time to be able to do that. So while this system is an avenue that is technically available to support those lacking other identification options, it expands the process to more than one person, whereas you or I or someone that has just the ID ready to go can go and make that choice for ourselves, by ourselves.

This makes it a more involved and complex process, whereas everybody should be able to individually participate and extend their right to vote. Yeah, it places an extra burden on the person trying to vote by adding the responsibility of trying to coordinate schedules and cashing in on the support from someone in their community.

Receiving voter cards and information about polling locations exclusively through the mail leaves people in the dark if they haven’t updated their voter registration or no longer have access to the space they previously listed as their mailing address. This is also true for people who are experiencing movement due to leaving gender-based violence. This process, in particular, also impacts young people, who are more likely to move frequently for work or school.

People experiencing housing insecurity are greatly impacted by municipal decisions around zoning, bylaw enforcement and restrictions on the use of public space. Their voices deserve to be heard during elections and in every space where decisions are made that impact their quality of life.

On the topic of voting accessibility, it’s also worth highlighting the spaces and social infrastructure available during voting days. Given the recent experiences in the Vancouver municipal by-election, where many voters waited hours to cast a ballot, there is clearly an appetite for democratic participation. But these kind of barriers in terms of waiting times do create systemic inequity in terms of who actually gets to participate. So any time that….

The opportunity to wait in line is a privilege not afforded to all. Many low-income people are deterred or dissuaded by long wait times due to a lack of child care, availability of seating and waiting spaces or conflicting needs, like the need to wait in a food bank line or get back to a job.

Overall, voting should be an easy, inclusive and approachable process, and we’re not there yet.

[9:30 a.m.]

When crafting your assessment of our electoral systems, I urge you to keep in mind the stigma and barriers facing unhoused and precariously housed community members as well as low-income people in our province.

Finally, the recommendations I’ve brought forward thus far do not fully address the root of inequitable access to democracy, which is the electoral process itself, particularly the first-past-the-post voting system.

In order to ensure that future elections are fair and meaningfully representative of the will of the people, we need to replace our winner-take-all voting system with systems that use proportional representation. To ensure that we’re on the same page, when I say a proportional system, I’m referring to an electoral system where voter support directly or very nearly directly translates to seats in decision-making places like our Legislature and city councils.

I’m not here to impart the value of one proportional system over another. There are experts who can and will share that information with you throughout the consultation. Instead, I’ll speak largely to the damage that our current system does to the integrity of our democracy and to the principles of inclusion and equity.

Our current winner-take-all electoral system is demonstrably unstable. Major shifts in the composition of the Legislature often come from only a small number of votes shifting within the electorate, but the results are dramatic upheaval of leaders and policy priorities.

This seesaw kind of politics makes it harder for the Legislature to achieve a balanced budget and incentivizes government to prioritize short-term, politically advantageous successes, which can be accomplished within one term, over medium- and long-term infrastructure development and community-building work. This is not good for anybody in our community, and it especially harms low-income people, who are least likely to be prioritized because they are seen as not a reliable voter base.

First-past-the-post wrongly conveys the idea that communities are politically homogenous, when there is, more often than not, a plurality of political views present in each community. Ridings like Courtenay-Comox saw their MLA elected with just 38 percent of the popular vote and only 0.2 percent more votes than the next most popular candidate, leaving 62 percent of the voters in that riding with an MLA they didn’t vote for.

The competitive atmosphere of our current system dissuades and disenfranchises many from participating, leaving would-be voters at home, either out of protest or disillusionment, or because they feel their vote won’t matter in safe electoral districts. A proportional system of voting in B.C. would support stable government and would necessitate collaboration and coalitions to accomplish political priorities that represent and benefit a wide array of the electorate.

Although more people than ever have the chance to participate in our systems, that does not make the system fair or truly representative of the intention of our communities. Our democratic and electoral systems still carry remnants of exclusivity with the power of participation more readily available and accessible to some over others.

People in B.C. deserve political representation that is focused more on solutions for community well-being than on partisan wins. I hope your committee is willing to act on the recommendations made throughout this process and to work towards equitable access for the most politically disenfranchised in our province.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Sacia. We have a question from MLA Clare.

Sheldon Clare: I have a couple of things I want to raise. What process do you suggest to ensure that voters are legally entitled to vote, that they are in fact citizens, that they are of legal age and that they have all the criteria laid out by Elections B.C.? Also, I would point out that in the last eight elections, the lowest voter turnout was 55 percent, and the highest was 71.5 percent.

Sacia Burton: Yeah, that was at the provincial level. I was speaking in terms of the percentages at the municipal level.

Sheldon Clare: Oh, I see.

Sacia Burton: Yeah, absolutely. I do recognize that voter turnout is higher at the provincial level, but there is definitely a discrepancy in terms of engagement at the municipal level.

Sheldon Clare: It varies from municipality to municipality too.

Sacia Burton: It’s pretty standard, actually, across municipalities. It’s rarely higher than 40 percent.

Sheldon Clare: The very worst are school board elections in off-season.

Sacia Burton: Absolutely. People should feel like they’re informed and supported to participate at all levels of elections. That’s definitely something that we can all do a better job at, in supporting the electorate to engage.

Sheldon Clare: Okay. So what about a process to ensure that voters are legally entitled to vote?

Sacia Burton: I mean, being in a space…. I don’t have all the answers. I’m trying to raise the challenges and hope that, during the consultation, you will continue to receive different pieces of information that will help you to come to a solution. I don’t have a magic answer for you.

[9:35 a.m.]

I will be working more with coalition members to submit a written submission. If we come up with that magic aha moment, we’ll be sure to let you know.

Sheldon Clare: Well, I appreciate that. It’s good to hear what the problems are, but it’s also very important to hear what the possible solutions might be.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. I have a couple of questions for you.

When you talk about access for voting for homeless people — this comes back to accountability and transparency — how are homeless people able to access food, shelter, gift cards and money without identification?

Sacia Burton: It’s because they’re people in our community that deserve dignity and services.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I’m not asking whether they deserve the dignity of services. I’m asking: how do you identify those people? How do you stop where…? It comes back to accountability and transparency. It has nothing to do with whether they deserve the support or not; I believe they do. I’m suggesting: how do you deliver those services without identification? Can you?

Sacia Burton: It has been a while since I’ve worked in front-line services. So I can’t speak to the processes in this day, but a lot of the time those services are built on trust and community relationships — just the fact that you’re seeing someone every day in the same place. You’re seeing that they are definitely a resident of the place that they say that they are — recognizing that it does more harm to try and impose bureaucratic systems on them than to just give them the services that they need.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): What I’m going to suggest is that there are ways of identifying the people that we’re trying to support on the street. Some of the people that are homeless — this isn’t a statement, but this is a fact — do not want to be able to follow the rules. They have chosen not to be housed in some of the facilities that we’ve provided for them. That is their own personal choice.

I would suggest that, if we’re able to identify these people and help these people, there should be ways for us to be able to allow them to vote — no different than how we are able to vote around the province. There should be a way to be able to close that loophole, where we can actually reach out and there can be an opportunity for them to vote. Don’t you agree?

Sacia Burton: Yeah, it sounds like we’re on the same page. It sounds like we both want people to have the opportunity to participate in elections. That’s great.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Okay. Thank you for that.

Amna Shah: In the work of our committee thus far, we’ve heard from other presenters talking about proportional representation in other jurisdictions. I couldn’t help but think…. You had mentioned that it would provide for a more stable government. Well, we’ve been given examples of other jurisdictions in which, maybe, it is the system that leads to an unstable government or many, many months without a stable government being formed — such as in the example of Israel or some of the other countries out there.

I’m wondering what your thoughts are about proportional representation and how willingly it would be accepted in Canadian society, based on the values and cultures that currently exist, and whether you think, essentially, that British Columbia is ready for a proportional representation electoral system.

Sacia Burton: I think that’s a really valuable question. I think that clearly, there is frustration with our current political system and the ways in which partisanship and hyper-partisanship in our first-past-the-post system pits community members as well as politicians against one another.

The potential for more dialogue and more collaboration in proportional representation, I think, could fundamentally shift how we approach politics as community members and leaders. I think that in framing proportional representation as an opportunity for politics to shift away from a combative nature and towards, potentially, a collaborative nature, there would be a willingness to try and find collaborative solutions.

Amna Shah: I appreciate that answer. Do you not think that there could be partisanship and hyper-partisanship in a pro rep system?

[9:40 a.m.]

Sacia Burton: Absolutely. I don’t think that partisanship is ever going to disappear. I think that people will always have strong and distinct views. And I think that proportional systems are more clearly demonstrative of the will of the electorate than a first-past-the-post system is.

Like I mentioned with the example of just one riding in our province, Courtenay-Comox, there’s 62 percent of that electorate who aren’t having their voice accurately represented in the Legislature.

Over the course of every election in B.C., we’re having so many people who are casting a vote and who are not being heard at that polling place and are essentially feeling as though their votes are being thrown away. In order to provide everyone with an opportunity to have their vote meaningfully represented, a proportional system would be, I think, a better solution.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for the presentation this morning.

I have a couple of quick questions. The first one is…. In the earlier part of the presentation, you talked about the challenges associated with the stigma and homeless people and others wanting to vote. One of the things that was raised yesterday, and I was hoping you could consider it in your written presentation, was a more proactive form of enumeration and Elections B.C. effectively doing registration enumeration throughout the year.

It strikes me that what you’re describing is a variety of options that are difficult for some to access. The other way around that is to be proactive in meeting those folks where they are and finding which of those options would be suitable. I’d appreciate if you could maybe consider that and give us some thoughts in your presentation.

And then my other question, just in relation to proportional representation, was just more along the lines of we’ve heard yesterday that: “Well, this is done and dusted. It was voted down in 2018, so we’re done here.” So from your perspective, why now? Why consider it again when we’ve had referendums in the past?

Sacia Burton: I think that, given our most recent election, MLAs on every side of the Legislature will agree that that balance of power is so incredibly fragile and that our current system leads to scrapping and fighting and continuing to delve further into a partisanship during elections and throughout the legislative session that is not in the spirit of serving British Columbians and is in the spirit of serving partisan interests.

I believe that a proportional system would remove the incentivization for people to continue to fight to plead their case for why they are the best and just allow them to get to work to do the job for British Columbians and to be public servants.

In response to the referendum, I mean, I’ve studied politics. I’ve worked on campaigns in the past, and the questions that we posed to the electorate were unduly complex for what we expect people, in terms of their political literacy, to participate in on a daily basis.

[9:45 a.m.]

We elect political leaders in order to make those decisions for us and in order to build systems that most fairly serve our communities. Trying to put that decision back on the community to say, “Here are incredibly complex systems for people to understand and engage with,” I think did the process a disservice. I think that that’s the reason that the referendum failed, not because of the nature of proportional representation itself. I think it was a failed process and a failed system.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you. I have a question as well for you. You spoke about lowering the voting age, and we’ve heard that from a few presenters since yesterday. Some of the conversations we’ve had are about voter engagement in the youth area, and often, when there’s an election, not knowing that it’s happening and, even if it’s relatively close to the vote, not going.

How would you engage young voters? Do you have any ideas on how we should be engaging youth to get them involved? Yes, I know that if they start at 16, they’ll be involved, but in the ongoing phase of that, it feels like a lot of responsibilities are placed on them as they get older, and that’s why they’re not voting. If you have any ideas on those that would be good for us to implement, that’d be great to hear.

Sacia Burton: Absolutely. I think that really it is about building habitual voting habits and having the support from teachers. I think that’s a great question: how do we build lifelong voters? I think the answer is to start as young as possible. I mean, young people, 18 to 24, were higher in voting turnout in the last provincial election than those 25 to 34, which shows an appetite from young people for continuing to be politically engaged.

The dip-off actually is a little bit later, when there is a higher level of responsibility and community engagement. So I don’t think we need to worry too much about the appetite from young people to be politically engaged. We just need to extend the opportunity.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay, thank you.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I’ll just make it quick. To add to that, do you think that it should be part of our curriculum in our school system to teach our kids our system — that includes municipally as well — and do you think that that would help kids be more informed, if we did drop the age to 16 from 18?

Sacia Burton: Absolutely. Teachers are already having these conversations with students in school districts across the province. My partner is a teacher of grades 6 and 7. They’re having conversations about every level of government with 12- and 13-year-olds. They’re able to ask incredibly thoughtful, complex, intelligent and inquisitive questions about political systems and to grasp these conversations.

They take them back to their parents and inform them about what’s going on, what the issues are and what their perspectives are, because they have meaningful perspectives at that age. I think that by the time you’re 16, if you’re able to get behind the wheel of a car and you’re holding a job, you should absolutely be able to have more of a say in how your society operates and who’s leading it.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Do you think, if that was part of the curriculum, that it should be strictly unbiased?

Sacia Burton: I think that every political space is going to have bias, because that’s what people are, but I think that teachers do an incredible job of showing up and presenting information in a way where students can make their own best decisions.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): You didn’t answer my question, but thank you for that.

Rob Botterell: I actually think, Madam Chair, that the presenter did answer the question. She’s not suggesting that teachers should be presenting a particular viewpoint.

You can disagree with me if you want to, but what I heard was that teachers will present the information in a neutral way, that that’s their job and that it’ll be for students to inform that with their political viewpoint.

Is that correct?

Sacia Burton: Absolutely.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation, Sacia, and for taking our questions today.

Next up we have Debi Lira from the B.C. Federation of Students.

Welcome, Debi. Just a reminder that you’ll have 15 minutes to present, followed by ten minutes for questions.

B.C. Federation of Students

Debi Herrera Lira: Good morning. As the Chair mentioned, my name is Debi Herrera Lira, and I’m joining from the unceded traditional territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations.

I represent the British Columbia Federation of Students, a member-led organization that represents over 170,000 students in every region of B.C. These students are members of 14 student unions that actively fight for affordable, high-quality, accessible, public post-secondary education. We are grateful for the opportunity to present to you today and to amplify the voices of our members and member locals.

[9:50 a.m.]

You may be wondering what a non-partisan post-secondary advocacy organization has to say about elections, democratic engagement and voting models. Well, historically, the B.C. Federation of Students has supported electoral reform, preferring election models that allow for proportional voting and that ensure greater regional representation in the Legislative Assembly. The BCFS also supports fixed election dates, increasing polling stations on campuses and elections taking place when most students are on campus.

Today we’d like to focus most on our comments on youth and youth voting, stating plainly that youth voter apathy is a myth. Framing low voter turnout among youth as an issue of disenfranchisement rather than an issue of political apathy is fundamental for effectively increasing civic activism and voter turnout.

In addition, youth are further misrepresented as a monolith group, which ignores that they are currently the most diverse voting age block in Canada. Those born between 1990 and 2007 straddle two generations, millennials and Generation Z, with millennials being more populous than the baby boomers.

The tendency of institutions, including political parties and government agencies, to approach the youth vote without accounting for regional, generational, attitudinal, social and economic differences furthers the disenfranchisement of youth votes by the lack of responsiveness.

The majority of membership would be considered youth, students from 18 to 34 years old. Historically, this age group has had a different history of enfranchisement, and it is more complex when age is added to the histories of enfranchisement for women, specifically religious groups and racialized British Columbians.

In 1952, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 19, and that same year British Columbia first used an alternative voting system of ranked candidates in order of preference. Later, in 1992, the voting age was lowered to 18. Youth cared enough in 1952 and 1992 to push for greater enfranchisement, and they still care today.

This care can be seen through how our members prioritize the work of the federation. Our membership consistently pushes the federation to prepare voter engagement campaigns for municipal, provincial and federal elections.

Much of our members’ work consists of being a trusted source for accurate election information that folks can access in one place. This includes explaining the competencies of the different levels of government, providing voting dates, access to party platforms, access to candidate materials, information on ways to vote and information on how to register to vote.

The B.C. Federation of Students also supports engagement by working with Elections Canada and Elections B.C. to promote voting on campus. We also support student unions, inviting candidates to have public debates on campus to meet students directly and coordinate get-out-to-vote activities with other student groups and other youth engagement stakeholders.

We would like to remind the committee that youth apathy is a myth, and it is a harmful narrative not supported by data. Taking a quick look at some federal data, the 2015 National Youth Survey points to structural access barriers, not apathy, that affects youth voter turnout.

Only 76 percent of youth received a voter information card, versus 94 percent of older adults. Among youth under 23, it was 69 percent.

Youth were less aware of ways to vote, outside of voting at their assigned polling stations on election day. Just 34 percent of youth were aware that they could vote at advance polls, versus 65 percent of those over 35. Eight percent of youth found it difficult to locate information on when and where to vote, but this number rose among marginalized youth, with 19 percent of Indigenous youth and 13 percent of youth with disabilities reporting difficulty.

Only 29 percent of youth were contacted by a political party or candidate, versus 59 percent of the voters over 35.

Although voter turnout has been declining across all demographics in Canada since 1958, a pattern mirrored in other industrialized countries, youth turnout is uniquely pathologized.

It is worth mentioning that the voter apathy narrative does not fit a federal survey of non-voters either. Disinterest in politics was only cited by 6.9 percent of non-voters as the main reason for not voting. Belief that their voices wouldn’t matter was 16.7 percent. Lack of confidence in candidates, parties or leaders was 7.2 percent. Being too busy with work, school or family was 19.2 percent. Registration problems was 7.2 percent. And being away from their riding or province was 13.2 percent.

[9:55 a.m.]

Voter turnout data from 2017, 2020 and 2024 in British Columbia provincial elections showed that between 2017 and 2024, turnout dropped across all age groups, but younger voters held their ground better than most. Voters ages 18 to 24 saw a 6.95 percent decline in voters, and those 25 to 34 declined by just 0.32 percent compared to declines of over 7.5 percent among 55- to 74-year-olds.

In the 2024 election, youth turnout surged. Amongst 18- to 24-year-olds, turnout jumped by 14.5 percent, while amongst those 25 to 34, their turnout rose by 18.46 percent.

Meanwhile, turnout amongst 55 to 64 and those above 75 only saw 3.6 percent and 3.8 percent increases, respectively, and turnout among voters ages 65 to 74 declined.

This data, taken with the fact that political participation amongst youth is high, tells us two things: first, that youth turnout is highly responsive. When mobilized, young people show up. Second, older voter engagement is plateauing or shrinking, not rising.

The real opportunity for building democratic momentum lies in reaching young voters, not writing them off. The data tells us that once a person votes, they are likely to keep voting throughout their lifetime.

Students represent first-time voters, new citizens, people studying in their local communities and also people studying far from home. They are workers as well as members of historically disenfranchised groups.

Students and youth do care, but they are tired of being left behind. The issue isn’t voter apathy; it’s lack of access to information and resources that they need to be politically engaged in all elections. It is time that youth voter turnout becomes a priority. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Debi. Are there questions? Lots of questions.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. You’ve made the point very clearly and passionately that the issue isn’t apathy. The issue is lack of access and information. You’ve also pointed out that when mobilized, youth show up and show up to vote.

From your perspective or your organization’s perspective, what specifically would you like to see the province, for example, do to address this issue? We’ve had a presentation on lowering the voting age to 16. We’ve had presentations on information dissemination and so on. But what would you recommend? What’s at the top of your list?

Debi Herrera Lira: I think the first step is working with organizations like us, the B.C. Federation of Students, and other student organizations across the province. We are doing this work to try to make this information accessible to students. We’ve been doing it for years.

These last couple elections, we ran get-out-to-vote elections back to back, providing this information for students, working with Elections Canada, Elections B.C., making sure there’s voting on campus. We already do this work, but it’s better when there are more of us doing this work.

So just contacting us, working with us, seeing what students are attracted to and what would get their attention and how to get that information out there with them. We can connect you with students and do that type of work firsthand.

Rob Botterell: Do you already work with Elections B.C. on those issues or not?

Debi Herrera Lira: The only times that we work together is when we communicate for mobile polling stations on campuses. That work was done in the past couple elections. But we’d love to see a lot more collaboration between us and Elections B.C., Elections Canada and the government in terms of increasing accessibility.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your presentation.

One of the points you were raising was that you sought that elections be called during the school curriculum year when students are on campus. Would you see students voting in the communities where they are from? I come from a rural riding where people sometimes go to campus in the riding or sometimes they go to institutions in the Lower Mainland, as I did when I was a student.

[10:00 a.m.]

Do you see them voting in their home riding, or do you see their votes being in the community where the institution is located?

Debi Herrera Lira: I think that depends on what time the election is called. And it also depends on when students are on campus or if students live on campus, if that makes sense.

If students are living on campus — for example, in a university or an institution — and the election is called during a time of school, they vote on campus. They vote where they’re studying, if that makes sense. If the election is called at a time where, maybe, students are at home or are visiting their hometown, then they vote there. I hope that answers your question.

Sheldon Clare: No, I think they have a choice now as to where their vote can go. I’m just wondering if you were advocating for a position that their vote would be in the riding where the university or college is located or if their vote would be either-or.

Debi Herrera Lira: Okay I’m not sure of the information, but I’m sure we have some information back at our office, and we can get back to you with that.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I’m not sure if you’re doing a written submission, but if you could include that. I think the question is not what’s happening — they’re able to choose — but whether you have a position on where you would advocate for them to be voting.

Debi Herrera Lira: Okay. Thank you.

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. I was hoping you could elaborate a little bit more about the structural access issues. You said it’s the reason for not voting, amongst youth specifically — for example, receiving voter cards. I kind of missed a bit of that data that you had mentioned. I was hoping you could repeat that.

Then, I suppose, my other question. You have to register to vote currently, and there is a list of future voters that students can sign on to, if they’re 16 or 17 years old — to be able to, essentially, be automatically added to the provincial voters lists. Do you think that that is helpful? I guess, more broadly, what would you cite as a solution to some of the structural access barriers that you’ve cited?

Debi Herrera Lira: I think that definitely is helpful for future voters to sign on first and then for them to get notifications and notice that the election is going on. I think that that definitely is helpful.

I’m going to read to you the information, and then I also brought my staff person with me as well. She has a lot more institutional knowledge, and she could provide more background on that question for you.

What I read was that only 76 percent of youth received a voter information card. For older adults, it was 94 percent. Would you like me to read the rest as well?

Amna Shah: I’m just wondering: is it because they had not registered to vote? Is that why they didn’t receive an information card?

Debi Herrera Lira: It can be.

Amna Shah: Okay, so I’m just, then, trying to understand that structural access barrier, if they have not even registered to vote. Or is the registration in itself a barrier? It’s what I’m asking.

Debi Herrera Lira: Yes, the registration within itself is a barrier. Knowing that you have to register in the first place is a barrier. A lot of students and youth are not given that information in the first place. Or if they do know, they don’t know how or where or when.

What we’ve done in the past and in this election is that we’ve basically compiled all those questions. They might seem like very easy questions or something you can just google, but even then, it can take you in a rabbit hole. We compile that information, put it on a website and let students know, step by step, that this is how you do it and try to make that less of a barrier.

If students are not receiving voter information cards, for example, it could easily be that they just don’t know they have to register, don’t know where they have to register, don’t know how to register and so on and so forth. They’re busy with school and work. Many of them, because of how expensive things are, are working two to three jobs, maybe don’t have time to register, and will just get to the polls when they have time.

It’s not just one thing. It’s a bunch of small barriers that contribute to that.

[10:05 a.m.]

Amna Shah: Right. What would you suggest would be a solution to that type of barrier in what the government can do? I suppose there is a subjective perspective on lack of access versus lack of convenience in certain regards when it comes to elections.

I’m just wondering if there is something that the government can do, in your view, to provide that information, I suppose, so that youth can be informed that either there is an election happening or that they’re eligible, if there are certain criteria? There is information available. I’m just wondering where the barrier is and what we can do.

Debi Herrera Lira: Yeah, 100 percent. Could I invite my staff person, Arielle, to answer that question?

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Yeah, absolutely.

Arielle Reid: Good morning, committee. Thank you for allowing me to address you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Good morning. Before you begin, could you please say your name?

Arielle Reid: Yes. My name is Arielle Reid. I’m the researcher at the British Columbia Federation of Students.

To address the question, I think there’s something that’s a little lost in translation. I think the question that you were asking about was the future voter registry, whether or not that was a good thing and what the government can do to promote that.

Just to be clear, the federal data is more of a description of the problem rather than a description of the problem here in B.C. It’s my understanding that 2024 was the first year that the new rules that allowed for technology to be used in elections came in. So with only half a report, only a partial report, from Elections B.C., we’re still looking to see what the data will tell us about these new things.

I think that the future voter registry and general voter registration are different, but as we have more elections and as the report is completed, we’ll have a little bit more understanding on what has happened, what has worked and what hasn’t happened.

In terms of structural barriers, what we’re really seeing is that youth don’t engage with politics or political institutions, including governments, in the same way as their parents or other generations have. It really is focusing on new ways of communication and really changing the political culture in institutions to engage with youth more effectively.

Hopefully that clarifies the question and answers a little bit better from the historical knowledge.

Amna Shah: I appreciate that. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I have a couple of questions as well. Mine are along the lines of MLA Shah as well, just looking at the communication. If the voter cards aren’t getting out or they’re not checking their mail, that’s not the thing.

Are there more specifics that you have to say, like on social media that Elections B.C. should be doing or that government should be doing? Are there specifics or things that you’d want the government to enable Elections B.C. to be able to do, in order to increase youth voter engagement?

Debi Herrera Lira: I think, yeah, targeting youth and students a lot more, like you said, in any kind of media, and increasing voting on campus as well, have helped a lot in just continuing that communication across all institutions of B.C.

It’s just basically helping us do the work that we’re already doing and amplifying that to students across all B.C. We’re already doing that work, and other unions across B.C. are already doing that work, but there’s only so much that we can do. We need more help to try to get the word out there and try to get the information out there to students.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Potentially, if the mandate for Elections B.C. is to help increase voter participation, which in turn requires them to engage with you more frequently in this, that would be something that would be helpful.

Debi Herrera Lira: Oh, 100 percent.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay, thank you. The other question I had was on this age range, the youth age range. I believe MLA Shah and I are at the very end of this millennial group. We heard, from previous presenters, that this age range gets their information mainly from social media and not traditional media sources.

[10:10 a.m.]

One of the questions I had…. We know that there are silos that exist in social media platforms and misinformation and disinformation that can easily perpetuate through these systems. I would like your thoughts on your interactions with students on disrupting misinformation, disinformation and what we could do to help ensure that they’re getting correct information when they are getting their media sources from social media.

Debi Herrera Lira: Do you have an answer for that?

Arielle Reid: I think digital literacy is a very important skill that we collectively kind of have to work on ensuring that populations that we’re working with have when we’re using social media. I don’t think that social media, necessarily, is the answer to the youth engagement problem. I think it’s not “what” but “how.”

We see that in the way that youth engage with climate actions or issues in their communities, the way that the information is packaged and the way that they’re engaging with it looks different than the way that we traditionally package and put out election information for municipal or provincial elections.

I think looking less on the vehicle and more of: are we packaging this in a way that allows for students who represent new voters, who are older youth, who are younger youth, youth who grew up in care, who are a transient population that live at home but may not be studying at home, spend most of their time on campus…? Are we packaging this in a way that is digestible to this really unique time in life where things are happening very quickly?

I don’t know if that, again, answers your question, but….

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I think it does for a group, but there’s also a group of this age range which are very much the — I don’t have the official word — dudebro podcasts where they’re getting information and really going into this narrative that can be toxic. I think that’s also a group of folks where I think disrupting the information there to ensure it’s correct is kind of the conversation.

I think you’re talking more about maybe just students. It might not just be students. I’m thinking youth more broadly. But thank you.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I just wanted to thank you folks for coming here today. I’ve just been reading online some of the things that you have done in the previous election. You launched the generation vote now campaign. That’s great. That’s exactly what we need in our province is to be able to get people like yourselves to get out there and do that.

I think we brought up that so far, today, those mobile polling stations, those advanced polls, are so critical in being able to make sure that…. I mean, everybody’s busy, but being able to give those students that opportunity to vote on campus on an advanced poll…. I would certainly hope the committee would be able to make sure that Elections B.C. continues to do that.

My question to you is: when you’re registering for post-secondary studies, is residency required in that application? If you’re registering for post-secondary studies in this province, is residency a requirement when you fill out your paperwork? Do you have to fill out your residency?

Debi Herrera Lira: We’re not 100 percent sure of that. I went to an institution that had no residency on campus, but not from what we’ve heard from any of our members that they’ve complained that it’s a requirement.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Well, the reason I’m asking the question is if you’re having students that are registering for courses, whether in the spring or in the fall, and their permanent residency or whatever that is, is a requirement for voting, wouldn’t that information be able to be translated back through that process so that they would be registered to vote? And then it would be their responsibility to continue with that?

I mean, it’s one thing to be talking about when the election is and making sure people are aware of it. But if that’s part of the requirement for voting, isn’t that a requirement for going to school? Identifying where your residency is and whether that changes or not — that’s part of the process?

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I think you mean residential address.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Residential address, sorry, not residency. Residential address. Just the process of having that, because that’s a process that’s a requirement for us to vote in this province. You have to identify where your residence is. Sorry, I’m thinking residency.

[10:15 a.m.]

Is that something that we can look into so that you have that crossover, so that when somebody is registering for school, there can be that check back to Elections B.C.? Is that a possibility?

I’m just throwing it out there so that, again, if a student all of a sudden wants to vote, it’s already in the system that they’ve already met the requirements of the resident when they were applying for school in the first place. That information has already been taken down when they registered.

Arielle Reid: To be fair, as a union of student unions, that is a little beyond our capacity. We cannot commit to things for institutions. What we can say is that we would support measures that would make it easier for students to register. If the committee or the government or institutions were interested in collaborating in that way, we wouldn’t block that collaboration.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Good. The reason I’m asking the question is because that was one of the things that we heard of yesterday — the fact that Elections B.C. doesn’t seem to be doing that on a constant basis to be able to make sure that our voting rolls are up to date. That was one of the things that was identified and flagged — the fact that a lot of people didn’t get voting cards, didn’t get access to information. It’s because Elections B.C. didn’t have the information.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Even without government, I think it sounds like there’s an opportunity. I know at the beginning of a school year, there’s the day that you have sign-up for all the clubs. If you had a table to sign up to vote, non-partisan, I think that would be a great opportunity to engage youth outside of an election period.

Rob Botterell: Great. I just wanted to thank you for your presentation this morning. My earlier question was answered in the discussion, so thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): And a final question from MLA Shah.

Amna Shah: Yeah, just a quick question. You mentioned if we can better package information. I know you referenced climate action packaging versus election information packaging. I mean, I think they’re two very different things. I think one is pretty partisan in nature, whereas one is meant to be non-partisan.

Despite that being the case, I’m wondering if you could maybe provide a bit of detail on what it is about the climate action packaging that you think would be beneficial if applied to election information packaging.

Arielle Reid: I’d be happy to actually provide the committee with a longer explanation. I don’t want to take up too much time, and Debi is the official spokesperson. But I think there are a lot of examples of — I use the word “packaging” — messaging or ways of engagement that are a little bit more digestible than the traditional ways that we have done it. I’d be happy to provide them to the committee to look at.

Just for clarification, the climate action was kind of just an example of a passionate thing that youth and other people have engaged in, not to suggest that election packaging should be partisan or vitriolic. It was just that youth are engaged, and here are some examples of the things that they care about. Thank you for allowing me to clarify.

Amna Shah: I look forward to it. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation and for answering all of our questions. It was a great discussion. Thank you very much.

We’ll now take our recess until 10:45.

The committee recessed from 10:18 a.m. to 10:46 a.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Jessie Sunner (Chair): We will call the committee back to order. Our next presenter is Kala Bryson.

Welcome, Kala. Just a reminder, you’ll have 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by ten minutes for questions.

Kala Bryson

Kala Bryson: Hello, my name is Kala Bryson. I use she/her pronouns and am honoured to be speaking before this committee today. In 2020, I wrote an undergraduate honours thesis at UBC, which was supervised by Dr. Andrew Owen and Dr. Richard Johnston. My thesis asked why Canadian governments rely on ballot measures, like plebiscites and referendums, when considering electoral system change.

I use the term “electoral system change” deliberately because it is a very specific type of electoral reform and is the only type of electoral reform that the government insists on putting to a ballot. Indeed, when it comes to other types of electoral reform, like setting fixed election dates and implementing campaign financing rules, our government just makes the change. It really is only with electoral system change where we see the government insist on putting the matter to a ballot.

Now, circling back to my honours thesis, I’ll be transparent. I read on this topic because, like many, I was disappointed by the results of B.C.’s 2018 electoral reform referendum. Beyond my concerns with our current electoral system, however, I also struggled to see the value of asking the public for its views on electoral system change for a third time, especially when the government could have simply sought a mandate to make those changes, as it did with the campaign financing rules introduced in 2017, and especially when it was clear that past ballot measures had failed to resolve the question of whether we should change our electoral system.

My honours thesis looked at ballot measures conducted by Canadian governments generally, because as I quickly learned, B.C. is not the only province that has asked its electorate to vote on this matter. Indeed, since 2005, B.C., Ontario and P.E.I. have collectively asked their citizens to vote on electoral system change a total of seven times.

This phenomenon is notable because Canadian governments are not legally required to consult their citizens before changing their electoral system. It is also notable because none of these ballot measures have led to change. I thus decided to use my honours thesis to explore this phenomenon, as I did not understand why Canadian governments would do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

[10:50 a.m.]

Now, to be clear, I was not the first academic to notice this phenomenon or try to make sense of it. To the best of my knowledge, however, I was the first to move beyond speculation and actually ask, of those involved in their government’s decision to put the matter to a ballot, why their government made that decision.

I’ll pause here to briefly note that while I’m proud of the work I did, I must give credit to my supervisors, especially Dr. Richard Johnston, who not only brought this phenomenon to my attention but also suggested the interview-based approach I ended up using. While he has since retired, at the time Dr. Johnston held the Canada Research Chair in Public Opinion, Elections, and Representation, and I greatly benefited from his expertise as well as his company.

In total, I conducted over ten hours of interviews with 17 individuals who were involved in or proximate to their government’s decision to conduct a ballot measure on electoral system change. My interviewees included some of the individuals behind the B.C. and Ontario citizens’ assemblies on electoral reform, as well as several current and former elected representatives who had been involved in their government’s decision to put the matter to a ballot.

Of the current and former elected representatives I interviewed, I’ll note that two were the Attorney General responsible for their government’s ballot measure, another two were party leaders who played a major role in deciding to hold or proceed with their government’s ballot measure, and one was directly involved in two of their province’s ballot measures.

I haven’t shared a copy of my honours thesis directly with this committee because my interview consent form was quite limited, and I didn’t think I’d have time to obtain the additional consents needed in time for this committee’s work.

As a result, I’ve decided to summarize my research in this presentation format as a somewhat creative workaround that respects my interviewees’ privacy while also allowing me to share the results of my research. On that note, I’ll now just briefly summarize what I found in my research, then discuss how I believe it applies to this committee’s work.

Just as a brief reminder, my research question asked why Canadian governments rely on ballot measures when considering electoral system change. In trying to answer this question, my thesis explored two theories. My first theory proposed that Canadian governments use ballot measures in this context because of a constitutional convention that requires them to put electoral system change to a vote.

For those unfamiliar with constitutional conventions, they are essentially unwritten rules that are considered binding on political actors. The requirement, for instance, that the government must hold the confidence of the House and resign or call an election if it loses that confidence is an example of a constitutional convention that members of this committee would be familiar with.

Accordingly, if my first theory had been correct, the importance of a ballot measure for electoral system change would be understood and respected by all political actors. The suggestion of proceeding without a ballot would have been inconceivable and as foreign to a political actor as suggesting that a government can govern without the confidence of the House.

Through my interviews, especially those with current or former elected representatives, it became abundantly clear, quite quickly, that my first theory was wrong, and Canadian governments do not put electoral system change to a ballot because they feel bound to do so by constitutional convention. In fact, multiple elected representatives recalled explicitly discussing the prospect of proceeding without a ballot and, when asked why they put the matter to a vote, cited a campaign promise or the prospect of gaining points from the electorate.

This takes me to my second theory. My second theory proposed that Canadian governments put electoral system change to a ballot for ulterior aims or, to use more generous language, put the ballot measure forward for a purpose other than assessing and enacting the public’s will — for instance, to make the public feel heard or to gain points from the electorate. Comments shared by my interviewees provided some amount of evidence in support of this theory, but there was a similar amount of evidence indicating the opposite.

As such, despite my best efforts, I was not able to definitively determine what drives Canadian governments to put electoral system change to a ballot. Although I can’t tell you what’s behind the phenomenon, I do believe my research and findings are quite significant within the context of this committee’s work.

Indeed, while I can’t tell you why Canadian governments have repeatedly put electoral system change to a ballot, I can tell you that this government and future governments are not required to do so. I’m making this point rather strenuously, as I’m aware of at least one academic who has been quite vocal in support of there being such a convention but who has never meaningfully substantiated his claim. Simply put, for a constitutional convention to exist, the relevant actors would need to feel bound by it; my interviews established that this is not the case.

I can also tell you, based on my research, that typical arguments in favour of using ballot measures are misleading, if not wholly incorrect. On this topic I would emphasize two key points.

The first point is that ballot measures are not neutral and instead tend to favour the status quo. This tendency is known as status quo bias and is a well-documented phenomenon that predisposes people to vote against change. Status quo bias is exacerbated when an issue is complex or the alternatives are unfamiliar or overwhelming. This makes the use of ballot measures for electoral system change somewhat bewildering.

I can tell you, based on my experience as a teaching assistant in UBC’s political science department, that even university-educated British Columbians who receive lectures on our first-past-the-post electoral system struggle to explain it. Even fewer can understand and articulate alternatives to it, like dual-member proportional representation, mixed-member proportional representation and rural-urban proportional representation.

[10:55 a.m.]

The second point I’d like to make is that contrary to what some may think, ballot measures do not place the issue in the hands of the people. To the contrary, political actors can influence the outcome of a ballot measure in a variety of ways — for instance, by deciding when the ballot measure is held, the number of questions put to voters, the number of options put to voters, the language used in framing the questions and options, whether the ballot measure is binding or non-binding, the threshold required for the results to be implemented, how the results could be implemented. I could go on.

In fact, past ballot measures on electoral system change actually demonstrate how much control political actors retain over the outcome of a ballot measure.

In B.C.’s 2005 electoral reform referendum, for instance, the government had a very high double threshold for electoral system change to be implemented, which required at least 60 percent of votes cast to be in favour of change, and at least 50 percent of votes cast in 60 percent of electoral districts to be in favour of change.

The government was clear that electoral system change would only occur if both thresholds were met. As a result, the 2005 electoral reform referendum failed to create change even though over half of the electorate voted in favour of change.

Similarly, in P.E.I.’s 2016 electoral reform plebiscite, a majority of the electorate voted in favour of change, but the government chose not to implement the results, citing low voter turnout. To be clear, the government did not have a voter turnout threshold before the vote. Instead, the government used voter turnout as an excuse not to implement the results after the votes had been counted.

Now, I want to be clear: these comments aren’t intended to question the motives of elected representatives. As a former legislative intern and as a proud British Columbian, I have a deep respect for our democracy and those who serve in it.

Honestly, one of the things I struggle the most with in conversations about electoral system change is how quickly the public and elected representatives themselves are to accept that elected officials cannot be trusted and that obviously they would choose the electoral system that suits them best. I would urge you as elected representatives to push back on those narratives, not only for yourself but for our democracy as a whole.

You are trusted to govern in the interests of all British Columbians, and the reality is that every day you make decisions that impact your chances of re-election. To be blunt, your partisan loyalties are far more likely to affect your re-election chances than any individual electoral system, be it first-past-the-post or rural-urban proportional representation.

I’ll close shortly, but before doing so, I’d like to just briefly turn this committee’s attention to a document I prepared which provides an overview of options available to a government considering electoral system change. As the document identifies, if a government is considering electoral system change, its best option is to implement electoral system change without a ballot measure.

A government can do this by passing legislation directly; by striking an all-party committee on electoral system change, then implementing the recommended system; by convening a citizens’ assembly on electoral system change, then implementing the recommended system; or by campaigning on a proposed electoral system, then implementing that system if elected.

Another option that’s workable but isn’t the best would be for our government to implement a new electoral system, then hold a vote on whether to accept or reject the new system after one or two elections under it. I’ve labelled this option as workable because, while it would likely reduce the impact of status quo bias, as discussed, ballot measures do not place the issue in the hands of the people. As such, I think there would still be questions about the actual utility of such a vote and the purpose it would serve.

Again, the best option is for our government to proceed with electoral system change with no ballot measure involved.

Now in closing, as I mentioned at the outset of this presentation, Canada has had seven ballot measures on electoral system change since 2005. None of these ballot measures have led to change. As I’ve explained, when it comes to other types of electoral reform, our government just makes the change. For whatever reason, however, electoral system change is regularly put to a ballot.

The government does not have to ask the electorate to vote on electoral system change, nor should it. Should you as members of this committee decide to recommend electoral system change, I would strongly urge you to not undermine your recommendation by attaching it to a ballot measure. Beyond being unnecessary, predisposed against change and subject to political influence — as the very existence of this committee illustrates — ballot measures are not an effective way to resolve the question of whether we should change our electoral system.

I know I’ve covered a lot in our time together, but I’m hopeful that my comments will encourage and embolden this committee to be creative in how you approach your work and your recommendations. I also hope my comments will help members of this committee avoid repeating mistakes of the past, namely, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

That concludes my comments. Thank you so much. I would welcome any questions you might have.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Kala.

Are there any questions?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for your presentation. So looking at the options — I’ve just been, as you were speaking, because I went through it again. I was looking at some of the referendums that have occurred in other Commonwealth countries, particularly Britain, the latest one.

One of the comments that keeps being brought up time and time again is that MLAs can be elected without having more than 50 percent of the vote. So that’s when we start talking to STVs or, you know, alternative votes or when you have a rank-based system. I went and looked through the records last night. There are only 36 of the 93 that were elected in the last election that were under 50 percent of the total votes cast on the first-past-the-post system.

[11:00 a.m.]

So what do you think would be a fair way when you look at all the different alternatives to having first-past-the-post? Which do you prefer?

Kala Bryson: It’s so funny you should ask that, because I was trying to be so deliberate because I know you guys are getting so many submissions on the type of electoral system we should adopt. I’ve always been partial to mixed-member proportional representation, and I would love, love, love to tell this committee why that is.

I’ll be honest. I studied it about five years ago. That’s the thing about electoral system change. It is actually complicated enough that you do need to refresh yourself on how each system operates to even have an opinion on it, which is also why I think it’s a bit silly to put it to a ballot. I think everyday British Columbians have a lot more things to care about. When I listed off those three different types of electoral systems, where I was like…. It’s because I was reading them aloud, because even the names are long.

I know that in the past, I was partial to mixed-member proportional representation. I’m sorry that I can’t tell you exactly why. I also think the fact that I have a political science degree and a law degree, I’m here before this committee, I wrote an honours thesis on electoral reform, and I can’t actually….

There’s so much to this question. I think asking everyday British Columbians to say something on it is maybe asking too much. Although, I do think that on the bus ride here, I could have refreshed my memory.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Can I ask a supplemental then quickly? I know one of the parts of MMP is the fact that there’s a perception of a wider diversity of people that could be in that pool of MLAs or whatever that group is. Yet when you look at some of our municipalities — and we’ve talked about this earlier today and also yesterday — we’re already doing the ranked system in our municipal elections.

When we talk about education and the fact that people are so busy and not really able to look at all the different ways that we could change it…. Do you think that we could use our municipal elections and then transport not only from the councillor portion of it but also the mayoralty race as well so that there would be a process where, if someone is elected, they basically do get 50 percent of the vote?

Kala Bryson: Almost like trial run it at the local government level?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Right.

Kala Bryson: Yeah, I think….

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): As an educational perspective. People are already doing it now, so it’s not a significant change.

One of the changes that would be is for the mayor. Normally, that is first-past-the-post. Then if you’ve got, let’s say, eight councillors, you can have up to eight votes for eight separate people. Most people don’t do it. They only do three or four or five or whatever. It’s already rank-based.

But I wonder how that would work if you did it for the mayor as well. It would be the same principle. If that was successful, then it shouldn’t be that big of a leap for us to do the same thing with our MLAs.

Kala Bryson: I agree in principle with what you’re saying. I would also say, though, that I don’t think we should be asking the public for its views on this, even with local government. You would know from your own history. I think everyone in this room pays attention to what happens at the local government level. I don’t think everyday British Columbians pay attention to what happens at the local government level.

Again, the idea is you’re elected to govern. People don’t really look closely. So I think it could be an education piece, but it’ll be for the same people who are already kind of educated, people who already pay attention, unfortunately.

But in principle, if this committee were to still recommend a ballot measure, which I would strongly urge this committee not to do…. Yeah.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. It’s helpful to have this context around referenda and their use in making decisions like this. There are two questions I had.

One was: could you just refresh…. I was trying to follow you. You’re a fast talker.

Kala Bryson: Apologies.

Rob Botterell: I was wondering if you could just refresh examples of where governments have made decisions that are significant in nature that haven’t involved referenda.

Then the second thing was…. I think we sort of put you on the spot a bit about local government. Given your background in law and political science and so on, do you see the local government context as the same as the provincial government context in terms of voting systems? Or are they somewhat different, given that there’s a much more evident party system provincially?

Kala Bryson: Those are great questions. Your first question was just about big decisions that the government has made without putting it to a ballot.

[11:05 a.m.]

I think that probably the most significant is the campaign financing rules, and I’ll say that both sides of the aisle have made campaign financing rules. I think you don’t have to look further than the results of Vancouver’s 2018 municipal election to see the profound impact that campaign financing rules had. Vision Vancouver was wiped out. They just ceased to be a party after the campaign financing rules were implemented.

So if we’re talking about that we shouldn’t allow elected representatives to make decisions that impact the composition of the House, or whatever legislative assembly you’re talking about, we do that.

Since the campaign financing rules have been introduced by the B.C. NDP as well — I’m not opposed to it — the B.C. NDP has also stayed in power. Back in the early 2000s, the B.C. Liberals also made campaign financing spending rules too. So it’s not one party makes rules. It’s happened on both sides of the aisle, although that party no longer exists.

The second question you had was about local governments as compared to the provincial government and decision-making and the impact. I do think that local governments are…. I think that the party context that you’re identifying is definitely something that should be looked at closer. We had an independent mayor here in Vancouver. It was very different in terms of forming coalitions and not forming coalitions and how an electoral system will impact composition.

If you don’t have established parties that are going to exist indefinitely, coalitions might be more uncertain. Up until the past two years, we’ve had established parties in our provincial Legislature. But even so, we still have pretty established parties.

I think the establishment of parties might affect the electoral system. But again, I trust that you guys have lots of very educated British Columbians making submissions on electoral systems and their impacts.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you. Are there any further questions?

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. It was incredibly informative.

I’m just wondering, in terms of the type of system, if there was to be a change, who would you recommend that we consult as to which system is best?

Kala Bryson: I would personally love to see another citizens assembly. I don’t know why we put it to a ballot. That does not make any sense to me. I don’t know why we doubly distanced it. It went from arm’s length from government to, I would say, back into the hands of government the moment we put a ballot measure there. That’s shown in the outcome. Over half the population voted in favour of it, but I think having another citizens assembly would be an option.

I also do think, though, that a special committee like this would be very capable, especially since you are hearing from a number of British Columbians coming together, putting their best foot forward. I think it would be a very legitimate decision, especially if this committee or a similar committee was able to agree on an outcome. But I also think a citizens assembly and the government implementing the results is equally good.

I think that an informed decision, though, is really important. That’s why I’m also…. Ballot measures are probably not the way to consult, because people don’t have time, and people don’t have the knowledge and background. That’s not because British Columbians are not intelligent. They’re very intelligent. This is a very, very, very esoteric academic exercise.

Amna Shah: I have a question just to follow up on that. Something that we’ve talked about with this committee is the ability to actually present to this committee and the privilege it takes to be able to take the time to come here or the privilege it takes to be a part of a citizens assembly.

I just wonder if you have thoughts on…. Sometimes we might hear something, but it might only be because some people might be happy with what’s already going on, and they don’t think they need to say anything, or they don’t have the ability to have that time. So just give your thoughts on how we can fully represent the viewpoints of British Columbians through these processes.

Kala Bryson: Absolutely, and I appreciate those considerations.

I would say that I think it’s always going to be a privilege if we get to talk about electoral reform. I used to work at an organization that helped people with disabilities. To be honest, someone living with a disability in the province is probably never, ever going to get to the issue before this committee because we don’t have adequate PWD rates. I’m not trying to be political, but I am trying to say that for the average British Columbian, caring about this itself is a privilege.

That would also affect a ballot measure just as much. I think that in the mail-in ballot, we had 40-something percent of people mailing it in. It could reflect an accessibility issue, or it could be that people just don’t have time.

[11:10 a.m.]

When we think about equity, I think that it’s asking a lot to tell people to turn on their TVs, turn on the radio, pull up a website, educate themselves, and make an informed decision. I think that people can speak through their MLAs, and I think that constituency offices are a really accessible format.

If the government said: “We’re going to put this to a committee. Go chat with your local MLA. We’re going to be talking to every MLA individually to hear what their specific communities have said….” I know that there are 93 now, I think, so that might be a little bit…. That’s a couple of days, a couple of weeks of talking to each MLA. But saying: “Talk to your MLA. They’re going to have a little bit of a bullet list that they’re going to raise with us to explain what they’re….”

You can actually outsource the consultations to each MLA office and also get people into…. If we’re talking about good democratic processes, it’s also really good to have people know where their constituency office is and know how to talk to their MLA, and you can get their views that way. Also, I think writing down your views or just….

I also don’t think ballot measures are a great way of actually getting people’s views meaningfully, because yes or no is not really most people’s vote. I think that we should probably have a “don’t care” option, as well, if we’re going to be really meaningful about actually expressing people’s views, because it forces a binary. I think there are a lot of British Columbians who do not care. We don’t even know how many that is. We have not necessarily been collecting views, but….

I take the accessibility concerns seriously, but I also don’t think a ballot measure is necessarily exceptionally accessible either.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I’m glad we’re having this conversation because you’ve got some really good experience in this. One of the things that comes up…. You talk about how busy everybody is and engagement and things like that.

One of the things that I’m seeing is the alternative approval process that municipalities are using as an alternative to referendums on major spending. They use it under the guises of: “Well, it’s very expensive for us to have referendums, so we think this is a viable option, and if 10 percent of our electoral voters take the time to say no, then we’ll have a full-blown referendum.” Quite frankly, I think that’s unfair.

As a municipal leader, I know, sometimes you have to try to put things through without necessarily going out to the public, and you take your chances. But really, that 10 percent is 20 percent or more because not even 50 percent of the people participate in municipal elections. Sometimes it’s down to 30 percent. So now you’re looking at between 25 and 30 percent of your electoral constituents to come and say no to the alternative approval process.

That’s why I’m a little bit concerned, and I’d like to know your take on your options, because option A says that we could change the legislation without asking the public’s permission; option B is, well, we try it for one election cycle and cross our fingers they don’t get too mad at us; or option 3 is we do a referendum proposal. What is your thought when we have these opportunities to engage the public?

To me, there are really two good ways of doing it. One is that you have a ballot attached to when you’re doing an election, so that you’re doing it at the same time and how that would work, and the second one would be, again, like we talked about, with some kind of a rank-based system, where we’re using a municipality election as an example or a trial run.

If you were going to form it on a ballot, how would you like to see it formed? You said that in the past, it was fairly convoluted and it was fairly complex. How would we be able to do that?

Kala Bryson: Perhaps when we talk about unfairness…. I’m mindful of my time. But if we’re talking about fairness, I think that status quo bias and the influence of status quo bias on past referendums has made it so that proponents of electoral reform have had….

When you talk about, you know, they have to get 20 to 25 percent of their electorate to vote against for there to be electoral system change, it…. I mean, it was 60 percent, but when you think about how many British Columbians had to vote to get it there — surreal.

I don’t know necessarily if…. Yeah, I think status quo bias is something to consider. At least if it’s an opposition to change, like you have to say you oppose change, at least there…. I don’t know. I’m thinking about the presumptions. I’m not sure how that plays out, but I do think that requiring a referendum has been exceptionally unfair to proponents of electoral system change for two decades in B.C.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): All right.

[11:15 a.m.]

Rob Botterell: You’ve talked about status quo bias and referenda, and we’ve also just been talking about: well, if this committee were to recommend legislation or a form of pro rep rather than the status quo, how would we consult? I was encouraged when you said the special committee is very capable. Thank you.

But I also think the context is important. I just wondered if you agree. The context here is we’ve had a bunch of referenda. We’ve had a citizens’ assembly. The main options on proportional representation and alternative voting are in front of us. They’re well researched. They’ve been researched to death. We’re getting a good turnout. We’re getting presentations from a variety of experts. We have an opportunity for public input.

I know you’d mentioned talking to all the MLAs individually or having another citizens’ assembly. I just wondered if you think that’s a must-do. Or is that a nice-to-have? Given the amount of work that’s been done on this issue, is the special committee able to deal with this?

Kala Bryson: I’ve loved all the questions, but this is such a fun question.

In my accompanying written submissions, not the ones you guys have in front of you…. I didn’t print this off. It’s in the appendix. But on appendix A, I have this little document. It looks like this, if you have your laptop open. I essentially have outlined B.C.’s history of electoral system change, but then I call it….

At the very bottom of the document, it says: “Fork in the road No. 1. Fork in the road No. 2.” I think we’re at fork in the road No. 2, because you can actually see we’ve done a lot of work on this — a lot. I don’t think we want to duplicate the efforts. I think we’re at the exact same….

There was a special committee in 2003. There was a special committee in 2025. I think spending another two decades and doing the exact same thing that we’ve already done would be really disappointing and probably kill electoral system change in the province completely. I don’t know if anyone would have the stamina to continue.

I do think that because of how much information we have and all the information that has been collected, I really do sincerely believe we can change the electoral system.

Again, British Columbians have had no issue with campaign financing rules. The sky did not fall. The sky also did not fall back in ’52 when the government changed our electoral system unilaterally and then in ’53 when they changed it back because it didn’t suit their preferences.

I would argue that the flip back and forth, after deciding “I don’t like that system,” could have been bad for democracy. It didn’t…. We still have a democracy.

But yeah, I know that there is this history and that there is this context, but I think it’s incumbent on this committee to act creatively, because the same old and this history of doing the exact same thing has not led to change.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your presentation, Kala. It’s very interesting.

Your research presupposes that electoral reform is necessary, and your comments also do that. What do you say to people who don’t believe electoral reform is necessary, and why do you believe that it is?

Kala Bryson: That’s a great question. That’s because I’ve been trying so hard to keep my presentation away from electoral system change and that conversation entirely.

I think first-past-the-post…. The results do not line up with the popular vote in any meaningful way. I have a political science degree, and every election cycle, I get…. I’m sure members of this committee as well as elected representatives and people who are in political circles get questions, as well, like: “Why did this riding do this? What happened here?”

With the last federal election, I had a friend…. She lives in East Van. She strategically voted for the Liberals, which was totally her prerogative, but she didn’t want to do that. She just didn’t understand, and she’s a high school teacher. So people don’t understand our current electoral system.

And I think first-past-the-post…. It’s based off of the idea of horse racing, where it doesn’t really matter if the next horse is one second away versus ten hours away. I don’t think that that applies to electoral politics. I think every member in this room knows that the percentage to which, the amount to which…. How close the next person is matters, actually, a lot, and it really informs how you approach the next election.

Also, to the people who do not care about electoral reform, I would say that they should also be opposed to a ballot measure on electoral system change, because it’s a huge waste of money if it doesn’t lead to change. It’s like $1 million plus each time. So if someone still does not care about electoral system change, that’s awesome. We can agree on the fact that a ballot measure is a really poor use of public resources.

Sheldon Clare: To follow up, when the vote doesn’t line up with the popular vote, or the results don’t line up with the popular vote, is there a consideration that regional needs also are important? Because we don’t have ridings that have the same numbers of people in them in every case. They’re varied and different. Some of our ridings are massive. My own is larger than Switzerland, and this involves people who are spread all over the province or all over that riding, and they’re more concerned about regional representation than a popular vote. So how do you splice that?

[11:20 a.m.]

Kala Bryson: I do know that there are…. So alternative votes are always there. I think proportional representation systems like…. Again, I do not know the exacts of the system. I knew it five years ago.

Rural-urban proportional representation, I know, was, in theory, supposed to address that concern, but I also think a ranked ballot might be on the table. I really do think first-past-the post…. The position I take over drinks with friends is that first-past-the post is the worst. There’s just really no saving grace to it. That’s kind of the bottom line for me. Anything, I think, would be improvement, other than maybe a dictatorship, you know. I’ll draw the line there. I’ll let you know that’s actually a worse system.

First-past-the post — I don’t know; I’d love to hear arguments in favour of it, really. I think people who argue in favour of it, if you actually read the undertone of what they’re saying, don’t want the public’s views to meaningfully…. They would like there to be a bit of a skewed result because it benefits them.

Sheldon Clare: But your lack of interest in a referendum would indicate that you’re not interested in the public’s views as well.

Kala Bryson: I’m interested in informed views, and I want to make sure that decisions in B.C. are actually meaningful. I think it’s really important that we don’t set things up to fail. If we have identified something as an issue, I think it’s really important that we treat it as that and actually figure out how best to solve it.

I think ballot measures have never solved it. This committee itself illustrates that it’s still a live question for British Columbians, because it has not satisfied us. It’s really important to resolve those issues. If nothing else, I think we could just validate our current electoral system, tell people to stop asking questions about it and just convince the public that it’s a great electoral system. I don’t think that people want to do that, because I don’t think anyone has that view, which is why it’s probably still a continuing debate.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Kala, for your presentation and for speaking with us today.

Kala Bryson: Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay. Next up we have Holly Broadland.

Welcome, Holly. You’ll have five minutes for your presentation followed by five minutes for questions.

Holly Broadland

Holly Broadland: Thank you very much.

Good morning, committee. Thanks for being here to listen to me. I have to say I’m not nearly as prepared as our last presenter, because I found out about an hour ago that I’d been off the wait-list. So I’m here in front of you using my best improvisational skills.

I hope you’ll appreciate and give me some grace for not being very poised or ready to speak on all the details of everything, but I certainly am speaking from the heart, because this this is an issue that’s important to me. I come to you because I really care about electoral reform.

My name is Holly Broadland, and I’m born and raised in B.C. I grew up on Vancouver Island and then moved over to the Lower Mainland when I went to university.

I’ve been over here for about a couple of decades and raised my family here. I’m a mother of two teens. The eldest is going to be voting in the next provincial election. He had a chance to vote in the municipal by-election about four days after his birthday and in the federal election about a month after his birthday, so he was very excited to get involved with voting and exercising his rights.

I really care that we make change to our government, because I’d like to see proportional representation, which means that every vote counts. I’d like us to move past first-past-the-post and into more collaborative politics.

I am in support of different models of proportional representation. I’m not here to tell you exactly which one. I want to leave that to the experts and just say that this is something that I believe should happen. I am in support of different systems that may include multi-member ridings or top-up seats or both, but I don’t support ranked ballots in single-member ridings.

I will leave it to the experts, be it the committee or others in consultation roles, to figure out the details, but I would love to see this happen on a quick time schedule so that we can implement this for the next provincial election. I would be so proud to take my 18-year-old, who would be a few years older then, to the next election, to have a chance to vote in a different style and be one of the pioneers to do this. You have that power, and I’m really excited for you to have that opportunity.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’d love to see MLAs of different parties working together to implement this. I think that’s an example of how we can have more collaborative politics. I don’t think that we need a referendum in order to have this happen. We’ve got strong polling data that shows that there is support from British Columbians for proportional representation.

Personally, I’m a high school teacher. I work in the library, and my goal is for students to be engaged and excited to vote. I see a wide range. I see some students who are really keen, and then I see kids who have no idea that there is a federal election happening or something. When we have programs like Student Vote, that’s really, really fantastic, and we did run that in our school in the fall for the provincial election.

I’m just going to run over a couple other points that I had. I apologize that my thoughts aren’t as organized as I’d wanted, but I want to make sure that I mentioned my mother. My mother immigrated from the U.S. over 50 years ago after meeting a very handsome ski instructor, British Columbian, in the Swiss Alps. They fell in love very quickly. In fact, he gave up on the black diamond runs and stayed on the bunny hill to be with this cute American.

I’ve been very, very thankful that they decided to move to B.C. instead of staying in the States. Of course, we’re very close with my mom’s four siblings, who live in the States still. Unfortunately, at this time, my mom is deeply saddened and disturbed by what’s happening in American politics. It concerns me as well, and it makes us feel like we can’t visit her family at this time.

I want to support more collaborative decision-making in B.C. I want to see a place where everyone feels welcomed and we can work together on our collective issues that affect all of us. What party you are doesn’t matter. We all want to feel safe. We want to have good health, good education, a good climate, and I believe we can’t really get to all of these things, unless we have a strong way of electing our representatives.

That’s why I think you have a unique and historic opportunity in front of you to effect positive change for our province, and I’m honestly excited for you to do that. Thank you for listening.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Holly, for your presentation. Are there any questions?

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. You had mentioned that you don’t really know which type of pro rep system, but you did specifically mention that you did not support a ranked ballot. Is there a reason why?

Holly Broadland: I don’t feel that one, officially, fits into the category of proportional representation, in my mind.

Amna Shah: I see. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks so much for your presentation. Can we add a little further to that? I was going to ask the same question as Amna asked. Now we’ve been here for a period of time, and we’re getting a kind of a feel that there seems to be an appetite for more — I’m not going to say “regionalized,” because that’s not the proper word for it — diversified representation in the Legislature.

Even though I can argue that in all parties we’ve got a fair representation from a wide variety of backgrounds, ethnicities, whether they were born here or weren’t born here, I think we’ve got a pretty good, diverse group in the Legislature right now. In certain jurisdictions, like Mexico, for example, they have two systems where you vote up to 300 seats in one and then 200 in another. The way it’s set up, you can’t have more than 300 total out of the 500. You can’t have, like, 495.

Is there a particular system that…. If you don’t want to go through the rank-based system, which is what we’re basically using in a lot of our municipal elections, is there a preference that you have? In being able to determine that, is it more of the MMP, having a mix of a proportional representation of the percentages, or a split? Have you thought of that?

Holly Broadland: I’ll tell you that, honestly, I haven’t really. Since the last time we had a referendum — and I’m one of the people who would care and actually looked at it and watched the videos and that kind of thing — at this point, I would just like to see a proportional representation model. I would let the experts who are more knowledgeable about it than myself choose the model, and I’d be trusting that.

[11:30 a.m.]

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Great. I don’t see any further questions. Thank you so much for your presentation, Holly.

Holly Broadland: Thanks for being here.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay, next we have David Green.

Welcome, David. Thank you for coming today. Just a reminder, you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

David Green

David Green: Hello. Thanks for having me here today. I can appreciate the amount of time it takes to go through something this complicated.

I’m not really an expert, and I don’t know much about how the government really works from a day-to-day business standpoint. As far as voting formulas go and stuff like that, I can leave that up to the experts. But for me, I just have some general thoughts based on my observations over time.

First, I think before people can even really answer the question about what kind of electoral reform they want, they have to understand what it means to them. What are the expectations candidates and voters have? How do these expectations relate to the electoral and legislative cultures we have? How much accountability do the elected have to their ridings? Are we trying to shape a culture that everyday people are invested in educating themselves about while fostering accountability towards it? Are we trying to create a more efficient Crown authority, bureaucracy and economy?

Also, there are interests and groups who don’t have a vote but obviously have a distorted influence over the outcome. So how do we address the lobbyists, news outlets, social institutions and foreign governments who’d like all to profit from being overrepresented in our government decision-making?

I like the idea of minority governments so as to limit potential abuse from any one voice, but a risk I fear with proportional representation is the development of the same kind of hegemony we see under the party tents but just out in the Legislature with coalitions.

For reform, I think there needs to be an electoral structure that encourages change in how political parties approach elections and ultimately govern with each other.

Some ideas and goals could include having a hard deadline for costed plans, which requires certain transparency standards; making voting day a stat holiday; restrictions on candidates parachuting into ridings; stronger campaign contribution laws for limiting outside influence; consistent party names and clear affiliations between provincial and federal parties to avoid confusion; staggered terms with solid limits; reforming the use of party Whips; less political appointments, like perhaps having an elected Senate House Speaker or Lieutenant Governor; perhaps even a congress of independent experts who run for positions that aren’t tied necessarily to a geographical riding but to an issue like climate change or housing.

The candidates themselves I don’t think need a code of conduct when campaigning. I like to see the warts and all. But when it comes to attack ads and social media posts, I think standards about misinformation and how to handle it are needed. Today it’s easy to say non-factual things and have them stick to the internet and in people’s minds.

And then what about voter turnout if it’s low? Who’s responsible for that? Should we say: “Tough. They chose not to vote. No representation for you”?

I hope we can go about creating government that takes into account as broad a cross-section of our society as possible. If we stop at our own beliefs and wants, we are bound to miss future problems and potential solutions.

Mandatory voting laws can put pressure on people to vote, but I think that misses the point about why they might not have chosen to vote in the first place. Voting for someone who doesn’t represent you makes no democratic sense.

We could have a minimum voter turnout threshold of all potential voters that needs to be met in order to finalize results. Otherwise the election in the riding is redone, with parties responsible for figuring out how to improve voter apathy. They will work to actually get elected instead of relying on money and social media marketing and appeals to emotion.

[11:35 a.m.]

Lastly, it should be…. I recognize that no system really is going to have all the answers all the time and that as our society develops, a review process about the electoral process should be part of it all, all the time.

Anyway, thank you for listening.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, David.

Are there any questions?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, David, for your presentation. You went through a ton of good stuff, seriously.

What’s the number one issue that you think is why we need to make changes to the way that we vote? I mean, to you personally, what are we missing?

We can argue that we’re never going to get 100 percent of the people to vote in the first place. We’re not going to get more than probably 50 or 60 percent of the people to actually vote together on any given subject just because of the diversity of the people that are out there. So what do you think we’re missing?

David Green: Well, with any culture, it just comes down to education. It’s not something we’re going to solve overnight. I don’t know. Schools, more education about what it means to hold elections and what democracy is really from a more political science point of view. Then just patience and seeing how it turns out.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): If I may, do you think that because we’re putting so much pressure on the lack of accessibility…? I think it started in the States, and now it’s coming up here with the way people are being so much more disrespectful to each other. The opportunities to have town hall meetings are less and less because of the confrontational aspects that people seem to think that they have the right to do now where they weren’t, say, ten or 15 years ago.

Do you think that’s leading to people’s frustration in not being able to participate in the process, when governments of all levels are limiting the access of the public to actually speak their mind?

David Green: It’s tricky because, I mean, how do you know who’s telling the truth and who isn’t in the first place?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Yeah, good point. But if the government was going to do something and you were dead set against it, would you feel that the process now is harder for you to approach either (a) your elected officials or (b) a member of a ministry or a government? Is it harder to get access to the people now as it was then, say, ten or15 years ago?

David Green: Well, honestly, I’ve never tried to get access to an official, so I wouldn’t know from that. I think I see it kind of like a lot of…. There are political parties and interests out there who are fostering this sense of division between people because they can use it as a base.

Yeah, I’m not sure what the real answer to that is. Just more education, people being aware themselves. Because you can’t…. I don’t know. You can’t lead a horse to water and make it drink, you know. Yeah, just education, patience, trying to be as clear as possible rather than obscure things just for political points.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Take your chances.

David Green: Yeah, I mean, that’s all we can do really.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your presentation, David. It shows you put a lot of thought into things other than some of the issues we’ve looked at and the committee before.

I had a couple of points I wanted to make and a question. Some of your comments seemed to be more directed at the federal system of voting, I think, than the provincial one because in B.C. we, of course, have a unicameral system. We don’t have a Senate, and in the federal system, we do.

You mentioned about stopping parachuting. Now there are a number of ridings where boundary changes happened and a person who was running suddenly finds themselves just outside of their riding. I know of many ridings where there are people who are not living in that riding but live on the edge or on close parts of it. Do you consider those parachute candidates?

David Green: Well, for me, the problem isn’t necessarily the candidate parachuting in. It’s how they relate to their constituency, how they relate to the riding. If they parachute in, and they involve themselves in the community and do a job, then that’s great. But if they don’t, and they just use it as a way to gain access into the party, then that’s obviously bad.

[11:40 a.m.]

I guess if we have a council or somebody that can look at these things as they pop up, rather than just whoever is the head of the other government, to decide what to do….

Sheldon Clare: It can be based on a number of things. For example, there are independent candidates who run, parachuting all over the place. I can think of one in particular who does that a fair bit, dare I say — looking meaningfully at my Green colleague here. There are others who have done this at the behest of the party, because they may have two good people in one area, and they say: “Well this one would be very good at this role if they can get elected.” Then that’s what’s done.

I’ve also heard comments like: “Well, you could paint a haystack a particular colour and run it in some ridings, and it’s going to get elected.”

David Green: Yeah, of course.

Sheldon Clare: So we have issues like that.

I did want to thank you for your comments, because I do think it does broaden some of the issues that we’re looking at in this committee. Thank you.

David Green: You’re welcome. I think another part of parachuting, as I mentioned, is also kind of the independent congress of people who are voted in, not necessarily as part of a riding. If a party felt like there’s an extra person who was good for a certain role, they could run them in that.

Sheldon Clare: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. That’s helpful.

Amna Shah: Thank you for your thoughts and for a lot of great points that you brought up there. My question is around the pro rep system and your fears around it just becoming the same hyper-partisan system, just with more parties at the table, I suppose.

Can you think of any scenario in which there could be rules put in place to prevent that from happening? Is there a scenario in your mind in which that doesn’t happen, under a particular type of pro rep system?

David Green: I think we can put in certain things, as I was saying, like staggered terms, so different parties are going to be having different flows throughout the Legislature. So it’s never going to be the same. It just comes down to that everything kind of moves like water, if you can flow it into a different direction, it can….

It’s just about, I guess, figuring out the behaviour of parties and getting them not to do that. I’m not sure myself. As far as human behaviour goes, I’m not really an expert.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): All right, no further questions? Thank you so much for your time.

Our next presenter is Kevin Huang.

Good timing. Thanks for joining us, Kevin. Just before you start, a reminder that you have five minutes to present, followed by five minutes for questions.

Hua Foundation

Kevin Huang: Hello, committee members. Thanks for having me here today. My name is Kevin Huang, he/him pronouns. I am the executive director of Hua Foundation. As a non-profit, we organize with youth from the Asian diaspora, working on issues of food security, language access, anti-racism, capacity-building and community development through engagement and community organizing.

I want to share our organization’s support for implementation of proportional representation for elections. By the way of introduction and relevance to the committee’s mandate, Hua Foundation participated in the 2018 electoral reform referendum as a registered group in support of PR, where our youth organizers put together a campaign in English and Chinese — written traditional Chinese and spoken Cantonese.

We engaged community members through door-knocking, canvassing and social media campaign, even going on Cantonese-language media to debate on live radio. That was not easy for our younger folks.

We also were the Asian communities convener established in 2021 by the B.C. multiculturalism branch, where we published a report on non-profits serving in the Asian community.

I was also a provincially appointed working group member to establish the Chinese Canadian Museum, where we did a lot of outreach in different communities.

So with the current opportunity to revisit electoral reform and the opportunity to speak today, I wanted to share a few suggestions stemming from reflections on our 2018 campaign and community engagement and organizing since, that the committee I hope will take into consideration.

[11:45 a.m.]

One, through our engagements, we found that nearly all community members that we worked with were supportive of high-level principles of effective representation and meaningful participation. The concept of wasted votes, the majority-takes-all and impacts of strategic voting is easily understood if not already well known to those we engaged. To that end, there is an appetite and openness to change the electoral system to address these issues.

Two, there was familiarity bias for the current system, first-past-the-post, that we were working against. This is not new when you’re advocating for something, especially in the general public, however being presented with the choice of which form of pro rep in question number 2 was arduous and onerous on many people, and it was actually, frankly, confusing.

Something that we heard was that pro rep is too complicated. And in our argument and also in reflection, it’s actually the referendum’s second question that was complicated. The system itself, if presented to a voter as a ballot, is not.

We also heard concerns around fearmongering, around how you will lose local representation, the far-right or the far-left parties will take over. In my opinion, all of these can be alleviated by designing a system that’s customized to our geography and provincial circumstances. So to that end, we support a process where we do engage community members on some of these higher-level values but also lean on experts to design a proportional representation system that works for us as a province.

Three, we are in a new age of how community members receive information and media, where traditional media is struggling and disinformation is rampant. These are direct threats to our democracy. In our organizing efforts, we work within language communities where there are often silos of information being spread, especially misinformation and disinformation.

We saw this very prevalently during COVID-19 where there was rampant disinformation in non-English language communities. It took the government and also health authorities a couple of weeks to start providing official translations to try and stem that curve of disinformation.

But I will also take a quick moment to commend the province and jurisdictions, like city of Vancouver, that have maintained some of these translation standards to this day. I hope it actually increases.

Due to COVID, we also saw the deterioration of in-person engagements due to lockdown and how people engage with each other in community. This limits how people can share and also check information for redundancy, also thinking about what’s actually best for us as a community versus individuals.

These negative impacts of siloing of information are very prevalent in language communities. My request here is that the committee invest in ways to strengthen democracy through, now, more in-person engagements and also more accessibility, especially through language. That’s all for today. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Kevin. Are there any questions?

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate your efforts in educating the public, especially during a time where the question was posed to the general public about electoral reform. My question to you is: is a referendum required for an electoral systems change, in your opinion, about how the public would feel about that?

The reason I ask is that we’ve had presenters that we’ve heard from thus far who have indicated that we should not have a referendum or a ballot measure, as it’s referred to. What are your thoughts on that?

Kevin Huang: I believe that recent census data, federally and also provincially, have shown that there is a lot of appetite for change. Whether you folks want to put that up for a referendum and go through all of that cycle or not is really up to you. Personally, I would not. I would actually think about ways to solicit community engagement as opportunities to actually find out what our citizenry actually cares about.

From our engagements to this day, whether it’s consulting work or it’s just some advocacy work or even in partnership with the city of Vancouver to work with our community members, what we are finding is that there’s a lot of concern around disinformation, the erosion of democracy and especially what we’re seeing from the States.

For a lot of our communities, I’ll say — and it’s mostly East Asian folks that we work with right now, but we’re trying to improve on that — there’s also a lot of concern seeing what’s happening in places like Taiwan, where I’m from, where there is overtake of government to try and erode democracy. Citizenry came out in the tens of thousands overnight hearing about a bill to erode something.

That’s something that I personally haven’t seen here, but I think there is an appetite and also a lot of worry that if something were to happen to that here, people will show up here. I don’t want to get to that by any means.

[11:50 a.m.]

So I think that there are ways that, for me, definitely pilot something. Think about ways to engage folks so that they’re actually informed in how they can participate in our democracy. So personally, I would just go for it.

Amna Shah: Just a quick follow-up. Do you think engagements like these are a good way to have that engagement?

Kevin Huang: Yeah, I think so, and also through language communities that we’ve seen. Especially in conjunction with erosion of trust, what we’re seeing is that people rely on certain community members and/or organizations to get information out.

How do we balance that line as an organization, speaking for ourselves, of maintaining neutrality and non-partisanship? Those are really hard things to do, but there are many organizations doing that critical work to make sure that our communities are healthy.

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation. Certainly, this has become a theme and a topic of discussion over the course of the last couple of days, and you’ve identified, I think, some important reminders of the need for engagement and need for engagement with various communities.

In the event that this committee recommended pro rep and in the event the government proceeded to develop and implement it, given the amount of work that’s already been done on pro rep over many years, would you see the main focus being to make sure that electors and voters in many communities are really thoroughly familiar with the process? Or would you see a need for this committee to conduct a wide-ranging level of community engagement before making a recommendation? Because that’s kind of what I think we’re doing right now.

Kevin Huang: In my opinion, I think that leaving the design of the actual system to the experts would be what I would suggest.

For community engagement, having the opportunity to speak is a privilege — but also making sure that community members have the opportunity to be heard as well as some of the larger concerns that they have. So from the 2018, we heard: “Oh, wow. A fringe party is going to take over.” But it’s like, well, if you actually do the math, they actually can’t. There are also designs in the pro rep system to think about a threshold.

So I think just engagement in those ways to make sure that people are onboarded and that the fear of erosion of democracy is actually not what’s happening here.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Great. Thank you so much, Kevin. I don’t see any further questions. Thank you for your presentation.

Kevin Huang: Thank you for your time.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): We will now break for lunch until one o’clock.

The committee recessed from 11:53 a.m. to 1:09 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Welcome back, everyone. We’re continuing our hearings this afternoon.

I would like to welcome Suzanne Anton. Thank you for coming to our committee to present today. You will have 15 minutes to present, followed by ten minutes for questions.

[1:10 p.m.]

Suzanne Anton

Suzanne Anton: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and committee members. I appreciate being here today. Thank you for the service that you’re rendering. It’s a beautiful July day, and here you are listening to conversations about electoral reform. Thank you very much for that.

My name is Suzanne Anton. I’m a former Attorney General, and I am the current co-chair of the No B.C. Proportional Representation Society. I know you heard from my colleague Bill Tieleman yesterday, I think. We were the official no side in the vote for electoral reform in 2018.

I do appreciate that your committee is examining both democratic engagement and the question of voting systems, but I’m only going to address the latter, where the question is: should we once more reconsider British Columbia’s first-past-the-post electoral system? It will not take you by surprise to know that my answer is a very strong no.

I’m going to address the following matters: our economy, respect for voters, accountability, stability. And I’m going to address some of the arguments rendered in favour of proportional representation.

First of all, most important: our economy. If you were to go outside and walk up to Granville and Georgia and talk to the first 1,000 people to walk by, ask them their top five issues in British Columbia, not one of them will mention electoral reform. Every single one of them will mention the economy in one form or another. That is our number one issue in British Columbia.

We have very heavy debt. We don’t have the kind of investment in our economy that we would like, and we are not doing very well. Our current government, I know, is keenly aware of that. They’re trying to reduce unnecessary spending, and they are trying to increase revenues through resource development and through other projects. That is to be applauded. We need resources in government. Government can’t survive on taxes alone or re-taxing the same people. Governments have to survive on revenues from a vibrant economy.

There’s plenty of necessary spending to be done. Housing and infrastructure are both significant and important challenges. We have massive transportation needs here in the Lower Mainland. Hospitals around B.C. need repair or replacement. And I hear there’s a bridge in Quesnel which is falling down.

The President to the south has, in a way, done us a favour. He has made us realize that we need to pay attention to our own economic health. But we didn’t even really need that encouragement. You go to the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver or Pandora street in Victoria, and you see such dreadful scenes of poverty. We can hardly imagine such things in British Columbia. And in your own ridings, you’ll all have seen and understood the less visible impacts of poverty — families struggling, people living in RVs, hungry children.

The best way to alleviate poverty is not by changing an electoral system. It is a paycheque in the pocket or a household that has a household-serving paycheque where the income is sufficient. We need all hands on deck for this — citizens and elected people alike. We need everyone out supporting this and spending their time on it.

I do believe our political leaders are doing just that. Prime Minister Carney has repeatedly expressed his interest in a booming economy and will be approving large projects. Premier David Eby is doing the same.

New projects will be good, but at the same time, we need to ensure that everything we do takes us forward, not bogging us down in unnecessary causes. And I’m sorry to say this is one of those causes. I say that with all respect to you sitting here today. I’m guessing that it’s extremely unlikely that this is an issue most of you ran on in the last election, and I’m guessing that most of you would prefer to be making better use of your time.

Although I must say, I have been listening to the presentations, and they’ve been interesting. I’ve been listening online, and I was here yesterday.

If we change voting systems, every single MLA in B.C. will be spending time and resources thinking about it — what their ridings are, who their voters are, how much they’re in favour with the backroom party bosses, etc.

So I strongly suggest that we follow the political leadership in Canada and B.C. supported by all of the major political parties and allow you as MLAs and your colleagues to work on matters which help your constituents and all of those who rely on B.C. having a strong and healthy economy. We should be one of the most wealthy jurisdictions in the world, and I think that that is our goal and our challenge.

[1:15 p.m.]

The second thing I would like to address is respect for voters. Voters are way smarter than we politicians sometimes like to give them credit for, and voters need to be respected in the decisions that they have made.

We have asked them to reconsider our voting system three times in the last 20 years, and three times the vote for change has failed. I know you’ve heard this. In 2005, we had a vote which didn’t meet the 60 percent requirement for a referendum. In 2009, in conjunction with the provincial election, voters gave a resounding 61 percent no to proportional representation. And in 2018, a mere nine years later, the voters gave the same resounding 61 percent no to electoral reform.

Our organization, the No B.C. Proportional Representation Society, was the official no side. We were a cross-partisan organization, and we worked extremely hard over six months to make sure that people in British Columbia understood the issues. And they did.

You cannot imagine how pleased I was. I was right outside this hotel nearby, and I got in a cab, and the cab driver had the radio on. I asked him if he was voting in the upcoming referendum, and he said: “Yes, I’m voting no.” I was so pleased because that meant that our message had gotten through to pretty straight-up, hard-working British Columbians. We had a public who knew what they were voting on.

Our message of simple, stable and successful had resonated. After the vote, Finance Minister Carole James said, “I think electoral reform is finished,” and I said: “Hooray.”

Let me just add here because I have heard presenters suggesting that you as a committee should make a recommendation without going to the voters. I strongly reject that proposition. Government is at the service of voters. It is voters who choose their form of government, and I think it would be very wrong and extremely disrespectful for any government to change the voting system without having the consent of the voters.

Next, I’d like to address accountability, which is one of the areas where proportional representation simply doesn’t work. As politically engaged people, I am confident that every one of you knew who your MLA was prior to your election. You probably knew where the office was. Your current constituents have probably known who their MLAs are. You spoke to them at your Canada Day events, at the farmers market and over there buying groceries. They speak to you.

You know as an MLA you are constantly in the public eye in your own riding. People know who you are, they come and talk to you all the time, and they give you their opinion. You are their person in Victoria, no matter how they voted. And I know there is no MLA in history who says: “I’m only here for half the riding.” Every MLA is there for the entire riding. You accept that role, and you embrace it. You communicate their issues and their problems to both your caucus and the Legislature in general.

Popular, hard-working MLAs may stay in their position for fairly lengthy periods of time, notwithstanding their party or changes of government, because their citizens, their constituents know them and rely on them. With proportional representation, you lose all that. Some or all of the control of who represents your riding, depending on the system, is left to the parties themselves. Imagine leaving such a key decision in the hands of an unaccountable political party. Decisions made in the back room, not directly by voters — this is not the way to choose candidates.

Constituents must appoint their representatives. They decide at the next election whether they should continue, and as you all know, voters can throw the bums out if they wish in a system of straight-up accountability, first-past-the-post. Accountability alone is, in my respectful view, the most decisive reason for keeping our first-past-the-post system.

I’ll talk about stability. I know Bill Tieleman mentioned this, and Professor Jonathan Berkowitz mentioned it yesterday. Holland, for example — 15 political parties in the House, 223 days to form a government. The coalition lasted less than a year. It dissolved in June of this year. The Prime Minister is serving as a caretaker Prime Minister until the next election. This is not a good model for proportional representation.

Belgium — 494 days from the election in May 2019, and that wasn’t even a record. They have the world record from 2010, when it took 541 days to form a government.

[1:20 p.m.]

I’m drawing a comparison here with countries which have cultures and education relatively similar to ours. Proportional representation has failed. The problem is they have very tiny one-issue parties, and they can gain traction for their issue, which the vast majority of voters, including their coalition partners, never voted for.

Italy — 70 governments since 1946; the average government duration, 361 days; 29 Prime Ministers. How can you possibly get anything done?

You look, for example, at the kind of long-term projects that we have in British Columbia and that I know that the government is looking at now. LNG began with Premier Christy Clark in 2011, and it shipped its first LNG at the end of June of this year. That’s how long projects take, and you need to have governments who are determined to make them succeed.

I can tell you that I was in government 2013 to 2017, and we were all in on LNG. I appreciate that Premier Horgan and Premier Eby have kept their foot on the pedal and have made it happen. You cannot do that if you have unstable governments.

There are some arguments that are put out in favour of proportional representation. I just don’t think that any of them hold any water. One of them, which you read a lot on the internet, is that we have to keep the bad guys out, and it is only proportional representation that will allow us to do that. Of course, that doesn’t really…. You might be the good guy one year, and you yourself might be the bad guy the next, so it’s not really a political calculation of who gets to be in power.

Another argument which is made is that the vote is wasted. I’ve never understood this one. Votes always lead to a winner, and that’s the point. Not everyone will be happy. We’ve all experienced that. But there’s nothing to conclude that your vote is wasted.

Minority representation — I’ve heard that mentioned, but it’s definitely not supported in the evidence. You could look at our history of our B.C. Legislature. We’ve had communities well represented.

It will encourage voting. I don’t see any evidence for that. In fact, I think there would be…. If you’re voting for a political party, you’re one step removed from voting for your representative. I can’t imagine how that encourages voting.

Another issue that is described is that single-issue parties would never have a voice. But yes, everybody has a voice. You go talk to your MLA. If you’ve got a great idea, maybe run for a bigger party and join that party and bring your ideas forward. The tiny parties that you see in the European governments cause confusion and instability, and it’s not worth doing it.

I would say, in conclusion, that our first-past-the-post system is, as we argued in 2018, simple, stable and successful. There’s no reason to change it at this juncture. I strongly recommend that you make that conclusion your advice to the Legislature. We have important issues in British Columbia. We have serious issues. We have issues that matter to every British Columbian, and this is not one of them.

Thank you very much for hearing me today, and I welcome any questions.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Suzanne.

Do we have any questions?

I have a question. Okay, seeing that you are in favour of the system we have currently, and we’re here also just to reform democratic engagement, voter engagement in general, do you have any thoughts on what we can do to improve the system as it stands today?

Suzanne Anton: Well, as a matter of fact, I do. I don’t have the answer for this question, but I wonder if you might recommend re-examining the election spending rules.

You will know that one of the most important issues for a candidate is to be able to reach every single person in your riding, every household. One of the effective ways of doing that, for example, is to put a card or a brochure through their door. I think our election spending rules are too low. I think they should be increased, and you might even consider recommending looking at the total that a person can give to a candidate.

You can’t starve an election. You’ve got to give candidates the resources or the ability to spend the resources that they need to reach every household, every person in their riding. Their voters need to know who they are. They need to know who they’re choosing among.

If I might, I would like to…. I don’t know what the answer is, as I say, but I do think that it’s too low right now, and I’d like to suggest that you recommend that that be looked at.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): All right, thank you.

Any other questions? Deputy Chair.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Suzanne, for the conversation. One of the questions that I hear quite frequently is the lack of experience when it comes to candidacies. We’ve had a pretty big turnover in the Legislature this time around, probably more than we ever have.

[1:25 p.m.]

When you talk about election spending, what do you think about some of the inadequacies or imbalances when it comes to some of the pay structures that we have, even in government, where now a deputy minister actually makes more money than a minister makes? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Suzanne Anton: No, I don’t. I’m not close enough to the information on that. I mean, I think it’s an interesting question, but I don’t know the answer to it. I do know that…. Certainly when I was there, I don’t think MLAs are overpaid. I don’t think cabinet ministers are overpaid.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Can I ask another question? We were talking about different alternatives other than PV. Municipally, we’ve already got a ranking system on the councillor side of things in so many ridings inasmuch as that if you’ve got eight councillors running for a municipal election, you can vote eight different, separate times as a voter. Most people don’t, but you can.

Could you see that as a way, if there was enough support, to try to do that even from a mayor perspective? I can use examples where we have mayors that are elected now that might have only received 30 percent of the vote. Many people in that community would disagree that the person that they wanted as that mayor candidate was actually elected.

Suzanne Anton: I would say two things. We’re talking provincially. You heard Professor Berkowitz yesterday with his arrow. I’m afraid I can’t remember the second name. Let’s call it the arrow theorem. If you have a look at that — I’m not going to try and recite it here; I have read it though — it shows how single transferable vote can lead to some very weird results.

I don’t like proportional representation. I think single transferable vote can lead to even worse outcomes. You can get all the people below…. You’ve got the most popular candidate, but they got 48 percent. And then everybody else who nobody really particularly wanted votes against them, and one of those candidates arises. You can see a circumstance where you’d get a very weird Legislature, which is not really what people wanted. I would actually suggest to work through scenarios in your mind. I think it is not a good system.

As for mayors, I don’t know. I think that just the way we do it, as a matter of fact, is fine. It seems to lead to a result that people accept.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): It was Arrow’s impossibility theorem.

Susan Anton: Thank you very much. Professor Berkowitz will be horrified that I couldn’t remember the second name.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I had one more question. You started off your presentation with saying that if you interviewed 1,000 people on the street, this wouldn’t be one of their top five issues. Hearing from other presenters throughout the last two days, many that are pro rep have said that the issue of pro rep underlines many of the major issues like affordability, housing, all of this, because they don’t hear their voice represented in this. I wanted to know your thoughts on what you would say to those folks that would say that.

Susan Anton: Well, I would say that the current government has a very strong interest in housing and affordability, both provincially and locally. I actually don’t see that manifesting itself. In fact, I think all governments are very concerned about those two issues.

As I would say, I think that what this government needs to do, on top of worrying about that — which they will and must worry about — they need to get the economy going. They’re intending to do that. They wish to do that. I think they need the support of every MLA in the House to do that.

Imagine if there was a PR system. Every MLA would have their heads spinning about what they’re going to do next with their riding. You don’t want that. We want our MLAs to concentrate on the task at hand.

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation. You’ve raised a number of points. Other presenters, as the Chair mentioned, have offered differing views. I don’t propose to canvass that this afternoon. Certainly the province is pursuing economic issues with vigour. Certainly some of the issues, I would argue, in a pro-rep environment would be more widely supported by the way in which the decisions are made.

[1:30 p.m.]

But what I’m interested in particularly is that you mentioned Holland, Italy and Belgium. I asked the same question yesterday. If the government were to look to other countries and other models of pro rep and had to pick one, what would you pick?

What we heard yesterday from a presenter was that the Scandinavian countries were probably, as I called it, the lesser of two evils as an option.

Suzanne Anton: I saw that movie, by the way.

Rob Botterell: There you go. Yeah, yeah. We’ve also been told on a number of occasions and fairly clearly that we should be getting some expert advice on the design of a system.

But from your perspective, if you had to pick a jurisdiction to work with, what would it be?

Suzanne Anton: The problem is that they can go wrong. And that’s what’s happened in Holland. Holland is not particularly culturally different from us. Obviously they have a different culture. But you could argue that we’re similar in a well-educated population, etc. People understand what’s going on. And it has not turned out well. I don’t think there’s any way that you can promise that it’s going to turn out well. And as I said, I think it’s completely unnecessary.

In fact, the Legislature we have now is very proportional to the votes that went through in the last election. So we end up with a fairly proportional result, but we also end up with accountable, elected people who….

People all know who you are. Well, maybe not all of them, but you know what I mean. People know who you are in your riding. They know where to find you, and they know that they can come and tell you what they like and tell you what they don’t like. And you don’t get that with proportional representation.

Rob Botterell: You can get that with proportional representation, depending on the design.

Suzanne Anton: You get people who are put there by their parties, not by electing people.

Rob Botterell: No, not in all the systems that are available to choose from. But I don’t want to debate with you. I’m here to hear your views.

You’re saying there’s no system of proportional representation that under any circumstances would be successful?

Suzanne Anton: Well, I think two things. One is you’re taking your eye off the ball of the main issue in British Columbia right now, which is our economy. Secondly, it’s not going to make government any more stable or any better.

We have stable governments now. We know who the government is. We know what they were elected on. If people don’t like them at the next election, out they go and in comes a new one. It’s a good system.

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. With some of the presenters that we’ve heard thus far, what kept coming up again and again is this feeling of being disenfranchised or not being represented within the current first-past-the-post system that we have and the inference made that that has led to a general detachment from the democratic engagement within the province and across the country.

There was reference made to the most recent referendum. The feeling and the sentiment that I’ve heard, not just in the last couple of days but many times over the past few years, is that the referendum in itself and its design were far too confusing for people to understand. In the words of some presenters, it was a referendum that was designed to fail.

What are your comments on that?

Suzanne Anton: Well, I think Premier Horgan was very dedicated to that referendum. He was a strong supporter of it, so I would disagree that it was designed to fail. It was designed to succeed, as a matter of fact. That was certainly our view at the time.

But the challenge is…. First-past-the-post is quite easy to explain to people. People understand that kind of system. But when you start to describe single transferable votes or proportional representation, in fact, nobody could articulate it — not, unfortunately, the Premier at the time, nor some of his MLA colleagues. They could not articulate what the new system would be. So it simply did not succeed. But that’s because…. Simple, stable and successful — first-past-the-post is very easy to understand.

[1:35 p.m.]

Back to my point about election financing, people do need to know who their MLA is. And MLAs do need to have the budget — and prospective candidates, let’s say, do need to have the budget — to reach all their people. They need to be available, they need to have offices which are open and available, and people need to be able to come in.

If I’ve got an opinion about something, I will go tell my MLA or my Member of Parliament. You will know already that people come in and see you and tell you what they think.

Amna Shah: Sorry. Just a quick follow-up. With regards to that, when you mentioned election spending, that’s one thing for constituents to be able to understand who their candidates are. But would you extend that to constituency office funding as well?

Suzanne Anton: Well, I think that’s a question for the legislative committee, and I think that if it’s insufficient, again, that’s an issue the MLA should raise with them.

You do need to have enough resources. You need to have people be able to know who you are and what you’re doing and to know that you are there to hear from them.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Wonderful. Okay, I see no further questions. Thank you so much, Suzanne, for your presentation and for taking our questions today.

Suzanne Anton: Thank you very much. I appreciate all your hard work and your concentration.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay. Next we have Anton van Walraven.

Welcome, Anton, and thank you for being here today. Just a reminder before you begin, you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions. Please begin when you’re ready.

Anton van Walraven

Anton van Walraven: Great. Thank you. My name is Anton van Walraven. I was born in the Netherlands, moved to B.C. at 37 years and have lived here for the last 25 years. I live on Bowen Island, which is part of the West Vancouver–Sea to Sky provincial electoral district.

I’m here today for my children and, frankly, for everyone of voting age. I give my support that everyone should be represented in the B.C. Legislature through the party candidate of their choice.

I had one question. There’s hardly anyone here, but I’ll ask you anyway. A question to the people here and the panel is — raise your hand to signal yes if my statement is correct — that 50 percent plus one vote or more is the majority of the vote. It’s math.

Now that we have that established, why, then, do we accept a district election system that frequently renders results resulting in governments getting 100 percent of the power with only 40 to 45 percent of the vote?

I know that many like to have a connection to their MLA through district representation, but it comes at a huge price. For instance, a very large part of the electorate does not vote at all.

Don’t think this is some kind of isolated “No-Vote-Ville” somewhere in the hinterland. It’s not. Through my election data analysis, which I’ve been doing since 2017, I’ve observed that the voter turnout percentages are very consistent for polling areas throughout the province. It means that roughly 40 percent to 45 percent or more of the registered voters on your street don’t vote. That is consistent for pretty much every street throughout B.C.

Two, a large part of the electorate, all their votes are consistently not represented in the B.C. Legislature, only because they voted for the party candidate of their choice, and their representation was filtered out by the district election system.

Three, voters feel they have to vote strategically, not for the candidate of their choice but to keep a candidate out that they really don’t want to be elected.

For example, my spouse, who is Canadian by birth — the 2024 provincial election was the first election that she found herself represented in the B.C. Legislature by a candidate and party of her choice. That took 42 years.

To compare, like most others in the Netherlands, since I started voting shortly after turning 18, I’ve always been represented in parliament by the party of my choice, and it wasn’t because I voted for the larger, dominant parties. No. I have always voted for the parties of my choice, which were smaller parties.

Obviously, it should not take 42 years for someone to be represented in a parliament because they want to vote for the party candidate of their choice. If it does, there is something wrong with our election system in B.C.

[1:40 p.m.]

Democracy is about being represented. An election system must be a mechanism to accurately reflect the political preferences of the electorate in the seating distribution in a parliament. If it doesn’t, it fails as an election system and turns into the cynical game it often is in Canada, a game that can be easily influenced and manipulated, as district elections are filters that can be turned on by dominant parties, corporate money, corporate media, social media and even foreign powers, to keep out the parties and candidates they don’t want or to have the candidates win that they want in.

Voting for the candidates of smaller parties that often add very valuable voices to our Legislature should not be discouraged in the way it is in the strictest form of the district election system as it’s used in B.C. and in Canada. We do ourselves short as a democracy by doing so.

The district election system hasn’t served B.C. or Canada well. Otherwise, younger generations would not be facing what they’re facing right now: high unemployment, high cost of education, unaffordable housing, high cost of living, increasingly worsening climate change challenges, highly polarized politics and a diminished natural world because of species extinction and massive pollution.

We have weakened democracy in B.C. and Canada by keeping the district election system going for too long without correcting its shortfalls or replacing it altogether with something better. We must do so now, in combination with other much-needed measures, to grow into a flourishing, healthy and climate-resilient society by including all and to keep anti-democratic forces at bay.

That ends my presentation.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Anton. Do we have any questions?

Anton van Walraven: I’m from the Netherlands. I’ve lived proportional representation, so ask me anything about how it actually works.

Amna Shah: Yes, thank you for your presentation. I did want to ask you about your personal experience and how you felt you were being represented in the Netherlands. I suppose feeling represented is one thing; has it in the past delivered results for you that you were satisfied with as a result of the representation?

Anton van Walraven: Well, politics is a game of cooperation. Of course, by voting for smaller parties, you don’t always get the results. But you’re there. Your representatives are there, and they can add amendments to bills that normally would not go through. Or they can have their own private members’ bills, which very often will become acts.

An example is the Party for the Animals, which is a smaller party — three or four people. They’ve been extremely important to put the welfare of farm animals on the agenda, and it has led to legislation. It’s not so much a one-issue party, but that’s just an example, with only two or three people in the Dutch parliament.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I have a question. You mentioned the example of your wife voting for someone and being represented by them after 42 years.

In the system with pro rep, you’re represented by the party but not necessarily the candidate that you would like. We heard previous speakers speak to how some folks, especially in a community, can have to do with an individual and then not getting that individual but getting someone from the party, when even amongst parties there can be varying views on certain things.

Especially when they’re smaller parties, their mandate or what they’re passionate about can change, depending on which individuals are there. How would you respond to concerns that it’s not just about being represented by the party but also the individuals that you’re voting for in that party?

Anton van Walraven: Well, it comes down to that you can have preferential votes for individuals. In the system they use in the Netherlands, it’s party-list proportional representation. Basically, your ballot is this big, and you can check off the party you want, or you can check off the person you want. You can get preference votes as a candidate.

[1:45 p.m.]

I’ve lived here, of course, too. I do know how it works with the MLAs here, that they’re approachable, but that actually really differs depending on the political colour of who is in office. You do see people who will not go to that MLA, and others will, depending on that.

So I’m not sure. I think it has pitfalls. The pitfall is really that you exclude a lot of people from voting because they’re discouraged, or they’re not voting at all, or they vote strategically. I think that’s where the biggest problem lies with this very strict format of a district election system.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I did have another question. We also heard the previous speakers speak about the Netherlands, speaking about stability in a government, really — not just in the Netherlands but in other countries that have pro rep. If you could speak a bit about that stability piece and being able to actually get important legislative work done in unstable governments.

Anton van Walraven: I think the election system is not some kind of magic wand. There are other things that are happening in societies all over the world. We have the influence of social media, for instance.

There’s also the instance of politics that are accepted everywhere. I think the biggest problem was really the Tony Blair and Bill Clinton Third Way. What it did, a lot of people felt abandoned, and they felt that only more the right-wing, far-right parties, populist parties were listening to them. You see that in the Netherlands, in Germany and in Belgium, but you see it in Canada and the United States as well.

These are things that are happening everywhere. You cannot say that the United States is very stable. It also has a district system. It might be stable, but in a way that you don’t want.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Can you elaborate a little bit more on that statement when you said that it seems like there’s a rise more in the far right than in the far left throughout the world? Why do you think that is?

Anton van Walraven: What I just mentioned. I think a lot of people…. What happened is over the years that manufacturing was moved to China. That was in Europe, but I think it was happening here in North America as well. The people who were losing their jobs were told, “You’ll get service jobs,” but those service jobs never materialized. They saw their own children not having better prospects than they had, and no one was really listening to them.

Basically, the liberal parties had abandoned them; they had embraced the Third Way. I hope you’re familiar with the Third Way. Basically that’s where the market mechanism was embraced by the liberal parties as a mechanism for economic politics, but it meant that suddenly, employment started to move from country to country and away from Europe. For all those people who saw themselves out of jobs, at one point, no one was listening to them anymore, and there was a downturn in economic living prospects.

That continues to be a problem that has not gone. That’s why you still see in Europe all these populist parties there, because things are not being addressed. That’s why, as I mentioned, we have a high cost of living, a high cost of housing, all these things. Look at my children. They really don’t know what to do, and it’s really a big problem.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Do you think that that’s indicative of governments not listening to what the people really want? Or is it just the way the system is set up so that you will continue to have type of government in those situations? In a lot of those places that you’re talking about, they do have PV voting. They do have it spread all across the spectrum, yet you can see where the largest change in voting popularity is to the exact opposite to what they have right now.

[1:50 p.m.]

Anton van Walraven: Yeah, you see a shift towards the right, to the far-right. You’re correct. At the other end, on the left, they have splintered, but that’s actually changing now, finally. Yeah, that’s really the problem. People were not listened to, and sort of neo-liberal ideas were embraced, and everything to the market. But the market has to be regulated.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): All right. I see no further questions. Thank you, Anton, for presenting to us today.

Next up, we’re going to jump ahead a bit to Tom Perry.

Tom Perry: I’m not sure if I ever met Anton before. He’s a husband of a doctor who was particularly nice to me when I returned from the Legislature for some retraining into medicine.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Oh, wow.

Tom Perry: Not very many people were respectful of my service as an MLA at that time, and Anton’s wife was one of them who was very encouraging. Hopefully that gets in the record of the Legislative Assembly.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I think it just did. Thank you, Tom, for joining us today. Just a reminder you’ll have 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by ten minutes for questions.

Tom Perry

Tom Perry: You’ve all got my written presentation. That’s only the third time I ever wrote a speech, I think. I wrote one for a hotly contested nomination meeting in 1989. I wrote one, coincidentally, the day before the Chinese government massacred students in Tiananmen Square in which I celebrated the apparent rise of democracy in China, not knowing what would happen the next day. I gave that in private members’ speeches in the B.C. Legislature.

Maybe this is the third one, but I’m not going to use it. If you’re interested, you can read it. I’m going to instead try to pick up on something. I found the acoustics in this room absolutely terrible. I think a lot of helicopter trips may have helped ruin my ears, and even with hearing aids, if you ask a question, I can’t understand it. Please forgive me.

But I could somewhat hear Mr. Stamer’s questions to Anton van Walraven because you’ve got a good, loud voice and good diction. I think I heard you ask: why do you think people are turning in certain directions? That made me think, really, what I should say is how frightened I am about the loss of democracy, watching not only the United States in particular but countries like Hungary, maybe Poland. My audiologist tells me more about what’s happening in Poland than I read. Recently, Argentina. A few years ago, Brazil.

I think it can happen here too. I know the headline in today’s Vancouver Sun…. I’m one of very few people who still subscribes to the Vancouver Sun, partly because, as cruddy a newspaper as it is now, I still think it’s an important part of protecting democracy. That’s the only reason I pay $650 or whatever it is to get almost nothing.

But today’s headline is about violence and threats against MLAs. I find this shocking. I think I had one threat, maybe, during the seven years I was an MLA. It certainly wasn’t a death threat; it was something unpleasant. But to think that any one of you could be exposed to such threats, particularly the women, but not necessarily exclusively the women…. I just find that appalling, and it makes me wonder also where we’re going wrong.

As someone who absolutely avoids social media, never signed up for it, never wanted it, it’s obvious to me that that has a lot to do with what’s going on.

Let me turn to something else. On Saturday night, a friend had suggested I attend a discussion at the UBC faculty of forestry about concerns about how we’re degrading our forests. I know that at least two of you — maybe Rob Botterell as well — have specific experience either in the forest or in forest-dependent communities.

[1:55 p.m.]

Mike Morris, the former MLA for Prince George, was there on Saturday night. I was astounded by what he said. I wish I had a recording of it that I could have transcribed for you. I hope maybe he’ll present tomorrow when you’re in Prince George to you, but if not, maybe you should summon him.

If he doesn’t come, subpoena him or whatever you have the power to do, because what he said at UBC was that as a trapper, president of B.C. Trappers Association, hunter, fisherman, RCMP superintendent for all of northern British Columbia — as he put it, two-thirds of the geographic area of the province — he declared himself having been responsible to try to protect public safety in all those areas.

When he was appointed by Premier Christy Clark as Parliamentary Secretary for Forests, he learned much more about the state of the forests, and he was shocked. And if you want to know what he meant, really you should hear from him yourselves. But what he recounted to students and professors at UBC was that what he learned could not be acted on because of the powerful forces in the forest industry. Premier Christy Clark dismissed him from that job by promoting him to Solicitor General to limit the damage that he was causing to her political fortunes.

I asked him: “Were your colleagues curious about what you were learning?” Never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer. Is that what the lawyer is saying? I had a pretty good idea what he would say, and he didn’t disappoint me. He said: “No, they weren’t curious.” This to me was shocking, because I would certainly be very curious to learn more from him now if I were an MLA.

The biggest point I’ve made in this brief to you is what a tragedy it is that we don’t seek education as MLAs. I had bad experiences with that, which I’ve outlined in this letter. When I was a fresh MLA like you, I realized that we in the NDP seemed to know almost nothing about climate change. Well, less than nothing probably. Most had never heard of it in 1989.

I proposed maybe we could get a little bit of money from the caucus, which I later learned was using money illegally — money that the Legislative Assembly assigned to MLAs but was pooled and was controlled by a small and powerful clique with a secret budget. In seven years, I never saw the NDP caucus budget. You know, how can that be?

How could I call myself a responsible representative of the public, which I think I was, and say something like what I just said? But when I asked, “Could we get a little bit of money to maybe bring some experts to teach us about environmental issues?” the answer was laughter.

So Darlene Marzari, who was then the senior MLA, former city councillor, senior MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey — a double member riding then — said: “Why don’t we just do it ourselves?” And we ran a teach-in at UBC two days on a weekend, open to the public, completely non-partisan. The teachers were professors at UBC, Simon Fraser, maybe UVic, in 1989. Four hundred people attended, but no other MLAs. Only Darlene and me. I’m still shocked about that.

I’ll give you a more contemporary example. Most of my work since I went back to medicine and my academic work has been trying to understand new drugs, evaluate them completely independently, absolutely and totally free of conflict of interests. It’s something which was inspired by the Legislature’s Conflict of Interest Act.

No contact with drug company reps, no matter how nice they are or whether they were former friends. No contact with the companies. Purely independent academic analysis. And we saved British Columbia hundreds of millions of dollars and are still saving that per year by evaluating drugs honestly.

That was an NDP initiative which I helped start because of my personal expertise in the field. Without that expertise, never would have had the idea for it. It’s called the therapeutics initiative.

We briefed members of all parties who would listen to us on multiple occasions, including when we were under attack by former Liberal governments. The industry tried very hard to get rid of us. Premier Gordon Campbell tried to get rid of us. Later, Premier Christy Clark.

[2:00 p.m.]

Some of you, like Mr. Botterell, will remember the absolute scandal of how the people in the Ministry of Health, on completely false information — lies — managed to get multiple people fired, including one doctoral student at UVic who committed suicide. Even I received $10,000 in compensation for lost salary from that. Our work was suspended.

We tried to brief MLAs about that, and some would listen. We eventually actually reached the Liberal Health Minister, just before the end of the Christy Clark government. We briefed Andrew Wilkinson, former leader of the Liberals.

My position as a former MLA was always, to our academic group, absolute non-partisanship. What we would offer to the NDP, who were more supportive of us, we also offer to the Liberals and we now offer to the Conservatives. We’ve written to Mr. Rustad, offering, and I think our leaders met with the current Conservative Health critic, the doctor from Campbell River. That briefing is open to any of you.

What I wonder is why legislators don’t wish for more of that, particularly in an environment like this where, if the acoustics were better, one could hear questions properly, attempt to answer them honestly and have some cross-examination.

Just as I sat down to try to write this up last night, I noticed, in the Globe and Mail, this headline: “Transport Committee Votes to Have Ministers Explain $1 Billion Loan for B.C. Ferries’ Purchase of Chinese Vessels.” Good on them.

That’s the Parliament of Canada — led, obviously, by the Conservative Members of Parliament and the Bloc Québécois, because the Liberal Members of Parliament are constrained from raising such questions. The NDP now aren’t even on the committees, thanks to first-past-the-post elections and strategic voting, including by people like me.

They’re allowed to do that. Why aren’t you? I’m not suggesting that B.C. Ferries made the wrong decision. How would I have any basis of knowing? I know that Glen Clark and Bob Williams tried in the 1990s to get ferries built in B.C. They succeeded in having them built, but the ferries didn’t work. They were patriotic in that sense, and it was, in principle, a good idea, but it didn’t pan out. Maybe it’s impossible.

But what if you wanted to know, as an MLA, as my representative? What if I asked you in the street, as Suzanne Anton was pointing out: “Isn’t this a crazy decision?” What if you wanted to actually know?

I’m looking the NDP members right in the eyes. Unless something has changed very radically, you have no more idea of the facts than I do as a private citizen. You’re still obliged to entirely trust people who have the power to know the information, where you don’t. Now, I think that’s completely unacceptable in a democracy.

One of the ways the Vietnam War was brought to an end was not by massive student protests. They weren’t massive; I was there organizing them. It was by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee asking very, very tough questions, including by very conservative people like Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas.

Boy, if you want a bright mind, you go back on YouTube and look at Sen. William Fulbright interviewing the U.S. Defense Secretary and the Secretary of State about the Vietnam War. You’d see the power of a legislative committee.

I’m sure I’m past my time, but I just wanted to encourage you. Don’t give in, the way so many of us did. I think I was, without flattering myself too much, one of the hardest to suppress in the NDP caucus, although I never once ratted outside, nor from the cabinet.

I will tell you one thing about the cabinet. I’m probably the first person to ever raise the question of global warming in the B.C. cabinet, in 1993. The Minister of Finance at the time told me: “Surely you don’t believe in that bullshit.” Forgive the language, Hansard. That’s where the discussion ended, and I think that’s insane. It shouldn’t be tolerated, and it’s a feature of all parliamentary governments. It’s not unique to B.C.

I really appreciate the chance to speak with you, and like Suzanne Anton, I appreciate your work.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Tom.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your service as an MLA; I appreciate that very much. I did see your career a little bit in my days in the ’80s and ’90s following politics, and it’s interesting to meet you.

Your presentation — which I think is very interesting, as is your submission — deals more with internal workings of the party system, the caucus system, which I find very interesting.

[2:05 p.m.]

The question I have for you is: would you support caucuses choosing their leaders, rather than the American-style leadership races, which are the trend over the last several decades? They have really gotten away from the original Westminster parliamentary style of the caucus choosing their leader. I mean, luminaries like Winston Churchill, for example, were not picked by a leadership race. They were picked by their caucus.

What are your thoughts on that?

Tom Perry: Maybe so. In the background, I read slightly more about you than is posted on the Legislative Assembly page and realized you must have read a lot of Churchillian history. I was recently reading a book about how those decisions to select Churchill were made. Yeah, maybe so, but let me answer the question in a slightly different way.

I think it’s really important for caucuses to elect, in a secret election, their chairs. I’ll give you an example. It would be wonderful if none of you believe this, but I fear that some of you already will believe it. The first caucus meeting of the NDP government of 1991, a month and a half after an election, when the newly elected MLAs, most of whom were disappointed about not being in the cabinet, were restless, I was the Minister of Advanced Education.

We came to power with a policy to freeze tuition fees. The deputy minister reminded me that freezing tuition fees would ultimately be a transfer of wealth to the top quartile of the population, who dominate post-secondary students — top quartile by income. Maybe it was worth rethinking this policy. I didn’t make the policy; I’d been the Health critic. I suggested in cabinet discussion that maybe we should revisit this and bring it up with the caucus, because the caucus all ran on this policy.

I thought I’d followed procedure. I brought a short four-page paper to the caucus meeting. No sooner had I got started than the Premier, who was a very nice guy and generally supportive of me, interrupted and said: “This is not the place to discuss a matter like that.” If I were you, I hope you would expect that the caucus chair would say: “Wait a minute. I’m the caucus chair. I decide how long this presentation goes on.” Not so. Gavel down, end of discussion, minister humiliated, caucus taught a lesson.

I think it was extremely destructive. I’ve never understood why that happened, nor did several cabinet ministers who rode back with me in a car; we went in together. Nobody could explain it to me. Totally out of character, from my point of view, for Mike Harcourt. So why did that happen? It was a mechanism of control to prevent free thinking. And, you know, that’s the key thing for me in a caucus — that a caucus chair, for example, or a leader should want to bring out the best from his people.

MLAs who carried on when Glen Clark was re-elected in 1996 told me he was much better about that. He would say: “Even if I disagree with you, I want to hear from you.” Hopefully, you all have leaders…. I mean, I guess the Green Party have only to hear from each other, so it’s not this hard for you, but hopefully, the other two large parties can aspire to that.

But maybe you’re right. I don’t know, Mr. Clare. I think that’s an interesting thought. I wouldn’t be opposed to it inherently.

Sheldon Clare: Yeah. I’m focusing, if you’ll indulge me, Madam Chair, on the selecting of the person who would become the Premier, because that seems to me to give the caucus members a significant bit more sway into what happens. That means you have to listen to every backbencher. You have to listen to every member of your caucus rather than any other powerful voices.

Tom Perry: It probably makes sense to me.

I liked Member of Parliament Michael Chong’s democratic reform act. I think that’s his name, Michael Chong…

Sheldon Clare: Chong — I think so.

Tom Perry: …the one who proposed that at the federal level, parties after an election may vote whether to have a leadership review and whether to exert more control on what’s going on from the individual members. The Conservatives, I guess, did that. That’s what led to Andrew Scheer’s and Erin O’Toole’s demise. But the Liberals did not. And the NDP — I don’t remember if they did or not.

[2:10 p.m.]

For me, if I were an MLA, I would want that act, and I would certainly vote no; we want some control ourselves, and we want our caucus chair to act more like the Speaker of the Legislature, as an advocate for everybody.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for the conversation. I’d like to further this somewhere along the line over a cup of coffee.

A couple of things you brought up, Doctor…. We brought this up earlier in our session — the question you had about the Transport Committee voting to have ministers explain the $1 billion loan. I made a statement earlier today — or it was yesterday — about the fact that we have standing committees in our Legislature, yet by law, they don’t even actually have to meet other than to elect a Chair, and then the next meeting is at the discretion of the Chair.

I think that’s absolutely ridiculous. I mean, there should be a law that basically says that there have to be minimum requirements in the sessions for committees to meet and opportunities for the public for engagement on that.

Now, if we were going to be talking about this specific issue, we would have to wait till the fall, but there would be a specific committee on this, whether it’s the Finance Committee or whatever that is, that we would actually be talking to about this. There’s not, and that has been not just this government but subsequent governments all the way along.

I’ve never been in provincial politics before, but I’ve been in municipal politics, and I’ve also been in business. I’d like to be able to talk to Mike Morris about some of the things that he said, because I’ve been at UBC faculty of forestry on numerous occasions on things.

On the back of your sheet, there are three things that you put here. I’d like to quickly just touch on them, if I can.

“Could this special committee’s report become a step towards more democracy within your own circles?” It’s a good question.

“Could you express some important ideas that MLAs typically dare not raise in your caucus meetings?” Well, I would suggest that you haven’t been in one of our Conservative caucus meetings. I’m sure that you’ve probably heard of raucous meetings. I would suggest that we have a way better opportunity to express our ideas than any previous caucuses in the Legislature — period. That’s a fact, and that can be on the record. That’s a fact.

That’s part of the challenge in our party, in as much as that we do have free votes, and we do have the opportunity, and sometimes, it spills out when it shouldn’t spill out of the room. But that’s what we’re trying to accomplish in our party — having those opportunities.

At the end of the day, you’re right. It’s a compromise, and it’s the majority in the room that decides. It’s not the leader. It’s not the caucus leader. It’s not the Whip. It’s the majority in that room. Otherwise, you can just whip this, quite frankly. That’s how I feel. The Deputy Whip is laughing, but I’m not laughing about it. It’s a fact, right?

We know how confidence votes work. We know how the Legislature works. But we’re trying to…. If you haven’t had the opportunity to make a presentation to our caucus, we’re very open to hearing all sides of the story. Because at the end of the day, we’re trying to make what’s right in this province.

When you say, on the third one: “Could your report be so interesting and challenging that it would become a must-read…?” I’m not sure if this is going to be the actual place or committee for that, but I certainly appreciate what you’re saying in this briefing, because there are some significant structural issues that are in play that don’t get the attention or the opportunity for the vast majority of the public to be able to be involved in that process.

I know you’re not the only one that has been frustrated in the system because you’ve been in the system. We heard a woman yesterday that was very upset about how certain mechanisms in the government work and not having the opportunity to be able to speak freely.

We would like that to change, and I would hope that everyone in this committee would like to hear that change, because that’s what we’ve been hearing for the last day and a half — that people’s voices aren’t being heard.

So other than what you’ve learned personally, what else do you think we could get from these meetings as we move forward with the recommendation to our colleagues in the Legislature in the fall?

Tom Perry: I’m not sure I know, but I’d love to be invited as a fly on the wall to one of your caucus meetings if I promised secrecy. It would be fascinating. I’m willing to make an absolutely reliable promise.

Let me just say to the two NDP MLAs that are here: in 1991, the NDP was elected for only the second time in B.C. on a 48-point plan. One of the points was a promise to have functioning legislative committees.

I think it was a disgrace that they did not. There were so many possible issues. Last night, I tried to come up with a few ideas — unlimited ideas — of where it could be useful.

[2:15 p.m.]

Why did it not happen? The control by a very small handful of powerful people, mostly senior MLAs. Some less senior MLAs are more powerful than others. As I put it, quoting George Orwell: All MLAs are equal, only some are more equal than others. It shouldn’t be that way.

There are reasons for seniority and discipline, obviously, just as there are in medicine or in the courts. But to be able to discuss is a different matter and to learn, a different matter. That should be equal, just as we aim for it to be in our education systems, in our colleges, universities, everywhere else.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you for the discussion today. I think it’s an important conversation. Many of the conversation points that we’re raising today…. I think I was a wee lad when you were elected, and a long time has passed. I think having many new MLAs in the Legislature, in this session especially, is bringing necessary changes, and having those conversations is important. So it’s really important to hear your thoughts, and thank you for your submissions and for answering our questions today.

Okay, our next presenter is Karen Ranalletta from CUPE B.C.

Welcome, Karen. As you set up here, I’m just going to remind you that you’ll have 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by ten minutes for questions.

CUPE B.C.

Karen Ranalletta: Awesome. I am very pleased to be here. Thank you, Chair and committee members. It’s really great to spend Tuesday afternoon talking about democracy in our province.

Again, my name is Karen Ranalletta. I am the president of CUPE B.C., the British Columbia division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Thank you so much for the opportunity to appear before you today and to share CUPE B.C.’s views and recommendations on strengthening democratic participation and improving our electoral system.

Maybe those of you may not know that we represent more than 100,000 workers, and fun fact, one in 50 British Columbians is a CUPE member. Our members are library workers, municipal employees, school support staff, community health and social services workers, ambulance paramedics, flight attendants, post-secondary workers. You get the gist. We represent very many people.

We care deeply about public services and about the health of our democracy. We believe that this committee’s work is vital to renewing democratic engagement in B.C. We are pleased to contribute to the discussion, and we really thank you for the work that you’re doing on this.

Our submission today focuses on three main areas: (1) increasing public participation and engagement in elections, (2) improving access to voters and (3) reforming our electoral system to a more representative model.

I’m going to start with public participation. We are well aware that voter turnout in B.C., as in much of the democratic world, has been declining over the past several decades. In the most recent provincial elections, turnout hovered just above 50 percent, and that means nearly half of eligible voters are not participating in choosing their government. This isn’t a partisan issue; it is a democratic crisis. It suggests a growing disconnection between the electorate and the institutions that represent them.

As the largest union in the province, representing public service workers who see firsthand how government decisions affect daily life, CUPE B.C. believes we must act urgently to reengage British Columbians, especially younger generations, in the democratic process.

One way to increase participation is to continue expanding and promoting the ways in which people can vote. We strongly support moving to a two-week voting period with a final day, traditionally called election day, serving as the last opportunity to cast a ballot. This would reflect the popularity and success of early voting and allow people greater flexibility, particularly shift workers, caregivers and those with irregular schedules.

A two-week period makes it easy for citizens to find time to vote. It reduces crowding, enhances safety and helps Elections B.C. better manage staffing and logistics. But crucially, it also allows for a culture of voting to emerge over a sustained period rather than concentrating civic participation into a single day.

[2:20 p.m.]

Now, accessibility is another key factor, and while vote-by-mail and telephone voting options do exist, many British Columbians are either unaware of them or they’re not quite sure how they work.

CUPE B.C. supports the continued offering and improved promotion of accessible voting options. This includes mail-in ballots and telephone voting. These methods can be vital for seniors, people with disabilities, those living in remote areas or individuals with limited transportation options.

We recommend Elections B.C. significantly enhance its public education efforts around these tools, particularly during the lead-up to elections. These are not fallback methods; they are essential to ensuring equity in the voting process.

CUPE B.C. also strongly advocates for lowering the provincial voting age to 16 years old. We believe change is not only fair but necessary. Sixteen-year-olds in British Columbia can drive, pay taxes and work. They are subject to laws and public policies. They are also still enrolled in high school, often in social studies or civics classes, where they are learning about government, rights and responsibilities. In short, we believe they are ready.

The most significant predictor of whether a person will vote regularly throughout their life is whether they voted in the first election in which they were eligible. By waiting until 18, when many young people have left the school system or are in periods of transition between jobs, schools, homes, we miss a crucial window of engagement.

By enfranchising 16- and 17-year-olds, we can instil the habit of voting while they are still embedded in institutions that support democratic literacy. We can engage them through schools, school boards and public education campaigns, and we urge the committee to recommend this important reform.

Now another concrete step the provincial government should take to enhance public participation is to make donations to candidates in local government elections tax-deductible. Currently, candidates running for school board, municipal council or regional district offices face significant financial barriers, and they often rely on small, individual contributions to fund their campaigns.

Making these donations tax-deductible would encourage broader civic engagement by empowering more citizens to support candidates who reflect their values and priorities. It would also help level the playing field for grassroots and community-based candidates who may not have access to large donors or institutional backing.

Ultimately, this reform would not only strengthen the financial viability of local campaigns but also send a clear signal that participation in democracy — whether through voting, volunteering or contributing financially — is something to be supported and valued at every level of government.

When it comes to access of voters, in order to vote, individuals must be registered. CUPE B.C. believes Elections B.C. should be mandated and funded to proactively enumerate voters on a regular basis, especially in new housing developments with high rates of rental tenancy. With the rapid pace of urbanization, many British Columbians now live in dense multi-unit dwellings. Enumeration efforts must reflect this new demographic reality.

Door-to-door outreach in newer neighbourhoods, particularly areas dominated by apartments and condominiums, is essential to keep voter rolls accurate and complete. Too often, those in transient or newly developed communities are missed, leading to lower turnout and underrepresentation. This is particularly concerning when these populations include younger people, renters and newcomers.

To support engagement, Elections B.C. should collect and securely maintain not just voters’ names and addresses but also their email addresses and mobile phone numbers, which can be shared with registered political parties and candidates under strict privacy guidelines.

There is a mixed practice across the province at the level of local government elections. This committee should recommend that the local government election rules conform more closely with Elections B.C.’s practice of sharing the voters lists with the candidates. This information is critical for political engagement.

Candidates rely on contacting voters to share information, answer questions and build support. Without modern contact tools, these efforts are severely hampered, especially in the digital age, where fewer people have land lines and door-knocking faces barriers. Candidates’ contact with voters, in addition to the educational efforts of Elections B.C., raises awareness about elections and promotes citizen participation.

Speaking of barriers, CUPE B.C. is deeply concerned about the growing difficulty that candidates face in accessing voters in apartment buildings and strata complexes.

[2:25 p.m.]

Election laws must be amended to ensure that candidates have access to all floors of residential buildings for canvassing purposes. Building managers or strata councils should not be able to deny or restrict this access. We recommend that building managers and strata councils be required to provide access fobs or other means to registered candidates to allow equitable entry to multi-unit dwellings during election periods.

Further, Elections B.C. should take an active role in educating building managers and strata councils about their obligations to allow canvassing. Penalties for non-compliance should be clearly communicated and enforced because, as we all know, democracy does not stop at the lobby door.

A best practice that CUPE B.C. supports extending to local government elections is real-time “who voted” data to registered candidates and parties during the voting period. This practice, already in place in some jurisdictions, should be a requirement in all local government elections. This allows candidates and campaigns to adjust their outreach and avoid contacting individuals who have already voted.

This benefits everyone. It reduces redundant communication, lowers campaign costs and respects voters’ time and attention. It also improves the efficiency of campaigns in targeting information to those who need it most.

And now onto electoral system reform. That is our final topic in our submission. CUPE B.C. supports a change from the current first-past-the-post system to a mixed-member proportional representation model.

Our current system, while familiar, does not accurately reflect the diversity of views among British Columbians. Under first-past-the-post, it is possible and, indeed, common for a party to win a majority government with far less than the majority of the vote. This can distort public policy and diminish public trust. It also discourages voters, who feel their voice does not count in so-called safe seats when one party dominates year after year. This contributes to apathy and disillusionment.

In contrast, a mixed-member proportional system offers a balanced and modern approach. It maintains local representation through constituency MLAs while introducing proportionality through a second vote for regional or party-based lists. This ensures that the overall composition of the Legislature more closely mirrors the preferences of voters.

Proportional representation systems have been shown to increase voter turnout, encourage collaboration between parties and improve the representation of women and minority groups. They reduce the likelihood of wasted votes and increase the sense of agency among voters.

CUPE B.C. supports MMP because it combines accountability at the local level with fairness in the overall outcomes. It aligns well with Canadian values and democratic norms. We encourage the committee to revisit the options presented in the past referenda and recommend a legislative path forward to implement proportional representation, ideally following a model tailored for B.C.’s unique geography and population distribution.

In closing, Chair and members of this committee, CUPE B.C. believes that democracy in B.C. is at a crossroads. We must act boldly and thoughtfully to reengage citizens, modernize our institutions and create an electoral system that reflects our shared values of fairness, inclusion and participation.

To summarize, I have a list of our recommendations. We urge this committee to, one, expand the voting period to two weeks, culminating in a final election day.

Two, promote and invest in accessible voting tools like mail-in and telephone voting.

Three, lower the voting age to 16 to establish lifelong voting habits.

Four, mandate proactive enumeration, especially in high-growth and high-rental-tenancy areas.

Five, improve candidate access to apartment buildings and strata properties.

Six, share secure voter contact information with registered candidates and parties.

Seven, provide real-time “who voted” data during the voting period.

And eight, transition from first-past-the-post to a mixed-member proportional system.

In summary, these recommendations are rooted in our belief that democracy works best when it is inclusive, responsive and engages all citizens in its processes. Thank you for your time today.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Karen.

Do we have any questions from the committee?

[2:30 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: One of the things you were talking about was expanding the voting period to two weeks. The voting period actually is…. You are able to vote at the office. Maybe that’s something to promote to members, that you can vote at the office right away. You can do it with the…. This is how I voted in the last election. I did it. I write it out right away because I want it to be done, and I was pretty sure I knew who I was voting for.

So I think that is an option, but there may well be some ideas about expanding that, as you suggested, that I think we could certainly have a conversation about.

I thank you for your presentation.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. A couple of points, again, with what MLA Clare is talking about. I mean, the challenge with the two-week advanced polls is that we already have, pretty much, that process in place right now. We’ve got a 28- to 30-day writ period. We’ve got advanced polls already occurring within our election period. We have multiple opportunities. In my riding, there were communities that had three four-day-plus advanced polls before the election date.

I know there was a real challenge in even having enough staff at the existing polls throughout the province, and I know that we’ll be getting a report on that from Elections B.C.

I do have a concern on a couple of things about the shared emails and cell numbers. I don’t know how many people are really going to be in favour of that. That’s a question.

The other one is with the access to apartments and strata access. That’s not the first time that has been brought to our attention in the last couple of days. The only thing I would suggest is that I understand exactly what you’re saying, because there are difficulties even going into mobile home parks that have no solicitation.

If that’s going to change, I would say that there has to be an option out for residents. In other words, if I have a house and I put a sign up that says, “No solicitors,” I don’t necessarily want you to come to my door. I would think that that should be the same thing. That should be a privacy issue in those situations. Access to the building is one thing, but actually, access to my door is another thing. I’m not sure how many people are going to want to have that happen and, basically, have an opt-out. That’s just my own personal opinion.

But I have a question for you — and this was asked yesterday — on campaign canvassers. When we talk about election integrity, should those canvassers be volunteer only?

Karen Ranalletta: No.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Why not?

Karen Ranalletta: I’m not sure what your issue is with paid canvassers.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I’m just asking a question.

Karen Ranalletta: If these folks have been…. Whether they’re paid or volunteer, if a campaign is enlisting these folks to do this work, I believe that they should have access to canvassing.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Okay. So your position is that canvassers can be paid?

Karen Ranalletta: Yes.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): All right. Thank you for that.

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. I just want to refer to the recommendation to revisit the options that have been presented in the past referendum. In your opinion…. We’ve heard from a few other presenters that another referendum is not required and that the choices that have been previously presented have been far too complicated for folks to understand, and so, if we were to do another referendum, it would be the same result over and over again.

How would you recommend that we revisit the options that were presented in the referendum? Are you suggesting that we just make the options easier to understand, or do you think a referendum is required at all as we move forward?

Karen Ranalletta: I would say…. I mean, changing an electoral system is a big deal, and people get very uncomfortable with minor changes, let alone something as significant as changing our electoral system. We haven’t thought about whether it should go back to referendum or not. I would maybe say, personally, that that would make sense. As an organization, that should have been a question we asked ourselves.

[2:35 p.m.]

But to your other point, I think folks don’t understand how our system works, how our government works. I’m not sure where we’re at these days with people’s literacy around how civics work. And so anything that can be done to take the complexity out of explaining a change to the electoral system…. I’m not sure it’s actually that complicated, but there are lots of folks who are far more well versed in this than I am at being able to explain it.

I do think there are ways to acknowledge the ways that people take in information — infographics, visual presentations, taking into consideration how we can explain a change in the most clear, concise way. And that’s where relying on, I guess, stakeholders to give some feedback on how that could look….

I think a public education campaign would be necessary if we’re going to change our electoral system rather than just saying, “Here’s the referendum. Here are your options,” with little explanation. I think a lot would have to go into educating folks. I think it would be resources well spent and well used if we’re going to go down that path.

Amna Shah: I just want to follow up with a comment, and I think address to the rest of the committee as well, as we keep hearing over and over again, about the education component. And that plays into the democratic engagement component of our study. I keep thinking about the necessity of sustained long-term education from a very young age. And prioritization, actually, of the structures that may currently exist. Whether they change or not is another story, but within the current….

You had mentioned civics classes in schools. My understanding, however, is that that is not applied across the province. Do you have any comments on that, on whether it should be, for example, maybe mandatory in the K-to-12 system?

Karen Ranalletta: Well, you are singing my song. Yes. I think the public education system is a perfect vehicle for that to get to young folks because we mentioned that there are studies around people’s voting habits, and when they learn…. I mean maybe we’re at a point where if you’re in any kind of post-secondary, that could be an option as well. I would love to see civics in government classes as mandatory in school. I think that would help.

The number of people who don’t understand how our system works…. Yeah, I think that there are options. When I think about…. I’m in my mid-40s. It has been a long time since I was in public school. But if there are opportunities for MLAs to do community town halls on how the government actually works, I think there would be some interest from our members, and same with given all the options for online tools that could be used.

If I think about my world, being able to show a short video at a membership meeting would be really, really helpful. And it doesn’t have to be partisan. This is just…. I think there are lots of ways to get to voters, and I think we actually have to get to voters. Whether or not we’re changing the electoral system, I think we’re at a moment where folks don’t really understand how our system works, and there’s a really great opportunity for this government across the board to do that work in their communities.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I have a question next. You mentioned that the voting period should be the two weeks. With advanced voting currently, there’s a break in there. My first question to that would be: how long do you see the writ period being, with there being a two-week voting period? Like what would be your ideal election period?

Karen Ranalletta: That’s a hard-core question you’ve just asked me. Again, I’m just going to be honest, it’s not something we’ve contemplated in our discussions. It’s just that based on feedback from our members, going from having one election day…. Those days are over it seems, which is good because it makes it…. Whatever can make it easier for people to go vote.

[2:40 p.m.]

And maybe to your point, MLA Clare, that educating and promoting the district office option is something that could be done more to let folks know that that is the option because it feels like it’s something that isn’t very well known, and I’m not sure why.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I raise that because we had a speaker yesterday talk about how 78 days is far too long, but maybe 28 is too short for the writ period. So I’m trying to find something there.

The piece about education, I think, is important. It ties into the question about the reason we have the break now between the advanced voting and the election days — because of this vote anywhere model, as well, and making sure we can have results on election night as close as possible. Increasing the ability to go right through the election period will hinder the ability to have or even to get that real-time “who voted” data. It’s impeded by the ability to vote anywhere.

I would just like your thoughts on, kind of, that balance with the flexibility to vote anywhere but then also how that will hinder that real-time data that we are so used to.

Karen Ranalletta: I love the vote anywhere thing. I think our first priority is to make sure that people go out and vote. That’s what you want.

I think, again, we are asking for the committee to look into all of this. Start from a place of “why not?” instead. Like, why not just look into it?

I would say, we’re…. I will also say that the vote anywhere thing was great. It might impede or create some challenges for the other things we’ve talked about, but I still think we should figure out how you can make both happen.

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation. You mentioned recommending reducing the voting age to 16, and I’m going to assume that that would be linked with our discussion on civics and expanded civics. You get both the benefit of the knowledge of the system and the expanded voting opportunity of voting at 16 years of age.

Circling back, just for a bit, to proportional representation, you’ve certainly raised the thought around a further referendum and the importance of folks understanding the electoral system.

What would be your view on — which is something that has been raised by other presenters — implementing a form of proportional representation, trying it out for an election or two and then having a referendum to see if you want to continue using it? What would be your view on that approach?

Karen Ranalletta: I think, again, we’re at a point where this current first-past-the-post system is outdated. So trying the system out for a couple of elections…. I mean, I’m comfortable with it, personally, because I see a need for a change and I feel like some sort of mixed-member proportional — don’t ask me which one — or something is just going to be better than what we have.

That would be a really interesting thing to talk to our folks about, to just go right into trying something for a couple of times and then holding a referendum after. Yeah, again, you’re asking some great questions that we hadn’t really contemplated. On that answer, that’s just my own sense of it, because I feel comfortable with the material, but I’m still not sure.

To your point about lowering the age of voters, I’m hoping by the time they turn 16, they’re actually well versed on how the government works, because that’s certainly work that can happen early on in elementary school. So by the time they turn 16, they’ve got their job, their car, etc., and they’re ready to vote.

Young people are certainly full of a lot of fire these days with the activism that we see and how much they seem to care and how successful the in-school voting program is. I can’t remember what it’s called, but when I talk to my niece and nephew, they’re definitely into it.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I’ll just note before I go to the next question that I don’t know if you’re doing a written submission, but the submissions are due on July 25.

Karen Ranalletta: Well, I sent one in on Thursday.

[2:45 p.m.]

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay. I just ask because if there are certain questions that you want to canvass, I don’t know if there’s an ability to canvass the responses.

Karen Ranalletta: Oh, sure.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): If you want to update that submission, you can until July 25.

Karen Ranalletta: Oh, that’s great. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): You’re welcome.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Some of these things that you’ve brought up today, Karen…. Have you actually petitioned your membership on these questions? Or is…?

Karen Ranalletta: Mm-hmm.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Yes?

Karen Ranalletta: Yeah, some of them have come through resolutions at a convention, or they’ve been historical policy positions that we’ve taken several times, whether it’s at the provincial level or even at the national level.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): A couple of questions that came up. You mentioned about a tax deduction for municipal election campaigns. Did you have a suggestion of a number in mind for that amount?

Karen Ranalletta: No, but we can get back to you on that.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Do you believe that election limits should be increased for individual MLA campaigns the way they are now?

Karen Ranalletta: No.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Okay. Have you asked your membership how familiar they are with an alternative voting process or a need for that?

Karen Ranalletta: Yep. We’ve had the conversation around changing the electoral system, and our members have voted in favour of exploring some sort of mixed-member system but are not married to a specific one.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Okay. Can I ask a question on your union structure? Do you guys do an alternate voting system or first-past-the-post? Like, when you vote for president, secretary, that sort of thing, do you do an alternate voting process, or do you do first-past-the-post?

Karen Ranalletta: Well, there’s no…. I guess it would be first-past-the-post, but we’re not a one member, one vote union, so it’s done by the convention.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I see. Okay. Thank you for that.

Amna Shah: Just one quick question, and I’m just looking at the numbers for voter turnout. I’m choosing not to look at the 2020, because I feel like it was a bit of an odd one there.

But just looking at the decline of voter turnout from 2017 to 2024 and considering that in 2024, there were far more options and ways to vote and opportunities compared to 2017, I’m just wondering whether, really, the turnout is dependent on voting periods or the number of days for voting or some of the suggestions that you raised — which was to expand the voting period — when we’ve seen that the options have expanded and yet we’re seeing a lower turnout.

I’m wondering if you can speak to that. I’m just kind of thinking out loud here.

Karen Ranalletta: I think, actually, the item that we talk about…. Access to apartment buildings and condos, I think, is something that may be affecting voter turnout, because if you can only access people who live in single detached homes and that’s it, you’re not getting to very many people.

If you have access to some of the buildings that you see…. Some of them are huge, with hundreds of suites in them. Everybody knows that in a conversation on the doorstep, you’re more likely to get somebody to actually go and vote. I think some of that could be the isolation and folks feeling very detached from the system, affecting whether or not they go out and vote.

I still think expanding the voting period and the work that has been done to increase advanced voting, the vote from everywhere, even the district office piece…. That certainly helps our members, and we’re committed to talking to our members about voting. We’re not afraid of that. We’re very keen in trying to do that education with our members, as much as we can, to get them to the polls. But it’s like anything. I think part of it is just when you lose your face-to-face conversations, it can impact things.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think a big piece of that would be, again, looking into what it would take to educate building managers and stratas around access to the voters in those buildings.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you. We have one final question from MLA Clare.

Sheldon Clare: I think one of the challenges with an expanded time period for voting is the candidates are often not known until well into the period of the voting process. That’s why the write-in ballot, where you might just write your party, as an option.

But I wanted to ask about the 16-year-old age for voting. Because if I’m thinking about how one would teach civics in high school…. I’ve spent 32 years in education — well, 37 years. Five years in the K-to-12 system, the rest post-secondary. But it’s 14 to 18 years of age.

If you’re in an election cycle that happened to happen when you turned 14, so you have some alertness of that, then you are in high school for roughly that duration. You graduate high school. You’re 18, and you’re in a new election process, notwithstanding there could be an election called at any time because of the nature of our parliamentary system.

Why do you think that 16 would be such a key age rather than keeping it at 18?

Karen Ranalletta: Because we think that 16-year-olds are engaged, or we can engage them, and that the information that’s bandied about around creating really good voting habits early…. And again, if you can work and you’re paying your taxes, as I did when I was 16, when I worked part-time in high school, these folks should have the right to cast a vote.

Sheldon Clare: To follow up, would you argue, then, that 16-year-olds should, for example, be able to purchase alcohol and do that as well?

Karen Ranalletta: I mean, I don’t see that as the same thing. I don’t think it’s apples to apples, and also not a position that the union has taken. How’s that?

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the clarification.

Karen Ranalletta: There have been no resolutions on that.

Sheldon Clare: Okay, I’ll thank you for your answer and leave you with that. Thanks.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Karen, for your presentation and indulging us with answering all of our questions as well. We really appreciate you being here today.

Karen Ranalletta: I will just say thank you so much. We’re very keen that this is going forward and that you folks are hearing, I’m sure, all kinds of wonderful things across the province that show that people care about this topic. I would put CUPE in the bucket of “we care a lot,” and we wish you well on whatever comes out of this. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay, next up we have Daniel Thiele.

Welcome, Daniel. Thank you for joining us today. I’m just going to remind you that you’ll have five minutes for your speaking portion and then five minutes for us to ask questions, okay? You can get started when you’re ready.

Daniel Thiele

Daniel Thiele: Good afternoon, and thank you for giving me the chance to speak today. I’m from North Vancouver, and I’m 12 years old. Even though I’m not old enough to vote yet, I care a lot about our democracy. I’ve already been involved in local politics, helping with campaigns, knocking on doors, organizing events and even managing social media for a nomination race.

I’m here because I believe youth voices matter. If we want more people to vote and participate in our democracy, we need to start by including young people. Right now, a lot of kids and teenagers feel like politics have nothing to do with them. They hear: “You’ll understand when you’re older.” But by then, many of us have already checked out. We’ve been taught that politics is for someone else, not us.

But I think we can fix that. Like earlier, she said civic education, right? We need more of that. We can have more debates and real student councils.

Second, we need to engage pre-voters. There aren’t many official ways for youth under 18 to get involved in our democracy, but I think that’s a missed opportunity.

[2:55 p.m.]

I’d like to suggest something called the Youth Democracy Program, open to students 14 to 17. It can include things like volunteering at polling stations in limited roles, shadowing elected officials and getting recognition through certificates or school credits.

Programs like this would help more youth understand how our democracy works.

Third, we should make voting easier for everyone. First off, I’ve seen adults in my neighbourhood — my neighbours — who don’t vote, not because they don’t care but because it’s too confusing, and they don’t have the time.

I think we could fix that by making voting days more flexible, including weekends and holidays, online and mobile voting where possible, and make it especially easier for seniors and people with disabilities.

Fourth, we need to meet young people where they are, and that’s online. We learn from video games and apps. So why not teach democracy that way? We should create official digital tools that explain how voting works, what candidates stand for and how laws are made. If someone can learn a dance on TikTok in 15 seconds, they can learn how a bill becomes a law if it’s explained in the right way.

In closing, I want to say this. I may only be 12, but I already feel like I’m a part of our democracy, and I want more kids to feel the same. Let’s stop telling the youth to wait their turn. Let’s invite them in now, because when we build the habit of participation early, we grow a stronger, more engaged future for everyone.

Thank you for your time.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Yay. That was impressive. Well done, Daniel.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Daniel, that was fantastic, and you had some really, really great ideas in there as well. Thank you so much. I’m sure we have some questions for you here as well.

Amna Shah: Thank you so much, Daniel, for being here. I will say that is the first time a presenter has gotten applause from members of the committee, so I hope you know that that was very special.

Thank you for your participation at 12 years old. I’m incredibly impressed, and it, quite frankly, makes me emotional, in a very good way, to know that yourself and likely your peers care so much about our electoral system and our engagement system that you would take your time out of your day to be here, to travel here today.

My question to you is: what has your experience been in obtaining opportunities like the ones that you’re advocating for, like student council, being involved in student council or being able to participate in learning opportunities? What has your experience been like? Have you experienced any challenges, or has it been…? Have you been well supported?

Daniel Thiele: I think I have good support from especially my parents and some of my friends too.

Amna Shah: And can I ask a follow-up question? Is it that support that makes you want to learn more, or is it also personal interests that you just happen to…?

Daniel Thiele: I found out by myself. No one helped me with this. I just…. On my own.

Amna Shah: Great. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I have a question. How did you find out about this?

Daniel Thiele: So like I mentioned, like online stuff. I just went online, YouTube or something.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): But about this committee?

Daniel Thiele: Oh, I was in Victoria at the Parliament, in Parliament, and I found out about it there.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Great. That’s great to hear. You know, you’re clearly very engaged and have been and are taking a very active role, and I’m sure that’s spreading to your friends and the folks around you. But what is something that you think we as a government could do to help specifically kids that are your age or even younger want to care about politics and get involved in it?

Daniel Thiele: You could maybe offer very limited volunteer opportunities or some similar stuff to that.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you very much for your presentation, Daniel. I think it’s remarkable that you would come and present before us, and you’re to be applauded for that.

I would encourage you to keep your online searching going on, because a lot of the resources you’re asking for are actually available to you already.

There is a wonderful internship program that the Legislature offers. You usually have to be a bit older for it, but there are opportunities there for you to take part in the activities of the Legislature and work with the different caucuses and so on. It’s something that you may well want to look into, as well as be participating in political parties and all of that.

[3:00 p.m.]

There are options there that are there for you, as well as some excellent online explanations of the political processes and the structure and civics. I would strongly recommend it. I want to know if you’ve done this or talked to your teachers about having MLAs or MPs or other elected officials come to your class and discuss some of the processes with your class.

Daniel Thiele: I have not, but I’m looking into it.

Sheldon Clare: Very good. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): We were just looking at some other opportunities, like the B.C. Youth Parliament. That’s something I know that you can do at a bit of a younger age. There are a lot of opportunities if you look that up as well, if you’re interested.

One of the things you talked about was video games. Can you tell me a little bit more about how you would envision a video game being something related to politics or elections that would get kids interested?

Daniel Thiele: You could, for example, be a volunteer at one of the poll stations and help — what’s it called? — the greeter or something or someone who sits down and gives you the ballots.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Right. Do you think…? When you said, just the video games piece…. Would you play a video game about running an election or…?

Daniel Thiele: Yeah, probably.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay. Good to know.

Any further questions?

Thank you so much for taking the time to come here to find out about our committee and for sharing your thoughts. It’s really important, because you are the future of this province. So thank you so much.

We will now take a recess until 3:25 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:02 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Welcome back, everyone. We’ll be starting after this break with Jeannette Leitch.

Welcome, Jeannette, and just a reminder before you begin that you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

Jeannette Leitch

Jeannette Leitch: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to present my ideas to you. My name is Jeannette Leitch, and I’m privileged to live part-time in Coquitlam on the unceded territory of the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm people and part-time on Mayne Island, which is known as S,KTAK in the language of the Coast Salish peoples, the customary keepers and defenders of the southern Gulf Islands.

I’m Scottish by birth, and it is the proportional representation model currently used to elect Members of the Scottish Parliament, known as MSPs, that I want to share with you. That model is known as the additional-member system, or AMS. It is a version of multi-member proportional rep.

Before describing the model in more detail, I’ll give a wee bit of history and context of democracy in Scotland. First, I’ll explain why I think that Scotland provides a good match for B.C. in the choice of proportional representation model.

The populations of B.C. and Scotland are currently similar, at around five million. Although the area of B.C. is far larger than Scotland, there are significant geographic similarities: considerable disparity in population distribution between urban and rural, lots of coastline and river systems, lots of mountains.

In its current reincarnation, the new Scottish Parliament has political status similar to that of a Canadian province. Powers are shared between Holyrood, the Edinburgh home of the Scottish Parliament, and Westminster, the London home of the U.K. Parliament, in a similar way to the division of powers between the B.C. Legislature in Victoria and the House of Commons in Ottawa.

For three centuries prior to this devolution of powers in 1999, Scotland only had representation in Westminster, and that dated back to 1707 when the original Scottish Parliament was dissolved, after surviving for about a century past the Union of the Crowns, as it was called, when Scotland lost its separate sovereign status and the United Kingdom was born under a single monarch.

Democratic revival in Scotland began about 50 years ago, with changes to the systems of local and regional government. In place of towns, cities and counties, a three-tier hierarchy was introduced. At the most local level were community councils whose boundaries and size were determined by local people.

Mainly due to significant work by non-government interests, the Scottish Parliament was finally approved by Westminster in 1999, resulting in the devolution of many of the powers vested in the U.K. Parliament in Westminster. Constituency boundaries and sizes for MSPs were initially identical to those for the election of MPs to Westminster, and by that time, the regional top tier of the three-tier system had been removed.

The introduction of proportional rep in the form of AMS, the additional-member system, is even more recent and occurred around the same time the number of Scottish seats in Westminster was actually reduced. However, Scotland chose to keep its original constituencies, each sending one MSP to Edinburgh elected on the basis of individual named candidates elected using the first-past-the-post system, while at the same time adding additional members through the creation of regions and requiring a second ballot, but one based on parties rather than individuals. Eight regions were identified, each comprising about nine constituencies, and each region elects seven regional members, resulting in a total of 129 MSPs.

[3:40 p.m.]

The ingenuity of the D’Hondt mathematical system, which is the calculation used to allocate the regional systems, is that it reflects much fairer party representation. I’m happy to give more specific number examples later if requested.

When we compare Scotland, we can see the representation. Right now in B.C., 93 MLAs each represent about 60,000 in population. In Scotland, the 73, it was about 70,000, whereas with the total 129, the average is about 45,000 of population.

In conclusion, the AMS model is mathematical, clear and simple as well as very elegant. It is a fair system of proportional representation with less risk of the fragmentation issue that can plague some pro rep systems. It provides clear ballots. It ensures fairness by allowing a vote for local candidates, the person, and a separate vote for the party.

The main challenge for B.C. is the balance between requiring a significant increase in number of MLAs, if you want to allow for additional seats for regional MLAs, without reducing the number of existing constituencies that are facing the task of trying to increase the number by reducing the number of individual constituencies. But given expected increase in B.C. population, I think that that would sort of resolve itself over time.

I’m happy to answer any questions, including more numerical detail on the system. And if it would be helpful, I can submit an expanded written presentation before July 25 that also provides references.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Jeannette.

Are there any questions?

I’ll ask a question. You had mentioned you can provide some more numerical data. If you have that to share with us, I’d love to hear it.

Jeannette Leitch: Okay. If we take an example of a region that has nine constituencies in it and after the vote for those individuals we have party A that has, say, five seats, party B with two, party C with none and party D with two…. When it comes to the regional vote, this is done on the basis of the party, so each party will have its own votes. But the way that the seats get allocated is that you take the number of votes, and you divide it by the number of seats already gained.

I think I said five for the first one, so you would take those votes and divide by six. One of them was zero, so their number of votes stands, and so on — the other one would be dividing by three for the twos — so that you then come up with a ranking of who is to be the first chosen in the region, the first one out of seven.

Then that process is repeated, but on the repetition, that extra regional member is added in when you’re doing the divisor. That’s one of the things which is shown in one of the examples.

It’s quite ingenious, and it does result, certainly in Scotland, with a very fair split among the parties.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Just so I understand that, if there are nine MLA seats in a region…. It’s divided: five, another party got two, another got two, and someone got zero. How many additional seats would be for that region?

Jeannette Leitch: In each region, there are seven additional seats, and those are based on the party. It’s a separate ballot. There are two ballots, one for the individual and one for the party.

But one of the things when it comes to the party…. The parties present lists. However, on those lists, there’s nothing to stop them including candidates’ names so that if a candidate is defeated in their local constituency, they still might have a chance to be elected as a regional member.

[3:45 p.m.]

But if they’re elected, of course, in their constituency, they’re removed from the list. So it isn’t all just backroom party hacks that get on the list.

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation. I think you mentioned that if we asked, you’d be prepared to provide a written submission prior to July 25?

Jeannette Leitch: Yes. Because there are quite a few references in terms of the research, I don’t know whether I can attach a PDF or just put in the website reference.

In that sense, the other thing that impressed me, going through the…. The Scottish Parliament has its information centre, and I found that the information was far, far easier to follow, in terms of how the whole system works and the results, than in trying to find the equivalent things for B.C.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Any further questions?

Thank you so much, Jeannette, for your presentation and for taking our questions today.

Next up we have Paul George.

Welcome, Paul, and welcome back. I saw you in the audience yesterday.

Paul George: I’m quite puzzled, because I was given 15 minutes originally and ten minutes for questions. That’s what I was sent. I don’t know what has happened, but I’m sure that I didn’t read it wrong. Could you double-check that?

Jessie Sunner (Chair): We have the time to give you 15 minutes and then ten minutes for questions.

Paul George

Paul George: Thank you, thank you. I was here yesterday, and it was a fabulous time. I actually learned a lot. It was, to me, seeing democracy working, right? With different representatives of the parties, there were quite a bit of different viewpoints. That’s what democracy is. You balance it all; you come up with a solution.

When I started this, I actually went and hunted on the internet, like everybody does. I don’t know why, but what came up first thing was about financial reform. It was a ratepayers association, and they were dead set against parties getting $1.75 per vote in B.C., for every vote they got in the last election, to help their party grow and to get the message out about democracy. They said it was a dead waste and that it was a waste of taxpayers’ money.

You know what? For years, we told everybody that this isn’t taxpayers’ money and that this is your own personal money. Even if you don’t pay taxes in the sense of income taxes, you’re paying PST, provincial sales tax. So you’re redirecting about $7, at $1.75 per vote per year, for your four years. “So please vote for us, even though you know we don’t have a chance.” Most times the Greens never had a chance.

Okay, my name is Paul George. I’ve got the letters OBC beside it, and I know all of you know what that means. I felt really proud of being honoured in that way.

I went back to the history. You’re doing two things, democratic and electoral reform. I thought I’d look at democratic reform. Have we ever monkeyed with the electoral system before? Of course we have, back in 1952. I wasn’t here in Canada at that time, but I certainly studied it and learned about it. In 1952, a strange man came in power, and he lasted for 20 years — W.A.C. Bennett.

How did he come into power? By a new voting system. It was in what we call a preferential ballot, and everybody uses it now to select leaders. It’s a one-vote preferential system. You take your second vote.... So if a person doesn’t get a majority, the second vote goes to topping it up, till you get 50 percent.

Okay, so he got in, and — oh, man — a lot of people thought it was terrible. He was a conservative, but he brought in a lot of socialism, and he bought Hydro. Anyway, I’m not going to go into the history. I’ve already wasted a lot of time here.

[3:50 p.m.]

The preferential voting system was abandoned afterward. They didn’t want to try it again because it made them lose. From then on, he was able to run just first-past-the-post and win.

In 2001 — I’m hopping far ahead — Gordon Campbell and the Libs put electoral reform through citizens assembly on their election platform. Following through in 2003, the citizens assembly was formed, and in the 2005 election, the vote on STV at 57.69 percent.

There’s a lot happening in between there. I could talk for hours on that. I’ve put in a written submission that talks about that, and I’ve got some friends that put in additional, because you only gave us 2,000 words, and this isn’t a 2,000-word subject. Everybody knows that here. There’s a lot more to it. It’s fairly complicated. It’s very hard to get people to understand it.

I’m not going to talk about that. But what I’m going to do is talk about…. I went and I started searching. Well, where do the parties stand here? I listened to the two Conservatives here talking, and it was pretty obvious, right? They liked the system that there was. That was yesterday morning. You know, they said: “Voting — one vote’s fine. I represent all the people. That’s what I’m supposed to represent. I do it.”

Anyway, when I went back and then I thought, well, where are the parties? What have they put in their platform to get elected? What sort of thing have they…? Well, it turns out the Conservatives have never backed any proportional representation — period. Check me out, look it up. Check it out. Is that true or not? Never put it on their platform, never voted for it.

Now, the NDP is a little different. They have actually tinkered with it. One of the things that the NDP has never done is they have never, ever mentioned STV in all their motions in the party. Every year they have their annual general meeting. Every year there are resolutions. Nobody has said, “We want an STV system,” so let’s chuck that one out. But they have said they want proportional representation.

Now let’s take the Greens. Of course, that’s what I am, a Green Party member, right? The Greens have been pretty consistent about it. We believe in proportional representation.

And so what happened was, after this disastrous election where Gordon Campbell got in and only two NDP were elected, Jenny Kwan and…. I can’t remember who else. Anyway….

Interjections.

Paul George: Okay, thank you. I’m pretty old; you can see that. Anyway, Joy MacPhail got in.

And then Adriane Carr…. I worked really hard in that election. The Greens really came up. We got something like 20…. She got 26 percent of the vote in her riding, over on the Sunshine Coast, and overall, they got 23 percent. You use proportional representation, we should have ended up with ten seats; the NDP should have ended up with 15.

What she told me and she wouldn’t tell you…. She said: “Well, okay, if you want to tell, because I told you, so this is hearsay.” She actually talked to him, and he offered her three choices. One, reform of the funding because money talks. Money is the biggest talker in the U.S. and everything else. Money really talks. The original influencer was money — still is — big oil, etc.

Anyway, so money reform or: “Hey, I can give you just two members right now. You could get in and your deputy leader. We’ll just give that.” Anybody that gets 10 percent of the vote could have that.

The third one was the citizens assembly. Well, he had already proposed to have a citizens assembly, and Adriane went for the citizens assembly.

Well, all of a sudden we got really busy because we thought the best way to get the right kind of system was to actually use the Recall and Initiative Act, so put out an initiative, and you have to have an actual bill. So we developed an MMP thing that would fit B.C. But in order to do that, we had to go and travel.

We travelled over to Australia, we travelled to New Zealand, and it was an eye-opener. I didn’t know anything about it. I had never even heard the word STV before this. But we went there.

First of all, we went to New Zealand. We were greeted by the New Zealanders, and one of the guys who greeted us was Nándor. He rode a skateboard. He was a young man, so he would skateboard to their Parliament Buildings. He was really supported by the youth. Well, he got in because he was a list candidate, and they put him up there because they wanted the youth involved.

[3:55 p.m.]

He was really colourful. He wasn’t…. People said: “Oh, he’s going to just push drugs.” Well, I talked to him; he didn’t push drugs.

He did it religiously, but I’m getting off in the weeds again. So anyway, Nándor was there.

We talked to the head guy there, and he said it was really hard to make the switchover. I think that’s in Adriane Carr’s brief to you. I’m not going to go any further than that because I got a lot more to get through here.

Anyway, what happened was that then we went to Australia. Australia has an STV vote. I found out…. Oh my god, they were so loose with their election. You know, you have to vote there. But we went, and we got to see some election. When the people were going in, it was kind of a big party, and everybody was going right up to the voting booth: “Here, here. Take your list. Here’s your list. Here’s who you have to vote for.”

Well, STV, you have to rank people. Well, people didn’t rank. The party told you how to rank them. People didn’t know a lot about…. But like here, only 1 or 2 percent of the people didn’t even belong to a party. You go out and ask the street who are those three or four MLAs and you won’t find anybody that knows any of them in B.C., I bet.

But anyway, so they were loose on it, and we had been campaigning and always trying to stay a whole block away. Are we too close? Are we breaking the rules? Are we influencing people?

Anyway, I’m digressing too much. What do you call it? Straying too much for the message.

I learned a lot about it firsthand, not knowing anything. Then I came back and sat in the citizens assembly, and my Lord, was that ever different. What they were telling the people about STV was nothing like what I saw. They said it reduces the power of the parties. It didn’t. The parties were just as strong as ever.

So I wonder what the hell happened. I got a whole other paper on that. Some of you people have got it. I think I put some of that in my overall mission, my overall written…. And I’m sure you all read that because Amy was absolutely sure we got it in time so you’d have enough time to read it. So I’m sure you all read that already so you can ask me about that. Okay, so where am I now?

Okay. I got another thing I want to do. I want to talk about the other part. I didn’t want to talk about what went wrong with this, why there wasn’t a balance. There was unfair balance of the STV versus MMP. They never had experts.

There was one guy that I got to talk to sitting there in the gallery watching, and he went out with two ballots. He found nobody that wanted an STV ballot to rank people. People loved the two votes. One just for a party that has your philosophy, one just for a local representative, which is probably some other party if you’re Green, which is good.

Anyway, next thing, I want to talk about changing the voting age. When I was here yesterday, these young people are so earnest. I felt like way back when, when I was like that, that you really have hope that they’re going to have a fair system. And they want to vote. Are they prepared to vote? Yes, they are. They’re more prepared than ever before. They haven’t even heard of the world that is seriously in trouble. So what do they do? They want to vote.

I wanted to check to see what the parties…. Where they stood on voting. Does the NDP stand for voting? Let me see what I came up with here. Okay.

We’ll start with the Greens, I know that. At the 2019 convention, endorse voting age B.C. change.

B.C. NDP also endorsed voting 16 campaign in 2017. This is a quote from John Horgan. He said at the time: “If you are arguing with a 16-year-old about their right to their future, you are on the wrong side of history.”

But the resolution never…. They passed a resolution, which happens oftentimes with parties. They never advanced it. When they got in government, they never put it in place. Nobody put it in place.

Well now, let’s take a look at the Conservatives here, who are sitting in the wings to form the next government. They’re just itching for it. “We can get ’em. We’ll lock ’em down.”

I’m trying to get you guys to laugh there. Please.

Interjections.

[4:00 p.m.]

Paul George: I searched, and I couldn’t find anywhere where the voting age would seem to be an issue for them. So they are pretty well happy with the way it is. And so, I think, what chance have we got for an electoral reform on that? When they like the election system we’ve got? They’re going to probably get in the next…. Because it’s always balances. You’re never going to have NDPs forever.

So anyway…. Well, I’ve got two minutes. Oh, man. This is dangerous. I’m not supposed to ad lib because I go pretty off into the weeds sometimes.

Anyway, do this for the youth. Come on, let’s do it. This is a no-brainer. Give them a chance. You don’t have to wait till this whole process is over. You can go back in the next legislative session and just do it — period. You can.

And please, I ask the youth…. I’ve got young kids. Well, I’ve got some older kids too, but anyway, please do it for that.

Okay. Man, 15 minutes is really long.

Do it for youth. Do it for democracy — lower the voting age to age 16.

Let me tell you what I was doing at age 16. I started out at age 14 having ten lawns I mowed. Then at 15, I got a driver’s licence, and I started…. I also delivered the papers. At 16, I actually took my dad’s car, drove around in the middle of the Minnesota winter and I’d spot papers, counting them out at four o’clock in the morning, the Minneapolis Tribune and the St. Paul Press.

And you know, we took responsibility. I’ve been told when we’ve tried to get to talk to people about not voting…. They say: “Well, you know, there are certain things you shouldn’t have, like alcohol. We don’t want 16-year-olds to drink alcohol. So why should we get voting rights?” Well, I don’t think voting rights is like alcohol.

Anyway, this is…. Final thing. I’ve got one final thing. I think if you all look at one particular YouTube video, you’ll change your mind.

What you have to look for is Al Gore, TED Talk — I’m going slowly because I’ve got 18 seconds — July 4, 2025. His TED Talk outlines the problems that are facing the world, and there’s hope. There’s really hope. We can change it around. But I think the hope comes from the youth, and I think we’ve got to get youth voting.

Please, please, for my legacy, I would like to see, in the next election, that 16-year-olds can vote. Thank you very much.

I’ll give you…. Red — oh, there it is. It’s stopped.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Paul. Thank you for filling the time there.

Do we have any questions for Paul?

Paul George: Oh, don’t be afraid. Come on. Come on.

Rob Botterell: Well, I’ll start. We’re happy to go all evening, Paul.

Thank you for your presentation. The voting age of 16 has come up a lot over the last couple of days, and we have yet to hear any presentation, as far as I can tell, against the recommendation of having a voting age of 16.

On the issue of proportional representation, what would you like to see for the next election?

Paul George: Well, that…. I’ve worked out all the roadblocks, why you can’t have it.

The size of the Legislature. You’ve now got — what is it? — 93 MLAs. It’s stretched to the limit. So I looked into this. Oh my goodness, it’s a heritage building. You can’t change the footprint of it. You can’t move the columns. So how the hell are you going to ever put people in there? Well, everyone’s going to watch the Hansard of it. There’s never anybody in there except for votes, the confidence votes. Most of the time, it’s mostly empty, you know. People don’t go there.

So anyway, other places have had this problem. And what they’ve done is…. The older people, the people that hold portfolios, the different ministries — they all get permanent seats. It’s just the youngest ones who get temporary seats. And then there are seats that you can have…. They’ve done it all over the world because population has doubled or tripled or, more than that, four times in my lifetime. So you need larger legislatures. They’re all heritage ones.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Can’t we have benches?

Paul George: Yes, you could have that too. But I think…. You don’t want to put anybody like me on a bench. That’s not fair.

[4:05 p.m.]

Okay, regarding who might be against it, I can only think of one. That’s that Mr. Thielmann. He’s been against everything. He was against Meares Island. He was against the saving of Clayoquot Sound. He was against Carmanah Valley. He’s Mr. Against Man. So he will definitely be against it. He is for keeping it the way it is — first-past-the-post.

He gave an excellent…. I could have spent all day refuting his arguments. But anyway, I’ll bet you any money he’ll be against it.

Next. Come on, it says I’ve got seven minutes and 35. You guys have got to give me another chance.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Mr. George, it’s a pleasure listening to what you had to say. When’s the next time you’re having an opportunity where you speak in public?

Paul George: Well, you know, this is the first time in about 20 years. I’m pretty rusty.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Well, you’re not that rusty. I was just checking you out. I kind of knew who you were yesterday, and I didn’t realize what you’ve done in your life. So that OBC is really well deserved.

Paul George: Okay, let me give you a few minutes. What’s wrong with ChatGPT? Okay, and I’m telling you, it’s seriously flawed.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): And that’s why I’d love to be able to have a conversation off the air with you because I think we’d have a lot of fun.

What do you think — we’ve had this conversation already in the last two days — with lack of information, disinformation. What can you see as a way for us to be able to try to re-engage with our electorate, particularly the people that are either disenfranchised or not really paying attention to what’s going on?

You’re saying the youth seem to be clued in, and I think to a larger point they probably are. I mean, as Amna mentioned, if you look at the numbers, the numbers are growing in the lower age groups, 18 to 34. The middle is okay in places that are growing a bit. Then 65-plus is dropping off.

We haven’t determined why that is, whether it’s apathy, or what’s going on. What can you see from your perspective that we could do differently to try to re-engage our electorate in what’s actually going on?

Paul George: Well, you know we have a huge problem now with a person south of us that lies more than tells the truth. Lies become truth if you say it enough times. It’s amazing. I absolutely can’t believe it.

Now, I got to get back to chat, because I can tell you what’s going to happen, what they do. If I pretend like I’m an NDP or want that, it gives me all the NDP stuff. It says the other people’s stuff but it downplays that they might be similar to you. So if you pretend like you’re a Green, you get a Green thing out of it.

So whatever viewpoint you have, it wants to make you happy. “Oh, you’re absolutely right.” What I was able to do is take what they did get, and what they used was simply the report — the glowing report that came from the pens of the people who did the citizens assembly — which said everybody wanted STV, which was not true. We had way more people than STV people.

But everybody that went to the 50 different communities and said that they want mixed-member proportional were asked a second question: “What if we didn’t decide for MMP and we gave you STV? Would you accept that?” People said: “Well, yeah, if it’s proportional, yes.”

So then how do they report it? All these people support STV. That’s wrong. There was never a balance between the two. You have to give them balanced, truthful — both sides.

I’m telling you if you do, if you look at that, you would end up with an educated populace. That’s what they did. You’ve got to look at the New Zealand model.

You know what I recommend? Okay, you guys should all get in planes and go over there to those two countries and see how they work in both places.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): We’d all lose the next election.

Paul George: You think so? Well, you might lose anyway. Who knows? It’s true.

Anyway, my time must be up.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Paul, for being here today. It’s a real honour to have a holder of the Order of British Columbia in our midst, and congratulations to you getting that a few years ago now — 2020?

Paul George: Yeah, it was right during the pandemic. You didn’t even have the first thing, but it was a really incredible event. I’m telling you, it was unbelievable. All these great people.

Now, B.C. has been number one in a whole bunch of things. First to the….

Sheldon Clare: That wasn’t my question. I did want to highlight that you said that the STV was everyone’s second choice. Was that…?

[4:10 p.m.]

Paul George: Yeah, and I don’t have a second choice. I don’t have…. When I go to the poll, I just want Greens. I like the NDP. I like policies of some of the Conservatives. I’m a little more conservative that way. I’m a big spender of other people’s money, but I’m not very good…. Anyway.

Sheldon Clare: I think my question’s been answered. Thank you, Paul.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I don’t see any other questions. Thank you, Paul. It’s been a pleasure to have you join us today.

Paul George: Thank you very much. I certainly appreciate this. I congratulate you for carrying on a process like this. This is true democracy.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Next we have James Marshall.

Welcome, James. You’ll have five minutes for your presentation followed by five minutes for questions, and you can begin when you’re ready.

James Marshall

James Marshall: Perfect. Thank you so much. My name is James. I’m from right here in the West End. Thank you for having this so close to me. I’m going to try to go quickly through this, because I want to respect all you guys’ time, and I don’t know what kind of stuff you’ve covered already.

What I wanted to present to you today was just some statistics, numbers that I was hoping you would all be aware of that would help you as you make these decisions, specifically in regard to how many British Columbians in the last election that we had, in 2024, successfully elected the MLA of their choice and are now currently represented by their choice of MLA versus how many are left in ridings where they’re represented by someone who they did not want.

The number for B.C. in 2024 was that 52 percent managed to elect the person that they were hoping to elect, which to me is an extremely low number. Barely 50 percent of people now have effective representation — that is, who they wanted.

I have the party numbers here for you as well, if you’d like to see. So 40 percent of NDP voters are not represented by an NDP MLA, 45 percent of Conservative voters, 87 percent of Green voters, and anyone else, obviously, not at all.

As well, in, I think, 36 of the 93 seats, a majority of people voted for someone who was not the person who was elected. So an MLA elected there is left with an electorate where the majority did not want them to be their representative. I imagine it is quite a difficult task as an MLA to represent an electorate that broadly may disagree with you on policy.

I wanted to contrast this for you with a couple other jurisdictions around the world that have solved this problem by doing electoral systems a bit differently. You just had a speaker, as I walked in, that was talking about the Scottish election. That’s the one I was going to highlight. You already heard a few numbers, but I’ll quote a few more at you.

In Scotland, they have 73 districts that are elected in the exact same way that ours is, under first-past-the-post. In the last election that they had, in 2021, it was a blowout for the Scottish National Party, in which they won 62 of those seats. After that, 85 percent of Conservative voters in those first-past-the-post seats did not have a Conservative MLA, and 93 percent of Labour voters did not have a Labour MLA — or MSP, as they call them there — and 100 percent of Greens.

But the regional vote system that they have, in which there are six districts that each do a top-up of seven members, resulted in an addition of 26 Conservative MPs, 20 Labour MPs and Green MPs, which means that 100 percent of Conservative and Labour voters in Scotland have a representative at least at a regional level, if not at a local level. And 91 percent of Green voters also have at least a regional MP. Added up, 97 percent of Scottish voters have a representative that they can go to, that they voted for, that they wanted, either at that local or regional level.

The other one I have here as an example is the Irish election. I want to point out that both Scotland and Ireland have similar populations to B.C. They’re all about five-point-something million. They all have relatively similar numbers of seats overall. The Scottish House is at 129. The Irish is a bit bigger at 174. What they’ve done, instead of having 93 seats as we do, is split it into 44 seats, each of which elects multiple people, either three to five, under a ranked system of single transferable vote.

I ran the numbers on this as well. It gets a little bit difficult, because they rank candidates, and parties will often run more than one person in a district. But if you count parties together, 71 percent of Irish voters, on the first ballot, successfully elected someone at least from the party that was their first choice or was an independent.

If you then go on to the ranked numbers after that, it gets higher and higher. I didn’t quite have time to run it all because I have a tiny baby at home that has taken up a lot of my time while trying to do stats.

[4:15 p.m.]

In the couple of districts I tried, it was going up to 90 percent of people who have at least ranked one of the candidates that was then elected. So my personal take is that both the Scottish and Irish systems provides people with a lot more effective representation locally. They don’t lose local representation, which I know is considered an important part of first-past-the-post that a lot of people quote as being a benefit of the system. These systems incorporate that but do a much better job in making sure people actually have the effective local representation that they wanted.

Thank you very much.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, James.

Do we have any questions?

The question I have is: when we’re looking at the regional votes, looking at Canada…. I mean, well, British Columbia in itself is very large, and we already have some very large regions when it comes to even single ridings right now. What does that look like in Scotland when you’re looking at a region, and is it actually…?

The reason folks really like the individual representation is because it reflects…. I come from an urban area. It’s technically a very small area, which can be very different than even going from Surrey to Langley or to Burnaby. So when you have a regional representation, you have someone in there that can be made up of different priorities for folks. So just if you can reconcile those kinds of thoughts for me.

James Marshall: Yeah, super happy you asked that, because I expected it was going to come up as something that…. People often point out that B.C. is large, much larger than Scotland or Ireland. In Scotland, the districts are done based on population, so they all have equal populations. All the districts are different sizes. There is an urban district for just Glasgow, and then there’s a very large one that includes the Scottish islands and a lot of the Highlands and stuff.

In B.C., if we were to adopt a Scottish system, we wouldn’t lose that local representation, especially if we were to add seats. If we were to crunch the seats down to maintain our current number, yes, ridings would grow by a little bit, but we could add 60 regional seats or something, although I know Paul George was talking about the difficulty of fitting everyone in there.

But the local representation is maintained because you have this dual system of local representations and a top-up of a regional system that provides for when that local representation is not being accurate to what you as a voter would like.

I wanted to point out, as well, as an example, a large jurisdiction that does this: Australia. Australia has quite large states. They have a bicameral system in which they have a lower house that’s elected pretty much the same way as ours, except with a ranked ballot, and they have an upper house that is done as the entirety of each state.

That secondary system allows people to at least have a representative at a state level if they can’t get one at a local level that they wanted. It’s like an extra to make sure that they have that representation for their actual viewpoints, whereas their local representation can focus on things that are core to their area.

Sheldon Clare: You mentioned about the bicameral and unicameral aspects of the systems. In B.C., of course, we have a unicameral system. I think only Newfoundland and Quebec have the ability to have bicameral systems in Canada, which would be similar to what the federal power has. In our constitution, of course, the provinces collectively have equal status with the federal power.

Are you suggesting that British Columbia might benefit from having a bicameral system where we bring in a type of House of Lords or Senate to act as regional representation?

James Marshall: It would not be my preference. I understand that it would be logistically difficult. I’m just trying to point out that…. You know, Australia has this extra system to allow for regional representation. My personal preference would be that either the systems used in Scotland or Ireland would be preferential and that having these regional MLAs in addition to the local MLAs would really solve the problem of people not having representation locally.

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation.

Certainly one of the underlying issues as we talk about proportional representation systems is just, if we applied the Scottish model, the size of the regions. I know that MLA Clare has mentioned on a number of occasions that his riding is the size of…

Sheldon Clare: Switzerland. A little larger, actually.

Rob Botterell: …Switzerland. I mean, this isn’t something, necessarily, that we would resolve at this table, if we want to explore this in more detail. Certainly I do. But it is a logistical nightmare in terms of the size of some of the ridings already turning into a regional….

[4:20 p.m.]

Do you have any suggestions on how to tackle that?

James Marshall: I mean, the one point I would make is that this 52 percent of people having an MLA that they wanted — it seems critically bad to me. And although that is a logistical difficulty, I think it would be worth it in order to solve a problem like this.

In terms of, logistically, how to fix it, the more digital connection with constituents, not having to move around as much…. We have access to those types of things. You’re more of an expert on what we could do to solve this than I would be.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Great. I don’t see any further questions. Thank you so much, James, for your time and for presenting to us today.

James Marshall: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Next up, we have Eric Button.

Welcome, Eric. Just before you begin, a reminder that you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions. You can get started.

Eric Button

Eric Button: Thank you for the opportunity to speak about democratic and electoral reform. This is a subject I care deeply about. I’m not an expert. I’m just going to give you my opinion, which is why I took the time off of work to be here. I’m hopeful that the other people who have spoken today or will be speaking today will be presenting many strong arguments in favour of proportional representation over our current first-past-the-post system.

I hope they speak to the many advantages of PR, including a more fair and representative democracy; more accountability from our politicians; less polarization and two-party politics; empowering voters and encouraging turnout among marginalized voting blocks like urban conservatives or rural progressives; making every riding competitive and not just suburban swing ridings; generating more popular policy through cooperative minority governments; and ending vote splitting and strategic voting.

Assuming these advantages will be addressed in more detail by others, I would like to focus on how we bring about that change. I want to discuss referendums and why they’ve been unsuccessful for those of us who want to see reform.

We’ve had three referendums on electoral reform in this province, and they’ve all failed to deliver change. Do we need to have a referendum to enact proportional representation? Or could we change our system and have a referendum on whether to go back to first-past-the-post? This would be my preference. I think it would be fair to implement it this way if a party campaigned on electoral reform and won a strong mandate.

If we are going to have a referendum on change, I hope we could see it done a little differently than in the past. Majority rules. The first attempt at referendum in 2005 would have been successful had there been a 50 percent threshold. A simple majority should be enough to allow for change. It’s only fair and democratic. Arbitrarily increasing the threshold to maintain the status quo is distinctly undemocratic, in my opinion.

We shouldn’t allow for speculation. Electoral boundaries and redistribution of ridings should be clearly explained to voters ahead of the referendum. I think the inability to answer straightforward questions about what our Legislature would look like under a proportional system was one of the reasons the 2018 referendum failed to result in change.

Keep it simple. The most recent referendum offered too many options, which led to confusion, I think. The ballot should be a simple yes or no question, with decisions on the type of reform having been made already, and the facts of that change should be clearly spelled out for the voting public.

And avoid partisanship. Our last referendum featured a debate between party leaders. Electoral reform is not a partisan issue. There are many Conservatives who feel unrepresented by their party or who feel their vote doesn’t make a difference in their particular riding, who would be empowered by proportional representation. Any campaign for change needs to speak to them as well.

I have no problem with televised debates, but they should be done by expert advocates for either side and not partisan politicians. I think a televised debate between two non-partisan political scientists could actually have some value and be informative for voters.

So those are some ideas on how we can implement a referendum on proportional representation and make it work this time. Thank you for your time and allowing me to share my opinion and participate in this process.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Eric. Are there any questions?

[4:25 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. We’ve heard from a number of presenters over the last couple of days on the need for a referendum or no referendum. So it’s certainly helpful to hear from you on some of the key things that you would see if we held a referendum in order to make it effective and representative and so on.

I guess the question I have…. I’d just like to go back. In your view, are there advantages to implementing proportional representation and then having a referendum to see if people want to carry on with it? If so, can you expand on that a bit?

Eric Button:Yeah, I do think there are advantages, mainly that it would give people all the…. They would know exactly what it’s like to vote in an election with proportional representation. They would get to do it, see how it works, and then they could make the decision: do I like this better than the way it worked last time or not?

I think the big challenge of these referendums is always explaining it to people in a way that doesn’t scare them or confuse them. It is a complicated kind of, also not the most exciting, thing to explain to people. So I think just doing it would be great. People would get a chance to try it out. It’s one of those things where…. Yeah, you’re scared of change until you try it out, and usually it’s not too bad.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): You also mentioned in your presentation that if a party were to run on this, on electoral reform, and win a strong mandate, that would be enough reason to move forward with it. So is that what you would suggest — that if, in the next election, a party is running on that platform, then that’s where the change would come from?

Eric Button: I would be fine with…. I mean, if the current government held a referendum this year, that’d be awesome. I’d be all for it. But I understand that if the current government just right now had changed the voting system, obviously that’d be incredibly controversial.

So yeah, I think if you run on that mandate, then what’s…. I mean, people voted for that. That seems fair to me. That’s how our current system works. And you’re still giving people a chance to change that democratically if they don’t like it.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay. Thank you, Eric.

Are there any other questions? No?

Thank you so much for taking the time and taking the time off work to join us here today and present to us.

Eric Button: Thank you very much.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Our next presenter is Ahmed Tawfik.

Welcome, Ahmed. Just a reminder, again, that you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

Ahmed Tawfik

Ahmed Tawfik: I moved to B.C. chasing a dream: mountains, gorgeous beaches and an accurately representative democracy. Then I looked at the voting system, and I was like, wow, this is how we elect our representatives — on purpose? I guess two out of three dreams is not bad.

Good afternoon. My name is Ahmed, and I’d like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today. I’m a first-generation immigrant from Egypt. I lived through and witnessed firsthand the Arab Spring. I watched people rise up, risking everything just to have a voice in their future. But I also saw how fast that dream can collapse. Like many, I came here in search of something better and something real. And yet, I’ve come to realize that even here, something is broken.

Every election I talk to my friends and neighbours — these are smart and engaged people — about stuff that they are deeply frustrated about: housing, health care, public safety. My response is usually the same: “Well, talk to your MLA. Email them. Visit their office. Vote.” And their response is pretty much the same: “Why? My riding never flips. My voice doesn’t even matter.” And you know what? They’re not wrong.

Under first-past-the-post in B.C., the majority of votes don’t shape who governs. Parties win 100 percent of the power using only 40 percent of the vote, and people learn over time that their voice is just background noise. This isn’t voter apathy; it’s voter exclusion. Apathy is what happens after people try and then they realize the system wasn’t built for them.

[4:30 p.m.]

There’s a cycle I believe in that shapes this kind of situation. It goes like this. People get engaged, then they get excluded, then they get misunderstood, then they disengage, and then they get ignored. That’s exactly what we’re watching happen, not to a fringe group but to millions and millions of British Columbians.

This isn’t just sad. It’s dangerous, because when people believe the system doesn’t work, they stop playing by the rules. That’s how you get populists, strongmen, leaders who promise to bulldoze through the system because the system failed their supporters. We’ve seen this in the U.S., in the U.K., in Europe, and we are not immune.

Here’s what I’m asking of this committee. One, move to a proportional representation system so that every vote counts everywhere. Two, do not call another referendum. We do not hold referenda on tax policy or electoral maps. We trust our elected officials to make these smart decisions on our behalf, and this is one of them. Three, please reject ranked ballots in single-member ridings. It’s not proportional. It does not fix the exclusion, just rebrands it. Four, make the change before the next election. Delay is not neutral. Delay is a decision, a decision to keep voters out.

Now, some will say this is too emotional, and I actually agree. Democracy is emotional. It is built on the emotion of trust. Once that trust is broken, it’s almost impossible to get it back. You’ve been given a rare opportunity. Don’t waste it. Don’t hide behind another referendum. Fix the system now. Fix the system today. Thank you.

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. I actually missed your third recommendation. I didn’t quite catch that one.

Ahmed Tawfik: My third recommendation was to reject ranked ballots in a single-member riding.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Are there any further questions?

Amna Shah: I was hoping you could expand a little bit more on your comment where you mentioned that it’s not voter apathy; it is voter exclusion. You pointed to an example initially about you approaching your neighbours and them not feeling represented. It was striking to me your recommendation was to go to your MLA. What was the response to that? I understand the sentiment that they may not have faith that their voice matters, but when you ask them about the practical ways in which they can engage, what is typically their response?

Ahmed Tawfik: Their typical response is: “If during the election my voice wasn’t heard, and the MLA and I do not see eye to eye, why should they listen to me now?” There was one friend that said: “Well, usually politicians care about what’s going to get them into office or out of office. If my vote is not going to get them out of office, why should they listen to me?”

Amna Shah: Yeah, I’m just trying to understand the apathy component in this. Again, I can understand the broad concept of not feeling represented, especially when the candidate that you support doesn’t win an election. You mentioned that apathy typically happens after someone has tried to do something about it but are unsuccessful.

I’m wondering. In this case, is that trying supporting the candidate via vote, or could the trying component also be to actually engage, even if that elected official is not necessarily somebody who you voted for. Because the responsibilities of an elected member are to represent all voices, non-partisan. Whether that happens or not in reality is a different story, but I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on that.

[4:35 p.m.]

Ahmed Tawfik: I’m not so far from where you’re getting at. I always push my friends and neighbours to engage with their MLAs. I do, too. Sometimes I’m disappointed. Sometimes I’m not. But then again, when the issue is very contentious and it’s on party lines and on ideological lines, they tend to scoff and move on. One of my friends told me: “The MLA will listen to me, will welcome me into their office, will read my email, but they won’t do anything about it because they ran on the exact opposite platform.”

Amna Shah: I’m wondering — sorry, Chair, if you might entertain a follow-up question — in a pro rep system, there have been presenters in the past that have brought up their view that proportional representation may not necessarily eliminate that, which is the partisanship in politics. Although to some degree it may influence or encourage cooperation, it may not necessarily eliminate that partisanship. I’m wondering if in the pro rep system, do you think that that would be eliminated?

Ahmed Tawfik: This cannot be eliminated 100 percent, but it will be mitigated a lot because of mixed-member ridings and the fact that…. I support single transferable vote when you rank your choice. At least it’s not one or the other. At least some part of your voice is heard in who’s getting elected and who’s getting into office.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for your presentation.

Can you elaborate a little bit more, when you just made a statement that said that one of your neighbours had asked their MLA for help, but the MLA wouldn’t help because their party policy is different than the governing party. Can you elaborate on an example?

Ahmed Tawfik: I don’t have the specifics, because that’s where the conversation ended between me and my friend, but I believe what we were talking about was tax policy, and the MLA in their riding was supportive of lowering taxes on businesses, while my friend was on the opposite side of that. So they didn’t feel like there would be a fruitful conversation.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Can I ask a secondary question then?

Ahmed Tawfik: Sure.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): So that’s kind of a peripheral kind of a question, because that relates more to policy and whether you’re going to be supporting one party or another. But can you give me a specific if you’re looking at a personal concern, does that raise the same level of disengagement with the MLA not representing you?

In other words, if you are looking for housing or for support or for information, do you think that just because an MLA may not have the same political view as you, that they wouldn’t be able to offer the same services across the line, like across to every constituent?

Ahmed Tawfik: Not in every situation, but when it comes to needs such as housing, there are ways to approach that, and that involves policy.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): All right. Thanks.

Ahmed Tawfik: You’re welcome.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Ahmed, for your presentation and for taking our questions today and making the time to join our committee.

Ahmed Tawfik: Thank you for the opportunity.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Take care.

Okay, next up we have Noah Berson. Welcome, Noah. Thank you for making the time today. Again, you have five minutes for your presentation followed by five minutes for questions.

Noah Berson: Perfect. How’s everybody doing? Long day?

Rob Botterell: We’re just getting going.

Noah Berson: All right, let’s get this ball rolling then.

Rob Botterell: The night is young.

Noah Berson: So my idea is a referendum about a referendum. Just kidding.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): And then we could have a referendum.

Noah Berson: Yes, exactly. So a tripartite referendum.

Noah Berson

Noah Berson: Thank you for taking the time. I really appreciate it. My name’s Noah Berson, and I’m here to offer some reforms that, I think, can be implemented in B.C. that would help out a little bit. So before I begin, I want to provide a little bit of background about who I am, why I’m chatting with you folks.

Personally, I’ve been twice elected as the vice-president external at the Capilano Students Union. That was a while ago, but ran there, held office there, had constituents there and then, also, tried to convince university students to vote, which is a very hard job.

Secondly, since then, I’ve been the chief electoral officer or deputy electoral officer at over 20 elections around B.C. for student unions, faith groups and First Nations all over the province. I’ve run elections all the way from Vanderhoof to Port Hardy, Dog Creek to Canim Lake, and I’ve helped folks vote in places where a lot of folks have felt forgotten or have been reluctant to participate in the electoral process. I’m hoping that some of that I’ll be able to bring to you folks, some of the ideas I’ve gathered. Hopefully, we can implement those moving forward.

[4:40 p.m.]

The first one, mixed-member proportional. I’m sure you’ve heard a lot about MMP today, almost ad nauseam. I’m not going to rehash all the details, but please add my name to the list of folks who support this.

There’ll be others who make these points far more eloquently than me, far more comprehensively, but I’ll simply say this. In a time when British Columbians feel like their votes don’t always matter, and when majority governments are routinely formed without majority support, MMP offers a clear and tested path to a fairer system, one where every vote truly counts and where coalition and cooperation are strengths, not signs of instability.

Moving past that to some more recommendations I have.

Mandated minimum staffing levels for elections. In the last Vancouver municipal election, some voter stations had waiting times of two to three hours. I waited myself for an hour and a half. That’s not just inconvenient; that’s a real barrier to participation. People with kids, work shifts, disability, limited transit options simply can’t afford that wait in line to vote. I had several friends who actually left lines and didn’t end up voting in the last municipal election here.

While this problem is not unique to Vancouver, it’s a clear example of what happens when we under-resource our elections. Long lines aren’t a sign of voter enthusiasm; they’re a sign of poor planning. We need clear, legislated staffing minimums for both Elections B.C. and for local election bodies so they can guarantee that every voter can cast a ballot quickly, fairly and with confidence.

Then my third point is — I timed myself; I’m two minutes and 50 seconds, so we’re going to get through this real quick — not just lowering the voting age to 16 but pairing it with curriculum in B.C. So if we want lifelong voters in B.C., we need to start when people are most prepared to engage.

In B.C., the social studies 10 curriculum, typically taught at ages 15 to 16, includes Canadian government, democracy and political systems. This means that at 16, students are at the peak of their formal civic education. There is no point at which they will know more as a group about how government works than at that point.

Lowering the voting age to 16 and timing it with this curriculum would create a powerful civic pipeline — learn it, talk about it, and then actually do it. Jurisdictions like Australia and Scotland have seen higher voter turnout and long-term civic participation by engaging voting people at 16 while they’re still in their communities, schools, supported and informed. Let’s not waste this opportunity.

So just to recap, MMP would make our votes matter, better staffing would make it accessible, and lowering the voting age to 16 would turn civic education into civic action.

I really appreciate the time you folks have spent with me today. I’m more than happy to answer any questions you have.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Noah, and for being so clear and concise with that as well.

Amna Shah: Thank you, Noah, for your presentation.

I just want to go back to a comment that you made shortly after you told us that you were elected on the Capilano Students Union and that it was a hard job to get students to vote. I’m assuming that some of your recommendations are as a result of what you’ve experienced.

What I do want to share is that we’ve actually had presenters thus far tell us that if we lower the voting age, that’s just going to somehow get people to vote more and also make it accessible. It’s just going to magically happen. I’m still struggling to understand, especially, what the major root causes are of why it’s so difficult to get students to vote.

We had a previous presenter who shared that increased accessibility and longer voting periods would result in more voter turnout, for example. I don’t think that she was talking just with one group but generally across groups. Yet we see that in the last, 2024, election, we had quite a few sort of voting accessibility expansions and more options than ever to vote, and yet we’re still seeing a lower turnout than we saw in 2017.

I suppose I’m still trying to pinpoint, and maybe you can help me fill in, based on your experience…. For example, when you were campaigning and trying to convince people to vote, what were the main issues you were coming up against?

Noah Berson: I think it’s a fantastic question. Thank you. Two answers to that. I had two elections I ran in. One was low voter turnout because it wasn’t contested. It wasn’t a close election. There wasn’t much going on. People felt like their vote did not matter.

[4:45 p.m.]

In the second election, there were stakes. People felt like their vote mattered, and I think we see that a lot in B.C. We see a lot of university campuses, especially up north…. Those ridings go the same way every single time. People don’t feel like there’s an impetus to vote. People don’t feel like their vote is actually going to make any kind of change. When they feel like there’s the potential to create change, that’s when they’re going to go out and vote, at least from my experience.

Amna Shah: I suppose if I could just summarize, if I’m understanding correctly, there may be two possible scenarios here. One is that when people feel like their vote will lead to a change, they’re more likely to vote. Then the second piece is that if there is an item of particular concern that everybody shares, for example, like a ballot box question, then that would be....

Noah Berson: Yes, you have that correct.

Sheldon Clare: In some of the ridings, particularly some of the northern ridings, the percentage of votes for a particular candidate was far past 50 percent, and probably a change of system wouldn’t matter.

How do you address that to people who would say in these ridings: “Well, my vote doesn’t matter”? It still wouldn’t, by your measure.

Noah Berson: It’s always an interesting day when I get to quote Winston Churchill. What is the quote? “Democracy is a terrible system, but it’s the best one we’ve come up with so far.” I think just continuing to move that along where….

Proportional representation is not going to fix all of our issues with B.C. politics. It’s not going to make sure that every single vote counts in every single riding. But it’s going to move us from a place where a lot of people don’t feel like their votes count to a fewer amount of folks feel that way.

Rob Botterell: Just to pick up on the previous question, if you were in a mixed-member proportional system with a regional top-up, how would that impact a voter, say, in Hudson’s Hope who’s never voted Conservative in their life and feels disenfranchised and is looking for a way to express their vote? Does proportional representation give them a little bit greater chance of voting for somebody who shares their values or not?

Noah Berson: I’m going to attempt to answer that in three seconds: yes, I think so.

Sheldon Clare: I’m surprised you’d find someone in Hudson’s Hope who’s not voting Conversative.

Rob Botterell: You’re meeting him tomorrow.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): All right, thank you so much, Noah, for your presentation and for taking our questions today.

Now this one is our last presentation for the day. If we could have Hugh Dawson, please.

Thank you, Hugh, for joining us today. Again, just a reminder, you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions. You can get started.

Hugh Dawson

Hugh Dawson: I’d like to start by taking a moment to thank you all for organizing this special committee. I know that there are a lot of issues on your plates, and I hope that it’s being properly appreciated that you’re taking the time and resources to prioritize this one.

My name is Hugh. I was born and raised just across the water on the north shore, although I had a brief stint in Ontario for school. I’d like to preface what I’m about to say by stating that I have no background in government, no background in law, no background in sociology. I am by no means an expert on this. Most of this will be vibes-based.

Rob Botterell: Good. We like “vibes-based.”

Hugh Dawson: Over the past year, I’ve heard a lot of anecdotal grumblings from my friends, families, peers about how they don’t feel that their vote truly matters. This is expressed in comments such as not wanting to vote because they feel like their preferred candidate will lose anyway, voting against a candidate rather than voting for a candidate or simply feeling like they’re cancelling out the votes of someone else in their household.

I believe that there is a growing feeling that people feel that their votes are not resulting in their ideals and values being represented in their government. I think that if we can address this sentiment, we significantly contribute to addressing the three themes of this committee, which is one of the reasons I came in today: to discuss with you what I believe to be one potential improvement to this. That would be to switch to a more representative electoral process.

Now, I’m aware that proposals to change electoral systems should not be thrown around lightly. Electoral systems don’t exist in a vacuum, and changing them will ultimately change a lot of the infrastructure and processes that were developed and grown alongside them.

[4:50 p.m.]

On top of that, I’m aware there’s no perfect electoral system. It’s all just trade-offs between what we value in our system, and we may grow to realize that whatever we change to is not what we continue to enjoy.

But if I look at the democratic values upon which electoral systems are built and then compare how these systems fare against these values, there seems to be a pretty good case for change. Using values like voter choice, proportionality, stability, long-term viability, responsiveness, accountability, representation and, specifically, local representation, as well as the epistemic qualities of the electoral process, it’s suggestive to me that our current system does a particularly good job of providing stability and responsiveness.

However, a system like single transferable vote or ranked choice voting provides a more desirable balance amongst all of these values, particularly when paired with a proportional representation setup.

Now, I’m not the only person to come to this conclusion. I’ve been made aware by my research that the B.C. citizens assembly also came to this conclusion in 2004 and that British Columbians voted to adopt this in a referendum, failing on, basically, a technicality of not meeting the 60 percent threshold to adopt it.

The more that I learn about STV, the more that I’m convinced that it may be one of the solutions to the issues outlined by this subcommittee, and it sounds like both the B.C. populace and government have been historically open to that.

The real reason I came today is to ask that if we were to proceed with the electoral reform to adopt STV and PR, it be done with purpose and determination in order to avoid the pitfalls of previous attempts at reform. Referendums are incredible expressions of democracy, but they can also be a way for politicians to wipe their hands of the responsibility and choice, to send it to the people and say it’s their decision to make.

I think that that is one of the reasons why previous attempts failed. If you believe electoral reform is necessary, then I think we should be committing to it. Inform the public of their choice and the trade-offs that they are making in this referendum but also champion it. Show British Columbians that this is something that you believe in and that it is worth doing. That way, it might just have a fighting chance this time.

Thank you very much for your time. This is the first time I’ve done something like this, and you’ve all made me feel heard and listened to, which I really appreciate. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Hugh, for your presentation.

Do you have any questions for Hugh?

Amna Shah: Thank you, Hugh, for your presentation. You had mentioned that if we were to go at it again, to not repeat, obviously, the mistakes of the past, as you may.

If there was one thing that you could recommend that we definitely do if we were to go ahead with a referendum one day, what would that one thing be?

Hugh Dawson: That’s a very good question. I’m going to rely a little bit on a source that I read, because I was four when this referendum happened, so I don’t remember it.

They mentioned that one of the things that happened was that there was no champion for this change. No one stood up and put their weight behind it and really said they believed in this. They just left it to the public to vote.

I think if someone were to step up and say, “We believe that this is right for British Columbians, that this provides the best way of selecting MLAs,” and really informed the public of that decision, that would go a long way to helping British Columbians understand the choice that they’re making and the potential benefits of voting for electoral reform.

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation, Hugh.

One option that has been discussed a little bit over the last couple of days is proceeding with full information in the implementation of a form of proportional representation and then trying it out and then having a referendum to see if British Columbians want to continue with it. What’s your view on that?

Hugh Dawson: I think that would be perfectly reasonable, to give it a chance and not to be afraid of turning back if it is the wrong decision. I see no problem with that.

I have a degree in engineering, and a lot of that is iterative design. This would be really true to iterating — trying something out and, if it doesn’t work, going back. If it does work, continue on. That type of thing.

Amna Shah: Just a quick follow-up to your comment about a champion for change. Who would this champion be? Would it be a political figure? Would it be a researcher? Along what lines are you thinking?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hugh Dawson: Ideally, it would be more than one, to be honest with you — a diverse group of people. I’m speaking to MLAs. I’m hoping an MLA who believes in it would be willing to do that. Obviously, don’t do it if you don’t believe in it. You want to put your full passion behind it.

That’s why I’ve come here today, to ask that of whoever does believe in that.

Rob Botterell: Just one last question, which I’ve been asking a number of presenters: are you in favour of some form of proportional representation as opposed to first-past-the-post? For example, if STV or a multi-member proportional system was adopted, would you see that as an improvement, or would you just stay with first-past-the-post?

Hugh Dawson: I would prefer a combination of STV and proportional representation. I don’t know if that’s what MMP is; I’m not familiar with that term. But yeah, the ranked part of it paired with proportional votes within a location, resulting in the proportional amount of seats.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Wonderful. Thank you so much for being here today.

Thank you to all the presenters.

May I have a motion to adjourn, please?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:56 p.m.