The committee met at 5:33 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

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

We are meeting today in Cranbrook, which is located on the traditional territories of the Ktunaxa peoples.

We’ll be continuing with presentations related to democratic engagement, voter participation and electoral reform. This committee is also accepting written submissions 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): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ward Stamer, MLA, Kamloops–North Thompson, and official critic for Forests.

Rob Botterell: My name is Rob Botterell. I’m the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands and the Green caucus House Leader.

Amna Shah: Good evening. My name is Amna Shah. I’m the MLA for Surrey City Centre and also the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health and Addictions. I’m very pleased to have you here today.

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

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Assisting our committee today are Karan Riarh and Kayla Wilson from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Simon de Laat and Dwight Schmidt from Hansard Services.

Thank you, everyone, for being here. We will begin with Jim Wiedrick.

Thank you for being here with us today, Jim. Just a reminder that you’ll have your presentation, and then we’ll open up the floor for questions.

[5:35 p.m.]

Jim Wiedrick

Jim Wiedrick: Good evening. My name is Jim. I’m an emerg physician in Nelson, and I treat allergic reactions all summer. One of the things I want to declare is that I’m allergic to boring presentations, so I want to, hopefully, entertain you for five minutes but give you a solid point of view.

Hey, let’s go back to 1971, the year of my birth, and let’s think about a Canadian-content song from the Five Man Electrical Band. The song’s name is “Signs,” and it has got that amazing opening line. It’s a real ear worm: “And the sign said ‘Long-haired freaky people need not apply.’”

Hey, we’re not going to talk about music for my whole time, but here’s the point. The point is that line is about generational discontent, about pointing out the hypocrisy of authority and how people are excluded. What’s my thought? My thought is that in the political process these days, independents and independent thinkers need not apply.

I have my own personal journey. I ran in the most recent federal election campaign as an independent in this federal election riding, Columbia–Kootenay–Southern Rockies. I spent a couple years putting together a solid platform and focused it around democratic rejuvenation, with the point that, really, we don’t practise a true, representative democracy in Canada.

Then I thought that in real time we could use the technology of the 2020s to have constituents engage with their MP, as this case would be in the federal scene, in real time — telling me or whoever else the MP was what their actual point of view was and what they wanted focused on.

But as I begin to campaign, I’m met with the tsunami that of course is this magic fairy tale of strategic voting. It serves the two polarized ends of the federal spectrum to push strategic voting narratives. Provincial politics across Canada is not immune to that either, and we can analyze that from the B.C. point of view.

Strategic voting always is: “Well, you can’t go for that guy because you’ve got to prevent them.” I had tons of voters who would come up to me, including one very memorable, angry woman at a Kimberley forum that was like: “Why are you working to split the vote?” I’m like: “You know what? The crime isn’t that you don’t agree with my policies or that you’re probably not going to vote for me. The crime is that you think I shouldn’t be running because I’m going to split the vote.”

All of that is brought to you by First-Past-the-Post Inc., the company that keeps us all enshrined in the system that we have right now and continues to polarize us. The natural consequence of it is that we entrench things and we make sure that party leaders or Premiers are pre-eminent. They don’t even necessarily listen to their own elected representatives and end up with legislation such that perhaps they’re proposing that just they themselves and their cabinet should be able to carry on however they merrily wish and avoid having to answer to the elected Legislature of the day.

Everything should be a living, breathing organism. We should be able to go back and forth. We should be able to have people engaged in it, but we’ve cranked the cynicism meter up to about 100 in the general public, and we continue to go strategic voting, strategic voting, strategic voting.

How do you escape that? How do you get back to a representative democracy? Well, it seems to me that the very wise people back in 2004 who participated in the citizens assembly and came up with the notion that we actually needed proportional representation — very specifically, probably the best version of proportional representation was single transferable vote — were pretty wise. I’m sorry that the threshold was 60 percent back then, and we only made 57-point-something.

The bottom line is that if we could get into a system where you didn’t just have to be polarized — us, them — or maybe you had larger ridings and three or four members represented each riding, you could open it up to a quality independent voice or more than just one party and people feeling marginalized and not getting their voices actually heard.

That’s the core of it. I think we have to just simply acknowledge that in today’s politics, we’re not truly practising the representative democracy that was originally constructed and the way it was designed and that as we look at the signs, the signs are everywhere that it’s not really working. So status quo isn’t the future. We’ve got to make a shift.

Thank you for listening. I’d be happy to entertain any questions.

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

Do we have any questions?

[5:40 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your presentation, Doctor. I ran as an independent myself once upon a time, back in 2015. My experience, I’m sure, was similar to yours, in that what I found is that I wasn’t going to win for a number of reasons.

Now, I’m also interested in why you would think that STV and PR would lead to independents being successful in a situation where you would still have groups of individuals coalescing together to promote common interests and issues in a party system. How would independents do in that when, historically, the percentage of votes for most independents — not all of them, but most — is usually extremely low?

Jim Wiedrick: Okay, I’ll give you a practical example. Let’s say we took the current number of ridings and divided by four. In other words, we had one-quarter of the ridings we have now but elected four members from each of those ridings.

Well, in the last provincial election, to use a very Cranbrook example, a very experienced seven-year MLA would’ve been everybody’s No. 2 choice. The local Conservative won, but Mr. Shypitka, who was running as an independent in that race, would almost certainly have been No. 2 on everybody’s preferential ranked ballot. Then, in an STV version, he would have been the second of four people elected to the Legislature.

I think the point is that STV would not guarantee independents would win, but it would, at least, give a credible chance for quality independents to potentially rise above the fray.

Sheldon Clare: If I may ask a follow-up. In British Columbia, we have a tremendous variety of geography with our ridings. We have some ridings which have very dense and highly populated areas in very small geographic sections. We have other ridings with large geographic areas with much smaller numbers of people.

The people in almost all the ridings tend to like to know who their MLA is and like to feel they have a direct connection with that person, whether or not they voted for that individual. I’ve encountered this with people who’ve come to see me or my staff at my office who have issues. Our policy is pretty clear, as it is, I believe, for most of my colleagues. I don’t care whether or not you voted for me. If you have a problem that I can assist you with, I’m going to do that.

Now, in what you’re proposing, where there would be multiple representatives for a much larger region, possibly with a larger population, I think what you would find is a shopping program where people would shop around to get the representative that they liked better. It would become a bit of a popularity contest in terms of that.

Right now, we do get requests from other ridings. We’re very clear that if you live in a particular constituency, you need to talk to your MLA. We’re happy to help transition you to that by providing any information that’s necessary. Sometimes you have property in one riding, and there are all these little overlaps.

How do you see a multi-member, larger riding being able to provide the same level of service in a consistent way to such a varied area? I’m thinking of my own riding, Prince George–North Cariboo, which extends from Williams Lake all the way up to College Heights in Prince George. It includes larger population centres like Quesnel but also includes smaller areas like Miocene or Big Bear Ranch or Kluskus through Nazko. There’s a lot of variety there.

I’m not sure that having a collection and trying to figure out who’s representing whom, where and when would actually serve the people very well. What are your thoughts on that?

Jim Wiedrick: Well, my counterpoint is that you already have a large geographical area. I don’t think increasing it changes. Then there would be, in my example, four different people. Perhaps you would have an affinity or have an easier way to communicate with one or two of those four. I don’t see a problem with that.

One of the blessings of the pandemic is Zoom video calls. Again, I don’t see a problem with that.

My last counterpoint is, sad to say, that from my own engagement and interaction with people, 95 percent of people do not know who their local candidate is. They think they’re voting for Mr. Carney, Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Eby, Mr. Rustad. Take your pick.

Sheldon Clare: Joe Biden?

[5:45 p.m.]

Jim Wiedrick: Yeah, that’s fine. I mean, we can take any level of government you want. Acknowledging that it’s always a big barrier for independents to gain brand identification…. The truth is, I would argue, that very few MLAs in B.C. were elected on their own local popularity. They were much more likely elected as part of a party wave or movement or because people identified with the leadership group.

Amna Shah: Thank you, Dr. Wiedrick, for your presentation. I don’t want to make any assumptions about your thoughts on certain things, but I think some of the strategic voting issue that you talk about a lot of times can be driven by partisanship and hyper-partisanship and the general public, and those who are very partisan folks drive that narrative, as you had encountered in your efforts in door-knocking.

I’m wondering: given that being the case, if there was a multi-member riding and there was an opportunity provided, maybe a bit more equally so, to independents, do you think that it would be possible for that hyper-partisanship to dissipate a little bit, or could it be a scenario in which it all just remains?

I see the value of having a multi-member riding, actually, because it would set the stage for some consensus-building amongst members. But I’m wondering about the culture of our communities and our province and our country and whether that culture is conducive to your vision of what it should look like.

Jim Wiedrick: My argument is that the system, the way it is, is effectively locking in the partisanship and that in order to break free of that, it would take a lot of work. Maybe people like me can be part of it, but frankly, there has to be a lot of melting of cynical hearts, and there would have to be a lot of engagement.

People would have to come to believe, if I was their representative, that I actually cared, that I wasn’t just banging the drum and making putdown statements against my opponents, but that I was actually focused in a collaborative fashion at solving the problems of my local constituency.

I think for the first iteration of that, everybody would be a skeptic. It would take a concerted effort to make people move in a better direction. But I’m telling you that we are just a time lag for our neighbours to the south, and it’s going bad down there. If we just carry on in the same way, we already know how our path is charted. We’ve got to break free of that. I think that is a long, hard journey, but it’s one that’s worth taking.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for your presentation.

First up, I disagree with your example of the U.S. because there are some significant differences between their levels of government and our levels. One is the fact that their party entrenchment is much older than ours, generational. The second thing is they have unlimited funds, and it’s more about the money and the power than it is here. So I would suggest that it’s not quite the same.

But let me ask you a question. We’ve gone through two days of this, and sometimes we have a lot of additional information that we’ve heard from other people. So when we ask a question, it may sound like it takes 15 minutes to go through the question.

Let me ask you specifically: what difference would it make if 10 percent of the Legislature was, say, specifically environmental concerns–driven? It’s only 10 percent of the legislators that are in that House. You’re saying that they’ll be able to identify with those voters that feel disenfranchised with the other legislators that are there.

How is that going to change the other 50 percent, 40 percent, 90 percent of the members that are in that House when they only account for 10 percent and you come up for a vote on something? How is that going to change the dynamics of what we have right now?

[5:50 p.m.]

Jim Wiedrick: Each legislature is its own unique entity. It’s its own salad. It’ll have its own flavours. It’ll be predominately X, predominately Y — something like that.

But the ultimate point is that there has to be a new spirit of consensus-building for us to escape the notion that 38 percent or 43 percent means you have a majority for four years and you don’t have to listen to anybody. You don’t even have to listen to any of the members of your committee. If the party leader or the Premier wants to do something, they’re just going to bloody well do it, whether they want your opinion or not.

There’s no exact answer to your question, but the examples in Europe, for example, are that there has to actually be consensus-building. The most recent election in Germany forced parties to come together and find common interests and then form a governing coalition based on that. It’s a dynamic process, and it should be dynamic.

What we’ve established in our own system is this very kind of static thing, where there is a moment of democracy on election day and then there’s no real democracy for the next three or four years.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): If I may, to add to that, we’ve talked about additional free votes — trying to maybe see if there’s a way that we can legislate where you can have confidence votes and where you can’t have confidence votes.

We talked in Prince George of a scenario. Even if you had a tight majority, like we have right now, and you had three or four or five people in that caucus that believed that the way the policy was being driven was not being representative of the people of the province…. You have to understand that if you end up flipping it upside down and going to a non-confidence and the government goes down, the leaders of those parties have the ability to not sign your re-up papers for re-election.

So 70 percent of the people in Cranbrook could ask their representative to vote a certain way, so that could make the difference in bringing the government down. Are those 70 percent of the voters going to turn around and vote for that person if he’s independent or she’s independent? Because that’s a viable….

You can put the guardrails on some of these things that we’re talking about so we have more consensus, we have more opportunities through committees and with public engagement like this to be able to bring that to the table, and if there’s poor legislation, not just ram it through but be able to go back and relook at what we can do to fix it. There are going to be limits on how we do that in our parliamentary system.

How are we going to change that, even though we would allow more free votes?

Jim Wiedrick: It actually is going to have to be systemic. I actually thought there were definite points of hope in the way you framed your comments there. Because the concept is that right now….

The media consensus, as soon as there’s a little bit of discord amongst the B.C. Conservative Party, is: “Oh my gosh, how come the leader can’t keep all his team in alignment?” That’s immediately the headline, which is a lousy, silly headline.

It should be: “A few people in the B.C. Conservative caucus took a different point of view. Well, bless them.” Maybe that’s not great for certain points of advantage for the leadership group, but at least they had a take and they were willing to put it forward.

But that’s the thing. We have conditioned the media, who then condition everybody in society, that it’s just got to be the way Mr. Eby wants or Mr. Rustad wants. And then we practise our politics to kind of live up to that.

But if one by one, we take down the barriers to that, or stop reinforcing it every time we have a news cycle, then I actually think there’s hope again. So I recognize that it would be a sea change, but it absolutely has to start somewhere. As I look at the hopeful possibilities, it’s down that path, because the one we’re on right now is just leading to further entrenchment and troubles.

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation today. Something that has come up earlier this week is the how. Specifically, what would be your view on how a government would proceed with, if it chose to, a form of proportional representation?

[5:55 p.m.]

What’s your view on having another referendum? What’s your view on having another referendum after pro rep has been tried out? From your perspective, if there was a decision, how would you see it unfolding?

Jim Wiedrick: If you’re into conspiracy theories, many people think that five, six years ago it was set up in such a way so it was doomed to fail. It’s an unfortunate thing, but everybody in this room fits into a 1 percent category — the 1 percent of the population that really actually cares about politics and how that works. Even though many people in my circle of influence are well-educated and lovely people, they don’t actually care about how the sausage gets made — like from the Alexander Hamilton musical.

It either is the simplest of binary referendum questions or we start educating the public from the Legislature now and have it be part of the next provincial election. Keep it rock simple: “Do you want X, yes or no?” Not “maybe” and then what three things and some other stuff. None of the convoluted stuff, because people need it to be crystal-clear. No, I wouldn’t then say: “Well, we needed a follow-up referendum after that.”

You know, I actually would be interested if anyone here knows why 60 percent was picked back in 2004, because off the top of my head, I don’t know. What was the 60 percent? Some supermajority concept? Why wasn’t it 67 percent? But anyway, in their wisdom, they picked 60 percent, and then they helped make it fail back then too.

Rob Botterell: So just to follow up, the idea of educating the public, implementing a form of pro rep for the next election and then having a referendum, a simple one, is off the table, from your perspective?

Jim Wiedrick: Well, I just want to make sure I understand. I’m basically saying that at the time of the next provincial election, we could easily have a second half of the ballot that was a yes or no on a simple kindergarten-style question. No convoluted stuff that’s intended to obfuscate or kind of make it muddy or somehow tip somebody’s hand. Just a super crystal-clear question.

Rob Botterell: Right. I’m just asking for your view on another option, which has occurred in at least one other jurisdiction, where pro rep is implemented in the next election — a form of pro rep — and then people try it out. Then, you know, following that, they have a referendum to decide whether they want to carry on with that or go back to first-past-the-post.

Jim Wiedrick: My own just top-of-mind judgment is that, ultimately, in order to keep the cynicism down, we would need the public to feel like it had been approved by them. Otherwise, there are always going to be folks who have an angle of complaint. That’s my take.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you.

My question is…. You mentioned at the beginning that you preferred single transferable vote. We’ve heard from many folks over the last few days, and that’s not been the choice for some folks; it has for others. I just wanted to get your thoughts on why you think that’s the preferred method of pro rep.

Jim Wiedrick: It’s because it has the highest opportunity to make sure that, as Mr. Clare pointed out, you have a local representative. You’re not just pulling from party lists. Clearly, I’m happily announcing my bias as an independent and that I think that it allows for high-quality people who are willing to work outside of a party system to also, potentially, have a voice.

[6:00 p.m.]

Other forms like, for example, mixed-member and whatnot are still stuck very heavily in leaning to entrenched parties and parties that already exist, There is a lack of real, kind of, dynamism that then…. People are kind of suppressed in their choices when you go to those kinds of systems, and you have less opportunity to have people who are from your local geography or truly know your local geography.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I don’t see any further questions. Thank you so much for taking the time to travel here from Nelson and be a part of this hearing today and to share your thoughts with us.

Jim Wiedrick: Thank you for hearing my passion.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Next we have Mary Jayne Blackmore.

Welcome, Mary Jayne. Once you’re done your presentation, you’ll have an opportunity for questions. You can start when you’re ready.

Mary Jayne Blackmore

Mary Jayne Blackmore: Thank you to the committee for hearing my voice today. My name is Mary Jayne Blackmore, from Yaqan Nukiy territory in Creston. I’m a mom, a school board trustee for school district 8, a mayoral candidate and a teacher.

I’m here today to share my combined words with those of Nicole Charlwood, who is disappointed she was unable to make the long trip from Nelson to speak with you herself. Thank you to the committee members for allowing me to represent.

Nicole and I have campaigned together, and I’m honoured she asked me to speak in her place today for our Kootenay region. She is a two-time MLA candidate; a two-time MLA campaign manager; a three-time campaigner for local government candidates, including her own time as city councillor; and a campaigner for the West Kootenay EcoSociety and Neighbours United.

She canvassed for Fair Vote in B.C. during the 2018 referendum, when Nelson-Creston, now our riding of Kootenay Central, voted over 70 percent in favour of proportional representation.

Let’s just say the two of us together have a combined background to offer this plea: let’s be the politicians we want to see in the world right now — strategic and compassionate, smart and fair.

In our corner of the province, you don’t have to knock on many doors to see how deeply people feel that our democracy is not working for them. We’ve spent tens of thousands of hours deep-canvassing, talking to people on porches one-to-one, in barns and at kitchen tables. I see that more and more people are stepping away from politics altogether.

We are tired of our neighbours fighting. We are tired of the sense that politics divides us instead of bringing us together.

Let me tell you about a conversation I had not long ago, standing at a farm gate on a dirt road in Creston. I was talking to a neighbour who told me they have always voted, every election, but now they just cannot see the point. “My vote doesn’t count. It never changes anything,” they said.

Another voter said: “It would be nice to fully believe in what we are voting for. Right now, we are voting to keep out what we don’t want.” That’s the heartbreak we are facing in the majority of people, and that’s what we risk if we don’t change.

We cannot ignore the largest political group right now, and it’s not any party; it’s the non-voters, people who look at our system and feel they don’t belong in it. Let’s be frank: it’s the privileged that often get into politics, for the most part. When that happens, we lose trust, we lose community, and we lose the shared hope that democracy can make our lives better.

We believe we have a moral obligation to fix this before we slide further into anger, cynicism or worse. We know you will hear from experts on the details and the models, but what I want to leave with you today is this: as politicians, we have an obligation to constituents first, and we can choose to make every vote count.

We need a system where people see their communities reflected in our government. We need a system where no voice is wasted, and we need it in place for the next election and held for a minimum of two terms to truly test viability.

[6:05 p.m.]

There is no time to waste if we don’t want to jump into the sandbox with oligarchs. People want you and us, their representatives, to act with courage. We’ve had referendums. We’ve done the studies. It’s time to deliver.

In Nelson-Creston, now Kootenay Central, we have shown that when people believe their vote matters, they show up. A cross-partisan Fair Vote team met with our MLA, and she is relying on your recommendations. We know we can show up for each other when we show up for true democracy.

Nicole and I will keep doing our part, listening to our neighbours, knocking on doors and helping people see how they belong in this process. I hope you will do your part too. Thank you for listening, and thank you for the work you’re doing to rebuild trust in democracy. I’m available for questions.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Mary Jayne. We’ll go to MLA Clare.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mary Jayne. I appreciate your presentation.

You were saying that non-voters are the largest group, but in reviewing the voter turnouts for the last several elections, from 1996 to the current one in British Columbia, what we have seen is a range of voter turnout from as high as 71.5 percent down to the low during the COVID election of 53.86 percent. And it’s been moving up. It moved up to nearly 60 percent in this last election.

So there does seem to be interest in politics, and certainly your efforts and those of your friend are also part of making that interest happen. You should be lauded for that, because getting people involved and interested in something which, to many, seems to be an annoyance is a positive thing.

What ways do you see of engaging those who have chosen to disengage, outside of fundamental changes to the system? If we are going to start building something different, we usually have to have a foundation, and you build and improve things. What other things do you suggest could be done to get more people interested in the voting process?

Mary Jayne Blackmore: My first question. Those numbers you stated — is that all eligible-aged people?

Sheldon Clare: That is all registered voters and voters who turned out, from Elections British Columbia.

Mary Jayne Blackmore: You said registered voters.

Sheldon Clare: Registered voters — those are the only people who can vote.

Mary Jayne Blackmore: Bringing in new people, non-voting people who have never voted, has been a really interesting conversation at the doors. I knocked on doors for four months straight in this last election, and it’s really interesting how many disheartened people that there are. Really, it’s something I’m passionate about.

Thinking of ways, for one, to show relevance of our system to the everyday people and how their voice is tied in to create that change…. For one, there is a general lack of understanding of how our system even works. I think you had talked about public education around some of this stuff. Of course, I think that’s where…. I’m a school teacher. I do think about those gaps frequently and how we can we break that down.

I also really struggle when thinking, in the processes, around our partisan system in the Legislature. I’ve followed a lot of the work of Adam Olsen and him talking about all-party committees within the Legislature, how breaking down those party boundaries, even as the seating system within the Legislature…. If we saw the work more around the work and less around party lines, I think…. Does that make sense? He talked about a regional caucus rather than party caucuses, and that just made so much sense to me.

We’ve been working on — I’m just going to use an example — medical transportation, which is a major issue in this region. Yet our MLAs might not even be sitting next to each other. They might not even be having those conversations in the Legislature, just by design of the format of the seating.

[6:10 p.m.]

I do think that that’s…. Your question, where I…. I do think that even structural…. I hope that these things are being talked about in this Legislature.

I don’t know if I’m answering your question. But it does feel like it’s decolonizing even the structure within the Legislature that I think has become where we feel disenfranchised with party politics, probably.

Sheldon Clare: If I could just follow up a little bit. You do see on the television, of course, question period, which is half an hour. It’s a slice, a very small slice, of what actually happens in the Legislature.

Most of the time the members are involved in committee work. These are multi-party committees where we’re working on various issues…. We do things like estimates, where the opposition members question government members about budget choices and so on. We are also working to resolve issues from our various constituencies by engaging in face-to-face and representative meetings with opposition, meeting with government, and trying to find out how things can change.

Sometimes you have to do things to get attention to get that change. Sometimes you have to be very pragmatic. But it all involves reaching across the room and working in a collaborative fashion. I mean, even on committees such as this — and we’re missing two members for very good reasons — we are all here working towards the same goal. This is a collaborative relationship in the existing Legislature.

I think probably a challenge we have is to provide more education about exactly how the Legislature does work so that more people are aware of that, because I think there are perceptions that may not be completely accurate.

Now, when you look in the media, of course, the tradition is one of accountability. The opposition holds the government to account. The government has a policy and defends it.

I’m thinking education, perhaps — is that a better thing to look at in civics in high school? I mean, I taught for 37 years in K to 12 and post-secondary.

Mary Jayne Blackmore: Of course. I think that’s probably always the answer. There are huge gaps there.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the discussion and coming all the way from Nelson. That’s great.

A couple of things you mentioned on being a teacher. We’ve had discussions in the last couple of days of getting our youth more involved. We know social studies 10 has a part of the curriculum on elections, but we don’t know exactly how in-depth they are and what the level of engagement is throughout K to 12 specifically educating people on exactly what’s going on.

A couple of things that came up…. I’ll talk to this one first and then ask you a specific question. Some of the challenges we have — and I brought this up yesterday — is we have committees that don’t really sit, but really by law they should. But because of the mechanism, unless you specifically almost force the government to do it, they don’t. There are committees that haven’t sat for ten or 15 years. One is on B.C. Hydro, Crown corporations, things like that.

I mean, if I was the Premier, I would want committees to sit similar to what we do in estimates so that there is actually a bit of a public engagement in that portion so that if you had a specific ask for your MLA to ask at that committee meeting, you could actually do it, and it’s on TV. So I would like to be able to have that opportunity.

But back to your question about some kind of STV or having proportional representation, what would you specifically like to have changed, or what is this government not doing for you and your concerns?

I mean, this government has been in power for eight years. We’re apolitical in this committee, but the reality is the government has been sitting for eight years. Specifically what needs to change or would you want to change, specifical to yourself and your friends around you, that hasn’t been occurring? What specifically?

Is it housing? Is it health care? Is it the economics? What is specifically not happening that you would want to happen in your life?

Mary Jayne Blackmore: First I want to say: how much time do we have?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): You could categorize it. You’re a teacher. You could categorize it. But can you give me a couple of specifics?

[6:15 p.m.]

Mary Jayne Blackmore: Yeah, protection of old growth and watersheds is massive, massive in our region. Clearcutting on private land is something that needs to be addressed. It is disastrous in this area. The amount of unmanaged forestry — ridiculous. My family has been in forestry for 30 years.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I’ve been in forestry for 40 years, so I have a little bit of background. You’re asking specifically on private land?

Mary Jayne Blackmore: The private land is a major issue around here because of the strip logging, and there’s no regulation around watersheds protection.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Okay, understood.

Mary Jayne Blackmore: But protecting old growth areas and watersheds, the regulation around that…. We have the Duck Creek watershed in the Wynndel area. I’ve been on the board of Wildsight for many years. It’s just ridiculous the amount of volunteer professional hours people are putting into this just to save our frigging water.

The inability for the government to respond because of the lack of policy to protect these very fragile resources…. We’ve seen the effects of the disruption to migrating animals and then the inability to protect water, the landslides, the fire that is so critical in our lifestyle here.

Sheldon Clare: You’re referring to mountain caribou?

Mary Jayne Blackmore: I’m actually talking about elk herds in the Creston Valley that are getting fenced off from access to water because of new cherry farms coming in and massive elk fences going in by the mile and lack of water regulation and lack of ability to protect the salmon spawning channels and the water levels in the Goat River and the temperature of the water. But particularly, I see it boiling back to the inability to regulate anything around water on private land and the massive tracts of private land that there are in this area.

It goes back to the contracts with the railroads and why there’s so much private land in this area. I guess you would know this, but back when Tembec was managing the land, it was private land and it was well managed. But now it’s being sold off to the highest bidder, and the strip logging in this area is disastrous, all going up to Elkford, up in that area.

You have guys that have been in forestry for 30 years coming in, big eyes, going: “What’s happening up there is horrifying.” These mountains will not recover. These water systems…. There’s logging down through the river, over the mountain, down through the next river and no protection.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): If I may, thank you for that. I’ll give you my card. As luck would have it, I’m actually talking to the Forests Minister this Monday in the Legislature, so I will certainly bring that to his attention.

Mary Jayne Blackmore: Please do. I know it’s massive here.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I’ll give you my card, and we can keep in contact on that, as an opposition Forests critic. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I’m just going to follow up on that question and kind of bring it back to our mandate here.

Looking at the concerns that you’ve had over time, whether it’s with the government, the local MLA not representing your views when it comes to the issues, how do you see that being different under a pro rep system? Taking this live example, what you’re saying, if we were in a pro rep system, how do you envision that being different?

Mary Jayne Blackmore: This is non-partisan, but I specifically have been door-knocking for the Green Party, and particularly, I know the Green Party would be much more well represented. Door-knocking for the Green Party, it was wild to see the shift when the writ was dropped, the fear in people’s eyes, and people going: “I have to vote this way because I’m so scared that this other way will happen, not because I don’t want to support the Green Party.” The Green Party is well represented in this area and has a strong hold, but we just can’t make progress. So I think that we would benefit in….

[6:20 p.m.]

I don’t want a two-party system. I think there are a lot of reasons that having more voices in the centre and balancing out that polarizing equation is useful. I do think that alternate voices at the table would really benefit our system.

I know that under proportional representation, the Green Party, in surveys, would get about 15 percent of the vote just in the last election, but that’s not represented in the Legislature. I think that that would be a massive shift that would make sense to a lot of people, that those voices could be better served in Legislature.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. The Chair just started with the question I was going to ask, and I’ll follow it up in this way.

In the 2024 election, if we had a form of electoral system that generated a number of seats proportional to the vote, the B.C. Green caucus would be eight instead of two. In the 2020 election, it would have been 13 instead of two. In the 2017 election, it would be 15 instead of three.

To the Deputy Chair’s point of view, there are no guarantees that with a larger caucus it would lead to the changes that you’re expressing concern about. But certainly, a larger caucus would give the Green caucus, in this particular instance, a greater influence and greater presence in the Legislature to represent Green concerns and the very concerns you’re identifying.

So I guess this is turning into a speech, and I’m supposed be asking questions. So let me ask a question, which is: how do you see proportional representation, in the riding you’re in, changing your ability to have your concerns taken forward?

Mary Jayne Blackmore: I’m hopeful. To your comment earlier, I guess you’re saying that regional representation is already a major…. Well, I think it’s certainly the goal.

Having Green…. I think that the party platform of the Green Party is a well-rounded, costed platform that represents all sections. It’s not just an environmental platform, I guess, is what I’m saying. I do see the ability of the Green Party to not just stay with their party. They’ve stated that their MLAs are not whipped and can vote in any direction that they feel aligned with.

That just makes more sense in Legislature, to me, than to feel like you have to be dedicated to only what your party puts forward. Quite frankly, I don’t agree with the party Whip. I think that we should put party politics aside once we enter that room, and we should be working for the regional needs of the province. The things that are very important to me are provincial — education, health care, housing, protecting our forests and water. I think it’s the most important level of government that we have.

I do get frustrated that we have these divisive lines in provincial politics. I think it misleads and misguides the level of importance of the work. So I wish that we would diminish that — the party politics — as much as we can, in whichever party you were elected to represent.

Did I answer your question?

[6:25 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: No, that’s great. I was just curious about…. Right now you’ve expressed some significant concerns about issues within your riding.

Mary Jayne Blackmore: I could go on to housing and health care and medical transportation.

Rob Botterell: Sure. You mentioned at the outset of your presentation that there is a significant portion of your riding or members in your riding, residents in your riding who are feeling what’s the point in voting. Then you made the case for the pro rep. I was just curious to see how you saw pro rep unfolding.

Mary Jane Blackmore: I think that pro rep is, just from door-knocking and the hundreds of hours of conversations at the door, something that would make a lot of sense to people. I think it would be quite easy, whatever that public education campaign needs to look like.

I agree with the previous speaker that it needs to be quite straightforward, whatever the research is and advice to this committee. Whatever we present to the public needs to be very straightforward. People are busy. They have a lot of things to think about. If they have to go do three hours of research on it to try to understand it, they just don’t have the time. They really need to feel that they’re being held in this area.

I know we have a lot of smart, caring people doing the work, so whatever we present to people….

I think it was you, Rob, who stated something about how maybe there is an opportunity to go into this next election with proportional representation and just give it a try?

Rob Botterell: That’s an option that’s open to the government, and it’s been raised a couple of times. With the previous presenter, I was just asking what their view was of taking that approach of implementing it and then having a referendum.

Mary Jane Blackmore: Yeah, I wonder. I honestly would be in favour of that. I think that there’s maybe an opportunity, as we do campaigning for the next cycle, to kind of lead however the decision was made. We’re all doing a lot of public education as we’re door-knocking and bringing people up to speed on that and then how that could better represent people. I think it would be quite well received, personally.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Great. I don’t see any further questions, so thank you so much, Mary Jane, for your time.

Next up is Andrea Dunlop. Welcome, Andrea. Nice to see you again. Again, you just have time for a presentation, and then we will ask questions once you’re done.

Andrea Dunlop

Andrea Dunlop: I want to start by thanking you again. I’ve been writing down answers to all the questions you guys have been asking. They’re very complex questions at times. I imagine you guys have had such an education in the last little bit, yourselves. I’m sure I’m repeating what many of your other presenters have said.

First, thank you for doing this. I think it is a very timely conversation to be having, because we’re talking about a healthy democracy. That’s basically what we’re getting at.

My name is Andrea Dunlop. I was a candidate in the last provincial election, and I am proud to call the Columbia River–Revelstoke and Windermere my home, on the unceded territory of the Ktunaxa and Shuswap people.

I’m here today to speak on behalf of rural communities, which are often left behind by the first-past-the-post system, both by the governments elected and political parties. In my riding, we saw the effects firsthand. The candidate who won ran as a Conservative but started the campaign as a Liberal. Many believe he’s philosophically a Liberal.

Why the switch? It was to avoid vote-splitting on the right. That is not a reflection of the party’s or the candidate’s values. It’s a reflection of a system that forces people and parties to play games rather than serve voters.

Even in our recent federal election, I was asked repeatedly: “How should I vote to get the results closest to my values?” They knew the system well enough to know they could not vote for the candidate they wanted. They needed to be strategic to block the person they didn’t want to get in. That is not a healthy democracy.

As a New Democrat, I value what the Green Party stands for, especially when it comes to protecting our environment. But in ridings like mine, vote-splitting between the NDP and the Greens often hands the win to someone neither of us supports. Instead of collaboration, we get competition, and our shared values are lost.

[6:30 p.m.]

First-past-the-post may be simple, but it’s not fair. It creates safe seats where voters feel ignored — so many people in Cranbrook. It encourages majority governments that can sideline the voices of smaller rural communities. It discourages people from voting with their hearts.

In countries that use PR, voter turnout is higher because people know their vote matters. Voters know their voice will be reflected in the outcome. International studies indicate that citizens in countries with proportional representation report greater satisfaction with their democracy. The strongest, most stable democracies in the world — they use proportional representation systems.

PR is fairer; it is more inclusive; it creates legislatures that reflect the people they represent; and it fosters cooperation over division. If we want a democracy that works for all of B.C., we need to move beyond the first-past-the-post system. Rural voices matter, and so should every vote.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Are there any questions for Andrea?

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. We have been learning a lot over the last couple of days. Sometimes it’s a bit of an overload. But, I think, what’s definitely not lost on me, much like my colleagues, is the importance of system and structure in sort of setting the stage for the types of conversations that can potentially happen. If we take an example, this table in itself and what we’ve learned together and our shared values at this table and what we’re working for and what we’re working towards.

So I appreciate not just you but everybody in this room who takes the time out to do that because I think we all share that value.

My question is similar to MLA Clare’s with the previous presenter about education around government systems and exposure of students to the types of governance structures that exist, not just here in Canada, the first-past-the-post in B.C., but across the world, as a way of preparation or understanding that there are different types of governance systems — whether you prefer it or not, that’s a different question — and also the importance of civic education.

One of the things that is quite obvious in what we’ve heard in the last few days is that there are not a lot of people who know not only who their MLA is or who their candidates are in an election, but they also think that some of the other systems are far too complicated, maybe in the way that it was presented to them, maybe in the format that it was presented to them, or maybe — some have even claimed — that it was purposely done so in that way as well.

So given that, could you comment on the importance to the education piece? Also, if you were to sort of have it your way, is there a particular proportional representation system that you would prefer?

Andrea Dunlop: I don’t want to say which one I prefer because I’m hoping you guys are learning. I think you’re here. That’s your job. You’re supposed to be hearing and finding…. There are people out there that have done it. We shouldn’t be reinventing the wheel. We can look at countries where it’s successful, and we should be following those systems.

There’s a non-partisan organization called CIVIX that runs…. Every single time there’s an election in any jurisdiction across Canada, they run an election in high schools. Schools sign up, and then they have ballot boxes and ballots that look exactly like their parents are going to do. They start as young as grade 6 or 5, as long as the teachers….

The reason CIVIX does that is to teach kids. Because as soon as you start voting, there’s a good chance you’ll continue voting. So we’re trying to get kids in the education system to start voting in grade 6 and then in grade 8 and then in grade 10. By the time they get out of high school, this voting thing — they are comfortable with it.

So there needs to be an education for our voters. I actually prefer the idea of let’s just go for it. I’m going to trust that you guys are going to make the best decision, not for the parties, not for the Leg. You’re going to make the best decision for the voters of B.C. If the best thing for B.C. and for the voters is to have proportional representation, then let’s do it.

[6:35 p.m.]

Let’s give it two times. I agree. People can learn. At the same time we’re learning, everyone in the school is going to be learning. We’re going to have to. That’s what’s going to have to happen.

Every time there’s something new, the schools have to teach it. So the kids will learn how to use it and how it works, and they’re going to do comparing. With that, each time…. In eight years, that’s a lot of kids who have come through the system who will be aware of the system as well — new voters.

If we bring it in, we will have higher voter engagement because everyone will know that the ballot makes a difference. They will see themselves in the Legislature. They’ll see their values in the Legislature. And they won’t have to vote against something. They can vote for something, which would be quite nice too.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): My question…. As you said, we are doing a lot of learning, and as we do this, a lot of the answers are that it’s not for one individual to decide what the format should be. We should leave it to the experts and figure that out.

But I do think it’s important to know what is important to individuals. For example, in an earlier conversation today, we talked about regional representation and having multiple representatives in one area. Some of the questions that I had previously, which I’ll ask you…. How would you envision that working in a way that works?

In some systems, it’s one local rep, like we have now, and then a top-up of regional reps. My question there was: how do we see the responsibilities? Are they different for the regional rep versus the local rep? How would you want to see them? How do we navigate?

For myself, I come from a very densely populated riding. Any time we are in our riding, we are going to be in community all day long, everywhere. It’s much tougher in a rural riding. You can’t go from Prince George to Quesnel in 20 minutes and be there for another community event. The strains are different.

As a resident, as a community member, how would you envision a model that serves the community but still gets the pro rep model going?

Andrea Dunlop: I think when you have a local issue, you go to your local representative, but when you have a forestry issue, you go to your forestry person. That’s what I do now. If I have a problem, it’s generally around an issue, and I go to the person who’s responsible for that issue. If they’re working together, because that’s what it is leading towards, then it doesn’t matter who I speak to. I’m speaking to somebody who’s representing me and the region.

I think if you have, for example, two people with completely different views on something within the same riding, that could be very interesting. Obviously, I would go to the one who perhaps reflects me better and reflects my values more closely.

But like you said, you don’t care who voted for you. When somebody comes to you right now, if they didn’t vote for you, you’re still going to represent them, because that’s your job. I don’t think it matters who’s there. That’s the job — to look after the voters and make sure they’re getting what they need. They’re protecting their water. They’re protecting their forests, etc.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I would just challenge that one bit, which is…. What I would be concerned with myself in something like that is creating more levels that lead to more silos. When you’re leading to…. If you go to one person, and they have to connect with another, and then they have to connect with the ministry and then this, that can, in itself…. Even currently, the system can sometimes feel like there are still barriers.

So that would be something that — if you have thoughts on it, please — I think, in my mind, would be a struggle, making sure we’re not creating more silos and we’re actually breaking down the systemic barriers that folks have in engaging with government.

Andrea Dunlop: Right now, I’ve lived in a riding that hasn’t had a representative in the government in decades — like, forever. When it was NDP, we were Conservative; Conservative, we’re NDP. So I can assure you, we’re in a silo, and I’d like to get out of it.

We see it. We know it. Who do we talk to? I mean, we’ve got a really good representative. I know that if we went and talked to him right now, he’s going to stand up for us. He’s going to look after us. However, it has been difficult.

Some people were voting…. “Okay, how do we vote to ensure that we get somebody in government this time, so we get some of our values looked after and some of the things that are important to our communities looked after?”

In that way, in this case, with proportional, we would automatically have somebody looking after us.

[6:40 p.m.]

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks so much for the conversation. This is great.

You kind of answered my question a little bit, but just looking through your history, you ran as an NDP candidate in the last election. So I’m just going to ask a question. Again, we’re being apolitical here, but if the NDP has been in power since basically three elections. John Horgan was in the last referendum that we had.

You’ve mentioned that you’ve never had the opportunity where your riding has been in power. Yet why are there still concerns if this government has been in power for eight years?

Andrea Dunlop: Even before that, when the Conservatives were in, we had NDP representatives.

Sheldon Clare: We haven’t had the Conservatives in.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): You mean Liberals.

Andrea Dunlop: Sorry. Liberals, yes.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): So my question is — and I’m not trying to be political about it — if you were leaning on the NDP side of things for whatever the policies that they were supporting or you were supporting, they’ve been in government for eight years. Why haven’t they been able to address your concerns?

Andrea Dunlop: It’s because my local representative hasn’t supported some of those things that I wanted.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Can you give me a couple of specifics?

Andrea Dunlop: Health care. I actually don’t really want to…. Again, this seems like it’s getting too political.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Well, no, the reason I’m asking the question…. I’m not trying to be political, But we’re trying…. As MLA Botterell asked in the last question, it would have a different dynamic in the Legislature if we had proportional representation, where there could be anywhere between eight to ten or 12 Green candidates or that type of an independent candidate versus the two main left and right parties.

My question — and, again, I asked Mary Jayne the same question — is: what specific concerns aren’t being addressed? If some of those concerns that you have are party policies in those parties, why haven’t they been able to address your concerns? Regardless of who the MLA is, the government should still be able to address your concerns. That’s part of the whole thing.

If we’re in the Legislature and all of a sudden somebody puts their hand up and goes, “Hey, I want to talk about the environment,” instead of one or two people, now you’ve got ten people. I asked the question earlier: what difference does it make?

If it’s only 10 percent of the people that are there and the rest of the people don’t want to talk about it, you’re not going to go anywhere. So what’s the difference whether you have two people or ten people? That’s my point. What’s the difference?

I’m not saying I don’t agree with PV. We’ve had some really good conversations, and I’m looking at all the options, just like the rest of the committee. But what difference does it make if there are five people or ten people or two people if you still don’t have a majority?

Andrea Dunlop: In a proportional representation, I can assure you far more Green Party will be elected than 10 percent. It will be more than that because people will know that they’re not voting one way to…. In my opinion, there will be more. Like, this isn’t a….

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): You won’t be voting against.

Andrea Dunlop: If anyone is being apolitical, it’s me, because I am. This is not good for NDP. This isn’t a great thing because, you know, it’s always been the NDP or whatever against the right. So this, what I’m suggesting, isn’t going to be good for the NDP. This is good for the Greens, which is really important for voters. This is going to be really good for some of the small…. Like, this isn’t….

I would suggest that rather than talk about the parties, let’s talk about the voters, and that’s what it’s supposed to be about. If we want them to be engaged and want them to vote and they want to see themselves in the Legislature, then we’re going to have to change the system.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I understand, and I appreciate that.

Rob Botterell: I have a couple of questions. I’ll do the one that’s related to proportional representation first and then shift to the second question.

In terms of proportional representation, maybe you could just summarize your view of how, in the riding you described, it would give voice to a particular segment of the electorate. You know, we’ve had a lot of discussion about how it might or might not affect what happens in the Legislature. But in terms of what it does for electors in the riding, how does it benefit them?

[6:45 p.m.]

Andrea Dunlop: It’s because they can vote for what they want. They don’t have to vote against anything. The percent of people who vote for something, they will see that, and those values will be reflected, hopefully, in the decisions and the policy that’s created in the future.

That’s what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to improve democracy here. That’s the point. Not the political system, not the party system, the democracy. That’s what’s at risk right now around the world.

I think it’s good that you guys are doing this, because it is at risk. This is timely. I think a change to ensure that people are engaged and realize that their vote does matter, so they can say all the crap they want on Facebook but when it comes down to it, when it comes to the vote, do they want that or not? Because now it matters.

Rob Botterell: So if 10 percent vote their values, they’re going to see 10 percent of the Legislature reflecting their values.

Andrea Dunlop: That would be the interesting part, because I would wonder: what is the percent that it doesn’t reflect? At what percent? We’re going to have those extremes. What percent of the extreme doesn’t get reflected? I don’t think everything should be reflected. There’s got to be a point.

Rob Botterell: Yeah. In the design of the system, you can build thresholds.

Andrea Dunlop: Yes, and we don’t have to reinvent that. We don’t have to invent that. That’s already been done, extraordinarily successfully, in other countries.

Rob Botterell: Here’s a second question, which is completely off into another topic area, but just briefly I want to, because of your background and experience…. A number of presenters, both my age and youths and everything in between, have recommended reducing the voting age to 16. What’s your view on that?

Andrea Dunlop: I’m a high school teacher, and I have asked my kids that a lot what they think. It is really interesting.

First of all, many of them think that they don’t have the education to do it. They don’t think they’re responsible enough to do it. Then, when I say, “Well, do you know the leaders? Do you know the political parties? Do you know where they stand on the spectrum?” they all do, which is significantly better than a lot of people.

Do I want to see it to 16? One thing I’d love about it is that suddenly you guys, everyone, would have to start listening to them. And there might be more basketball courts rather than pickleball courts.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): That’s a great one. Can we write that one down? I can use that.

Andrea Dunlop: There might be…. You know, access to colleges and universities being affordable would be something, because you guys would be wanting their votes, so you’re going to start bowing to them rather than to other groups.

I can tell you one thing: they’ll all vote. They’ll all vote because it will be part of the curriculum. “It’s election day. You all have to go and vote.” And they’ll all do it. So you’ll have 100 percent of that age group voting.

Interjection.

Andrea Dunlop: Exactly.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Andrea. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today and taking our questions and giving us lots to think about.

Next up we have Jean MacDonald.

Jean MacDonald

Jean MacDonald: I’m not official or anything. I’ve never run for office the way Andrea has. I’m sure that you’ve heard a lot of statistics and a lot of people talking about percentages of voting and da-da-da from lots of people, so I won’t address that.

When I was allowed to speak, I thought: “Well, I would rather go with something a lot more personal.” I had an uncle, Edwin Vale Abbott, who was an amazing man, graduated medical school from U of T in 1940, practised as a physician for over 60 years, didn’t make any money at it because he wanted to use his skills to help other people. He did — like, millions of people. He was amazing.

When he retired, he moved to Mayne Island, in the Gulf Islands, and became friends with Elizabeth May. When he died, she came to his funeral, and she said that the greatest compliment anyone had ever paid her was when uncle Ed said: “You’re the only person I’ve ever voted for who actually got in.”

[6:50 p.m.]

As I say, he was an amazing guy. But when Elizabeth told me that, I thought, “Here was a guy who voted for 75 years, and he was only honestly represented once in his 95 years,” which is, I think, a huge indictment against the first-past-the-post system. Here you have somebody who has contributed so much to society. Even though voters — you can’t judge who’s good and who’s bad. But he had no voice.

On a personal level, I was living in England in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher was first elected. I came back to Canada. Ronald Reagan was elected, and then Brian Mulroney was elected. No matter what your politics are, I think it’s undeniable that we’ve had huge economic and societal changes since 1980.

I know, echoing Andrea there, that I have not felt that I’ve had a voice for 45 years, because nobody I’ve voted for has got elected either or has formed a government. So I would love to see people able to feel that their vote actually counted, and I think you would have more people coming out to vote.

Our last federal election in Kimberley was a joke. The Liberals splitting…. I was the chief electoral officer of my poll. Watching the returns come in and just hearing what people had to say was mind-blowing. I thought: “This doesn’t work. It just does not work.” People aren’t heard. They don’t feel that they have any stake in the whole system. If they don’t feel they have any stake in government, then they have less of a stake in society as a whole.

I beg to please consider alternatives to first-past-the-post.

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

Are there any questions for Jean?

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your presentation. You pointed out that sometimes people vote for people who don’t win, and it can be frustrating.

I remember that when I was in college, there was a person who advocated very strongly that Enver Hoxha’s party should be one that people would support. She didn’t have a lot of support, and she never did win. But I actually saw her run as a candidate a few times in the Lower Mainland. She moved down there, but she was very much pushing the Marxist-Leninists as her party. I mean, that’s what she pushed, and she never had a successful election.

I think that it’s the case that there are folks in a democracy who are going to win, and there are some who are going to lose. It’s certainly important that minority rights are respected and protected in the eventuality that when people vote, they vote in harsh ways that could affect minorities.

I’m not sure that changing systems necessarily provides the protections that many people are arguing they are going to see. I’m not sure that the system we have now does this either. But we do have a fair bit of experience with a very stable system over many years. The Canadian parliamentary system has lasted 158 years, when we’ve watched empires collapse, countries collapse, and their types of government undergo radical and not always very good changes. I’m just wondering how you parse that.

Jean MacDonald: That’s an interesting concept, because I had a good friend who ran for the Rhinoceros Party.

Sheldon Clare: They grew a couple of feet once, I noticed.

Jean MacDonald: I know, as Mr. Botterell and Ms. Dunlop mentioned, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. I actually did, 50 years ago, spend several months in Israel, and the political landscape there is just nuts because they don’t have thresholds. That woman you said who ran for Marxist-Leninist — I doubt she would get 5 percent of the vote.

Sheldon Clare: She didn’t here either.

Jean MacDonald: Yeah. So people who are really on the fringes — it’s not difficult to come up with a mechanism to make sure….

[6:55 p.m.]

Maxime Bernier — what did he get? In the last federal election, he got 1.7 percent or something of the vote. He would not elect any MPs, or similar to that in the province. That wouldn’t happen here either. But I think what would happen is that….

I know in our last provincial election — I worked the polls there as well — that you got a lot of people who just didn’t vote, because they said: “What is the point? I know which way I want to vote. I know that there’s no way they’ll get in.” So they stayed home. Whereas if they felt that they had a stake in it, then they would be more engaged, and they would turn up and vote.

I had heard somebody from the Green Party say: “Oh, well, we got less than 5 percent of the popular vote.” I think that if you had pro rep, there’s no way the Green Party would get 5 percent of the popular vote. It would be much, much higher.

Sheldon Clare: I think that there are…. Anyone who thinks that their single vote doesn’t matter could look at both the federal and provincial elections and be persuaded otherwise based on the turnouts in some ridings.

Jean MacDonald: Yeah, but the turnout in this riding…. What happened was we had one candidate who sort of came out of nowhere — this was the federal election — stole a whole lot of votes from somebody else and then ended up…. The incumbent got in, and I’m not sure that he would have done otherwise.

I know I voted, put my “X” and just thought: “I’m just doing this because I want to be a good citizen, but it’s useless.” A lot of people thought: “This is useless, and I can’t be bothered.” So yeah, certainly in the last federal election, single votes definitely mattered. But going into the election, I don’t think anybody knew that.

Sheldon Clare: That’s democracy. If we knew how it was going to go….

Jean MacDonald: Well, sometimes it seems like we do.

Sheldon Clare: We wouldn’t need elections, would we?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for your presentation, Jean. I love your uncle’s story. Just to touch on a point with MLA Clare that polls aren’t always right. You’ve seen it yourself.

My question to you is: do you think that a lot of the people are disappointed in the system because there isn’t somebody specifically speaking on their behalf on specific issues? I’m going to use the Greens as an example, because a lot of times those concerns are more emotionally attached to maybe some of the fiscal realities that some of the other people might be more concerned about. Not to say that you’re not concerned with fiscal reality….

Rob Botterell: I was a financial comptroller with TD Bank. I am concerned. The Green Party are concerned. Don’t paint the Greens that way.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Okay, I wasn’t trying to paint you that way. I’m sorry for that. I wasn’t trying to. But my question was….

Jessie Sunner (Chair): You can continue question, but I just want to make sure we stay away from the parties.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Honestly, I wasn’t trying to imply that. I was trying to say that some people are more focused on their everyday life, on fiscal things, than some of the other things that are attaching them more emotionally, and that is particularly on the environment and climate change and things that really seriously affect them. So I apologize for that.

But having said that, do you think that that’s part of it, that a person isn’t standing up in your community on your behalf? When you’re having an opportunity to speak, you have to speak. You don’t have a representative, an MLA to be able to push what you’re passionate about. Do you think that makes a difference?

Jean MacDonald: Oh yeah, for sure.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): That’s what I was trying to say.

Jean MacDonald: Yeah, it definitely makes a difference. I mean, as Ms. Dunlop mentioned, you can speak to an MLA who is more concerned with what you’re concerned about. But I mean we’re all creatures of community, and if you feel that, “Okay, I want to talk to somebody in government who’s talking about climate change, but they’re representing a riding a long way away,” it’s not the same.

[7:00 p.m.]

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Right. That’s what I was trying to get at. If we had proportional representation in, let’s say, this area, and there were four MLAs…. Let’s say just for argument’s sake that one of them ended up being…. It could be a Green member, could be an independent member, could be anybody else, but it’s not from the main parties.

You would feel that because, when you’re at a setting, or when you’re in a forum, your voices aren’t going to get the same weight as everyone else’s on an equal footing because you’re the one that has to make that point, not the MLA. Is that part of it?

Jean MacDonald: Yeah, to a point. But I think also one thing that would happen if we did have pro rep is…. You were mentioning, you know, what the difference is between having two people versus ten people bringing up something.

I know, looking at democracies like Denmark, which is kind of like the poster child, that you have coalitions. So it’s not going to be just two or ten. It will be a lot more because you will have not even party by party but consensus and issue by issue. I think that is very important.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Great. Thanks for that.

Rob Botterell: Thank you. It has been a really wonderful discussion, and I really appreciate all the questions you’ve raised. Despite the way it was initially phrased, the Deputy Chair asked the question I was going to ask, so that’s great.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Consensus.

Jean MacDonald: Lovely.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): A little bit of miscommunication. I wasn’t trying to make a dig. It was just trying to frame it.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Our final question is from MLA Shah.

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. I don’t really have a question. I just wanted to make a comment, if the Chair would entertain.

I really appreciate the time that you’ve taken to have this conversation with us. I just want to bring back up again that I’m quite sensitive to the nature of the conversation that we’re having, and that is that there is an issue about people feeling disenfranchised about the current system. At least that’s what’s been communicated by yourself and some of the previous presenters.

I also agree with some of the previous presenters that the importance of things that matter to people is subjective at the end of the day. We can talk about the importance of finances, and I would agree that it is a top priority. But it actually may not be to a particular person who cares about something else.

Given that being the case, and respecting the conversation that we’re in, I do just want to point to this table. Every system and structure come with terms and conditions and rules of operation, and those who participate in that system kind of try to — or maybe don’t try to, but still to some degree have to — function within those limitations.

I just want to say that I appreciate that there are many of you here today who do not think that the current system that we have has that platform that is conducive to a representative conversation of all of your interests. I just acknowledge that. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Jean, for sharing your presentation with us today and answering our questions.

We’re going to take a short break to 7:10, and then we will return. We will be starting promptly at 7:10. I’m looking at our committee members.

The committee recessed from 7:04 p.m. to 7:11 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay, welcome back. We will get started, next, with Karen Barkley.

Hi, Karen. Thank you for presenting to us today. Just a reminder, you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

Karen Barkley

Karen Barkley: Great. Thank you, all. I’m a resident of Wilmer, B.C., which is up near Invermere, if you don’t know — a little hamlet. I appreciate the opportunity to present to the committee today, and I also really want to applaud the NDP and the Green Party for pulling this together and taking this step forward and, hopefully, creating an electoral system which will ensure that every vote does matter.

I have been an active political citizen, knocking on doors for political parties and candidates, presenting to MLAs and MPs on climate change and electoral reform, getting petitions signed when Trudeau broke his promise on electoral reform, distributing door hangers and writing letters to the local paper.

In fact, I think I’m a politician’s dream citizen, but I am a very frustrated citizen. All I do is vote strategically. I do not get to vote for what I truly support or believe in, and I’m always making compromises with my own values. I would like to be able to vote for the party or candidate of my choice before I die. There is still time.

Additionally, we are all really worried about the degradation of democracy around the world, but particularly what we see going on in the U.S. right now. We have the same seeds of discontent and misinformation in our country, and the last federal election demonstrated the risks if we move towards a two-party system.

There are many challenges, and change is needed in our system to ensure that we continue to have a healthy democracy. Electoral reform to a proportional system is one of the most important. All measurements of good governance and level of participation of citizens improve under these systems.

One measure of good governance that improves under PR is representation of women in government. On average, countries with proportional representation have more women in their legislatures. We are only around 30 percent in Canada, give or take a little bit more provincially. Women are becoming more concerned about running, due to the increased partisanship and risk of violence towards elected officials. That’s towards all elected officials, not just women.

PR reduces partisanship, as parties need to work together to pass legislation. I could go on about the benefits, as there are many, but my biggest question is: what are we waiting for?

I think you’ve had tons of presentations and probably will have many, on different forms of proportional representation or on different systems, and I’ll say that I do not support ranked ballots, as those are not proportional. I do support the basic principles of PR: mixed-member ridings and top-up seats. The specific format that is adopted in B.C. should really be based on the geographic challenges of B.C. Something with a regional component to it would be preferable.

[7:15 p.m.]

A national poll by EKOS, in January of this year, showed an overwhelming majority of Canadians, 68 percent, support moving towards a form of proportional representation. Only 19 percent were opposed. This tells me that the whole country is giving green lights to our elected representatives to go ahead with electoral reform to a proportional system.

I don’t support taking this to a referendum, because I think the questions always become very confusing. Again, you get into misinformation and discontent, and it biases the outcomes. This is a technical issue in terms of the electoral system.

We’ve hired you, in essence, to do this. So please take this forward. Institute the reform before the next election. Work collaboratively with all parties to design the system that works best for B.C. Proportional representation will benefit all parties, and even more importantly, it will benefit each citizen.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Karen, for your presentation.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you very much for your presentation, Karen. I appreciate that. You’re probably aware that the B.C. Legislature currently has a majority of women MLAs sitting in the House.

Karen Barkley: Oh, I actually wasn’t, but thank you. That is great.

Sheldon Clare: Yeah, they’re 52 percent — a little over, almost 53 percent — of the 93 seats. There are 31 NDP and 18 Conservative female MLAs in the House, which is quite impressive. The Yukon also had a majority of women in one case, and I think the federal parliament has 31 percent. So there have been gains made even under the current system.

I wonder. What do you feel about a bicameral system in some of the provincial legislatures to provide more regional representation as opposed to other changes that might be? In two provinces, they have the ability to have bicameral, like a Senate as well as a Commons. I think Newfoundland is one, and Quebec is another that has that ability.

B.C. does not have a bicameral system. We have a unicameral system with just the Legislature. Sometimes, people are concerned about regional representation beyond just representation by population. I wondered what your views were on that aspect.

Karen Barkley: Sorry, I don’t really have a view on the bicameral part. I hadn’t really considered that. The regional thing is very important in B.C., particularly because of the rural/urban population divide, and we have such large ridings.

I live in one of the large ridings. Even for a representative to have to go through the whole riding before they’re elected is crazy. If you have more representation in these large ridings, then there is going to be more connection with communities, there is going to be more dialogue, and there will be more representation overall. Regionally, I think, it’s important.

Sheldon Clare: I appreciate your comments, because the campaigning period, of course, is one of the longest job interviews every candidate has. We did get hired. I thank you for your answer.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you. Any further questions?

I don’t see any further questions. Thank you so much, Karen, for your presentation.

Next, we have Sue Cairns. Welcome, Sue. Just a reminder: you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

Sue Cairns

Sue Cairns: Great. Thank you so much. I really appreciate this opportunity to participate in democracy. That feels like quite an honour these days. Also, as Karen mentioned — a deep appreciation to the Green Party and to the B.C. NDP for actually making this all happen. I was quite excited coming here tonight to know that there was an opportunity to participate and speak up.

I’m a Kimberley city councillor. I’m a retired professional forester with provincial resource ministries and Indigenous nations on G2G agreements for the last 25 years. I’m a parent, and I’m an advocate, deeply concerned about human rights and the earth that we all depend on.

[7:20 p.m.]

Our democracy needs to be strengthened. We’re watching governments representing only the few increasingly taking power around the world, who can’t appropriately engage in the crises that we’re facing.

In B.C.’s election last October, extreme voices, led by a person who had been pushed out of the B.C. Liberals for denying climate science, almost formed government. Where would we be today if that had happened and he were our Premier? Imagine anti-science, anti–United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous People, anti-SOGI, anti-vax identity politics rather than anything based on policy solutions.

We saw an alarmingly close spring federal election that could have resulted in our own current U.S.-style Prime Minister. Where would that have put us on the global stage, and what about our sovereignty?

Let’s not leave this to luck anymore. Proportional representation is needed now, and it’s critical that it be in place before the next election. We know from evidence that over the long run, countries with proportional representation show better outcomes on the broad range of issues because people are fairly represented and parties work together to find solutions.

I don’t support another referendum because it will take too long and likely be ineffective. The average voter is not in a position to consider all the options and the evidence and to choose what makes the most sense for B.C.

I do support models of proportional representation that include multi-member ridings, top-up seats or both. I’m open to different systems under the principles of proportional representation and the basic elements — multi-member ridings, top-up seats — of both the mainstream PR systems.

I do support a ranked ballot in a proportional system but not another winner-take-all system with ranked ballots in a single-member riding, which would retain all the problems of first-past-the-post. I think the model has to be regionally based, in which voters personally elect all candidates, so that those candidates are accountable to those people and it has a local and a regional representation.

Let’s get through this. I’d like to see this just simply move forward. Do a trial. Let’s make it happen. Let’s get out of the negative politics of politicians spending their time making each other wrong and the real and urgent work being lost. Let’s bring representative voices to the table to responsibly work on constructive, long-term solutions.

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

Do we have any questions for Sue?

Amna Shah: Thank you, Sue, for your presentation. You mentioned that you’re a Kimberley city councillor. I’m wondering if you can expand on your experience about your municipal journey and how you felt the process was for you as you sought election in Kimberley.

Sue Cairns: Well, I really like local government because there are no parties. We have the opportunity to work together at the table, very focused on the ground issues. I really feel like we have a huge opportunity at the local government level to focus in on our shared values and our shared issues and make things work. It’s a satisfying, very fulfilling role to be able to work together with people with, often, very different views, finding a pathway forward.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you. Just building on that, I think it’s interesting because coming from a populous city — we’re both from Surrey — we do have quite large slates, actually, that run at a municipal level. We run our municipal elections at the same time as our school board elections, so those are some very large, long ballots that we’re working off of.

Some of the conversations we had in previous rooms were about ranked ballots and potentially testing them first with municipal elections and seeing how that works and kind of using that as a test, potentially, before seeing what we can do provincially. I just would like your thoughts on that as well.

[7:25 p.m.]

Sue Cairns: That’s interesting. Yeah, I actually…. That’s a completely new idea that I hadn’t thought about at all. Let’s see. We do have local government elections coming up in just over a year, so timing-wise, it might be a good opportunity to test that.

I don’t really have a response. I’d think about that. I do like the idea of testing things, and I like incremental approaches so that we can dial it in as we go along. So it’s an interesting idea.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): It’s an idea for us as well, right? We don’t know. We’re just trying to get your thoughts, so thank you for sharing that.

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation. You’ve made the point about proportional representation and moving now on it. One of the other items…. We talked about it a little earlier this evening, and I just wondered about your thoughts, as well, on reducing the voting age to 16.

Sue Cairns: I love it. I’ve been really keen on that for quite some time. There are a lot of young people who are very engaged and, I’d say, very well informed and, also, losing hope. I think that they’re brilliant. There are so many brilliant young minds out there, and we need to hear those voices. They’re the ones who are….

They see things differently. They see opportunities that we don’t necessarily see because we’ve been in a system for a very long time. I know, with my kids and with their friends, that they’ll often just come up with comments like: “Well, why didn’t we do it this way or why not that way?” And they’re the best questions. Sometimes, it’s really those excellent questions: “Why didn’t we try that?” And maybe now is the time.

I think reducing the voting age would be a great idea.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Great. Thank you so much, Sue. I don’t see any further questions, so thank you so much for your time today.

Our final presenter is Bruce Wilson.

Bruce Wilson: Before we go on record, my sincere thanks for accommodating me. I do apologize humbly for missing my allotted slot.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): That’s totally fine.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): We’re happy to hear from you. As mentioned, you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions. Please get started once you’re ready.

Bruce Wilson

Bruce Wilson: Well, good evening to you, and thank you for being here to listen to the opinions from the East Kootenays.

I want to say just a little bit about me. I was born and raised in Scotland. I came to Canada in the ’80s, to Calgary, where I met my future wife. As a former general manager of Shell, we were fortunate to experience life in many countries over three decades. I left the oil and gas industry seven years ago, deeply concerned by the growing impact of climate change. I now consult on international renewable energy projects from my home in Kimberley, B.C.

I wish to speak in support of proportional representation, which I believe is critical to a well-functioning and engaged multiparty democracy. PR is the antidote to the corrosive effect of political polarization.

As I speak to you tonight, I also address these comments to my fellow citizens in B.C. and in Canada. In full disclosure, I remain a dual citizen of both the United Kingdom and Canada and have experience of voting systems in both countries.

To the people of B.C., I encourage you to inform yourselves. I want to be clear that I’m not standing here as an expert on proportional representation, but I understand that democracies thrive when the electorate is well informed and engaged.

Each of you has to choose to be informed. Real democratic participation calls for more than simply putting an X in a box. So I urge all of you who are watching this or, in this case, listening to it to read up on the basics of proportional representation, why it matters and how it works.

[7:30 p.m.]

If you continue to believe that the current system is working just fine, I am here to ask you to think again and to look at the facts and consider the dangers of inadvertently locking Canada into a perpetual two-party system.

Let’s recognize that the existing electoral system does not work. First-past-the-post elections, a winner-takes-all approach, do not produce representative results. The results invariably ensure that a large percentage of the population is not effectively represented. Parties gaining a substantial share of the vote may have few seats to show for it. We saw this in the recent federal election.

First-past-the-post also skews how voters participate. People may feel obliged to abandon their preferred candidate to oppose another candidate. We use the term strategic voting to put a better face on a system that allows little flexibility to choose good and capable leaders.

Political participation must matter. It must allow people to make their best choices, to elect and be represented by competent leaders, to be represented by capable individuals. Our parliament must be representative of all views, no matter what they are. Bringing diverse viewpoints to the forum will only make us stronger.

First-past-the-post system is a historical artifact. In a modern multiparty democracy, there’s no place for obsolete ways. Proportional representation is the most popular form of democracy in the world today, centred on the simple idea that the numbers for each political group in parliament should closely match their popularity in the country.

For most countries, this idea is at the core of their democratic ideals. This basic principle restores faith in democracy. Because if you think election is unfair, you’re more likely to choose not to vote. It follows that if an election is perceived as unfair, citizens are less likely to accept outcomes and policies made by their new government. We have hard things to fix and difficult decisions to make.

At a time when the world faces multiple crises, we need strong consensus, leadership that is representative of the diversity of thought in our nation. We can no longer accept narrow party views but must ensure that we build a broad political base.

Climate change, the overarching crisis of our time, competes for attention with perma-wars, global instability, senseless tariffs and the steady march of AI, along with the day-to-day challenges of simply navigating the cost of living.

There are various forms of proportional representation, and it’s not my place to try to educate you on those. Whether it’s ranked choice voting, also called single transferable, or mixed-member, there are virtues and benefits in each.

I would like to say something — I see that I’m out of time — about citizens’ assemblies and the effectiveness of those in choosing a path forward.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): You can go ahead and finish that. Did you want to still?

Bruce Wilson: If I may?

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Yes, go ahead.

Bruce Wilson: Important changes need consensus, but without a detailed and factual grounding of the issues, referenda can lead to political shifts that take generations to undo. Brexit demonstrated this amply. I believe that citizens’ assemblies are fundamental to achieving a better democracy.

The Scottish experience has been nothing short of miraculous in that regard. It has been fabulous to watch the evolution of citizens’ assemblies in Scotland, where disparate people with very divergent views have come together in a way that has built consensus. It has been marvelous to look at a Scottish government that actually has listened to these and is mandated to address the issues that come from these citizens’ assemblies.

If they are well chosen, if they are fully representative of the broad cross-section of a population, they can do the difficult work of understanding those complex issues that will drive our democracy forward.

I do not believe in a referendum as such. I believe that we must vest the power of decision within citizens’ assemblies. A well-informed electorate can make these decisions effectively, and I urge you to consider that option.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Bruce.

[7:35 p.m.]

Amna Shah: Thank you, Bruce, for your presentation. I’m interested in knowing what you think government can do or members can do, in general, to keep the general public well engaged.

Part of our task here is also to look into democratic engagement. I think some of us have discussed some of the challenges that MLAs actually face in engaging to their best and fullest capacity, based on things like geographical enormities in the rural aspects, also, the funds that we are provided in our constituency offices to engage with the public, especially given today’s circumstances.

We share some challenges, but despite that, do you think that there’s something practical that, for example, MLAs can do or that government can do to assist in consistently and continuously keeping the general public engaged?

Bruce Wilson: Absolutely. The first thing you’ve got to do is build trust. It hasn’t evaporated, but it’s at a low ebb.

I think in order to build trust, the kind of citizens’ assembly approach…. Let’s not forget, citizens’ assemblies can be used for a variety of different things. In Scotland, they were used for women’s rights, they were used for electoral reform, and they were used for climate change.

You asked a question to Sue Cairns about trying these things out in a municipal setting. I think that is the way to build trust. It’s the way to build knowledge. How do you engage? You engage by informing, you engage by asking, and you engage by testing and demonstrating and transparency.

The Scottish experience has been that the single transferable vote that was used in the municipal elections worked exceptionally well, and people were very pleased with it. It had a high level of acceptance. The additional-member system that is used in the Scottish Parliament, on the other hand — which is actually a blend of proportional and first-past-the-post — was fraught with issues, and those need to be fixed. The kind of transparency that comes from that is really going to be instructive.

In essence, the sort of…. I don’t want to use the word gamifying, but it came up. This sense of the search for a Canada-wide citizens’ assembly where 50,000 people apply and 500 are chosen, that kind of sense of the strong participation, the opportunities to participate, is going to move us forward.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. I’m juxtaposing two parts of your presentation. The first part is the urgency of proceeding with pro rep as a systemic change to deal with some of the concerns associated with first-past-the-post and then your perspective on how we would go about this. So I just want to make sure I understand how you would see the…. I want to — sort of active listening — make sure I understand your perspective on the how, which I think would be….

None of this has been decided. I mean, we’re just gathering information. But we could, for example, recommend proportional representation. Then in the way you’re describing it, then we would have a citizens’ assembly that would develop the precise model, and then we would move to implement that model. Is that sort of…?

Can you describe a bit more about what would happen over the next year and a half under your preferred approach?

Bruce Wilson: For sure. Let me say something, first of all, about the opportunities that it presents, which is in terms of leadership.

I feel very strongly that these are challenging times. We’re in, as many people describe it, a permacrisis where there are very complex issues. We need good leadership. We need consensus.

We need the equivalent of a war cabinet where we set aside our political differences and just bring our ideas. We need all sorts of ideas. I strongly advocate for every cross-section of ideas to come to the table. That diversity makes us strong.

[7:40 p.m.]

Good leaders are dissuaded from running. This is a generalization, but I do believe that good leaders, strong leaders, capable individuals are dissuaded from participating in politics. This is a time to encourage them. We have to put that cart before the horse a little there, or put that as a priority issue to assure those kinds of individuals that we will have a system that enables that.

That’s the first thing. We have the intent. We signal that intent. And then we test this. We don’t need to test it with…. We test the idea of a citizens’ assembly. The people who participated in the government of Scotland described the citizens’ assembly as a mini-Scotland. They did it so well. They said: “This is a cross-section of ages, a cross-section of skills, backgrounds, walks of life, attitudes.” In essence, they represented the people.

It was done in such a public way that there was licence from the Scottish people to say: “We accept you as that.” Of course, we accept Members of Parliament and MLAs as being representative of our views. Why would we not take a cross-section — and a very highly representative cross-section — of the people and say: “These people speak for us”?

I think embedding that idea, however small, initially…. Whatever topic that is, make it work. Make it transparent. Make it visible. Make it of the people. Really make it sing, and then take it to progressively harder, more emotive topics.

Also, most of our problems are borderless problems, you know. They’re shared by other countries. Let’s learn. We like to think of ourselves as leaders, and in some ways, we are. But in this case of electoral reform, we are not. Let’s learn, and that experience, I think, will be very instructive.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Bruce. I don’t see any further questions, so thank you so much for taking the time.

Thank you to all the presenters for taking the time to be with us today and share your thoughts with the committee. We really do appreciate you making this great effort to be here. Thank you.

That’s the last of our presentations. Could I please have a motion to adjourn?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 7:42 p.m.