The committee met at 9:03 a.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Good morning, 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 on the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform, a parliamentary committee consisting of members of the government, the official opposition and the Third Party.

We are meeting today in Kelowna, which is located on the traditional territories of the Syilx Okanagan Nation.

We’ll be continuing with presentations today on the first part of our mandate, 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.

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

Sheldon Clare: Good morning. Sheldon Clare, MLA for Prince George–North Cariboo, Conservative caucus Deputy Whip.

Rob Botterell: Morning. Rob Botterell, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands and House Leader for the Green caucus.

Amna Shah: Good morning. Amna Shah, the MLA for Surrey City Centre and the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health and Addictions. Thank you for being here today.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, committee members.

[9:05 a.m.]

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.

We’ll get started this morning with Anthony Hodgson from Fair Voting B.C. Anthony, just a reminder that you’ll have 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by ten minutes for questions.

Presentations on Voter Engagement
and Electoral Reform

Fair Voting B.C.

Anthony Hodgson: Thanks very much. I’m very pleased to be with you all today. I’m president of Fair Voting B.C. We’re a non-partisan, non-profit organization that advocates for making our voting system more fair, inclusive and reflective of voters’ wishes. We were formed in 1997, and we served as the official proponent in 2009 and 2018.

In my presentation today, I’ll make three main points: why we need to evolve how we vote to better represent all voters, why a regional representation model would be an excellent fit for B.C., and why the government should resolve to move forward on this and how.

After the 2018 referendum, Carole James said: “I think electoral reform is finished.” Yet here we are, seven years later, publicly debating reform once again.

Why are so many people unwilling to consider this issue settled? Fundamentally, in our view, it’s because voting reform is a civil rights issue, and referendums are not an appropriate way to settle such questions, especially when minority rights are involved. The civil rights movement in the U.S. did not win rights for Black voters by asking white voters to support them in a referendum. It won them through public actions and court victories.

When Switzerland voted in 1959 to deny women the right to vote, this delayed, but did not prevent, women eventually getting that right a dozen years later.

Make no mistake. Voting reform is clearly a civil rights issue. In the U.S., courts have frequently struck down discriminatory local voting systems. Here in Canada, our organization and Springtide are pursuing a Charter challenge, arguing that our current voting system denies more than half the voters effective representation, which the Supreme Court has recognized as a key aspect of our right to vote under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

How does our voting system deny voters this effective representation? Half the voters, on average, across the province, haven’t helped elect an MLA. They don’t end up having their own MLA advocating their political views in the Legislature, and so in many ways, they’re effectively voiceless.

Advocacy matters. Imagine you’re going to court, but you find you can’t choose your own lawyer. Worse, the other side has their own lawyer, the court tells you that that lawyer is going to represent you as well, and that the lawyer is only going to argue the opposition’s case. How can you possibly get a fair hearing? This is exactly the situation that half the voters find themselves in.

In this analogy, the court is the Legislature, and the other lawyer is your MLA. In our challenge, we’ve submitted affidavits from many voters, speaking about how deeply this affects them. Lawyer Lindsay Aagaard, who’s a lawyer previously with the Premier’s Office in Ontario, once said: “The vulnerability of constituents can be seen every day. Is there anything more vulnerable than having to rely on one individual, whom you have not voted for, to represent your concerns and interests, to be your sole voice in the institution that makes the laws that govern every aspect of your life?”

Now, many politicians will counter that they represent all their constituents and try to do their best by them. I don’t doubt that many or most are extremely conscientious and well-meaning. Former Conservative MP Patrick Boyer submitted an affidavit in our Charter challenge, in which he said: “As an MP, I believed my obligation was to represent all my constituents, however they may have voted.” As far as I can tell, he was superb in this constituency service role.

But we’re talking about something different. We’re talking about the legislative role, the role in which an MLA affects public policy. This is the central role for an MLA, and we all know it. This is why you all ran under party banners. It’s why all your campaign speeches focused on the policies that you were planning to pursue if elected. Voters know this, too.

Ask yourselves: “Aren’t you happier and better off when the candidate you support is elected? Or would you endorse us changing to a second-past-the-post system, where the candidate who gets the second most votes gets elected?” This is crazy, but would this really be crazy if it’s really true that an MLA can represent everyone equally?

[9:10 a.m.]

Of course, the answer is that they can’t, at least not in their most fundamental role, that of legislative representative.

Going back to Boyer again: “In my experience, the claim that an MP represents all of his or her constituents in relation to parliamentary advocacy is unjustifiable because it’s not realistic. Many constituents, not hearing their concerns voiced in parliament, told me they ultimately felt left out of Canada’s democratic system.” And when half the voters are left out, we have a real problem.

A couple of years ago I wrote an academic paper with Professor Fred Cutler, political scientist at UBC, entitled “Why Bother?” where we showed that this feeling of futility in voting drives down participation and increases insincere voting across the political spectrum. And the more disillusioned and cynical voters become, the more vulnerable we are to having our democracy hijacked, as we’re seeing currently in the States.

Conversely, the more we push for greater inclusion, the stronger we make our democracy. As former chief justice Beverley McLachlin put it in a major decision expanding our voting rights, the Canadian tradition is one of evolutionary democracy moving in uneven steps toward the goal of universal suffrage and more effective representation. So that’s what we’re talking about here. It’s high time to take the next hugely important evolutionary step of fully embracing political diversity in our society.

Indeed, this is what the democratic ideal requires. The UN handbook on elections says that states have an obligation to encourage a diverse and pluralistic political process that is hospitable to ideologies from across the political spectrum.

We’re very far from this today. It’s perhaps most easy to see this in the situations of two key minority parties in B.C.: the Green Party and the former B.C. United or emerging CentreBC party.

The Greens have historically received as much as 17 percent of the vote and have never elected more than three MLAs at a time. Every election, other parties beg Green supporters not to waste their votes, but to vote strategically instead, so their votes will actually count. B.C. United felt so much pressure from the rise of the Conservative Party that they actually opted to disband rather than to contest the election.

These behaviours and incentives are not healthy. The decisions about which policies to encourage should lie in the hands of voters, not be made arbitrarily by party leaders.

This issue doesn’t only affect small-party supporters. Because our voting system exaggerates the influence of local pluralities and creates regional sweeps, supporters of the two largest parties are also systematically excluded. This reduces the legitimacy and effectiveness of government, because government ends up only having cabinet members and committee members from some regions of the province, and they end up being blind to issues relevant to voters in other places.

Voters themselves broadly support making these changes or addressing these issues. Half a dozen polls in recent years show strong support for the key principles behind proportional voting — typically, over 75 percent in favour.

So what’s holding us back? Well, sometimes, scare tactics. In the last referendum, I remember a series of ads reminiscent of the Red Scares of, you know, 60 years ago — pro rep horror. The irony here is that Australia doesn’t even use proportional voting at the national level, but this is the level of disinformation that is out there.

A couple of years ago, my optometrist saw something that worried him and sent me on to an ophthalmologist. After a whole battery of tests, the ophthalmologist came into the room and said: “Whatever scary thing they told you that you had, that’s not it. You don’t have it.”

That’s what I’m telling you as well. Whenever you hear these people talk about scary things, that’s not actually what we’re talking about. I don’t have time to go into a lot of detail about this, but if somebody tells you that pro rep means 15 parties in some country or a new government every year, that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Second, as the noted political scientist Arend Lijphart said after doing one of the most extensive analyses ever on the effects of voting systems on a country’s economic and social health, contrary to the conventional wisdom, there’s no trade-off at all between governing effectiveness and high-quality democracy, even when those analyses included the so-called scary countries.

[9:15 a.m.]

And while B.C. is generally in pretty good shape, there’s a strong case to be made that our voting system and the resulting antagonistic and polarized political culture is holding us back. Over the last 20 years, we’ve made progress on the UN human development index, but many countries have made two or three times as much progress as we have, and they all use proportional voting systems.

If I’ve convinced you to have empathy for voters suffering from limited representation, and you agree that we should take the next step upon the path towards greater inclusion, what’s the way forward?

Trudeau infamously claimed there was no consensus on what to do, although it’s clear that he never designed a consensus-building process. From the various processes over the past decade or so, we’ve learned what would not be popular in B.C. We don’t want closed party lists. We don’t want many small parties. We don’t want representation at a distance. We don’t want a significant increase in the number of MLAs.

Fortunately, it’s easy to avoid these problems, so we recommend simply taking them all off the table right away. To our knowledge, no electoral reform organization is advocating any of these things. Even more fortunately, the remaining options are relatively limited in number.

There are two main ways of making a voting system more inclusive. Either we create multi-member districts, where a set of currently adjacent ridings get merged together and we elect a team of MLAs — this is what STV is about — or we add some top-up seats, and that’s what mixed-member proportional does. A big insight from the 2015-2016 federal electoral reform process was that we could create a hybrid of these two ideas. I’ve got it in our submission, and I’ve got a handout here that I’m happy to share with you.

We could use multi-member districts with as few as two or three seats to ensure that the two largest parties will generally be able to elect MLAs in every region in the province, and we could add a relatively small number of top-up seats, even integrating them into the proposed multi-member districts in regions of about ten to 15 seats. That would ensure that the overall seat balance in each region closely matches the overall vote share, and it would provide an opportunity for smaller and emerging parties to gain some representation.

This hybrid approach, which we’re calling regional representation, builds on ideas advocated by people such as Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who’s the former Chief Electoral Officer for Canada. The MMDs would be virtually identical to the ones we used in B.C. over the past 100 years, right up to the 1991 election — and, in a number of cities across the western provinces, until as late as 1974. Combining multi-member districts with a few top-ups is what’s done in Scandinavia. So this is a tried and tested idea.

Multi-member districts encourage parties to put forward more demographically diverse slates of candidates, give voters increased choice over whom to elect and promote greater diversity overall. The experience for the voter would be simple. On the ballot, they’d simply do what they currently do: mark an X beside their most preferred candidate. The only difference would be that the ballot in these MMDs might have two or three names on it from the bigger parties who are hoping to win more than one seat.

Within each MMD, we’d determine which parties or independent candidates would win the two or three seats and elect the candidates with the greatest number of personal votes. We’d do something similar to elect the top-up MLAs. We’d do what’s called the strongest runner-up approach, so it’s the still-not-elected candidates with the greatest number of votes. This is done in a couple of German states, as well as in the Scandinavian systems.

This hybrid approach, therefore, seems to tick all the boxes. It addresses very well the seven key democratic principles we outline in our submission. With respect to the things that we don’t want, there would be no closed party lists. We’d expect to see MLAs elected from about three or four parties — not parties multiplying like rabbits. All MLAs will be elected in their own region, and there’s no need to increase the number of MLAs.

For these reasons, regional representation is also supported by Springtide and Fair Vote Canada as representing a clear path forward that takes account not only of democratic values but also of important, practical issues and potential obstacles to implementation. Regional representation substantially addresses the problems with our current systems.

What steps do we recommend the committee and the government take towards implementation? Because we see this as a civil rights issue, we do not support the idea of putting the proposed change to referendum, as the rights of minorities should not be subject to even democratic-appearing processes that can be dominated or determined by majorities. Rather, we feel the most appropriate path forward would be for the government to pass legislation directly, as all past changes in the voting system have happened.

[9:20 a.m.]

We certainly advocate the government engage in broad consultation, and we’ve got more suggestions about that in our submission.

In closing, I want to express my appreciation for the work that all of you are doing on this committee. If there’s any additional information we can provide, or additional modelling we could do, we’d be very happy to provide that.

Thank you very much, and I’m open to questions.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Anthony.

Do we have any questions?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for your presentation. A couple of things that come to mind I’d like to ask you about are…. One of the statements you made was that voter turnout is decreasing because of disenfranchised voters and people that don’t feel like they’re part of the system. Yet when you look at the statistics, that’s not true.

In 2013, 57 percent voted; in 2017, it was 61 percent; in 2020, it was 53.8; and in the last election, we actually gained almost 5 percent. So those numbers…. To me, it doesn’t seem like there’s a dramatic drop in voter turnout. I’d like your view on that.

The second part: when we’re looking at different jurisdictions and how their elections are performing…. Last night in Cranbrook, we had quite a good discussion with a member of the public that was originally from Scotland, talking about how successful their model is in having multiple parties involved.

Just looking through the numbers here and what has been happening, there was a drop of just about 6 percent at the polls, in July of 2024 in Scotland. It looks like there is a trend now in Scotland that it’s actually going in the wrong direction.

The second part is that when this was first introduced, the SNP party was the majority party of the time. Now they’ve sunk to almost obscurity. I’m wondering how much appetite there’s going to be for legislators, Members of the Legislative Assembly, to be supporting something that, in theory, is supposed to be able to provide the opportunity for everyone’s voices to be heard. If the end result is that you’re not going to get elected, I don’t see that there’s going to be much appetite for that.

Last question first: what do you say about the voters going down? It seems like there’s actually a trend up.

Anthony Hodgson: Thanks very much for your question. I think it’s very hard. In any one jurisdiction, you can look at the history of voter turnout. You can see it go up or down for various reasons, including the competitiveness or significance of the election. This recent federal election could be regarded as an election in which there was an existential crisis facing the country, and of course, voting turnout could be expected to rise under those circumstances.

What we base our findings on is largely the political science literature, where they look at results over a wide number of different systems, over a wide range of different circumstances. The clear finding there is that there’s a solid and detectable difference in overall voter turnout, on the order of about 3 or 4 percent, which is directly attributable in the models to the effect of the electoral system. All else being equal, all the other social circumstances being equal, we would expect to see a rise in turnout.

What we found in the paper that we published with Fred Cutler, based on the election modelling that happens after every election in Canada, was that those voters who are not likely to contribute to electing the MLA are specifically disenfranchised. They are dissuaded from voting, and they experience and engage more in insincere voting, where they feel that they have to vote for somebody other than the person or party that they actually prefer.

That effect is actually larger, but when you average it with the other people who are actually voting for the elected MLA, you see it as a 3 or 4 percent difference. Amongst the people who are most discriminated against, the effect of the voting system is proportionately larger and can be on the order of 7 to 10 percent.

[9:25 a.m.]

With respect to your question about the situation of the Scottish National Party, I think you have to look at a couple of different things, depending on whether we’re talking about the Scottish elections themselves or the U.K. elections. In the U.K. system, of course, it’s a first-past-the-post system, and because historically, for the last decades, they’ve been the dominant party there, they have benefited from overrepresentation.

Under a more proportional system, then, they get a number of seats in the Scottish assembly that is closer to their fair share in the polls. If there’s a change over time, that may reflect their actual standing in Scottish society. It’s their responsibility, I would say, as a party, to make sure that their policies are aligned with what voters are looking for.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Can I add just a quick one on that? When you talked about polls, from what I can see, in this 2024 election, the polls were really wrong. The SNP suffered even further losses than was polled.

What is your take? You’re talking statistically about deriving the data and being able to determine percentage points, but what’s your feeling on the polling? The polling was wrong — totally wrong.

Anthony Hodgson: The polling I’m talking about is an academic poll, so it’s not for the same purpose. What it is…. They’re actually interviewing the same voters before and after an election and looking at the difference between what they expect to vote and how they would like to vote, versus how they did vote, how they report voting. It’s actually looking at voter-by-voter information rather than….

There are all sorts of reasons why polling, per se, is challenging in predicting the outcome of an election, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I understand. That’s why I was trying to make the distinction between the data that you’re deriving from the beginning and at the end, and also now, when you’re asking people who they’re going to vote for, why there seems to be such a wide discrepancy in that. It’s a different methodology of determining that data. Thank you for that.

Anthony Hodgson: Correct, and it’s the same methodology over the past few decades.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your presentation, Anthony. It’s very interesting. I have a couple of questions for you. One of them is, in legislatures, the voting system is one of for or against, aye or nay. You stand up and you vote one way or the other. In the current composition of the House, we do have more than two parties.

There can be discussions about how much representation each party should, could or would have, if circumstances were slightly different. However, when legislation is debated, it goes through a number of processes, committees. They ask questions. People try to come to consensus, or they try to get changes. Limitations of time and just straight-up ideological differences tend to identify where people sit on a particular piece of legislation.

We saw some very interesting votes take place in the House recently where one side of the House voted one way, the other side of the votes voted entirely the other way, and the Speaker had to break the tie. Notwithstanding some discussions about eligibility of voting in that particular process, that seemed to be how it went. There was a winner. There was a loser.

Half the province, in effect, voted one way, and the other half of the province voted the other way. It had to go one way or the other, and it was one person’s vote that made the difference — a single vote.

In your postulations, when you’ve got issues-based voting, when things are at an aye or a nay, what difference does all of that make?

Anthony Hodgson: Excellent sets of questions. I think the main point I’d want to make here is, first of all, in the committees and all the processes by which the original policy proposal comes to be…. You’re right that that is a process of negotiation between all the different people who serve on the committee. So it’s really, really important that everybody participating in that discussion broadly represents the perspectives across the province.

[9:30 a.m.]

If we’re systematically excluding people with particular perspectives from particular parts of the province, we’re not going to get optimal input into what is coming to the Legislature.

At the time of the legislative vote, yeah, we use a majority system, but that majority should be a majority that is actually built on the top of a true majority support from voters across the province. Under our current voting system, it’s not the case. Some parties are overrepresented, some regions are overrepresented, and other points of view are significantly underrepresented. If we have true majority principle, the final decision should be made by MLAs who truly represent a majority of the voters.

Sheldon Clare: My follow-up to that is that in, I think, two provinces in the country, they have the ability to have a bicameral system — Newfoundland and Quebec, if I’m not mistaken.

Has your organization ever looked at the possibility of a bicameral system in British Columbia to deal with regional representation in the framework as it exists currently, bringing more emphasis on a regional representation?

Now, our federal Senate has devolved away from regional representation, which was its intent, and there are certainly some movements to try to haul it back to that. However, have you considered anything like the possibility of bicameral options in British Columbia?

Anthony Hodgson: We have not. I think our real focus is on ensuring that the current unicameral system accurately reflects the values and perspectives of all voters in B.C.

Sheldon Clare: Okay. When you look at a bicameral system, it’s one that usually is intended to balance any anomalies in that area. For example, in a unicameral system, it’s often strictly representation by population. So when you have more sparsely populated areas — large rural areas, for example — they tend to feel much less represented as a block than, say, highly concentrated urban ridings with larger populations.

The balance that has been done by elections and committees setting boundaries for elections is to have larger areas with small numbers of people and try to get a grand swath and then make the larger populations’ ridings quite small in geographic size but large in numbers and try to give those fewer votes in the larger geographic ridings a little more weight.

What are your thoughts on that?

Anthony Hodgson: That’s quite interesting. In one sense, what you’re saying is that…. Say in a province like B.C., where approximately three-quarters of the population is in the more heavily populated areas and one-quarter in the less heavily populated…. You’re suggesting that the interests of people in those two different areas are somewhat different. So the people in the less heavily populated areas might have some minority perspective. You’re suggesting that that should be not only proportionately represented but actually overrepresented.

Sheldon Clare: No, I’m saying that it’s weighted as it exists now.

Anthony Hodgson: Yeah, so currently it is actually up-weighted in terms of representation. What I’m arguing is that when you look at it from a political ideology perspective, from a diversity perspective, there are many minorities who are significantly under-weighted.

If you believe that it’s appropriate to up-weight some people with particular characteristics in one area, I think that’s a minority rights issue. We should accord the same benefit to other people, other political minorities across the province who are, contrary to that, currently under-weighted.

Sheldon Clare: I think what I’m saying is that everyone in those ridings is weighted up.

Anthony Hodgson: Yeah, but those people have a characteristic which you are essentially describing as a minority perspective, relative to the population as a whole. I’m saying the arguments we’re making are on behalf of the similar minorities elsewhere in the province.

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. I suppose I have two questions. Did I hear you right when you said that ideally there would not be an unlimited amount of parties, and it should be limited to about three or four?

[9:35 a.m.]

Anthony Hodgson: I didn’t say it should be. I said that in B.C., I think there’s generally been a sentiment expressed that we don’t want 15 parties, right? That makes governing difficult and all of that.

Under the model that we are putting forward, we would have substantially all voters in B.C. represented, but using a technique or a process that would likely lead to approximately four parties being elected, kind of depending on what CentreBC ends up doing or B.C. United.

Amna Shah: Just to follow up on that, there are parties that are being formed currently. If we were to limit it to, let’s say, a certain number of parties, what would the threshold be? Is there a membership threshold? How would you determine four, and then who?

Anthony Hodgson: Thank you. We’re not proposing any explicit limit. Essentially, what we’re saying is that the way the voting system could be structured is such that for parties to successfully compete for seats, they would effectively need to secure on the order of 5 to 10 percent of the vote in a region. Practically, if you look at how many parties could reasonably do that, that would be on the order of about four parties.

Amna Shah: I see.

Anthony Hodgson: So it’s no explicit limit. Any party is free to compete, of course. We certainly want to limit the number of voters whose vote is ineffective. This model that we’re putting forward, I think, appropriately balances those things.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Great, thank you. I had a question with regard to the region, looking at the sheet you’ve created into seven regions.

One of the conversations we’ve had with a few different folks that talk about regional representation is this idea of local representation. We talk about some of our more urban areas where a big part of our job is not just the Legislature, but how we get our information is not just folks coming to our offices but going to six or seven events per day to meet with folks and really meeting them where they are. That’s where the conversations are sparked that lead to change.

Anthony Hodgson: Absolutely.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): That’s something that I see as a challenge in this system where…. How do you actually make it to those one-on-one things when you’ve created such large regions where still there are multiple people representing them but maybe not as many as before?

Anthony Hodgson: Sure. Thanks. In the model that we’re proposing, we’re suggesting that you could actually get all of these benefits that we’re talking about by either pairing or tripling current ridings.

Currently there are approximately twice as many provincial ridings as there are federal ridings. Really, the actual size of the ridings that we’re talking about here, the multi-member districts, is effectively equivalent to that of a federal riding. So to the extent that you believe that a federal MP can reasonably engage with the number of people that are in their riding, that would be about the same level of commitment and engagement that MLAs would be able to do under this regional representation system.

The larger regions really exist for the purpose of the top-up MLAs. There would be two or three out of the 15 or so in the larger region who would have been elected to represent more of a minority perspective.

If you’re a Green MLA who’s elected at the regional level, yeah, you would’ve run in one of these small multi-member districts, but you might then be elected on the strength of support gathered from the broader region. Then you would be responsive to your constituents, the people who voted for the Green Party, say, or Centre BC, from the broader region. They might face a little bit more of a challenge, but that’s because they represent a smaller fraction of the total voter pool.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you. Just a follow-up on that. I think that there is difference in responsibilities at a federal or provincial level. I think there’s a lot more interaction at the provincial level, just the need for the services that we are responsible for. So it’s a little different there.

The top-up — I think the other question that we had for some folks is what they see that role being. We have the local MLA, and then what is the role of that regional rep? Are they there to represent just those minority views?

I think, logistically speaking, there’s an office. We have a front…. Do they have that in their own area? Do they have it for only folks that are thinking their way? What does that actually look like?

And maintaining that, once we’re elected as MLAs, our role is to be non-partisan and to be open to where everyone can come and get the assistance that they need.

[9:40 a.m.]

Anthony Hodgson: Thank you. As I tried to articulate through using the words of Patrick Boyer, I think you have to distinguish between the constituency service role and the legislative role. In our constitution, actually, the legislative role is the primary role. The constituency service role actually didn’t really exist until the ’60s. Flora MacDonald was the first person to open a constituency office, in the ’60s. That actually didn’t exist prior to then.

I think the role of the top-up MLA is a little bit different, depending on whether they represent one of the larger parties or one of the smaller parties. If you’re a top-up MLA who’s elected from a smaller party, your primary responsibility is to be responsive to all the people who voted for you or your party across the region, so you are likely to spend more time travelling throughout the region and trying to connect with the people who voted for you.

Fundamentally, what we’re asking for, what we’re looking for, is that every MLA ends up in the Legislature representing the group of voters who have voted for them, one way or another. If you’re a smaller party, you have to collect those votes over a larger region, so you have to then be responsive to those people who have voted for you. If you’re the top-up MLA for one of the larger parties, then you ran locally; you ran in one of the local multi-member districts.

You will, of course, share some of the representational responsibilities, maybe with a partner from your same party in that multi-member district, but you exist, in part, to make sure that the voting weight in the Legislature appropriately reflects the way that voters across the province have voted. You function in much the same way, but what you do is, going back to Sheldon’s comment, so that the vote in the Legislature will ensure that majorities actually are based on a majority of votes cast and voters in the province.

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation. A couple of questions have arisen around this particular electoral system proposal. We’ve had presentations that proportional representation is inherently unstable and encourages extreme parties. I have a couple other questions, but on that one, how would you address that? Israel is one that keeps coming up.

Anthony Hodgson: Yeah. As I said, you know, people raise all sorts of scare tactics. We’re not proposing any of the characteristics that people who raise these concerns are suggesting are the root cause of that.

I think the kinds of parties who can win under the proposals that we’re putting forward are parties that already exist in B.C. The kind of governing arrangements that we would have, the negotiations, are very similar to what the Green Party and the NDP have been negotiating, both in 2017 and in 2024. So we already see how that process of creating a government comes about.

One of the major sources of instability of non-majority governments under our current voting system is that either the government in power or the opposition is highly motivated to trigger an election if there’s a change in the polling support, because there can be so many swing ridings that they can see an opportunity to bring down the government and flip to majority control, even if they have much less than majority support. So there’s actually an intrinsic instability in the first-past-the-post system.

I put together a graphic that I’d be happy to show people afterwards. Actually, the mean time between elections in Canada is about three years, and the mean time between elections in most of the proportional representation–using countries that we’re modelling our processes on is over four years. That’s because they’re intrinsically stable.

[9:45 a.m.]

There’s no reason to trigger an early election unless your support in the general population has really swung a significant amount. Clearly, if you have become dramatically unpopular after you won the last election and your support has gone down 10, 15, 20 percent, then the opposition might want to try and trigger an election, but usually those changes in overall levels of voting support are slower than that.

Proportional voting in the form that we’re proposing tends to be much more stable. It creates more stable public policy. I pointed to the rate of increase in progress on the UN human development index in countries that we’re modelling the proposal on that are using those kinds of systems.

Rob Botterell: Just one other quick question, which is…. One of the topics of discussion over the last few days has been the impact of a proportional representation system, such as the one you’re proposing, on independent candidates as opposed to party candidates.

Could you offer some thoughts on that?

Anthony Hodgson: Absolutely. Yeah. It’s really interesting, I guess, and people have strong thoughts one way or the other about whether independents should be promoted or dissuaded. I take the perspective that it’s up to the voters to decide this, and so a voting system should offer neither incentive nor dissuasion with respect to independent candidates.

The approach that we’re talking about is fair to independent candidates. An independent candidate can run in a multi-member district. The majority of the seats are awarded in the multi-member districts.

We could talk independently about other options for helping independent candidates become eligible for top-up seats more regionally, but the single transferable vote in Ireland, which is essentially a multi-member-district-only system, is…. Historically the voters in Ireland have elected a fair number of independents, on the order of between 5 and 10 percent of all MPs.

So in principle, it’s friendly to independents. Whether independents will compete and win successfully in B.C. remains to be seen, but fundamentally it’s up to voters to decide.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): We’ll take one final question from MLA Clare.

Sheldon Clare: One of the things that does define Canada and British Columbia is our geography. In British Columbia, we have a tremendous variety of geography, which has, in many respects, affected where people choose to live and how they live. We have areas where there are conflicting views on how our particular resources and geography are meant to be used.

For example, we have…. Well, I’ll look at my own riding. Resource extraction is a big thing but also resource protection is a big thing. For example, there are lots of concerns about salmon and watershed protection, as well as the need to have shovels in the ground for mining, forestry and resources where there are these competing ideas.

Some of these are very regional, and the ridings around do reflect some of those divisions. We have the regional districts in our ridings. I have two regional district areas. I have the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George and the Cariboo Regional District in the riding I represent. They have significant differences in the needs of peoples within them. And I think they represent them fairly well.

I’ve met with the Horsefly River watershed group about salmon, brought those concerns forward. I’ve also met with mines and forest resource companies who have concerns that are somewhat different and brought those forward and raised some of those issues and questions in estimates and so on.

I’m still not convinced that what you’re postulating brings together the kind of decisions that may need to be made that are generally in the best interest of the people and the region, which may not be the same thing, and the province as a whole. I’m not sure you’re selling me on this.

Anthony Hodgson: Okay. Well, I can try. I certainly agree that there are different concerns in different regions of the province and that people in one region may not understand the concerns and challenges in another region, for sure.

[9:50 a.m.]

In fact, this sort of regional polarization is one of the most negative aspects of our current voting system. Because we exaggerate the political alignment in particular regions, we can often end up with a government in Victoria that represents, primarily, certain regions of the province and has essentially no representation from anywhere else.

So under the proposed system, we would have MLAs from each of the two major parties in every region of the province. Overall, the government side and the opposition side would have access to MLAs in all regions of the province. This would mean that each party, in their functioning in Victoria, would have within their own caucus the full range of perspectives across the province. Collectively, the Legislature would have opinions informed by both party differences and regional differences.

The broad description in the political science literature of the kind of voting system we’re talking about is consensus democracies. There’s a clear finding in the political science literature that this kind of voting system leads to more consensus-building processes, and it promotes greater discussions across party lines.

Overall, I feel that if we move in this direction, we will be promoting more cross-party discussion, much the way I’m seeing here in this committee. I think this is a good example of what….

Sheldon Clare: Under the existing system.

Anthony Hodgson: Well, yeah, but if you have appropriate representation from the different points of view. I mean, with respect, we have two Conservative MLAs on this panel who are both from the northern Interior part of the province. We don’t have any Conservative representative from the Lower Mainland, and you might have a different opinion than that person.

We don’t have the converse. We don’t have an NDP representative on this committee from the northern part of the province, so we don’t know what their perspective would be.

Sheldon Clare: The limitations of committee size do preclude the full range of….

Anthony Hodgson: Understood. But also, it’s where you can actually draw those resources from, and the different parties simply don’t have people in those areas.

Sheldon Clare: Maybe some people choose not to have participation in committee because they have other things they need to be doing.

Anthony Hodgson: That’s possible.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Anthony, for your presentation as well as taking our questions today. It was very insightful for us. I really appreciate you taking the time to be here.

Anthony Hodgson: Thanks, and I just want to reiterate that we’re happy to respond to any questions the committee has.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you.

Next, we have Davis Kyle.

Welcome, Davis. Before you get started, just a reminder: you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

Davis Kyle

Davis Kyle: Thank you very much, Chair. My name is Davis. I’m a co-leader of Strong Towns Kelowna, which is a local chapter of a North America–based urban planning and community advocacy organization that seeks more community engagement and participatory civic advocacy for better local outcomes. Those principles will underline my testimony here today.

Generally, we believe that everyone should have a voice and wishes to make their community, their neighbourhood, a better place. Unfortunately, not all voices matter in B.C. politics. Oftentimes, with all respect, politics can be about division and partisanship more than outcomes that are beneficial for all residents. We believe that supporting electoral reform could lead to better outcomes for our neighbours, our neighbourhoods and, in fact, our province as a whole.

We believe that proportional representation would mean that all votes matter. There would be no such thing as a swing seat. There would be no such thing as a safe riding. People on the left would be represented in the rural areas of northern British Columbia, and you’d get Conservative representation in lower Vancouver Island. Ridings could have nearly the same amount of people like they do federally, and there would be no bias in favour of one region or another in our system. Our system would equally consider all voices.

I would like to see the committee support proportional representation. I believe it should be implemented provincially before the next election. I think that it is a representation of minority views issue. It is a representation of all residents issue. I would encourage you not to support a ranked ballot or any other kinds of non-proportional representation in your final report.

[9:55 a.m.]

Because very few other speakers are, I would also like to dedicate the remainder of my time towards local government reform. Our municipal electoral system is near world-leading in its lack of coherence, its inability to produce good outcomes or to represent the collective voices of our residents, and that’s because basically nowhere else in the world uses plurality block voting.

The system is the issue. It’s not the politicians that are working in the system. They are trapped by this system’s particular failures that are seen almost nowhere else in North America, the world and, of course, nowhere else in Canada, essentially.

While I support the current council manager model that we have right now, plurality block is just a first-past-the-post system on steroids. It creates dramatic differences. It can create huge coattail effects when mayors run with parties and they sweep out and get a supermajority compared to the support they received in the polls. This can lead to dramatic policy swings like we’ve seen with Surrey policing.

When a mayor is elected with 20, 25, 28 percent of the vote, like we’ve seen in Kamloops, that can create huge division with a council that’s elected under plurality block. There are literally very different groups of voters that elected the mayor and the council, and that division is caused by the electoral system, not the voters themselves.

So while supporting a council manager model, we would encourage the committee to support the legalization of ranked ballots in British Columbia, just like how a ward system is already legal in British Columbia. A ranked ballot would mean that for mayor, instead of just filling out one bubble right now that you do, you can rank them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, in order of preference. This gives extra voice. This ensures a mayor that is supported by a majority of the population.

The same goes for city council. In Kelowna, for example, you can choose up to eight councillors. Let’s say you have three candidates that you really, really like. Well, maybe you should vote strategically. Maybe you should just vote for those three to maximize their odds of getting on council. Maybe you want to have the best possible majority on council, so you should vote for your favourite five city councillors, plus your mayor. Maybe you want to keep certain people off city council. Well, that would mean you’re filling out your ballot completely.

This is a problem. Strategic voting, where you really have to think about how you should vote to maximize the chances of a good council — that’s just a sign of a broken electoral system. Just like for mayor, where you’d be ranking 1, 2, 3, 4, you should be allowed to rank 1, 2, 3, 4, the different candidates for city council on a ranked ballot for an at-large system.

This lets voters indicate their favourites. This lets people move down the list. They can fill out as many as they like, if that would be three, four, eight or the entire ballot. It can be mechanically counted on election night, verified with manual counting. This provides increased voter choice and accountability for elected officials in a municipal context.

I have a couple more comments on municipal reform, so I would welcome any questions from the committee. Thank you.

Sheldon Clare: What other points did you want to make about municipal reform?

Davis Kyle: Thank you very much.

The only other major point I would like to make is that it would be nice to see a new formula for council sizes. Right now, it’s very archaic. It has a couple of little, laddered steps. But Kelowna, when it had under 100,000 people, had the same amount of councillors that it has now at 170,000 people. People become increasingly distant from their elected officials. I mean, Surrey has, I believe, eight or ten, but whatever it is, it’s a very different ratio.

I think that regardless of what other work the committee is doing, kind of smoothing that curve a little bit, coming up with a formula for how big city councils should be, is a reasonable reform that everyone can get behind.

That’s pretty much it, but I really want to emphasize that the voting for municipal elections…. Ranking is not that much more difficult and certainly provides more accountability in outcome and respect for all views, not just the most common views, and it’s a simple reform that would dramatically improve representation at a local level.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you. I do have one follow-up, which is a little bit of a curveball, probably. What is your view on the salaries of municipal councils and mayors? In some areas of the province, these seem to be really, very high, and in others, they were run by volunteer councils and volunteer mayors. I’m just wondering if you have any opinions about that.

[10:00 a.m.]

Davis Kyle: I don’t have really strong opinions. I would say it certainly depends on the workload. In a small town, obviously, there’s much less work involved than for a large city. To me, it’s not an area of focus. I would say that if there’s an expectation that city councillors should not hold other jobs, then the compensation should be increased for that, but if there’s an expectation that it’s a part-time job, then the salary can reflect that. It’s not something I focus on.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Are there further questions?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. Just to follow up on the municipal side of things…. As a municipal leader, in looking at some of the larger areas, I would suggest that it’s pretty difficult to do strategic voting when you have an opportunity to vote for eight councillors, whether it’s in Kelowna or it’s in Kamloops. I would suggest that most people are going to vote for their top two or three, maybe four, and I think it pretty well evens out. Some might only vote for one.

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying on the mayor’s side of things. There are municipalities that have challenges when, as you mentioned in one example, a mayor is elected by only 25 or 30 percent of the people. I’d like to see, maybe at those opportunities, that we’d ask the people that live in those communities whether they would go along with rank-based on the mayoralty as well.

If you’re going to have the same situation as in some of these other communities, would that actually make it fair? If Sheldon and I are running against each other as mayoralty candidates, and if I don’t hit 50 percent, chances are I’m going to hit that 50 percent on the second ballot if I was leading on the first time. If there are three or four, then sometimes it can be different.

If there are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, are not comfortable with the fact that a mayor is getting elected with only 25 or 30 percent of the voters, maybe that is an opportunity for them to participate and to be able to pick their top two choices or whatever, however they want to do it, and then possibly you’ll get a fairer representation. What do you think about that?

Davis Kyle: I would absolutely agree that a ranked ballot for mayor is a slam-dunk case. I personally see council as a slam-dunk case as well.

Personally, I like the idea of having a top choice and then going down the list of people you like versus really don’t like. I don’t think there’s any harm in reforming to a system that has been shown.... In an increasing amount of jurisdictions — about 15 cities now and growing rapidly in the United States, all of Ireland, the vast majority of cities in New Zealand — there is a push going this way, towards multi-member ranked ballots.

I just also wanted to briefly highlight that there is a little bit of another challenge with municipal elections. When there are multiple good councillors that want to be mayor and they both run, well, somebody’s not going to win. There are cities that explored with council presidents and said: “Everyone’s running under the same system.” Then, like with a political-party election, you have the people that win a council seat, and then you rank those off again. Whoever’s the most popular and gets a majority becomes the mayor.

You just don’t want to disincentivize this when there are multiple good councillors and one of them would be locked out just because the other one wins. Then you’d have lost somebody who’s a very good councillor at the table. That’s not a focus of my presentation, but I just wanted to highlight that this is becoming increasingly common. It’s an excellent way to elect a mayor, and I truly believe that solving the plurality bloc system for council is equally important.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you. We have one final question.

Rob Botterell: I noted, just in your opening remarks around proportional representation at the provincial level, that you do not support a ranked ballot in the provincial area, but I just want to take you in another direction on something that’s come up a number of times since we’ve started our hearings: presenters have recommended lowering the voting age to 16. I wondered what your thoughts are on that.

Davis Kyle: I don’t really have very strong thoughts on that. I think that more votes are wasted when a candidate is elected with 41 percent of the vote instead of 40. I liked it when they had that non-binding school-vote thing, getting kids used to voting. I like systems that encourage more voter turnout, including the Australian model.

[10:05 a.m.]

I think that if we want to look at increasing turnout, we should really look at what works across the board for everyone. Does that include 16? Maybe, because the high school gets people used to voting, but I think there are better strategies, such as the Australian model, that would really encourage people to vote.

Rob Botterell: Which is, basically, mandatory voting?

Davis Kyle : Which is, basically…. Well, it depends. You can pay a fine, but it’s a nominal figure. There’s a strong culture of voting there.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Davis, for your presentation and for taking our questions.

Next we have Anders Thomsen.

Anders Thomsen: When I prepared this, I thought that a ballot would be more representative than my text. Please.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you. We’ll get that to the committee. And just to remind you, you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

Anders Thomsen

Anders Thomsen: Okay. Thank you.

We’re told daily we’re a democracy. In reality, we do not have democratic governments. We still have colonial rule. Our party and government leaders are using that incredible power to manipulate and control our elected members like puppets while denying input from the people.

A proportional ballot separating the candidate vote from the party vote will destroy that power by awarding each party member a seat they should have according to the popular vote.

A federal, all-party Special Committee on Electoral Reform conducted by former federal MP Nathan Cullen some time ago established that about 75 percent of the Canadian people would like to use a proportional ballot. The same survey also established that about 75 percent of the federal MPs at the time would like to use a proportional ballot.

B.C. has had three referendums on electoral reform, but only the third and final referendum included proportional ballots.

During the last federal election, an incredible 49 percent of Canadians voted against a party or candidate they did not like, rather than voting for a party or candidate they wanted to elect.

During elections in Denmark — where I was born, by the way — where they have used multi-member proportional ballots for decades, voter turnout is usually about 80 percent and about 90 percent of the ballots cast in an election usually elect a candidate or party they want to win.

A proportional ballot will consistently produce truly democratic governments where the people make all the decisions that are implemented by the politicians, who now will be performing like trustees. Those decisions will be a reflection of the consensus of the majority of the people who participate in that process.

A proportional ballot will put an end to our current dysfunctional and autocratic colonial political system that consistently has been producing fake majority governments supported by about 40 percent of the popular vote.

And that is my presentation.

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

Rob Botterell: I just wanted to thank you for your presentation. Maybe you could just describe your ballot a bit here, because I see that you’ve handed that out.

Anders Thomsen: Well, the ballot is self-explanatory. That’s what I like. It’s so simple.

First it says there that you have two votes: a party vote and the constituency vote. In other words, this ballot here separates the candidate vote from the party vote.

So over here when you’re in your voting booth there, marking your ballots there, you look down at the candidates there. You pick one, the party you want to support, and you put a mark down here, like the New Democratic Party. I think someone put a mark there.

Then you go on the other side of the ballot, and then you pick a candidate. You can pick any one of those candidates down here. There’s no relationship between these two. That’s what this…. I put this one over here and over here.

This is a ballot they used in New Zealand. I took the liberty to copy it, and then I modified it a little bit. I put in the text. I changed the explanation in this little box there. Likewise, we have to reflect what it really does.

[10:10 a.m.]

Rob Botterell: Okay, great. Yeah, thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Anders. I don’t see any further questions, but thank you for taking your time to be here today and share with us.

Anders Thomsen: Okay. Thanks for listening.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Next is Mary Thurber.

Welcome, Mary. Thank you for being here today. Just a reminder you have five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions.

Mary Thurber

Mary Thurber: Okay, thank you. I’m just a citizen from Lake Country. I’m not representing anybody.

Have you ever tried to convince someone to vote only to be told: “What’s the point?” This spring, during our latest election, I was getting ready to head to the polls. I called my husband to come along. “Oh, I don’t think it’s a good time now,” he said. The next day, I reminded him it was his last day to vote. That’s when I got the real reason. He looked at me and said: “There’s no point. We already know who’s going to get in.” He felt his vote didn’t count.

This isn’t just one person’s apathy. This is a symptom of a broken democratic system. I’m talking about the first-past-the-post electoral system, and I have been concerned about it for a very long time. It leaves many people feeling unrepresented, dissatisfied and suspicious of the very governments meant to serve them.

I’d like to talk about three ways this system fails us. First, it makes individual voters feel invisible. I’ve lived in the Okanagan Valley for over 20 years, and in those 20 years, I don’t think I’ve ever once lived in a riding where the candidate I voted for actually got elected. Now, you might say that’s just sour grapes, but it’s more than that. It makes me feel like an outsider in my own community, despite the fact that I’m an active volunteer and a participant in my community.

It’s daunting to approach your own MLA about an issue when you know from day one that they don’t represent your views. My husband’s feeling that his vote doesn’t count isn’t just a feeling. For lots of us, it’s a mathematical reality.

Second, the system doesn’t just silence voters; it warps our democracy. Every election we’re forced to play a guessing game called strategic voting. Instead of voting for the candidate we truly believe in, we vote against the one we dislike most. This system consolidates powers in a few large parties, choking out smaller parties that may have significant support spread across the province.

A legislature should reflect the people. It should be a place of diverse ideas. Instead, we have a system that discourages variety. In fact, things have become so polarized that I’m relieved when we have a minority government, because it’s the only time parties are forced to cooperate and listen to the opposition’s views. Cooperation shouldn’t be an accident. It should be the foundation of our government.

Third, perhaps most dangerously, the winner-take-all system actively divides us. We’ve all seen election-night maps with their blocks of solid blue, red, orange, green. These maps create a false picture of division. They make it look like everyone in one area thinks the same, but we all know that’s not true. Those blue areas are filled with red voters, and the red areas are filled with blue voters — and green and orange and whatever else. The map erases those voters and makes us feel more divided than we really are.

I saw this firsthand on a recent trip overseas with the federal election. I was with a pipe band. When the results came in, one woman was furious, saying that the east always decides who forms government. This feeling, that your entire region is unheard, is toxic. It has consequences. If no members from my region are elected to the governing party, we get no one in cabinet. Our voice is missing when major decisions are made.

How can a government work for all parts of the province when it can’t hear from them? Though my example is federal, you could use the same thing in our province to say: why does Vancouver decide for the whole province, or why does the Island, or why does the Interior, depending on who’s in power?

[10:15 a.m.]

What’s the solution? We have a system that silences individuals, distorts our politics and divides our province. The good news is that the solution is straightforward. It’s time to switch to proportional representation — no winner-take-all systems. I don’t care if it’s multi-member seats or top-ups or any other mainstream model. What I care about is a system that represents the will of the people, encourages everyone to vote and rewards cooperation.

This issue has been discussed, debated and studied way too long. The time for consultation is over. The time for referendums is over. The problems are clear, and so are the solutions. Just do it, and let’s have it in place for the next election. Thank you.

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

Sheldon Clare: Mary, it’s good to see you, and I’m sorry I couldn’t join you on the trip this year, overseas, but I can assure you that pipers are well represented in the House at this time.

I note your disdain for strategic voting, which is a reality of the system we have federally and provincially. I noticed you didn’t pick a particular type of proportional representation. I just wondered why that was.

Mary Thurber: It’s because I don’t necessarily feel that that’s the job of the general public. We have academics with examples, who have studied this and come up with numerous systems that seem to work.

Rather than debate the system and spend a lot of time letting people lobby for various systems, just pick one. Let the experts pick one and put it in place. The argument is that we can never get it perfect. Well, what we have is very, very far from perfect, so let’s just try for something better. Frankly, I don’t care which one it is — just a better one than we have now and not winner-take-all.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): My question. We’ve heard from folks who say that we should implement proportional representation prior to the next election. Others are saying: “No, we should wait. We have had the referendum on this. It has been a decision. To make a decision about what model to go forward with without having a democratic process to decide that….”

Sometimes in these consultations, we say: “If people aren’t showing up, maybe they’re happy with the system, and that’s why they’re not here.” So it’s hard for us also.

What would you have to say to someone that says we wouldn’t be able to implement something like this without actually having a democratic process to find out if that’s what people actually want, like the referendums that were not in favour of pro rep at the end of the day?

Mary Thurber: Well, I guess it’s my feeling that we elect the government to make decisions in the favour of our population. If you don’t feel you can make decisions in favour of our population, why are you making laws, establishing taxes, building roads, buying ferries? Why are you doing any of it? If you don’t feel you have our mandate to do it, then why are you doing it?

We’ve already given you our mandate by electing you, and you should be able to go ahead and make changes in favour of the population, as you can decide how much tax should be, if you should raise tax or if you should lower tax. Just go ahead and decide about an electoral system.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I’m just going to push back a little bit further on that. We run on platforms, we run on mandates, of what our parties would do when they come in. This wasn’t something that was on our party’s…. It was for some.

What would you say to that? It’s not actually something that we’ve run on or that we have a mandate from the people to do.

Mary Thurber: Well, I would say if you have to…. The issue with having a referendum is you get too bogged in A versus B versus C. If there is a referendum, it should just be: “Change the voting system? Yes? No?” Done. Then let the experts do it.

I’m not an expert on taxation, I’m not an expert on roadbuilding, and I’m not an expert on electoral systems. An expert should choose — not necessarily the population. It’s the same as how the population shouldn’t run a hospital.

[10:20 a.m.]

Rob Botterell: I’ll just add a bit to this question, and then I have a question for you — a comment. Certainly, the Green Party ran on a platform of pro rep, and it was discussed as we went around my riding, anyway. I had all the main parties to compete against. Certainly it’s been discussed to death over the last bunch of years. But that isn’t my question.

My question is that in some of the other meetings earlier this week, there have been a couple of options raised, and I just wondered about your thoughts. One option is the government decides to pass legislation to implement a form of pro rep, tries it out in the next election and then has a referendum maybe after one or two elections so the British Columbians can say if they want to continue with the system. That’s one.

Another that we heard about yesterday was that there would be a citizens’ assembly that would work out the details, and then it would be implemented before the next election.

I just wondered about your thoughts of the path forward over, say, the next year and a half.

Mary Thurber: Either of those suggestions sounds reasonable to me. I would say you can’t just have one election and then have a referendum. That doesn’t give people the chance to see how it works. It would have to be multiple elections and terms of government.

If you’re going to have a citizens’ assembly, it can’t be like it was the other time where the citizens’ assembly puts all kinds of work in, comes up with a proposal, and then it gets put to a referendum, and no one can understand it, and everybody lobbies, and the whole thing goes in the tank. It has to be a citizens’ assembly with a clear mandate that whatever they come up with will be implemented.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much for your time, Mary, and for joining us this morning.

Next we have Madelaine Hicks. Good morning, Madelaine. Thank you for joining us today. You’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions. Feel free to start.

Madelaine Hicks

Madelaine Hicks: Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. I’m here as a concerned citizen who believes passionately that we need to have electoral reform to implement some form of proportional representation. I believe it’s key to saving our democracy.

Proportional representation — I’m going to call it PR because I tend to stumble on it. I first became interested in PR in 2005 when B.C. had its first referendum. Prior to that referendum, it had never occurred to me that there was more than one way to elect a political representative. I’d grown up in first-past-the-post.

I was fascinated by the many options and the benefits of proportional representation. So imagine my disappointment when that referendum failed, even though we had 58 percent vote for it. It was because the B.C. government had set the threshold so high at 60 percent that our referendum failed.

Two years later I went to New Zealand in 2007, and there I learned they had brought in proportional representation in 1993. They use an MMP system. They brought it in by referendum — a referendum that passed at 53.9 percent. That really increased my disappointment that the threshold had been set so high. In fact, New Zealand, in 2011, went back to the polls to reaffirm whether they wanted to keep their MMP system, and they did. That referendum passed 58 percent.

Their government in New Zealand has been stable. They’ve got increased levels of representation, and their Members of Parliament are more demographically diverse. It’s a wonderful example to look at.

[10:25 a.m.]

But I want to let you know that, historically and worldwide, referendums are not the way to bring in electoral reform. Ninety percent of the countries that have been successful at implementing electoral reform have done it by multi-party systems. I strongly urge this committee to consider that option. Don’t return us to another referendum. We’re off that treadmill. We need to make decisions now.

In 2012, we started going to the United States, my husband and I, as Canadian snowbirds. We bought an RV in an RV lot in a resort in California. The resort was very diverse. About 30 percent of us were Canadians, and the other 70 percent were divided reasonably between Democrats and Republicans.

Initially, everybody got along. We could have political discussions that were engaged and respectful. But as time marched on to 2016 and the election where Donald Trump was elected and passed, the atmosphere in that park became tense. It became divided. The divisiveness and the polarization were palatable.

It became so bad by 2019 that we sold our RV lot and trailer.

I don’t want us to get to that point here in Canada. We don’t need to escalate to that kind of divisiveness and polarization. We need strong leadership, and we need change. We need to move to some form of proportional representation, or we’re going to be living what they’re living through down there. None of us want that.

In considering the models, I don’t want you to be discouraged by proportional representation because it often leads to minority governments. I argue that minority governments make better decisions. And they’re less susceptible to lobbyists, because lobbyists now have to convince more than one party.

You can look at Canadian examples. I’m not going to have time to get into all the ones I want, but we’ve made excellent decisions in Canada under minority governments, like universal health care. Think of Bill C-5 we’ve just got passed under a minority government that’s hopefully going to help Canada avoid policy lurches.

While I’m at it, policy lurches are another problem of first-pass-the-post and winner-take-all governments. What happens is as soon as one party ousts the other, they throw out all the policies with the bathwater just like the baby. Away they go, and we’re flip-flopping back and forth.

We see it in the U.K. We see it in Canada. We see it in the U.S.

This committee has the wonderful opportunity of making recommendations to our Legislature on how we can change this. We can move to proportional representation. We could become the example that the rest of Canada could emulate.

I want to thank you for your time and the work you’re doing on this committee. It is important. Please give us strong leadership.

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

Are there any questions for Madelaine?

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

It’s unfortunate, what’s happening across the border. I would offer that I think our political system is significantly different than the Americans’. They have a two-party system that is generationally entrenched more than ours. I would offer that even with a two-party system in British Columbia, those parties have evolved over the last 25 years. They’re different now than they were then.

The dynamics of the United States political scene is totally different with the fact that they have unlimited money, unlimited resources. It’s all about power. So I can see how it’s significantly different. Unfortunately, like you said, in such a short period of time, people were more adversarial than being able to sit down over a cup of coffee or a beer to discuss things.

But one of the things that I wanted to ask your point on when it comes to your take on minority governments making good decisions, I would offer up that the federal government in the last ten years has made some very poor fiscal choices. That is a direct result of a minority government in power. When you look at the federal debt and how much it’s grown in the last ten years, I would suggest that is a direct correlation because we’ve had basically minority government coalitions.

Would you have any offer or comment on that?

Madelaine Hicks: Well, I do. I want to be respectful of everyone’s opinions, because we all have different opinions, and that’s important. But I believe a lot of our billowing debt — and I was a chartered accountant, so I do understand numbers — had far more to do with COVID and things that we had to do during that time period than whether we had a minority government or whether we had a majority government.

I think if you’re looking at that as an example, you have to look at the context in which that example occurred.

I believe minority governments make better decisions because they are representative of the population, and all of the policies at the table are there and are being heard.

When you’ve got a majority government, it’s far too easy for them to force through whatever policy they believe is right without being respectful of the other decisions.

[10:30 a.m.]

You look at our minority decisions that have been made. We got universal health care. We are all very proud of our universal health care. We would not have gotten it if we hadn’t had a minority government in 1966.

I believe dental care is important for the health care of our population. We now have at least a start towards dental care. That, again, only came in because we had a minority government, and it was forced, by getting that in.

Those are my examples, and I just believe that there are many others you can go for around the world. I’m not an expert. I’m just a citizen here who says: I’ve watched this. I’ve followed it through our three referendums in B.C. I’ve seen all the problems with referendums and how the questions can make everything difficult. I just don’t believe it works.

When you look around the world at all the ways they’ve brought it in, New Zealand and Switzerland are the only two countries that were able to do it by referendum, and Switzerland was way back in the early 1900s. New Zealand seems to be an anomaly. Every other country that’s had the leadership, that’s had the political crises going on in their country, just like we have now — they have had the strong leadership of their parties at the table to make the change.

It often happens when the governments are in minority or close majority situations, just as we have in B.C. now, and just as we have in Canada. So it’s our opportunity to get that leadership, to get the changes that we need. I believe that what has happened in the U.S. — we’re following it.

Think of our Freedom Convoy. Think of the split we had over vaxxing and anti-vaxxing, and how divisive we became. I think it was very, very easy to follow the U.S. They have such a strong influence on our small country. They’re such a bigger country. What we see there is like the canary in the mine. If we don’t act on what we see happening, we’re all going to be like the canary in the mine. Personally, I don’t want to be there.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. My question has been answered.

Amna Shah: Thank you, Madelaine, for your presentation. You’re so articulate on some of your points. I want to ask you — a hypothetical situation: under a proportional representation system, do you think it’s possible that there could be an increase in polarization, as a result of extreme groups on either end of a political spectrum?

I mean, you don’t have to give me a straight answer on whether that’s possible or not. I think we all know that anything is possible, and there is no system that is perfect or bulletproof — just your thoughts on that.

Madelaine Hicks: Well, I think the best answer I can give you to that is: we need experts. I was a taxation expert, and I certainly didn’t expect the other population to understand when I started babbling on about the Income Tax Act. You know, it’s this thick. I think the same goes when you’re talking about forms of proportional representation. I’ve tried to educate myself, I’ve tried to do a lot of reading, but there are a lot of them out there. They’re complicated. There are many different ways.

There are countries that I think we can emulate. I’ve always said if I could not live in the province of B.C. — which, I think, is the best place in the world — my second choice would be New Zealand. I’ve been there twice, I’ve spent a lot of time there, and I love it. They use a form of proportional representation. There are good examples we can look to around the world. The experts can educate you on what would be the best system.

There are systems that don’t work so well. I believe Ward mentioned the Israel experience and how people often bring up Israel as a bad example. Or maybe it was Jessie saying it; forgive me if I’ve got it wrong.

The reality is that there are good proportional representation systems and there are bad proportional representation systems. We need the experts to guide us into ones that will keep us from getting into 15 or 20 parties and all the diverse things.

It’s way more difficult, from my understanding, for one person to take control and run in a proportional representation system than it is in a two-party system, and we’ve had a wonderful example, across the border, of what can happen if one person can take control of a party and run with it. That’s not what we want.

[10:35 a.m.]

Again, in those types of systems, you’re getting people elected with less than 50 percent of the popular vote, so then you don’t have the representation. I think proportional representation can address so many of the issues. It’s why I’m so passionate about it. It’s there. We’ve been studying it for 20 years. Everything I read tells me it’s the best way to go.

I just don’t understand why we don’t have the will, and I believe it’s leadership. It goes back to — somebody mentioned here about — “Why would I support this if I’m not going to get elected?” Well, that isn’t leadership. You are not here to get elected. You are here to lead our country, lead our provinces and make decisions that are the best for the population as a whole, whether or not you get elected. That’s what strong leadership is all about.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Wonderful. That’s the last of our questions. Thank you so much, Madelaine, for your presentation and for engaging with us this morning.

Next, we have Ladi Bil.

Ladi Bil: I forgot my own presentation.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): It’s okay. We have copies. No worries. We just want to hear from you and hear your thoughts on this process and ask any questions that we have once you’re done. Go ahead whenever you’re ready.

Ladi Bil

Ladi Bil: If I do seem nervous, it’s because I very much am. Besides, I guess, the presentation nervousness, I’m just nervous in the sense of, like, you guys are very cool. I’m a political science major, and I eventually want to be sitting in your guys’ position, so I’m kind of just fangirling internally right now.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): We don’t get that often, so thank you.

Ladi Bil: To the hon. Chair and esteemed members of the committee, I very much thank you guys for the privilege to be able to address my concerns with you today.

My name is Ladi Bil, and I’m a political science and anthropology undergraduate at Okanagan College with extensive governance experience through my current role as a vice-president external of the OC Pride Club on campus and membership in the institution’s equity, diversity, inclusion and social justice anti-racism working group.

As founding president of Okanagan College’s African Caribbean Students Association and a community volunteer with nearly ten years of experience, I’ve developed particular insights into systemic participation barriers. For context, I’ve been volunteering in the community since I was 12 years old, so I’ve really had a lot of experience when working with kids and just working with different demographics, if that makes sense.

My submission today will examine disenfranchisement of the marginalized in the Okanagan region and propose actionable policy interventions to enhance electoral engagement among these critical demographics.

This intro to mind, my introduction would be the problem of democratic disengagement in the Okanagan. The federal and provincial and electoral boundaries in the Okanagan, I think, play a big role in voter apathy.

My doctor is the main doctor for Big White, and he told me himself that Big White is zoned with the Kootenays instead of Kelowna, and why he expressed disdain for that, essentially…. Sorry, my brain blanked due to nervousness. But essentially, what he was saying was: “We’re obviously going to feel left out and unheard because we don’t have any high schools, we have to bus all the way out to Kelowna, and it’s very reliant on Kelowna.”

[10:40 a.m.]

So, again, a lot of my confusion is: why aren’t they zoned with us? They go back and forth in between, busing students out. It’s like two hours there, two hours back every day. In the event that they can afford to, a lot of families from there move into town.

That’s just one example, probably the biggest one that I’ve noticed. I haven’t lived in Kelowna for very long, but it’s probably one of the biggest issues that I’ve noticed in terms of voter apathy. If voter apathy is major, it’s probably the most major in Big White, to be honest.

As a result of the voter apathy, it’s quite literally because they’re not really being heard or seen. I firmly believe that to be represented is to be empowered, and to be empowered is to be enlightened. When you feel like you are being heard, you’ll have the opportunity. When you get the opportunity to be heard, you’re more likely, obviously, to use your voice and be open to make change and be open to start.

In terms of when it comes to provincial governments and federal governments, I think what a lot of what people do not understand is that they can’t expect all of you guys to know everything. You guys obviously know a lot, but you guys are all from different backgrounds and different world views. I think, obviously, the people that you’re representing also have to meet you in the middle.

Instead of just coming up with solutions, maybe tell us what the problems are. Maybe get us in contact or get you guys in contact with certain advocacy groups and certain labour unions that are aligning with your goals and really actually trying to solve the problem, instead of just saying: “We have a problem; you guys fix it.” It’s a very black-and-white thinking, in that sense.

I kind of think it’s a bit nonsensical in the sense that, again, you guys aren’t…. I don’t think it should just be on you guys to be doing everything for the communities that you’re representing. The community should be meeting you guys in the middle. Again, it’s just all solutions, but you’re not giving us any steps to figure out the problems.

When it comes to making a major change, a lot of people see that that’s a lot, and that’s a big task. I think the issue is we don’t have to immediately create the big change. I think if you start small — and the smallest where you can start is within your communities.

That goes into my second point. Education is probably the biggest thing when it comes to voter apathy. If you’re not being heard and you’re not being listened to, you’re not going to engage in anything, like, relating to the democratic engagement system, if that makes sense.

One group is specifically the youth. I’m turning 21 in September. I’ve been expressing this since high school, and I’ve seen my peers express this for years. My younger sibling is two years younger than me and also attends the university. This is his peers and himself that are saying all the same things. “We don’t feel heard, and we don’t feel listened to.” As a result, it’s like: “Why are we going to do anything, or why do we want to do anything if nobody’s going to take us seriously anyway?”

I think a way that you guys can meet maybe us and other groups that feel like that in the middle is working with other community advocacy groups, like labour unions, tenant groups, in terms of creating community-based teach-ins and workshops. I think free, accessible community workshops, with snacks and child support and a little daycare and whatnot, creating….

A lot of people, typically, aren’t going to be going to town hall meetings and those kinds of events. Why not create a town hall meeting that, again, is accessible to everyone? There’s an area for child care. There’s an area to properly engage with our MLAs and our city members and our council members, just meeting you guys in the middle. That’s the biggest thing that I’ve noticed with everybody that has the complaints with you guys. They’re not meeting you guys in the middle. How are you supposed to solve things when they’re not giving you: “This is a problem.” “Okay. You’re not giving me every aspect of the problem.”

When it comes to running a country or running a province, it’s very nuanced and very complex. The lack of education plays a big part in terms of social sciences and whatnot, which plays a big part in that voter apathy and the way that they’re, I guess, responding to you guys in terms of finding the problems.

There are multiple organizations in the city where people can even partner with these teach-ins. I’m honestly thinking about starting some teach-ins as well. The city libraries. The Westbank First Nation. Student groups. We have Raise the Bar, which did the federal campaign in town for the election. There’s Leadnow, which I’m a part of, which is, I think, a Canada-wide advocacy group that has different chapters in each city and province. We also have the radical humanist association in town.

[10:45 a.m.]

We have the OCCA, which is an organization, a non-profit specifically to help newcoming founding immigrants, kind of getting them settled and immersed in the community and having access to the things that will help them be immersed and get themselves off the ground, because it’s not easy coming from a whole new place.

I was born and raised in Canada, and I recognize the privilege and the blessing. My family comes from Sudan, and they came in 2000. Again, all they came with was what they had — their clothes, their documents and whatever degree that they had, whatever high school diploma. My family members went back to school. They had to restart and build their life up from nothing.

One thing that they really noted about Vancouver was how welcoming and accessible the community was, and the lot of them have only good things to say about Vancouver. We don’t all live all over in Vancouver now anymore. Everybody has obviously had their own kids and gotten married and kind of split apart. But Vancouver just having those accessible supports and being able to access like workshops when it’s coming to maybe learning and getting your English better, workshops on how to get into Canadian colleges, workshops for getting into your citizenship and learning about Canadian history and whatnot.

Another thing in terms of expanding access to civic resources is getting people access to library cards. Now you have access to books if you want to expand your knowledge. I think it’s Stephen King that said books are a unique source of magic in the sense that there’s a lot of information that you can learn. That’s probably the most accessible thing that you can get, a book.

And then digital outreach. Social media is really, really big with my age group, and I think just really big in general. I think, again, another way to meet people in the middle is maybe creating a youth council and having a youth council maybe representing you guys and working together to create different digital media outreach, and even infographics, easy-to-digest infographics. I think when it comes to explaining complex things like this, I do not think we need to use big and complex words. I think you can summarize things and make them more easy to digest.

Then multilingual materials, as well, for immigrant communities, because this is a very diverse city, and that only is continuing to boom.

Then in terms of electoral reform, first-past-the-post has always been a problem for me. I’ve never not, I don’t think, had a problem with first-past-the-post. That being, it doesn’t reflect the voter intent in diverse regions like the Okanagan.

Again, Kelowna and the other cities are rapidly booming fast, and it’s not even just because a bunch of international students are coming here. A lot of immigrant families from all over the world are saying, wait, this is a really big city that’s booming with diversity and a very welcoming community. At least, coming here for me, I automatically had community, and I have that blessing. But that’s obviously not the same thing for every single person, depending on where they’re coming from.

I had solutions to explore would be: the mixed-member proportional electoral system, which combines local reps with party list proportionality, and single transferable vote. I think, if I’m not mistaken, the single transferable vote and the mixed-member proportional are pretty successful in Ireland. Then the rural-urban proportional kind of vote and tailoring systems for different community densities.

I think where the biggest youth disenfranchisement that you’ll see is in our rural communities, because if they’re not being able to access the things like in a big city, like buses and things like that, they’re just like: “Who cares what happens to us. It’s all the big cities that will get the support and get to be heard, and we’re just on the sidelines.” That’s, essentially, how a lot of them feel; they’re being sidelined. Because, again, it’s just inaccessibility to education and resources.

My recommendation, I guess, in this sense for this one is the youth-centric testing, kind of piloting and starting the single transferable vote in Kelowna. We have a lot of youth, between 18 and 24, 25, because again, it’s a university city with both the university and the college. I also think this is pretty essential, creating a youth electoral reform task force. So again, having youth representatives that you guys are always consistently in contact with, and I think that should be at least in every city or in every constituency, if that makes sense, like having an electoral council for each constituency.

[10:50 a.m.]

I think one major thing is really important. We are only as strong as our most vulnerable, and we have to take care of our most vulnerable, that being our Indigenous populations. I think reserving seats with the mixed-member proportional…. It helps reserve seats for Indigenous rep, like including more Indigenous voices into the conversation, because this is where they come from. They’re kind of the reason we’re all being able to access things like health care and media, because they’ve taken care of the land and the country for a very, very long time. Them taking care of the country, I think, really needs to be more praised and given more thanks, if that makes sense, because that’s something I definitely see a lot of a lack of.

In terms of education, just starting workshops. Maybe it’s small, starting them at the university first and then moving them towards the high schools.

In terms of the last election, which was…. Yeah, I was reading the report. What I had mentioned was that the CEO’s report on the last provincial election reveals troubling systemic gaps, very troubling, particularly in a couple of areas that impacted voter access and confidence. The uncounted and unreported ballots — 861 ballots were missed in the Prince George–Mackenzie constituency. When we recounted the ballots…. It was like: “We’ve counted them once, we’ve counted them twice, and we’re still missing ballots.” That’s deeply worrying. And then we had 11 unreported tabulator tapes, affecting 69 districts.

Oh, I can still go? Okay. I talk a lot, so I might go over five minutes a little bit.

Then, honestly, another thing that was really worrying for me that I noticed and was in the report were the atmospheric river disruptions. There were a lot of weather outages and power outages on the final voting day, and roads were being closed.

That was in the district of the North Vancouver area, and they were actually under a local state of emergency due to the weather and, I think, things like the fear of floods and whatnot. And then multiple people, even electoral officials and voters, were not being able to reach the polls, so it was a lot of people that were still not able to vote that day.

In terms of the disinformation….

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Sorry. I’m just going to step in. This portion of our mandate is only about the voter engagement and democratic reform. The second part is about the actual election, so you’ll have a chance to do submissions on that portion. If you have anything further on democratic engagement or electoral reform, please feel free to chat about that.

Ladi Bil: I think, in terms of that, this was my last…. The election thing — I think this is my last part and then kind of going into, I guess, my conclusion then.

Before concluding, I really want to emphasize a fundamental principle from what I said earlier. Our democracy is only as strong as our most vulnerable. When students can’t vote because they lack proper ID, when Indigenous communities face mail delays that silence their ballots or when flood-displaced voters lose access, these are not all isolated issues. They’re representative of an ongoing systemic failure and the degradation of trust of all the citizens and our faith in the system, if that makes sense.

Democracy isn’t just about voting; it’s about being seen. When people understand and know that their voice matters and that they will be heard, they will show up. Because if they’re not…. I guess, honestly, it’s like the first person throws a stone kind of thing, if that makes sense. I think we need to ensure every voice, between workers and students and Indigenous populations, is heard. They have, again, a real stake in our democracy. And honestly, we contribute a lot to making our communities more well rounded.

That’s it for that one.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation and for bringing such a wide range of perspectives to this group. There’s nothing to be nervous about.

Ladi Bil: Thank you. I appreciate that.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I actually have a question for you. You spoke about racialized communities and newcomers. I think that’s a conversation we haven’t really gotten deeply into, because in a lot of the consultations we’ve done, we haven’t had very much racialized participation yet. It might happen through written submissions, but that’s something, myself, that I’m concerned about, because that’s a large portion of our population of our province, and they’re missing from the conversation.

So not to, say, provide the whole perspective, but I’d love to hear more thoughts about how you think we can engage those communities for voter engagement, for democratic reform and just even in how we do this kind of consultation.

[10:55 a.m.]

Ladi Bil: I think that in terms of racialized communities, having more culturally informed and culturally sensitive teach-ins, if that makes sense, meeting the communities in the middle, maybe creating a task force that specifically is representative of, again, our racialized communities….

I also think…. A lot of our racialized communities have non-profits. We have the Africans in Okanagan that I also volunteer with, the OCCA. I think we have…. If I can remember off the top of my head, I might mention it in a second. Those are two non-profits, I think, and other organizations, in terms of our racialized community, that I think honestly collaborating with and being able to talk to….

I think also just going out in the community as well and talking to these groups. These groups often have a lot of get-togethers. For example, in August there’s going to be the Afro-Caribbean festival, because we have a large Caribbean population. I think that the vast majority of our Black-presenting population are people from the Caribbean, and that’s one event. We have the Africans in Okanagan that often hold meetings and get-togethers and kind of networking events, so maybe connecting with them on that kind of event or galas that they present.

And then student clubs as well. I stepped down after being the president of the African Caribbean Students Association for two years, but at the university, their club and ours would always collaborate on events. Again, we’re serving a bigger population, because now it’s both OC and UBCO students.

I think connecting with those kinds of clubs, connecting with the Political Science Student Association at the university, connecting with, again, all the clubs, essentially, that are created to…. We’re trying to represent ourselves. We have a Punjabi-based club at the college and at the university. We have practically…. There’s the Asian Student Association, the Southeast Asian Club. There’s the Pakistan Student Association. There’s a Muslim student association at both schools as well.

Kind of connecting with us first. Again, we’ll definitely be able and very much willing to talk to you, because a good amount obviously are not from here and are international students. But there are people from these groups like myself that were born and raised here who, again, would be very much willing. We do contribute so much to B.C. and making B.C. a more well-rounded province already.

I think touching base and just starting small in the communities is a really good stepping stone.

Amna Shah: Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple of questions for you. When you were in high school, were you offered any social studies or civics classes that included content about government systems or what is an MLA, what is an MP, what are the three levels of government, and how do you find your local MLA? Did you have any of those classes, or did your siblings have any of those classes?

Ladi Bil: Me and my siblings went to school in Alberta. We were raised in the Lower Mainland. Our family later moved to Alberta, and then two of us came back because we just like B.C. a lot better.

In terms of education, absolutely not, and it’s genuinely so deeply concerning. The only time…. We were in the Catholic school system until both me and my brother graduated high school. We went to the public school after that. At least for us, we were taught about the government systems — judicial, federal, all that — only in grade 9, and they do not expand on it in AP social, because my friends were in that. I was about to take that and regular dash-1 social, because that’s kind of how they do the streams.

I took all the higher-up streams, and I never was an AP student. They do not, unfortunately. They just stop at grade 9. I don’t know about the public middle schools, where they stop in that curriculum, because our curricula are different. But at least when I lived in Alberta, no.

As well as my friends here who’ve graduated high school and were raised here…. They had the option to take a class, but not every high school offered a class like civics, if that makes sense.

So a lot of people do not know how our government works. It’s an astounding amount of people born and raised here and not born here that do not know what our government even handles. A lot of people are screaming about taxes and health care and screaming at the federal government when certain things are under the provincial government and certain things are under the municipal government, if that makes sense.

So yeah, the school systems are not our friend in terms of educating us on the government, honestly.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for your presentation. A couple of things. Right off the bat, when you talked about Big White…. Unfortunately or fortunately, every two elections we have a mandatory boundary review in this province.

[11:00 a.m.]

I can offer up that there are times when local concerns are not addressed. When those boundary changes have occurred in my riding…. It used to be Kamloops–North Thompson and Kamloops–South Thompson, which made perfect sense when you look at the demographics of the area, the geography of the area. To turn around and totally change the dynamics, even how an MLA is supposed to be able to go to all the different communities and all the different First Nations and regional districts, just because they arbitrarily decided to change the boundaries for whatever reason.

You have an example of Big White where there is no school, the kids are being transported back and forth to Kelowna. I could just imagine how I would feel if Sun Peaks was not in my riding, and the kids were being bused to Kamloops and Rayleigh and they were in, maybe, Salmon Arm riding. I totally get that. We will have opportunities with Elections B.C. going forward where we can bring those concerns. I’m sure there will be other concerns as well.

My question to you. You were talking about immigrant services and having those opportunities for workshops and possibly even modifying town hall meetings where there could be opportunities for daycare and things like that so that more people would be able to attend. What are the challenges going to be when you have so many diverse areas of the world, people coming to this country, multiple language barriers, multiple ethnic groups?

How are we supposed to be able to individually go out into these communities and be able to help, effectively educate, people? I thought that our social services and immigrant services are designed to be able to help do that. Are you saying that there are shortfalls in the educational portion of those services, where they’re not able to provide information and guidance when it comes to elections, when it comes to services, when it comes to library cards? Are you saying that those services are inadequate?

Ladi Bil: Well, I think they can be pushed more, and I do think not completely inadequate, but I think they could do some tweaks and changes that make sense. Because they’re good, they’re obviously good, but things can obviously be better in terms of going out in these racialized communities.

A lot of these racialized communities also all intermingle and talk with each other. A lot of us have similar shared languages like English or Arabic. Those are probably the two that a lot of us from different communities speak. I also speak Arabic as well, and I’m able to connect to my Libyan friends, my Egyptian friends, my Assyrian friends, just based on that. English is a lot more well-spoken within our communities, I think, than people like to realize.

We are already intermingling with each other. I think going out in the community and maybe going to an event and seeing how we interact and conduct ourselves amongst one another would be a really good way to honestly start just seeing what you’re getting into and dipping your toes into the water before getting into the deep end, if that makes sense.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Ladi, for joining us this morning and for answering our questions.

We are going to take a short break now until 11:20.

The committee recessed from 11:03 a.m. to 11:27 a.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay, we’re going to get started again this morning. Our next presenter is Freyja Lange. Come on up. Good morning, Freyja.

Freyja Lange: How are you?

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Good, thank you. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Just a reminder that you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions after.

Freyja Lange

Freyja Lange: Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Freyja Lange and my pronouns are she/her. While I’m speaking, I ask that everyone listening remember that this hearing is taking place on traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Syilx people of the Okanagan Nation. As an uninvited guest on these lands, I believe that democratic reform must be a part of reconciliation.

Making our voting system more representative is one small step toward addressing the deep, ongoing harms of colonialism and ensuring that the voices of Indigenous peoples and all those historically excluded are not just heard but centred.

I’ve chosen to speak not in generalities but directly to each of you, because this isn’t an abstract issue. It’s personal. Political disconnection is real, and it is corrosive.

Amna Shah, as someone who’s championed housing and mental health supports, as well as food security, in Surrey City Centre, you know how vital and inclusive decision-making is to community well-being. A proportional system is one that listens before legislating, one that includes rather than erases.

Sheldon Clare, your deep involvement in Prince George’s community institutions, from the legion to the College of New Caledonia, shows how much you value grassroots connection. What happens when people at the grass roots stop feeling heard? Democracy works best when people believe their participation means something.

Jessie Sunner, your work in anti-racism and policing oversight shows a commitment to equity. I share those values, but equity cannot grow in a system that silences so many voices. Proportional representation isn’t just a technical tweak; it’s a justice issue.

Ward Stamer, as a former mayor with deep roots in forestry and rural governance, you know how often people outside of big cities feel ignored. Proportional representation could give regions like yours a stronger, more consistent voice, not just when the political winds are right.

[11:30 a.m.]

Rob Botterell, as the only Green on this committee, I imagine you’ll understand, more than most, how hard it is for smaller parties and their supporters to feel heard.

Proportional representation reflects who we truly are. It affirms that no vote is wasted, that diversity is strength. I’ve lived in B.C. my entire life, and I’ve never once been represented by an MLA whose values align with mine. Some people live their entire lives under governments that do not reflect their voices at all. I hope to not be one of those people. This isn’t democracy. That’s exclusion made official.

I’ve spoken to people from around the province, many of them front-line workers and community members. One person I spoke with, C, told me: “Every federal and provincial election prior to 2025, my vote was utterly wasted — even when I voted strategically, even when parties aligned with my values got more votes in total than the winner. I’ve mostly given up on representative democracy. I vote out of a foolish sense of duty, not because I think it does anything.”

She added: “At this point, I see voting as harm reduction. I just try to keep the slightly more racist, slightly more transphobic, slightly more authoritarian candidates out of office.”

Let that sink in. We have citizens who still vote but only out of fear.

Another person I spoke with, a mother of three, told me that someone close to her called her vote for the Greens “a waste.” That’s what first-past-the-post teaches us — that some voices don’t matter, that participating is pointless, that hope is naive.

This isn’t about choosing which proportional system is perfect. I’ll support any of them, and I know many others will too. But we do not need another referendum. We’ve already voted three times. We’ve had the conversations. The case has been made. We need political leadership, not delay.

We also don’t need a ranked ballot that delivers more of the same. A winner-take-all ranked system is just first-past-the-post with better branding. We need parties to sit down, negotiate in good faith and implement a system that works before the next election.

I want to see all parties working together, not to protect their seats but to protect our democracy. That’s what leadership looks like.

This committee has a choice: preserve the status quo or restore peoples’ trust. I urge you: don’t leave this moment untouched. Let’s build a system where no one has to vote just to keep the worst out, a system where people feel heard before they burn out. Thank you.

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

Are there any questions?

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

My question to you is: is there a particular form of PR that you believe would be most suited for B.C. when you look at other jurisdictions? One of the main ones that we keep hearing a lot about is Scotland because we have similar geographics where we have larger communities, smaller communities — those kinds of things. Do you have a preference in mind?

Freyja Lange: Thank you for the question, Ward. I believe that any form of proportional representation is a vast improvement over first-past-the-post. I trust this committee to talk to the experts and to look at the evidence that we’ve already gathered over the past few decades to figure that out for this province.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Awesome. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Any other questions?

Rob Botterell: Thanks for your presentation.

A presenter a couple days ago said that the proportional representation systems in Europe are not transferable to B.C. because we don’t have a culture that’s suitable for pro rep. What would be your views on that?

Freyja Lange: At the end of the day, I don’t believe that our cultural differences should impact how much each of our voices count. As I would reiterate, as I said to Ward, I trust this committee to talk to experts and develop a system that would work well for B.C.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your presentation.

[11:35 a.m.]

I wondered if you had considered any aspect of a bicameral system rather than the unicameral system that exists in B.C. at present.

Freyja Lange: I am not familiar with it. Can you please…? Sorry.

Sheldon Clare: I’m sorry. The bicameral system is where you have an Upper House as well as a Lower House, with the Upper House purportedly having the role of regional representation. In the federal system, this has been used to provide minority representation as well as regional representation. There’s a lot of criticism about that and how well it’s doing at both of those roles.

Have you considered any aspect of having an Upper House, for example, in British Columbia to provide additional representation, while maintaining the Westminster-style parliamentary system — constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system — that we currently have in B.C.?

Freyja Lange: I believe that if all representatives, either in a unicameral or bicameral system, are voted in under proportional representation, then the people’s voices will be heard.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay, I don’t see any further questions.

Thank you so much, Freyja, for joining us this morning and taking your time to be here.

Freyja Lange: Thank you. Have a wonderful day, everyone.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): You as well.

Next up we have William Stocks.

William Stocks: Good morning.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Good morning, William, and thank you for joining us. Just a reminder, you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions. You can get started when you’re ready.

William Stocks

William Stocks: My wife and I lived in New Zealand for three years, and what we saw of their electoral system was a lightbulb moment, which made us rethink what an electoral system could or should be. When we returned to B.C., we realized that our first-past-the-post system did not work to present our ideas, our voice.

We were building a sailboat in Auckland, and we were in an old boatyard when an election was called. My fellow boatbuilders were fairly excited about the upcoming election, more so than they were back in B.C., I think. It looked like everyone was going to vote.

Off and on throughout the day, they kept talking about their two votes. Should they vote for the incumbent in the first-past-the-post? The first vote was for an electoral candidate. Had Labour been in too long and so on — conversation you would have heard in Canada. But the second vote, for my Kiwi boatbuilders and friends, concerned them the most because they were interested in the party list — who was on the list, where they lived, what they did for a living and so on.

The list seemed to represent a fair sample of New Zealand society. They were shopkeepers, farmers, housewives — we kept looking for boatbuilders, but we never did find any — and men and women of different ages and education levels. With the second vote, what was valued especially, by the people that I was working with, was they were able to vote for another party or another person, and their two votes did not have to be consistent.

List candidates were considered to be more sincere and upfront than the professional politicians, real estate agents and lawyers often competing in the electoral candidate vote. Before Jacinda Ardern became a two-term Prime Minister, she was twice elected as a list candidate after having lost as an electoral candidate. So it was quite a flexible system, I think.

I asked the Kiwis if having two votes was not confusing. They said no, that after the first election, it was obvious how it worked. In my submission, I gave a ballot that I believe I would have no problem completing. I just got this from the New Zealand electoral website. It seems not unduly complicated to me.

My friends saw no reason to go back to the first-past-the-post system. There were problems with MMP, but a 5 percent minimum percentage of a vote to qualify as a party kept the number of parties down. The Māori could either vote for one of their guaranteed seats or vote with the same general ballot, on which there was a Māori party they could vote for.

[11:40 a.m.]

Other problems like party hopping, who decides the list candidates and the order on the party list, which is a problem, seemed to have been worked out, and no one talked about it much.

When parliament was in session, the audio feed was broadcast over a loudspeaker system in the boatyard. Throughout the day, we listened off and on to the debates and speeches in parliament, and while they were often pretty boring, some were interesting, and some of their ideas were surprising.

This is a taste of what I would like to see more of in Canada — the inclusion of more authentic representatives offering varied ideas so more beliefs would get a hearing.

A couple of comments about changing an electoral system. Some might consider the New Zealand MMP system too complicated. Well, life is complicated. Understanding how to use a smartphone is pretty complicated, but everyone seems to do it. So please give people more credit for what they’re capable of understanding and their ability to change once they’re convinced that they will benefit from a better system.

Perhaps the incumbent MLAs may feel they will be dispossessed by the introduction of a new system. Well, among the boatyard workers, personal and party loyalty remained very much a factor in their decisions. And they liked, again, the flexibility of having two votes. You can split your choices of parties or individuals, and the boatyard workers had no problem with several parties working together, as this may give better solutions.

I think genuine representation is what we all want. By keeping first-past-the-post alive, I think our provincial system of democracy does not serve us well. If we choose a new system to replace first-past-the-post, I believe we should base this system upon a successful system already in operation in a somewhat similar country, like New Zealand. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, William.

Amna Shah: Thank you, William, for your presentation. I personally very much so agree with you that, in understanding the different types of systems that are available, some may claim that it’s complicated, but life is complicated, which is why we do the work to understand and learn.

But I will point out that previous presenters have indicated and referred to, actually, the previous referendum that was put forth in 2018. They mentioned that part of the reason why the referendum outcome was the way that it was, was because the question posed was far too complicated for the electorate to understand.

I’m wondering, from your thoughts, how we get around that. Is this a case for, simply, education and providing people information and the tools? Or is this something far more? Or do you think a referendum is not required and we should just do it? What are your thoughts on that?

William Stocks: I think if you have a referendum, there is such opposition from people who have a vested interest in maintaining the present system. People are attracted by this kind of opposition, which says: “Oh, it’s too complicated. Oh, we must keep things the way they are.” So I think the only viable way of actually doing this is to do it.

Now, as was suggested previously, perhaps in a few years or after a few elections, have a referendum then, when people can understand it. In New Zealand, I did ask them this about it being so complicated. How could they understand what was going on? Because it was a rapid and drastic change.

They said that, well, someone tried to tell them how to do it, and they really didn’t understand it terribly well, but it was happening anyway, and they tried to figure out how it went. They talked about it. They all decided what should be done, and they did it. Then when they did it, it turned out it wasn’t so bad — that it could be understood. They didn’t turn back. They weren’t worried about it anymore.

[11:45 a.m.]

So I think you have to do something and make a big break, while you’re at it, and not worry about people reacting. They’re going to be reacting and saying: “Oh dear, what if it doesn’t work out?”

I would do it, myself.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for your presentation. A couple of questions that come to mind….

One of the things that we’ve been struggling with a little bit is the communication side of things. We can argue that the previous referendums were not apolitical. There was a lot of misinformation. The thresholds were too high when you compare 60 percent versus 50 percent or only getting 40 percent of the vote in a regular election — those kinds of things.

The other concern that we seem to have — that is brought up maybe more from our side than some of the public — is the miscommunication, the disinformation on the social media that we have now, and the fact that it’s really a federal responsibility to try to rein in some of that stuff.

How would you propose we are able to inform or educate the public on these?

There were three options that were given to us from one of the speakers. It was one of the presentations. The first option was that, yes, we could have the responsibility and the legislative ability to make changes without the will of the public. We just agree that we’ve heard enough. Amongst ourselves, we end up petitioning the Legislature with our recommendations. The Legislature agrees, and the majority goes ahead, and the next election is what we’re going to do.

A second option is we do that same thing but only have it for one election. After that election occurs then there’s a ballot process or a referendum process or a mechanism to make sure that this is something that we want to repeat.

The third one is we don’t do anything at all. We don’t change anything. That was just one of the proposals.

In your mind, if we’re going to have issues when it comes to education, information, communication, what do you think would be the best line for us to be able to do that?

William Stocks: I’d take your second option. I’d wait for not one election but two elections, and I would…. I hate to say the word impose, because I think what you’re doing is improving. You are doing something that needs to be done. It takes a bit of courage to do that, but in the long run, it will be to the advantage of everybody, both the MLAs and the public. I just think it takes courage to do it. And you’re justified because there’s so much evidence that what we have now is not really working terribly well.

What are other countries doing? They’re in many cases able to have better long-term planning, are able to accomplish more.

Canada right now — and British Columbia — is in a very difficult position with changing tariffs, with having to re-adapt ourselves to a world. Well, I think this is an opportunity to have a new system that will be, I believe, better able to cope with these changes.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Appreciate that. Thank you. No, I do. I appreciate that.

Sheldon Clare: We’ve had speakers who have raised the spectre of the issues of things that could go wrong. Proportional representation isn’t new, and neither is a party list system. The 1919 constitution of the Weimar Republic, for example, used a proportional representation system with a party list, which was how the elections in 1933 were conducted in Germany. There was no party that had a majority. The government was determined by negotiation between a few of the parties that were there. The results of that are, I think, well known.

And so there are problems that can arise in a system when it has…. I think the German system had something like a dozen parties, maybe ten to a dozen. There were a number of coalitions that tried to be formed, in the context, of course, of the Treaty of Versailles and all of the difficult times of the 1920s: economic downturn, the Depression, a long period of drought.

There are risks associated with any of these kinds of changes. I just wonder if you had any comments about the party list system in that particular context.

[11:50 a.m.]

William Stocks: Well, you know, I think there are equal risks with staying with what you have. There’s plenty of evidence, because many countries in the world are — I hate to say repeating — certainly taking elements of what happened in 1935 and running with it.

There are risks in doing anything. Despite what happened in Germany, I think there are fewer risks with being bold, with saying, “We need a change,” because I think Canadians are quite capable of dealing with it.

I think ordinary people have very good ideas that are not being taken into account at the moment, and I think a new system of electoral representation would satisfy people and would make them less inclined to want to have a powerful leader to tell you what to do.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you. We have one final question from MLA Botterell.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. Earlier presentations today were made suggesting that the best path forward was to actually seek the advice of experts in electoral systems to draw the best from 150-plus pro rep systems around the world to develop a system suited to B.C., as opposed to maybe having folks who don’t have a lot of experience building the system.

I just wondered what your thought was on that. Would you see the path forward being to get expert advice on the best system for B.C.?

William Stocks: Oh, I think of course you would want to solicit the best advice, but I don’t think you necessarily have to follow it. I think we all have the capability of figuring out whether this is going to be okay or not, and I think people are sufficiently conservative that they won’t run off with some really strange, out-of-the-way idea. Of course, you should solicit advice — people who’ve studied this for years have done a very good job of it — but not to the extent that you ignore what ordinary people want.

Rob Botterell: Right, yeah. Just to amplify, my point is: certainly, we’ve heard concerns about Israel. We’ve heard concerns about the Weimar Republic. We’ve heard concerns about various pro rep systems around the world, and it struck me that getting that expert advice on the best way to minimize the risk of those outcomes is pretty important.

William Stocks: Yes, I would surely think so.

Can I give one more example? Again, in the boatyard, there was a debate on legalizing prostitution, and everyone sort of thought they’d listen to this debate. Well, at one point, one of the list candidates said, “I was a prostitute, and I’m going to tell you what it was like,” at which point she did. She detailed the degradation that it had involved. It was, I think, after her testimony that they could not vote in any other way but to legalize prostitution.

I think this is an example of someone who is a person with experience and who can relate that experience, rather than relying too much upon expert advice. The expert advice may have been exactly the same, you know, but I think you need that personal interjection.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Wonderful. Thank you so much, William, for sharing your time with us and your thoughts today. Thanks for joining us.

Next we have Rana Nelson.

Thank you so much for joining us, Rana. You’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

[11:55 a.m.]

Rana Nelson

Rana Nelson: Okay. I live in Revelstoke, which is the traditional territory of the Sinixt people. I have two stories about why I feel that electoral reform in some form of proportional representation would be beneficial for B.C. It’s my understanding that the goals and the purpose of this committee are to increase democratic engagement as well as voter participation.

My first story has to do with my run as a candidate for the Green Party in the 2021 federal election. When I was door-knocking and going to farmers markets and talking — I mean, you all know the process — many people would say to me — this was specifically Green but applies to all parties across the board, I feel: “I would vote for you, but I don’t want to split the vote. I don’t want to throw away my vote. I don’t want so-and-so to get in or so-and-so to get in.”

What I came to realize is that our current system does not allow many, many people to vote their values. In our recent election in the fall, in my riding, Columbia River–Revelstoke, Scott McInnis got in by 48 percent of the vote, and the rest of it was between NDP and Green. So that was pretty close — 48 percent for Scott and then 52 percent for Andrea Dunlop and Calvin Beauchesne, the two other candidates.

Just over half of the riding isn’t represented by what somebody would have otherwise wished. I know that MLAs, of course, are wanting to represent everybody in the riding. But it’s impossible to be all things to all people, which is another thing that I learned in my journey of running. To meet your goals, I feel, as others have said, we need that voice and we need more people feeling that their vote matters, that it actually makes a difference.

My second story is…. I am a relatively new teacher. I’ve been teaching for two years. I was an editor previously. With my students, we’ve participated in three student vote elections, where we do activities around elections, and then we participate in a vote in our classrooms.

They’re doing the electoral math and realizing that it doesn’t add up, as far as somebody came in with 30 percent of the vote. Well, then 70 percent of the people are actually not represented, depending how many parties you have. Just in learning sort of how our parliamentary system works, they have a lot of questions on this: “Well, that’s not fair. How come that can do this?” So then we talk about other forms of government, such as proportional representation.

Going back to my Green run, yes, certainly proportional representation would benefit parties that don’t get as much of the vote, but that’s not my point. My point is equity. As a teacher, that’s what we strive to achieve in our classes — that students have what they need to learn equally, that they can all benefit as much as possible from the educational system. That’s what I feel government should also be striving for, for the constituents and the citizens — that everybody has the resources and the opportunities to participate fully in our parliamentary system.

I don’t know enough about the different forms of PR to suggest one way or the other, but I do believe that it should not go to a referendum. When Trudeau first came in federally, one of the reasons I voted for him was because he said he would do away with first-past-the-post federally. When he did not, that’s what spurred me to say: “Okay, I’m going to run for office and see what I can do about this.”

Also, he sent out all the messaging about: “What are we going to do? What kind of form of proportional representation are we going to do?” I waded through it, and it was complicated. But I think, as previous people have said, that you get the panel, you do a citizens’ assembly, and the government then is mandated to implement those recommendations — and not as a referendum, even later on.

[12:00 p.m.]

These things are difficult and complicated, but it’s learning something new. As a teacher, we know that learning takes patience and time. That’s one of the First Nations principles of learning as well. We need to give ourselves that time to learn a new system and educate people on how it works, so that everybody feels that they matter.

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

Any questions?

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your presentation, Rana. You said something that kind of tweaked to remind me. I’ve been in education for about 37 years. I did five in the K-to-12 system and 32 post-secondary. It sounded like you were saying that equity and equality were the same thing for a moment there. Is that the case?

Rana Nelson: No, sorry. I’m not. I’m going for…. You know, have you seen the meme, I guess, where you have three kids trying to look at a baseball game?

Sheldon Clare: I’m familiar with this.

Rana Nelson: Yeah. And you’ve got — it’s a board fence — different heights, and so you give them different heights of boxes to look over. But the actual thing that will help everybody is to make it a wire fence, so that they can see through it.

Sheldon Clare: Or you give the more vertically challenged student the higher box to stand on.

Rana Nelson: Yeah, you could do that as well.

Sheldon Clare: Or give them two boxes and everybody else….

Rana Nelson: Then everybody has the same size. That’s equal. Yeah, that’s equal, and then the three…. But you wouldn’t even need boxes if you change the fence.

Sheldon Clare: That’s equity, because you give the resources as needed, rather than giving everyone the same resource.

Rana Nelson: You’re right. I confused that, and I think people do also.

Sheldon Clare: I just wanted to make sure that you weren’t….

Rana Nelson: Thank you. As an editor, I appreciate the clarity.

Sheldon Clare: We Clares like clarity.

Rob Botterell: Great. Thank you for your presentation. I just want to ask a question that comes up from other presentations over the last few days and given your background in teaching. What’s your view on reducing the voting age to 16?

Rana Nelson: Well, this is a question that I sent my students after the election this spring — what they thought about this. Many of them said: “No, you know, as a student, I don’t know enough about the system,” or “I think I would just vote as my parents do.”

Many of them also said: “Well, actually, yes, I think you should, because it’s our future. You know, we are making these decisions that are going to affect our future, and so we are stuck with what people 18 and up can do with us, and then we have to live with the consequences.”

The other argument against lowering it was: “Well, if I don’t know enough….” The opposing side was: “Well, lots of adults don’t know enough about it, and not everybody votes anyway.”

I think that kids are more engaged now, especially in schools. I actually think it would be…. I don’t like to mandate things, but if we were all encouraged to do more education around voting, I think kids do have the capacity. You know, we see from Greta Thunberg and the Fridays for Future, they are engaged, and they want to have a say. If you give them that option, I don’t think they’re going to make any worse decisions than some adults do.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): We talked about youth engagement, and you look at the numbers. We’ve heard criticism that the numbers are going down, when in actuality the numbers are going up. It’s kind of flatlining from 65 plus, but in the last couple of elections, we’re actually seeing a positive trend.

My question to you. Let’s just say that we did change the dynamics and that we had some form of proportional voting or representation. Would the expectation, to you, be that we should have a greater voter turnout than what we have now?

If that’s one of the criticisms: that there’s people that are not voting because they are disenfranchised or they don’t want to vote against something, and there’s still that huge segment of the population — even though this election over last election, we grew 5 percent, which is significant — would you argue, if we don’t get that bump in voter participation, that the only two reasons are either (a) the voters are uneducated, or they’re confused on what we’re actually doing, or (b) there really isn’t that desire to change?

[12:05 p.m.]

Rana Nelson: I think you can’t come to that conclusion from the results of one election. There are lots of reasons people vote or don’t vote, but what I heard door-knocking and just in conversations, as I’ve kept up my interest in politics, is that disengagement when you just feel: “Why should I bother? It doesn’t matter anyway.”

I think proportional representation, after people get the hang of it, will result in increased voter engagement, but I wouldn’t put that as a barrier: “Oh, we’re going to scrap this if it doesn’t.” I would say: “Don’t put the barriers in place. Make the decision of what consultation we’re going to use, and then go for it.” Some 153 out of 193 countries in the world use some form of PR. My numbers may be a bit off, but it’s the vast majority. There are two indices as well that nine out of ten top-performing, good-citizen outcomes use PR.

It isn’t necessarily that that is the reason that PR is why. I think that taking the advice of others around the world and giving it time to find out the outcomes is the way to go. We know that government can move slowly, so just saying, “One election, and oh no, that’s too bad….”

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Can I ask you something? One of the reasons I’m asking that question, too, is that when you look at our previous election, regardless of whether people are actually voting against somebody or not voting or whatever, only 36 MLAs were elected with under 50 percent of that total vote. That’s still a significant number of MLAs that were getting more than 50 percent of the vote in their respective ridings.

Rana Nelson: But why are we using 50 percent as the benchmark?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): When you look at the numbers, the percentage of voters that are actually participating, that is still a significant number because if you extrapolate over the whole thing, it’s more than that percentage. If you get 50 percent of the vote, it’s 50 percent of the voters that actually voted. If you take the other voters that didn’t vote and take the same percentages, it can actually rise. It can actually be a higher percentage of the total voters if they would have voted.

You can manipulate the numbers any way you want, but when you get 50 percent in our system, those are a lot of numbers. That’s why when you look at the threshold of a referendum of 60, that’s almost unattainable. That number is almost unattainable unless every single person votes, because you know that that’s not going to happen.

My question to you…. My statement was that more than half — almost three-quarters of the MLAs, two-thirds — of the MLAs that were elected had more than a 50 percent threshold, with at least, pretty much, three candidates in their riding. Do you think that just by having proportional representation it’s going to change the dynamics and that you’re still going to have the vast majority of the MLAs elected by the vast majority of the people?

Rana Nelson: I don’t know that I feel comfortable predicting that. I feel that, with some limitations, the more voices we have at the table, the more likely people will participate in other ways democratically, even if they’re not coming out specifically to vote. Perhaps they’re getting involved on a local level. Perhaps they’re supporting a candidate in other ways. I think we want engagement in our system to maintain or improve the amazing benefits we have in this country, especially when we look around the world today.

I don’t think that saying “This will happen” or “That will happen” is helpful. I think we want to aim for what the best system is for the greatest amount of people. I feel people having more voice will make me feel: “Oh, well, I’m engaged.” I know in the classroom when kids say: “This doesn’t apply to me. I’m checked out.” The more you can connect with people — to give them a reason to say why this is relevant, why our politics, why to get involved in the democratic system in my country, in my province, in my town, my regional district — that is going to make the difference.

[12:10 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. I just wondered if we could carry on that discussion a bit further. Certainly, there are a variety of reasons advanced by presenters for moving to proportional representation. Increased voter participation is one.

In your experience in your riding or in your experience in running, is there something intrinsically valuable about voters being able to vote for who they want? Whether the level of voter participation increases or not, is there a benefit, in your view, to voters in the riding no longer having to vote strategically?

Rana Nelson: Yes, absolutely. That phrase “strategic voting” is, I feel…. Again, going back to: vote your values. I have voted in the past strategically, and it backfired. And that’s when I made the decision to say: “No, I want to vote for the person who I feel best represents what I think is important in the world. So if it’s this person here….”

I don’t like the rigid lines of the party system in the sense that: “Well, if this is what you believe, you have to go here or you have to go there.” I think that the collaboration and the ability to be more flexible, especially as the world changes, are extremely important.

I mean, this last election, I was not going to vote Green, strategically, but I just couldn’t. Because when you look at those results, that’s also not an accurate representation of what people have done.

From what I learned from my experience…. Seven percent was the vote for me when I ran, but so many more told me: “I would vote for you if X, Y and Z, if I didn’t think this, if I didn’t want so-and-so.” The lesser of two evils thing is not a good way to make a decision. It doesn’t accurately represent what people actually want — our current system.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you so much, Rana, for the conversation and for the presentation as well. I really appreciate your time today.

Rana Nelson: Thanks so much for conducting this.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Next, we have Jacqui Gingras.

Welcome, Jacqui. Thank you so much for joining us today. Just a reminder, you’ll have five minutes for your presentation portion, and then five minutes for questions after that.

Jacqui Gingras: Am I sitting between you and lunch?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Don’t let that bother you. We’ve been incredibly flexible with our time, so please feel free.

Rob Botterell: Are we standing between your presentation and your lunch?

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): We really appreciate you making the time, all of you here coming in. We know, like everyone says, it’s busy. We appreciate that, so thank you very much, everyone.

Jacqui Gingras

Jacqui Gingras: Yeah. Well, we feel very passionately about this. It’s inspiring, actually, to see everyone come. And thank you to the committee for providing this opportunity to share why we believe electoral reform is so important to so many of us as citizens living in this province.

I would like to speak to this topic as a politically engaged member of the Syilx Okanagan community where I was born and, additionally, as a university professor and as a parent. I first became aware of electoral reform during the 2015 federal election. I was the NDP candidate for the North Okanagan–Shuswap, and we supported proportional representation in our platform, which meant I was obligated quickly to learn what that meant.

I read about it. I spoke to others and attended seminars facilitated by very well-informed non-profit organizations like Fair Vote Canada. The more I learned, the more excited I became, because up until that point, as you’ve heard time and time again, I’d often felt that my vote didn’t really count, and I often tried to vote strategically to elect progressive parties.

The longer the federal campaign went on, the more people were talking about proportional representation, which was very exciting, on doorsteps and at all-candidates fora. Much to our team’s surprise, electoral reform was becoming an election issue.

[12:15 p.m.]

The excitement grew when Justin Trudeau made the promise that 2015 would be the last election under first-past-the-post, our current system. Electoral reform was now part of the mainstream political discourse, and so many of us were hopeful.

Of course, we all know what happened next. Trudeau eventually reneged on that promise, which re-entrenched the two-party system. This promise and the resulting backtrack was incredibly upsetting, because it reinforced a profound cynicism among young voters, especially the reality that people who want power will promise what they need to in order to secure and hold that power. That cynicism has profoundly eroded trust in electoral and partisan politics.

As a sociology professor who teaches young people about social change and social justice, I have a unique opportunity to engage in conversations about students’ voting practices. When I ask about whether students vote, I routinely hear that they don’t bother because their votes are not reflected in the outcomes of elections. Whether it is municipal, provincial or federal, students do not see the point in voting because they believe that their votes don’t count. In my opinion, that is unfair.

As a parent, when discussing with my own now-grown children, I hear the same sentiment. “Why bother, Mom? We know who will win, what little difference our votes make.” Both university students and my kids are right, to an extent. Many times, we see political parties secure power with false majorities, the most seats with only a fraction of eligible voters casting a vote. It is tough to persuade them to engage with the political system when they can see the outcomes, and I don’t blame them for that.

But with a move to proportional representation, these barriers to participation would be erased, and people would learn that their efforts to match their values to political parties and commit to voting would lead to an outcome where they could see their votes reflected in who is elected. Gone would be the days when conversations about voting would end with: “Why bother?” Instead, citizens would be more engaged, and that engagement would translate into better representation of citizens’ values in elected government.

Elected members would work across party lines to create solutions to challenging social problems that are made through dialogue, compromise and mutual respect. Our divisions would be sources of strength instead of driving us further apart.

As a professor, I could look to examples from government about how people build coalitions. I would not be pining for a better way. The better way would become the status quo. This is what proportional representation would bring to provincial politics, and this is why so many of us still believe that a better way is possible by sharing our stories and hopes with you today.

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

Amna Shah: Thank you, Jacqui, for your presentation. My question is around the timing. Let’s say — a hypothetical scenario — we were to implement proportional representation. Do you think the timing of that implementation is important?

I mean, there is still an issue in some areas, more broadly so, about just general disengagement, and I’m pretty sure — I could be wrong — that it’s not like turning on a light switch, right? You can’t just expect that suddenly everyone’s going to be: “Oh, proportional representation — wonderful. Now I have all the choices in the world.”

The reality is you won’t, and it’ll take time for people to understand who are the people on the ballot, who are those who are wanting to represent a certain value system or a certain viewpoint on an issue.

I suppose my question is around: Is timing important? Because we’ve heard from other presenters: “Just do it. Just do it before the next election.” And some people would argue that it takes more than an electoral cycle to even establish trust between a candidate or a new party and what they bring to the table.

I know it’s a bit technical, but I ask you this because you are a sociologist, and I would love to hear your thoughts on that.

[12:20 p.m.]

Jacqui Gingras: Thank you for that question.

I would simply and quickly answer with “the sooner the better,” as well, with some caveats.

When you share with someone that their decision is now going to be reflected in the outcome of an election, what you have…. I see this among students and even kids as well. When people feel that their actions are more meaningful, they’re going to exhibit learning in a more accelerated way. They will be more engaged and excited by the process.

I want that to be factored into the decision about changing to a proportional representation system. You’re not starting from zero with people’s understanding of candidates, political parties, platforms and so on. But what you are igniting is a profound interest in seeing how…. Finally, my decision will be translated into a voice in the elected representatives.

It’s hard to quantify the power of that change. It’s really something. When you see it happening among young people, when it catches fire and there’s an interest — and I have to say and refer to the most exciting thing to happen politically for me lately: what’s happening in New York — you have something special happening. You have a real intention about young people to participate, and I believe that will only build.

So that’s why, yes, more than one election cycle is required to help people actually trust that we’re going to do what we say we’re going to do. We’re going to let their voices be seen and heard in a different way.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for the presentation. I guess a follow-up question would be…. I recognize that we’ve had various presentations around, “Yeah, get the advice of the experts,” but then talked to folks that are passionate about this, including yourself and your background.

I guess the question I’d have is: do you have any elements of success you’d like to flag? We’ve heard a lot, for example, about the need for really extensive and appropriately packaged educational materials. Are there some things…? If we’re just going to do it, what are some of the things you’d say: “Make sure you do this, this and this”?

Jacqui Gingras: Thank you. Well, just from our previous speaker, I would encourage you to make sure that it is not necessarily included in the curriculum but supported. Including something in the curriculum is a process in and of itself, but make sure resources are available for teachers — for teachers at secondary level and post-secondary level — so that they can talk to people in an informed way.

But again, with just the idea that our votes will count differently, you will see an intention, an interest, an excitement from the citizenry to want more information. That’s something that we don’t even know what it will look like, because we’ve never seen that before.

We need to factor that into how long we think we need. When you turn the switch and say we’re doing this — thinking about that switch metaphor — there may be things happen that you haven’t even anticipated in terms of how people want to come forward in a more excited way about the process.

That should also be studied. Not to add to your to-do list, but when you do make the change, make sure there are political scientists, sociologists, whomever is interested, to….

Sheldon Clare: Historians.

Jacqui Gingras: Historians, yes. Make sure you offer them some research funding to conduct the studies so that we can look back on this and see: what did it take? What did happen? What were we successful in doing? What could we have done differently? Because other provinces are going to be following your lead, so you want to be able to guide them in a well-informed way.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Wonderful. Thank you so much, Jacqui, for sharing your time with us this morning.

To all of the presenters, thank you for making the time to be here. Your opinions and views are very important to us.

We are now going to take lunch until one o’clock.

The committee recessed from 12:25 p.m. to 1:03 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. Our first presenter this afternoon is Alon Eisenstein.

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

Alon Eisenstein

Alon Eisenstein: Thank you very much. So good afternoon and thank you very much to the members of this committee for the opportunity to present to you today on this topic that I find very important and personal.

I am a resident of the city of Kelowna for the past five years and have been actively participating in the elections, both provincial, municipal and federal. I trust that this committee’s members are well aware of previous discussions that we had on the topic of voter participation and election reform. Specifically I’m thinking about the 2004 Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, which recommended changing our provincial electoral system to a proportional representation system. Specifically, at that point, the recommendation was a single transferable vote system.

For this reason, I do believe that the question that we should all be asking today is not whether the election system should be reformed to a proportional representation system, whether it’s a single transferable vote or mixed-member proportional representation or some other variations.

[1:05 p.m.]

Rather, I think that we should be asking whether the people of B.C. are now ready to embrace a change in this moment of time, in this moment of our history.

As you are probably aware, we are a democratic society. As such, I believe that the strength of British Columbia, as a democratic society, lies in the trust that the citizens have in its governing institutions, including the Legislative Assembly and the government.

This trust is clearly lacking, considering voter turnout in the past 20 years was at best barely over 60 percent, often closer to 50 percent. The fact that close to half of registered voters feel their vote cannot influence the actions of the B.C. Legislative Assembly and government should be a serious red flag that signals that something must change.

The past 20 years have also seen the downgrade in importance of mainstream media and the social value that we put in free press, which is a clear and necessary component of a functioning democratic society. Social media platforms replaced traditional journalism. Invisible algorithms are maximizing engagement and feeding revenue to private corporations, and they lead to polarization of our society, now more than ever before. All this in a span of barely 20 years.

There’s a famous quote that says that the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting somehow different outcomes. If this Legislative Assembly is serious about regaining the trust of the citizens of British Columbia, if this Legislative Assembly is serious about increasing engagement of its citizens in the democratic process, we need to reform the democratic process. We need an election system that delivers a more proportional representation than we currently have with the first-past-the-post system.

But beyond the choice of which proportional representation system will best serve, specifically, the context of British Columbia, I want to use this opportunity to ask and plead that this committee think about not just what the new reform is but how to enact it and how to move forward and do it differently than the past.

Specifically, rather than assuming that we need a referendum first to create change in B.C., I would like to suggest a new, different way of moving forward. I would like to propose following the experiment that New Zealand did many, many years ago and ask this committee to consider recommending that B.C. first enact an election reform on a term limit — say ten years, going through two, maybe three election cycles — and then, and only then, ask the citizens of B.C. to respond to the question: “Should we keep this new change and new model, or should we revert back to the old system?”

In my line of duty, I teach entrepreneurship. I deal with students exploring different ways of new ideas. We talk a lot about behavioural economics and how people would like to avoid change. By enacting change first and asking people whether they prefer to stay with it or revert back to the old model, I believe we can overcome the challenges that we’ve seen in the past in enacting election reform that has already been agreed on that is much needed in this province.

Thank you very much for your attention.

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

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your presentation, Alon. Just a couple of quick points, and then my question.

Voter turnout, except for the COVID election, has actually been doing pretty well. In the B.C. elections from 1996 to 2024, there was a height of 71.5 percent in the ’96. Dropped a little bit. It’s gone up and down a bit. The COVID election was 53.86, and then it’s been back up to 58.45 percent in this most recent election, according to Elections B.C. statistics on how many registered voters participated. So those numbers have been going up again, which is an encouraging sign to see. I just thought I would point that out.

And I thought your points about algorithms and the decline of the traditional media in place of “everybody’s an expert” and anybody can be putting out media…. The information quality has just dropped, and the quantity has increased dramatically, so people are finding themselves very confused.

[1:10 p.m.]

One of the things people have said about election reform on a term limit is that they should enact this first and then ask. The criticism that some of those who have said that very thing have said is that stability bias, the bias of voting for what is in place, is a bad thing.

Would that not also be the case if someone brought in a change and then asked people to vote on whether or not it was working? Would that not create the same stability bias?

Alon Eisenstein: Yes. Yeah, the bias is always there, every way we want it.

Maybe going back to the numbers, I think that didn’t contradict what I said because I have looked at the numbers for the past 20 years, and we are in 2025. So I have looked at numbers since the early 2000s, and the 1997 preceded social media, which came about in the early 2000s. That’s why I did not include the pre-2000 elections. But the numbers are not on a trend up. They are slightly fluctuating, going up and down, up and down in a non-linear way, and that’s okay.

Going back to your point, the bias is there. Like I said, the citizens assembly has done its work diligently many years ago, and I think the fact that we’re still having this discussion is a signal that there is an interest in looking to see: can we do better? I think changing the way we do it and looking at the bias from different directions could be an appropriate time to do so.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Any further questions? No?

Thank you so much, Alon, for your presentation and for taking the time to be here with us this afternoon and for sharing your thoughts.

Alon Eisenstein: Thank you very much for your time.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Okay, next we have Trevor McAleese.

Welcome, Trevor. Just a reminder as you begin that you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

Trevor McAleese

Trevor McAleese: Absolutely. Well, I’d like to start by offering my sincere appreciation for the special committee taking the time today to visit Kelowna and hear from the residents here. I think this is very important work that you’re doing, gathering input in the interests of trying to strengthen our democracy and to have people feel included, which is, after all, what really any election ought to result in — people feeling like they are part of the process.

Now, I come into this fresh from having run as a candidate in the federal election here in Kelowna. I mean, I’ve been involved in politics and elections in government for many, many years. I once worked for the B.C. Ministry of Finance. I’ve been involved on provincial election campaigns. I’ve worked for Elections Canada, Elections B.C. as a supervisory voting officer. Most recently I was the NDP candidate for Kelowna in the 2025 federal election.

If I were to summarize that experience, it would be in a paraphrased quote that I heard very often on the campaign trail, which is: “You’re a great candidate, but we can’t vote for you.” Now, in speaking with supporters and non-supporters alike, a good three-quarters of them in this community, would-be supporters, felt that they were under so much pressure because of the stakes being what they were and this perceived close race that they could not vote their conscience, that it was a luxury that they could not afford.

This came attached with a certain amount of guilt and distress and internal conflict that these people that wanted to support me, wanted to support my party at large were placed in a position where they felt that not only would their vote be wasted if they were to actually vote their conscience, but it might in fact result in a worst-case outcome.

So this feedback…. I mean, personally, quite discouraging as an election candidate to be hearing that, but it’s, of course, far deeper than this. We don’t want people to be feeling like they are betraying a part of themselves, that they feel the need to lend their support to a party or a candidate that they are not ideologically aligned with. This isn’t a sign of a healthy democracy.

There are all sorts of ways that…. People have developed sort of a gamesmanship around elections, this push towards strategic voting, where there is almost sort of a cottage industry — these emergent websites which are looking to ostensibly inform people about sort of what their options are in their local ridings. But really, we’re talking about larger trends being projected upon individual ridings.

[1:15 p.m.]

Whether this rises to the level of election interference, I don’t think I’d go quite that far, but these are distortions. This results in people voting against their actual intent, and we end up then with a result that isn’t actually representative of the will of the people.

I think what this ultimately contributes to you is this…. Whether or not it is real or just perceived, there is the sense of increasing polarization, especially when you look at the electoral map and you see basically entire swaths of the province sort of either going one side or another. There is a large amount of the electorate that feels shut out and not represented by this process under our winner-take-all system.

One thing I also heard very often on the campaign trail is that people like parties that work together. They want to see greater cooperation. And with our winner-take-all, first-pass-the-post system, it’s rare that we end up with a functioning coalition-style government.

Of course, in B.C. we have a fairly recent example where the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens formed a confidence and supply agreement where we had stable governance for a time. I think that’s an incredible example to be able to look to, but of course, that kind of an outcome is very rare under our system.

Now I feel, in speaking with many people throughout the community, that a system of proportional representation is really what we need, not only to fight against voter apathy — because there is this very real phenomenon of wasted votes where if you didn’t vote for the winner in your district you may as well not even have voted at all as far as its influence in electing members to the Legislative Assembly — but also we want people to feel good about participating in this democracy. We want them to feel like their votes count, to feel like enthusiastic participants in this province.

I think that B.C. has the potential to lead the way. I think that this province is ready for proportional representation.

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

Sheldon Clare: First of all, Trevor, thank you very much for putting your name on a ballot and submitting yourself to the scrutiny of the public like you’ve done and as we have done. I very much salute and applaud you for that effort. It’s not an easy thing to do, and it shows a great deal of commitment to one’s community, and you’re to be congratulated for that.

I do understand some of the messages you heard at the door. I heard some of those myself when I was doing these kinds of things, people wanting to vote for something and working together and all those things. I do want to reassure you in some respects that we do work together on a lot of things, despite the half hour of question period that seems to be a bit raucous where we all take a good ripping at the government, like the folks on that side of the aisle did when they were in opposition to a previous political party.

One of the things that is a concern and was raised by some of the folks about some aspects of the proportional representation and use of party lists and so on is the potential for some of these coalitions to not be all that balanced and even and come to great results.

I referred earlier in today’s session to the 1919 Weimar Republic’s constitution, which was based on proportional representation with party lists. The result of that, and the 15 parties that were contesting the elections in 1932 and 1933, was a series of coalitions which led to an outcome which I don’t think any of us liked. Now, that’s not to say that any type of system can’t produce a bad result, but I just wonder what your thoughts may be about that.

Trevor McAleese: Well, I think we have many working examples throughout Europe especially where proportional representation has resulted in incredibly stable governments. In fact, I had a long conversation with a constituent during the election, a former resident of Denmark who had lived in Denmark for the first 25, 30 years of his life and had immigrated to Canada, to B.C. specifically. He is someone who’s ideologically more conservative, but we were able to very much agree on this topic.

Now, I think that, of course, you can find examples throughout history — for instance, the Weimar Republic being a good example — of where a government committed horrible things. Whether it was enabled by the selection of candidates or not, I think that you can find examples where any electoral system has elected bad governments.

I think that there are far more good examples of working proportional representation systems across the world than bad ones, Denmark being a wonderful example.

[1:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Great. Thank you for your presentation. I wondered, Trevor, in terms of the path forward, how you would see this unfolding. Say that this committee, in a spirit of collaboration, recommended pro rep be implemented. How would you see that unfolding?

Some have said that we should take it to another referendum. Others have said to implement it and check it out in a couple of cycles. Some have said to have a citizens assembly that’ll decide the exact approach.

I’d just be curious if, from your perspective, you could take out your crystal ball and say what you would like to see unfold, if it did, over the next couple of years.

Trevor McAleese: Sure. Well, there has been a great deal of research and study into this topic, and of course, B.C. has an example — well, multiple examples — where there have been referendums on this exact topic. Now, I think that the last referendum was needlessly complicated for what it was. Also, being a mail-in ballot, there were things about how this was orchestrated that resulted in low turnout, but also a confusing layout.

In fact, as was raised by Mr. Clare in the previous question period, there is this sort of incumbency bias, where there is support that naturally exists for the current system. Now, I personally like the idea of a trial period, where a form of proportional representation is implemented and then feedback is gathered after the fact, with an opportunity for a referendum post-implementation, after at least one or two provincial elections have been conducted under this new system.

Having worked for Elections B.C…. There is great opportunity, even on election day, for education of the electorate. Now, I think, for this kind of a change to be well received, there does need to be a great deal of energy that is put into informing the general public about the change.

Whatever method of proportional representation it is, in the lead-up to the first election under this new system, every effort should be made to make sure that every elector is as informed as possible about what to expect, whether it’s a question of voting for two candidates on a ballot — just to, basically, simplify this and to make it as clear as possible.

I would like to see the change made, as per the recommendations of experts in this field, and that there’d then be an opportunity for review of that decision after one or two elections have been conducted.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): I have a question as well. First, I just want to echo the comments of my colleagues and say thank you for putting your name forward and for really being there to help represent the views of folks in your community. In that process, you’ve met people from all parts of your riding.

I think a big part of our mandate is also to look at how to engage voters, especially in looking at youth voters. Overall, if you could just comment on voter engagement and things that you think would be good for ourselves to recommend, to help increase voter engagement.

Then also, on the youth piece, one of the questions that has come up is lowering the voting age to 16. I’m just wondering if you had any thoughts on that as well.

Trevor McAleese: Well, I do support the idea of lowering the voting age. I think that young people are smart. It’s wrong to underestimate the level of engagement and the level of awareness of people in their mid- to late teens.

As far as engaging people at large, specifically the youth, during the course of my campaign, I was attending as many activist rallies as I could during the course of election time to basically reach out to people that otherwise, I think, would feel ignored and overlooked, especially young people who are invested in various social causes. Candidates generally are not making appeals specifically to them. I think that meeting, especially, young activists where they are, to show them that you also care about these issues, makes some kind of a difference.

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

Thank you so much, Trevor, for being here today and helping us in this process.

Trevor McAleese: Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. Best of luck with the rest of this provincial tour.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you. Next we have Eli Pivnick.

[1:25 p.m.]

Eli Pivnick: Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to be here. I just found out yesterday afternoon that I was being asked to come.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you for joining us on such short notice. We really appreciate your time. You’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

Eli Pivnick

Eli Pivnick: Okay. It was rapidly put together, last-minute, but that’s fine. I did this ten years ago in front of the federal committee that did the same kind of thing — I was in Kamloops at the time — so this isn’t new.

I live just outside of Vernon in the North Okanagan. I’ve been there for 11 years. I’m a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada and a former high school teacher, retired now.

I have been, for many, many years, very frustrated with the current electoral system. Not since my 20s have I ever voted for the candidate that I wanted to get in because of our system. It just didn’t make sense because it was…. I voted, most of my life, strategically, which I don’t feel good about and have never felt good about.

Just to be candid and open, normally I would — not always, but usually — vote for a Green candidate, but I’ve almost never done so. I have sometimes supported the NDP intentionally and sometimes strategically.

In this previous provincial parliament and the current one, I finally got an MLA representing our riding who I feel pretty good about — still not the one I would have voted for if I didn’t have to vote strategically. I’m in MLA Sandhu’s riding, and I’ve met with her at least ten times in the last five years. Her assistant calls me a frequent flier because I’m there often enough.

She has got me meetings with four different ministers, on occasion, usually with colleagues — I’m involved with two environmental groups — but I’ve also come with concerned citizens, concerned about local issues.

I have met previously with other MLAs or MPs and always been really frustrated because they didn’t represent my viewpoint at all and usually just wanted to toe the party line. It’s very frustrating because it’s often not an open conversation, not frank; it’s very stilted. I really appreciate the fact that I can talk to MLA Sandhu. While we may not agree on everything, we do agree on a lot of things. It’s very helpful.

That’s something I’ve been missing almost my entire life because of our current system. That’s really unfortunate. I would just love to have a proportional representation system. I recognize that it will not solve all of our problems of government, because we’re still dealing with human beings as politicians, and nobody’s perfect. But I think it would go a long way to improve the quality of the governing done in this province.

The problems I see, other than the fact that it’s very difficult to vote for who you want to vote for, unless a party that you want to vote for has a good chance of getting in…. To me, that’s really not democratic.

As well as that, we have the situation — I’ll speak both provincially and federally, because it’s the same situation — where the party that gets in has, usually, not a majority of the population behind them having voted for them. Yet they have full power over the government when we have a majority situation, which is the majority of the time.

It not only means that…. Oh, is that my time? So I’ve got 43 seconds. Wow, okay. I’ve got to move quick.

What I wanted to say about that was that not only does it give too much power to a minority of the population, or the government representing a minority, but it also misleads the public into thinking there’s a lot more support or a lot less support for something.

[1:30 p.m.]

For instance, and I’ll just give you one for instance, climate change and climate action — if the Conservatives had gotten in, there would have been almost no action. I would say there’s not enough action with the NDP, but there would have been almost no action. And yet they almost got in, with a very slim part — well, about 40 percent of the population, roughly.

So the message after the election would be — and this has happened numerous times — that the B.C. population wants something that they actually — the majority — don’t want. And I think that is…. It makes us as citizens less likely to speak out, because we think, “Okay, we’re in the minority that wants something,” when it’s actually not the minority. It’s a majority. People would be much more willing to speak out if they realized how many people were in agreement with that.

Just to finish off, because I realize my time’s up, I just wanted to say that the referenda don’t work. We’ve seen that. I’d sure hope that if this committee decides to move forward that it not be a referendum. I thought the citizens’ assembly was a great idea, worked really well, but I would sure hope that if there was one that the government would follow up on the recommendations, rather than shelve it and do something else like a referendum or nothing.

So I guess I’ll stop there, because my time’s up.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Eli.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for your presentation. You mentioned about talking to previous MPs or MLAs and not representing or respecting your point of view. I put that in because you said that they didn’t represent you, but you also seem to think that they didn’t respect your point of view. Regardless of whether you and I agree, I would respect where you’re coming from.

Now, if we had proportional representation…. We’ve talked of a wide variety of different ways we could do it, but let’s say we had it set up so that you would have a group of MLAs that would end up being elected more with the total percentage of the vote and there would be a top-up or something like that.

Even though you’ve travelled from Vernon to here to come to this meeting, how would you feel if that particular MLA was more aligned to your way of thinking — access to that MLA, because now the MLA’s constituency office is in Westbank because that’s where that person happens to be. Your MLA in Vernon is still maybe a different party. You don’t align with that party, yet that representative is going to be in Westbank because that’s the regional….

Say that’s the system that we went to. Does that hinder your ability to be able to access that MLA because they’re further away?

Eli Pivnick: I mean, personally, no. No, it would not at all.

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

Eli Pivnick: Yeah. Obviously, it would make fewer people from the Vernon area able to access, but I mean, there’s good bus service. No, I don’t think so at all. It’s not like I would be visiting an MLA weekly. So no, I don’t think so.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Well, and the reason I asked that because….

Interjection.

Eli Pivnick: No, not that frequent.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): You know, as we get further north, you start looking at the way the ridings are set up. And Prince George was brought up as an example when we were there, inasmuch as that you have three MLAs, including MLA Clare for Prince George. And it’s kind of split like a pie three ways, where MLA Bird goes from the southern part of the town of PG all the way down to Avola. It’s a huge geographical area.

So if we were going to be, say for argument’s sake, two of the three MLAs next time around…. Let’s just say for argument’s sake that they ended up being Conservative, and the third one was with somebody else, and they were more of a regionalized MLA, how would that person be able to facilitate the percentage of the population that would have supported them in their representation? In other words, their beliefs, their agenda, their policies that they would like to push forward. How would that person, short of having a helicopter, be able to facilitate that through that huge geographical area?

Eli Pivnick: It’s called the magic of the internet. Half of my meetings with MLA Sandhu, partly because of the COVID issue and just partly because of logistics, have been on Zoom, and also, I’ve had at least two meetings with ministers on Zoom. So I don’t think that would make much difference.

[1:35 p.m.]

And I just wanted to respond to something else you said. I didn’t feel disrespected by other MPs or MLAs — never. But I just didn’t feel that they took it seriously. It’s not quite the same thing.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): All right. I appreciate that. Thanks for the clarification.

Rob Botterell: Once again, MLA Stamer has asked the question, and I’ve got my answer. Thank you for your presentation. I don’t have another question.

Sheldon Clare: Eli, thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your interest in civics and politics and for being here today. It’s very important to hear this perspective.

One of the points you said about people who go on Zoom in the larger areas…. In the riding I’m in, they don’t have internet coverage in large swaths of the area. I don’t pay a ton of attention to this when I’m on the road because I don’t have coverage. The ability of people to get access to their MLA, or for that matter, their MP, in areas like Miocene or Big Lake…. Actually, Nazko is pretty good, but maybe Kluskus isn’t so good. There’s a pretty inconsistent aspect of that kind of coverage, and individuals may have a Starlink or something like that that allows them better coverage, but it’s not a very reliable way.

I mean, I put some 75,000 kilometres on my Chevy, driving around, meeting with people in the riding the last two years. I can pretty fairly say I’ve been just about everywhere. Personal contact seems to matter a lot more than doing it by Zoom.

I’ve taught on Zoom. I didn’t like it. Students don’t like it. While it’s a necessary evil, I would say, it isn’t really a good substitute for that personal contact, sitting down and looking somebody in the eye and really getting a feel for it. What do you think about that?

Eli Pivnick: Well, up to a point, I agree with you. But I would say two things. As we use Zoom more and more, more of us are getting more comfortable with it, so I think it’s going to get better and better over time. Personally, at first, I did some teaching over Zoom. Well, actually it wasn’t Zoom. It was Teams, but the same idea. It was hard at first. Some of the students found it great, and some of the students found it impossible.

I think it’s a question of time, but I also think that it’s incumbent on the government to make sure that there’s somewhere in every locality where there’s internet access so that people can do this.

Sheldon Clare: You would support, for example, more resources being allocated to MLAs so that they are better able to serve their widely dispersed constituents?

Eli Pivnick: If we’re going to have a serious representative government, yes.

Sheldon Clare: Beautiful. Thank you.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you. One final question from MLA Shah.

Amna Shah: Thank you, Eli, for your presentation. Did I hear you right when you said you’re a former high school teacher?

Eli Pivnick: Yes.

Amna Shah: Okay. I was wondering if you could provide some comments, based on your observations, about the trends of engagement from youth, specifically as it pertained to, I suppose, what’s going on, awareness around whether it be politics or governance or policies.

Have you seen a change in trend? Has it relatively remained the same? And any additional comments that you would like to provide as an explanation for why you’ve seen what you’ve seen.

Eli Pivnick: I don’t think I’m the best person to ask, because I’ve moved around in my teaching. Most of my teaching was on Indian reserves in the North, where up until the last few years I was teaching, there wasn’t a lot of internet access, and I would say that students were not that informed. From the perspective of the North, I would say that it has increased, and there’s more and more engagement.

I would also say that, in the last few years, when I was teaching in Vernon, there were — and I guess there are country-wide — efforts to have mock student elections when there’s a federal election or a provincial election. I found those really useful to increase engagement by students so that they have a little more understanding of what’s going on.

I did in one year…. I was teaching the French immersion program in Vernon and did teach grade 10 students social studies, where we did a lot of study of the political process and had mock elections. I think it’s really important that we increasingly educate students about it and get them more engaged.

[1:40 p.m.]

Especially, we have a lot of issues right now which affect everyone. I’ve mentioned climate change before. Climate change is on everyone’s mind, or should be, especially young people, because they’re going to deal with it for longer.

I don’t want to ever say that older people can not worry about it because it’s for the youth, because any one of us that’s concerned about the future after we’re gone should be just equally or more concerned about it.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Thank you, Eli, for your presentation and for taking our questions this afternoon.

Our next presenter is Trevor Holsworth. Welcome, Trevor. Thank you for being here. Just a reminder, you’ll have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions.

Trevor Holsworth

Trevor Holsworth: Okay, thank you very much. I really appreciate you coming to Kelowna. I drove in from New Denver this morning to talk to you. I’ve got some pretty important things to cover.

Back in 2007, I was a victim of a corrupt trial here in British Columbia. As a result of that, I made a complaint to the B.C. Law Society and the Canadian Judicial Council.

The B.C. Law Society protected a lawyer committing fraud on a court order. I had the transcript with me. The judge protected the lawyer committing fraud and rejected my transcript. I complained about the conduct to the Canadian Judicial Council, and they protected the judge protecting a lawyer committing fraud on the court order. That is the current standard of justice in Canada now. It’s that the Canadian Judicial Council states that federal judges can protect lawyers committing fraud.

I then served the enforcement procedure of the Charter, section 24(1), on the Minister of Justice, David Lametti, and he did not respond. So I sought justice through the Constitution, and he did not respond at all. I followed it up with email and a series of communications that involved the Prime Minister’s Office and the Minister of Justice. They’ve ultimately forwarded it on to the Minister of Public Safety, who never responded.

But I did take it through the court system, and I asked for a writ of mandamus on the Minister of Justice. That was on December 3, 2021, in the Nelson Supreme Court. The judge delayed her decision until February 14, 2022, when the Minister of Justice enforced the Emergencies Act on Canadians, knowing that his accountability was under question in the legal system and that the actual legitimacy of the entire legal system is in question.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Trevor, I’m just going to step in here. This committee is for provincial electoral and democratic reforms.

Trevor Holsworth: I’m going to get to that.

I then informed the Premier of B.C. by registered letter of the fact that the Minister of Justice was not complying with the enforcement procedure of the Charter. I also informed the Attorney General of British Columbia, and she asserted incorrectly that she is not able to judge judicial conduct. She also asserted that the Legislature is not entitled to judge judicial conduct.

That’s a very important issue, because also, Provincial Court judges are under your jurisdiction. Currently the Chief Justice of the Provincial Court is not responding to a complaint about a judge who asserts that he can step outside the constraints of the Charter if the lawyer asserts it’s a narrow issue.

I did take the Income Tax Act to court, and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has dropped the charges on me on the Income Tax Act after my allegations and my evidence. I did inform all of the MLAs prior to the B.C. election of this evidence and more. Then, after the B.C. election, I wrote to all the MLAs and informed them as well. Then I submitted the evidence as a non-confidence motion in the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.

[1:45 p.m.]

Then the shadow minister of justice, Larry Brock, issued a contempt of Parliament for the Minister of Justice for failing to provide the legal reasons for enforcing the Emergencies Act on Canadians. Then he prorogued Parliament to avoid debate on that issue. The Attorney General of B.C., Niki Sharma, and David Eby were in closed-door meetings with David Lametti andChief Justice of the Supreme Court Wagner during 2023.

Prior to this election…. This election occurred with some documented irregularities. There was a judicial recount.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Trevor, I’m going to step in again. This part of our mandate is for the first part of our mandate, where we’re talking generally about voter engagement and democratic reform, not about the 2024 provincial election. So if you have comments about voter….

Trevor Holsworth: I’m talking about democratic reform, and this is a very important issue for democratic reform.

If the citizens have no rights in the legal system…. And I’m coming to this point here. You had a judicial recount here, and the conduct of the federal judges is not constitutional. So those recounts are illegitimate. They’re ultra vires. The judges are not complying with the constitution. They’re providing unfair and biased trials, and that is confirmed, and it’s a problem. The B.C. administration has federal judges operating.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Trevor, your time is up.

I will ask the committee now if there are any questions that you have for Trevor.

Okay. I see no questions, Trevor. Thank you for your presentation.

Trevor Holsworth: Oh, you’re welcome. I have tried significantly to contact you. This is an important issue. You need to contact me. I will be submitting this evidence to your offices.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): Members, that is the final presentation. Can I get a motion to adjourn, please?

Motion approved.

Jessie Sunner (Chair): This committee is now adjourned. Thank you.

The committee adjourned at 1:46 p.m.