The committee met at 8:32 a.m.

Election of Chair

Karan Riarh (Committee Clerk): Good morning, committee members. I’ll now call this meeting of the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform to order.

As the role of Chair of the committee has been recently vacated, it is my honour as Committee Clerk to oversee the election of a new Chair. Are there any nominations?

Sheldon Clare: I would like to nominate MLA Shah.

Karan Riarh (Committee Clerk): Are there any further nominations? Any further nominations? A third and last time, any further nominations?

The question is that Amna Shah take the role of Chair of the committee.

Motion approved.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Karan Riarh (Committee Clerk): Congratulations, Chair.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great, thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Amna Shah. I’m MLA for Surrey City Centre.

I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the legislative precinct here in Victoria, which is located on the homeland of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, the Songhees and the Esquimalt Nations.

There are two parts to our committee’s mandate. The first part is to examine democratic engagement, voter participation and electoral reform. The second is to review the administration of the 2024 provincial general election.

Over the past two weeks, we have heard presentations related to the first part of the committee’s mandate, and we’ll be concluding those presentations today. The committee is also accepting written input until July 25, so one more week to share your input on this part of the committee’s mandate. To participate, please visit our website at bcleg.ca/consultations.

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

[8:35 a.m.]

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

Sheldon Clare: Good morning, and congratulations, Madam Chair.

Member of the Legislative Assembly, Sheldon Clare. Prince George–North Cariboo is my riding, and I am the Conservative caucus Deputy Whip.

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

Amna Shah (Chair): Additionally, we’re being supported today by staff from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services.

Our first presenter is Stewart Prest, joining us from the University of British Columbia.

Thank you for joining us, Stewart. Just as a reminder, you have 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by ten minutes for questions. We will begin as soon as you’re ready.

Presentations on Voter Engagement
and Electoral Reform

Stewart Prest

Stewart Prest: Thanks very much. We can begin right away.

My name, again, is Stewart Prest. I am a lecturer in the department of political science at the University of British Columbia. I am speaking to you from just outside campus on the unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm peoples. I thank you for taking the time for to hear from me today.

I wanted to get right to it. I’d like to talk about three different topics briefly today. The first is to look back a little bit at the election of 2024 and the performance of Elections B.C. and reflect on what could be done more or differently to try to smooth out some of the bumps that clearly were part of the vote-counting process and the conversation around that.

The second piece I’d really like to address briefly, and this bridges the gap, I think, between the electoral process and talking about voting or electoral reform more broadly, is to look at information in the province and the role that government can play in supporting local journalism to try to provide additional sources of information in an era in which we all know we are constantly battling misinformation or simply a lack of information where we have these parts of the province that are veritable information deserts where there is no reporting happening.

Finally, I’d like to talk a bit about the issue of polarization and how that interacts with our first-past-the-post system to create a number of challenges. I think, as much as we’ve had a lot of conversations about electoral reform in the province in the past, it is worth looking back at once again at this issue of whether our electoral system really is serving the needs of British Columbians.

To come back to the first issue then, looking back, reflecting on the 2024 general election here in B.C., it’s clear that a lot of things went well. We have a result that…. Notwithstanding one legal challenge regarding a handful of votes in Surrey-Guildford, we have the clear right result. We await the results of that court challenge. But it’s also clear that some things could be done better.

As much as Elections B.C. was working to try to expand the number of ways people could vote through things like vote anywhere approaches or using vote tabulators, the way in which Elections B.C. was bringing on these multiple systems in the same election, I think, suggests that there is a balance to be struck between innovation around trying to find new technologies, new approaches to expand opportunities to vote, but also ensuring that we get the right result right away and that we are seen to get the right result right away.

I think I’d encourage Elections B.C. to really focus on trying to hone those processes that they have put in place recently, rather than trying to continually innovate and effectively invite new opportunities for scrutiny as well.

This brings me to the second point I’d like to make about the 2024 election, which was that misinformation was a part of that election, not just the campaign so much as the speculation regarding the recounts that took some time to resolve. And some of the talk was effectively misinformation or misframed information.

So we would have discussions online that would find their way into reported news regarding things like the chain of custody of ballot boxes. Is it appropriate for an elections official to take home a ballot box to maintain its secure custody in, say, a remote location? And the answer to that question is yes. That is appropriate when the protocols are followed. But absent clear information, I think there was a lot of unfounded talk that perhaps something wrong was happening.

[8:40 a.m.]

If Elections B.C. was more active in communicating how votes are safeguarded from the beginning to the end of that process, through a series of explainers, this sort of thing, really being more active in the communication space, it would help. We can’t stop the flow of misinformation, but we can slow its progress and arrest its movement much more quickly. So I think those are a couple of points that I have, reflecting back.

Related to this, I mentioned that the second piece I’d like to address is the role of local reporting as a potential way to push back against the threat of misinformation or lack of understanding. We have good reporting in this province. We have outstanding large publications, institutions like the Vancouver Sun, like CBC, CTV, Global and so on. We have chains of newspapers in local communities, Glacier and Black Press Media.

But we also have many other communities that just don’t have much in the way of reporting. I think we see, at the federal level, the federal government struggling with ways to support local reporting and more large-scale reporting.

This is an area I think the government of B.C. could make a real difference in, if they were to look at ways to try to fund in a targeted, accountable way. We don’t want just to be giving away money in ways that would seem to be buying news or creating a perception of the partisanization of news.

But find ways to support local reporting operations, which are often just one or two individuals, like the Gabriola Sounder out on Gabriola Island. They’re good friends of mine that run that paper, and they are effectively running it like a hobby. They have full-time jobs outside the management of this paper, and yet it’s a vital part of the community’s conversation there.

If we could find ways to provide limited support for these kinds of organizations, I think, in communities across the province, that could make a real difference and help people stay in touch with what’s going on at their local city halls, their local county offices and in the relationship between larger-scale politics and their communities. That would be a real benefit.

I think those are two areas that I’d like to address. Then for the third area of my comments, I’d like to talk about…. I’m happy to come back to any of these points and additional questions. I’m just sketching out a few things here.

I do want to talk a bit about how polarization interacts with our first-past-the-post system to create a couple of outcomes that I don’t think are in the best interests of the province. So as much as we have had multiple referenda looking at electoral reform, I do think it is worth looking at this again, because circumstances, effectively, have in some ways changed.

Polarization in this province is not new. We have had a polarized political system going on a century, but the divide seems deeper now. It seems to be creating not just a division between different points of view but between different parts of the province, different regions.

If we look at the electoral maps going back many years now, we see, essentially, two provinces. There is an urban, coastal part of the province that votes for one party, and then much of the Interior and much of the northern parts of the province vote for another party. It seems like there are two solitudes that exist in the province. But of course, that’s really not the case. Our province is much more diverse than that. Yet it seems like we have this ongoing divide.

That really has effects for representation in places like cabinet, where the NDP, at the moment, is governing according to what they see as being in the best interests of the province. But they’re drawing from MLAs who are elected in a portion of the province. Very little representation around the cabinet table is for the Interior, above all, but also for regions and other parts of the province where the party just has not been able to elect members.

If we roll back the calendar a number of years to the last B.C. Liberal government, we see essentially the converse, where the Lower Mainland was represented, but quite sporadically, in cabinet, and we had an abundance of members of cabinet from the Interior.

This matters, because when we do polling on these kinds of questions…. Mario Canseco was good enough to get out in the field and ask some questions with his Research Co. regarding what British Columbians really wanted to see in their government.

[8:45 a.m.]

There was a lot of variation on the questions asked, but two-thirds of them clearly agreed that, given a choice between seeing different ideologies represented in government and seeing different parts of the province represented in government, they were moderately or strongly in support of seeing different parts of the province represented in government. But that’s just something that we don’t have.

That is, in many ways, because of this interaction of polarization between rural and urban parts of the province interacting with this first-past-the-post system whereby the first place, even if it’s just by a handful of votes, of course, wins the totality of representation in that part of the province, and that’s multiplied over many different ridings.

So we have these two solitudes on the electoral map, even though the median margin of victory in 2024 was about 2,700 votes or about 13 percent of the votes cast. We have this diversity here, and it’s not really being reflected in the elections of MLAs and, by extension, in the appointments to cabinet. Premiers can’t appoint people that aren’t being elected. This is an ongoing challenge, one that we see on both sides of the aisle.

On this, the last point I’d like to make before talking about some potential solutions here is that the polarization that exists in our electoral system has given rise to some unusual outcomes. Most spectacularly, I’d point to the unilateral surrender of a political party in the run-up to the 2024 election, with B.C. United under Kevin Falcon essentially saying: “We’re not going to compete. We’re going to sit this and likely every election out.”

There was a sense that, like in the movie Highlander, there can be only one right-of-centre party, and if it wasn’t going to be B.C. United, it would have to be B.C. Conservatives. So we took an option away from voters on the eve of an election. It left many organizers and candidates out in the lurch as a result.

This is not something we see in other electoral systems. I would say that this is not something we’d like to see in electoral systems — a party leadership feeling compelled to stand aside and not offer up their platform. And this is just mere days after campaigning hard against B.C. Conservatives on a number of issues. So we see a kind of almost dysfunction there in our party system.

I do think we see elements of that on the other side of the aisle as well — I don’t want to single any particular party or partisan position out here — where it is the norm, effectively, for us to have controversy around, say, leadership campaigns. Mr. Eby was acclaimed the leader of B.C. NDP, but we had, effectively, a kind of insurgent campaign against him led by Anjali Appadurai. The way in which that played out created a certain amount of controversy, and that seems to be the norm. We have this winner-take-all approach to campaigning for leadership of one of the two big-tent parties.

But our politics are more complex than that. They’re more diverse than that, if you like. So I think finding an electoral system that allows multiple choices to exist on the ballot would do us well. We can see that in the way in which, within our respective caucuses, there are deep lines of division and dissent.

Some of that is healthy in a democracy. But too much of that can lead to an undermining of trust in the political system, whereby voters look at the choices on offer and say: “No, none of these people are me.” And they simply tune out. Or perhaps they look at the result and wonder about the reliability of these party processes, because we continually hear controversy around them. That can reduce our trust in our electoral institutions, including the political parties themselves, and I don’t think we want to be there.

So where do we go from here? Looking at electoral reform, I think we could go back and look at the last three referenda on that question. There were problems with the conduct of each of them. But I think a better place to direct this conversation would be to look at what worked really well in that first electoral referendum in 2005.

I think the bottom line there was that it was a citizen-led process through the citizens assembly, and we didn’t see that in either 2008 or 2018. Letting citizens take the lead in a conversation in a way that avoids partisanization or politicization of that process, I think, would be a good place for the province to return.

I’ll leave it there, and I’d be happy to take questions on any of these issues.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you, Stewart, for your presentation. We’ll now open up for questions. Are there any questions from the committee?

[8:50 a.m.]

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation this morning. You touched on a couple of things, and I just wanted to follow up and get your sense of best practices. On the issue of supporting local reporting, how would you see implementing that, in a way that it isn’t characterized as picking local papers with particular viewpoints?

Then my second question is: from your perspective, what are some of the best practices associated with citizens assemblies?

Stewart Prest: Those are both great questions. Thank you. With regard to supporting local journalism, the best practice really is to find ways to encourage diverse media. You don’t just focus on, let’s say, a handful of legacy publications. You create opportunities for different publications, different forms of journalism — we have robust journalism that isn’t a broadsheet, that involves other kinds of media — and opening the door to that, but doing so in a way that is insulated against the appearance of partisan shenanigans.

I don’t think that’s where we would go. Rather, we’d have money set aside, and that money would be governed by an arm’s-length committee, appointed by members of the journalism profession and also from local communities themselves. We do this with our electoral system when we do things like redraw boundaries. We put those decisions in the hands of upstanding members of the community. By virtue of their office, they have the trust of the community.

I think we can do that with a committee struck to support local journalism as well. So I would encourage you in looking at ways to insulate that process through arm’s-length appointment processes, reporting to the Legislature rather than cabinet. These are other best practices that we can put in place.

With regard to the best practices regarding a citizens assembly, again, insulation from the political process is paramount here. We want to ensure that those entrusted with the governance of the process are appointed with the support of the Legislature as a whole and are not simply appointed by cabinet and that those interested in carrying out the citizens assembly are, and are seen to be, members of the community, of repute, who don’t take partisan positions and who are seen to be above the fray, if you like.

We can look to different offices — again, similar to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, as a model for how to do that — whether we go to members of universities and the community or whether we look to other professions, like the legal profession, for support. There are organizations that have been working in this area for some time. So we can draw on that expertise.

Beyond that, ensure that the conversation is driven by citizens who are selected or invited at random from all parts of the province and that represent the diverse views of the province. Ensure that all parts of the province are part of that conversation — this is something that was done quite well during the first citizens assembly — and that all options with regard to electoral reform are really given careful thought and that we can see the conversation.

Considering the merits of the current system, there are values to first-past-the-post. It is simple; it is clear. The results are definitive, and we don’t have to wait for a result. There’s much to be said for the first-past-the-post system, but there are also these flaws, creating some of the dysfunctions that I was mentioning in my earlier presentation.

So considering what the other options are, and doing so in a systematic way, such that the final result is definitive, you have a deliberative result, where the vast majority of members of that assembly come to agree on the result. It is not a pitched battle where the vote is 51 to 49 in support of one recommendation or another. It’s given the time to unfold.

Then that recommendation needs to be clear, and it needs to be simple for the public to understand. The multiple choices of the last referendum in 2018 — I think that was a mistake. It made things very complicated for voters, and many just threw up their hands. In trying to explain it, as an expert in the field, it presented challenges for me as well. Coming up with a single, definitive result, I think, would be a real requirement of the process.

[8:55 a.m.]

Rob Botterell: Just quickly with a follow-up, one of the things some presenters have mentioned around our citizens assembly is the frustration of doing all that work, coming to a clear, definitive recommendation, and then having the government ignore it.

A couple of presenters have suggested an approach of having a citizens assembly, and then the government implements the result, as opposed to: “Oh, that doesn’t suit our political agenda. We’re not going to do that.” What do you think of that?

Stewart Prest: I think you absolutely have to commit to what the process will look like before the citizens assembly convenes so you effectively…. There are a variety of ways to handle that.

You could say the citizens assembly, representing the diversity of the population, can make a decision, the government could commit to implement that decision, and that can be the end of the process. Others, and I think there are some arguments here, would want to say that the citizens assembly can recommend, can guide the population as a whole. But something as foundational…. It’s kind of a paraconstitutional change here, to change the way in which we elect governments.

We still want to subject that to a popular vote to ensure that the broader population agrees with it, that it doesn’t feel like it’s being manipulated into something.

Rob Botterell: Yeah. I don’t want to debate you, but I appreciate your input. Thank you.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Stewart, for your presentation.

Further on the information and disinformation, we’re just looking at some of the other jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, where they’re trying to put guardrails on some of the social media stuff. I know it’s mostly a federal responsibility, but do you think the province should be taking a lead on this?

When you look at places like England — they’ve just introduced younger voting, which is a different subject altogether — they’ve specifically identified the challenges in social media and disinformation and what they’re trying to do to weed out the bad actors. What would you have to say about B.C. taking a stronger role on this?

Stewart Prest: I think the province is limited in the tools that it has to undertake that work. I would think the province would be well positioned to work with the federal government.

I do think there is a role for government to play in limiting bad speech. It’s never a question of whether we should draw lines. Every society does draw lines. There are things you can say that will put you in jail, with good reason. Whether we’re talking about libel, whether we’re talking about certain kinds of damaging material spread online….

But I do think the better response for the provincial government is going to be putting out effectively good, reliable information and supporting putting out good, reliable information. I think that’s something the province can do very quickly and effectively. That can be Elections B.C. being more assertive in the communication space, but it can also be funding these local journalistic practices, as I was talking about.

Beyond that, the province is limited, as far as I can think, to actually limit speech within the province.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions?

Well, on behalf of the committee, thank you, Stewart, for being here today, and I hope you have a great day.

Next up we have Samantha Reusch from Apathy Is Boring.

Welcome, Samantha.

Samantha Reusch: Good morning.

Amna Shah (Chair): Good morning. Thank you for being here today. Just as a reminder, you have 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by ten minutes of questions, and you can start as soon as you’re ready.

Apathy Is Boring

Samantha Reusch: Okay, super. Good morning, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

My name is Sam Reusch, and I’m the executive director of Apathy Is Boring. We’re a non-partisan national charity that has worked since 2004 to support and educate young people to meaningfully engage in all aspects of Canada’s democracy. We work year-round across Canada and in British Columbia to increase participation of young people in elections and in communities and to promote a healthier and more resilient democracy.

I want to thank this committee for your efforts and want to acknowledge that my testimony is coming at the end of what has been probably a long couple of weeks for the members.

[9:00 a.m.]

In recognition of that, I’ve endeavoured to be succinct and to the point in my remarks and want to indicate that our fully sourced written submission has been provided to the committee already. I welcome any further clarification during the question portion of my presentation.

That being said, we’re here today because British Columbia has once again reached a moment of possibility, a chance to strengthen our democracy through bold but pragmatic reforms. As you know, trust in democratic institutions is declining, political polarization is rising, and young people, who should be at the forefront of shaping our future, are often the most disengaged and disillusioned. That’s why I’m here to recommend three reforms that, taken together, can help adjust these challenges.

First, we want to recommend replacing the current first-past-the-post voting system with a proportional system, second, extending voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds, and finally, investing in and celebrating democracy in British Columbia. These reforms are not radical. In fact, I know you’ve heard variations on these recommendations from many stakeholders throughout your public engagement. This is because they’re rooted in lived civic experiences, backed by strong evidence and fully within the power of this committee to recommend.

Let me begin by briefly naming the broader contexts we’re all working in. We’re living through a period of global democratic instability. From the impacts of disinformation and artificial intelligence to long-term civic disengagement, the pressures on our democratic systems are real, and they’re growing. Public confidence in institutions is low. In 2023, only 24 percent of British Columbians reported a high level of confidence in our democratic institutions. That’s even lower than the national average of 28 percent.

Turnout, particularly among young voters, remains low in provincial elections. And many British Columbians feel that elections don’t produce fair results: governments with majority power that didn’t receive a majority of the vote. That perception drives feelings of disenfranchisement and deepens public cynicism.

But British Columbia has a strong record of facing these challenges head-on. In 2021, this province enacted significant political finance reform, led by a special committee just like this one. That process was multipartisan, evidence-informed and focused squarely on the public interest. This committee has the chance to carry forward that same spirit of leadership and renewal.

The recommendations we’re sharing today on electoral reform, youth enfranchisement and civic investment are distinct but complementary steps. They each respond to the moment we’re in, and they each help lay the groundwork for a more inclusive and resilient democracy.

First, I’ll start with the electoral system. British Columbia’s current first-past-the-post voting system is no longer fit for purpose. It distorts the will of voters, exaggerates regional divisions and leaves too many people feeling unrepresented. In an age of political polarization, that kind of systemic misrepresentation does more than skew policy outcomes; it undermines legitimacy and a sense of fairness in the eyes of the public.

Research shows that the higher the disproportionality, the higher the dissatisfaction with electoral outcomes. People don’t just want their party to win. They want elections to be fair, and their overall satisfaction increases with a proportional system.

In the last two provincial elections, in 2020 and 2024, the governing party received 51 percent and 66 percent of the seats, which is 45 percent and 48 percent of the vote. Many MLAs were elected without majority support in their ridings. This isn’t a bug; it’s a feature of the system, and we need an upgrade.

Proportional representation is that upgrade. It ensures that parties win seats in close proportion to their share of the vote. It reflects voter intent more accurately and encourages a more collaborative and inclusive political culture. A 2020 Fair Vote Canada and Leger poll showed that 97 percent of Canadians want a system that encourages parties to work together in the public interest.

And for young and first-time voters, it really matters. When votes feel ineffective, when outcomes seem predetermined, participation suffers. Further, the perceived necessity of strategic voting further undermines their sense of fairness and vote inefficiency. These barriers come up time and time again in our work, and there is little that civil society can do to solve for this alone. Electoral reform would remove that barrier, making participation feel more meaningful.

Now, we’re not here to prescribe the exact design of a new system. What matters most is that it meets three clear principles, from our perspective. One is fairness — that votes translate into seats. Two is local representation — that all regions continue to elect local MLAs. And three, accountability — that voters can clearly hold elected officials responsible.

[9:05 a.m.]

We strongly recommend that this reform be legislated without requiring another referendum. Structural democratic reform is within the Legislature’s authority. Other major reforms, such as those to political finance, have not been subjected to referenda. Holding electoral reform to a higher threshold only risks entrenching the status quo and allows for misinformation and confusion to spread.

Finally, we urge against single-member ranked ballots. They remain winner-take-all and do not address the core problems of first-past-the-post. In fact, they could worsen representational distortions while appearing to offer reform. British Columbia has the chance to lead again, this time by adopting a system that’s more fair, more representative and more aligned with modern democratic values.

Our second recommendation is to expand the provincial voting age to 16. This is a reform that responds directly to persistent voter disengagement among young people, especially those who have never built the habit of voting in the first place. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds already contribute meaningfully to society. They pay taxes, they work, and they drive. In British Columbia, they can even pre-register to vote through the future voter list, which already acknowledges their political identity.

Internationally, we find this change really works. In Austria, youth turnout has remained strong since the voting age was extended. In Scotland, 75 percent of 16- and 17-year-olds turned out to vote in the 2014 independence referendum, and follow-up studies found that those early voters are more likely to become lifelong voters. Further to that, research shows that once societies see young people voting, their overall support for their enfranchisement only grows, underscoring the success of these reforms.

Here in B.C., the movement is growing. Dozens of local governments have endorsed lowering the voting age. In 2019, the Union of B.C. Municipalities added its support. This isn’t fringe; it’s a mainstream policy conversation, often led by youth themselves.

I think, importantly, this week we also have the news, since we submitted our submission, that the government of the U.K. has made a pledge to ensure that 16- and 17-year-olds will be voting in the next general election, which is a really exciting development.

From a developmental standpoint, the research is extremely clear. Sixteen-year-olds have the cognitive capacity to make informed voting decisions, especially when supported by civic education.

From a legal standpoint, under section 3 of the Charter, all citizens have the right to vote. Age-based exclusion requires strong justification. When young people are capable of informed participation, withholding the vote is not only unwise; it may constitute an undue withholding of their fundamental rights.

Expanding the voting age is a meaningful and evidence-based step towards a more resilient democracy, one that builds civic habits early and includes more people shaping our future.

Finally, I want to talk about investment not in systems but in people. Disinformation, polarization and distrust are weakening civic life. While non-partisan organizations, educators and local leaders are doing important work to rebuild trust and engagement, that work is underfunded, fragmented and often short term. British Columbia needs sustained, coordinated support for democracy building.

We echo the proposal from SFU’s Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue to create a B.C. fund for democratic resilience and renewal. This fund would support non-partisan initiatives across the province, efforts that strengthen civic education, participation and democratic habits for the long term.

We also propose that British Columbia establish an official day of democracy aligned with the UN’s International Day of Democracy on September 15. This day would serve as a civic anchor and annual opportunity to reflect on democratic values, celebrate our institutions and encourage participation through things like voter registration drives, school workshops, public forums and awareness campaigns.

We know from experience, both in Canada and globally, that civic observance days work. They offer a moment for action, collaboration and public learning. These are low-barrier, high-impact reforms that can help close the gap between institutions and citizens, especially for younger generations.

British Columbia stands at a critical juncture. The reforms we’ve proposed today — electoral reform, extending voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds and civic investment — are each grounded in evidence, feasible through existing legislation and responsive to the needs of today’s democracy.

Other jurisdictions have already led the way. PR systems around the world deliver fairer outcomes. Austria and Scotland have shown the power of early enfranchisement. Civic observance days and investment drive participation and policy change. The question before us isn’t whether these reforms are possible; it’s whether we have the will to act.

This committee follows in the footsteps of others that have delivered meaningful democratic change. You have the opportunity and the responsibility to do the same. I truly believe and Apathy Is Boring truly believes that we can make things better.

[9:10 a.m.]

Finally, I want to encourage you to consider the testimony and recommendations of our peers who also work in this space: Women Transforming Cities, Fair Vote B.C., the Samara Centre for Democracy, CityHive, the Democratic Engagement Exchange, the Centre for Dialogue at SFU and Vote16 B.C.

Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you, Samantha.

We’ll start with MLA Botterell.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. There were a couple of things that I wanted to touch on, but I can sort of ask a preliminary question in a general way. In your presentation, you’ve emphasized that the grounding or the foundation for your recommendations is based on research of democratic systems and research around public attitudes towards democracy.

I’m just assuming — I apologize; I haven’t read your submission — that if you’re referencing polls or research on legitimacy, and so on, that the more detailed references are in your submission so we can look them up. Is that correct?

Samantha Reusch: Yes, absolutely.

Rob Botterell: Great. That’s terrific. Then the other point I wanted to make was…. Can you describe in a bit more detail, or just expand on it a bit, this concept of an official day of democracy? It sounds like a good way to put a spotlight on democracy.

Samantha Reusch: Yeah. I mean, I’m sure we’re all familiar with civic observance days. I think that it’s an excellent way to underscore the priorities and the values of a society in general.

It does sound like the kind of thing that seems a little bit light touch, but in practice, I would direct you guys to take a look at the international day for the girl. We’ve seen that since that day has been implemented, it has created schoolwide learning opportunities, opportunities for advocacy, a framework for civil society organizations, schools, etc., and even elected officials to highlight activities that are happening within the community, opportunities to get involved and also create an opportunity for fundraising and for just general public awareness.

It’s not something that’s been implemented in Canada. I see many Canadian organizations taking steps to do activities, campaigns, public awareness, learning opportunities around the International Day of Democracy, but British Columbia would be the first one, to my knowledge, to recognize it within Canada and thus create an opportunity for us to engage domestically on that issue.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions from the committee?

Seeing none, thank you very much, Samantha, for your time, and I wish you a great day.

Next up, we have Keith Page from the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments.

Welcome, Keith.

Keith Page: Hello, everybody. Thank you for having me today.

Amna Shah (Chair): Wonderful. Just as a reminder, you have 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by ten minutes for questions. You can get started as soon as you’re ready.

Association of Kootenay and
Boundary Local Governments

Keith Page: Thanks, Chair. I may not need all that, but I will give it a good go.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Keith Page. I’m a city councillor for Nelson and a past president for the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments. I’m speaking on behalf of the association regarding our resolution this year calling for the province to amend the Local Government Act to permit ranked choice voting for mayoral elections, which are single-winner elections. This resolution emerges from the members as a simple concern and a foundational democratic principle that elected leaders should enjoy a broad base of support from the people they serve.

Under the first-past-the-post system, it is entirely possible, indeed common, for single winners to be elected with far less than a majority of the vote. In three-way or four-way races, we’ve seen mayors elected with support from only a third of the electorate, or even less. That doesn’t pass the smell test for democratic legitimacy with the residents of B.C.

This isn’t just about elections math; it’s about trust in our institutions. Why are we bringing this forward now? First, there’s timing. We are seeing a growing momentum right now across the local government sector for comprehensive legislative review of the Local Government Act and the Community Charter.

[9:15 a.m.]

Every area association, AKBLG included, has discussed and supported the need for modernizing the legal framework governing regional districts whose legislation was promised a review in the early 2000s and mayoral elections. That’s created a rare window, and in that window, we can push for practical, sensible electoral reform. Not top-down, not abstract. On the ground.

Local governments can be a testbed for how fairer, more inclusive voting systems operate. British Columbians are more likely to understand and trust reforms when they can see them and participate in them locally in their own community elections, in the order of government that’s closest to the everyday people, where the trust is the highest.

In doing this, we can help make reform less of a mystery. We can help make it a lived experience. Ranked choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting, allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed, continuing until one candidate has a majority.

It’s not a radical idea, and it’s been implemented successfully in major cities like London, Ontario, and used across the U.S., and it’s gaining traction in other jurisdictions. It’s also been piloted for party leadership races and other internal votes here in Canada, so this isn’t about creating a partisan advantage. This is about fairness and function.

Ranked choice balloting encourages more positive campaigning. Candidates must appeal beyond their base to be a second or third choice. As we’ve seen in local government, there’s been a lot of division, and there’s been a lot of pushing to the extreme sides of the political spectrum. A system like this ensures that candidates, during their campaign period, are reaching out broadly to the most number of people. It eliminates vote splitting, which has long distorted the outcomes in multiple-candidate races.

Ensuring that the winning candidate has at least 50 percent of support once preferences are counted is something that first-past-the-post cannot guarantee and does not deliver currently in our local elections. In mayoral elections especially, where one individual wields considerable public-facing authority, it’s crucial that they reflect the majority will of their communities.

Now, someone might say: “Why change it here? Shouldn’t we wait until the province figures this out in their own system?” But I think one of the things that it misses is that local government is a perfect place for us to start. The stakes are real and manageable. The electorate is more connected to the candidates. The ballots are simpler, often with fewer names than provincial or federal elections. Perhaps most importantly, the appetite for practical experimentation is higher at a local level.

We need places where British Columbians can actually practise democratic reform, where we can see how it plays out, learn from it and build confidence before pursuing broader provincial reforms. If the province is serious about democratic renewal, as outlined in the select standing committee’s terms of reference, it should welcome and support locally driven, evidence-based pilots like this.

The resolution doesn’t demand sweeping changes overnight. It asks the province to create enabling conditions within the Local Government Act in plain terms. Let us choose. Let us try. Let us lead. There’s a growing sense among my peers at the municipal level that local government is a place that deserves modernization. Before this window closes….

I have to say that just talking to my peers and the other area associations over the last number of years, there’s certainly a push now within local government to see reforms of these acts. Democratic reform is a perfect opportunity to ensure that we’re providing fair elections into the future not just in Victoria but in Creston, in Kaslo, in Grand Forks, in Trail, in your own town.

We believe that government works best when it reflects the will of the people clearly, fairly and credibly, and then we should be supporting municipalities with the tools that reflect that will more accurately when the voters come to the ballot boxes. So let’s give our communities that choice, and let’s see if we can get some of this democratic reform happening on the local government level.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you, Keith, for your presentation.

For questions, we’ll start with MLA Stamer.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Keith. Hey, we’re on the same page. I’ve been pushing this for the last two weeks as a suggestion, particularly on the mayor side of things. I’ve never met you because I’m part of SILGA. I’m not part of AKBLG. We’ve asked this question to many people, and we’re sort of in a rank-based system right now with councillors. You’ll agree with me that when you’ve got, say, eight councillors and you can vote up to eight times, most people don’t vote eight times.

[9:20 a.m.]

If we had instant-runoff voting, that would probably encourage more people to push to get more diversity on our councils. Then specifically on the mayor side of things, you and I both know of examples where mayors are getting elected with 30 percent of the vote. So I would certainly support this resolution wholeheartedly.

Do you think that this is something that we would want to try to implement before the 2026 municipal elections?

Keith Page: I think so. I think you could go in the direction of creating enabling conditions so that local municipalities or local governments could make a choice. I would expand it beyond just mayoral elections and include all single-winner election, which includes area directors, for which there could be very small electorates. In our area, sometimes it’s 300 people who come out to vote.

Having a one-of-two choice, you often end up with the person that most people don’t want to see, when it comes down to vote splitting. I think this is something where you could either consider having enabling pieces — so that municipalities and local governments can choose to take it on as an option — or change it and get it ready for the 2026 election.

Predominantly, I’d thought about this stuff for a long time. When this resolution came forward, we put it forward to at least speak to the committee on how this reform could happen. This is super subjective, but it feels like people need a place where it feels safe to test out a different system. Local government, because it’s so close to everybody, because we know all the players, is an awesome spot to actually show people how a better, fairer system can operate. That will prepare them to see that happen on a broader level.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks for that. If I can add, on the mechanism for doing that, would we be looking at petitioning? If we were changing the Local Government Act, would we be looking at allowing the municipalities to strictly have that ability themselves?

Or would there have to be a mechanism where, if they didn’t decide to at least poll their constituents to see if they were willing to change, it would only be, say, for a one election period? There would have to be a way of making sure, if the majority of the people didn’t agree to that, that they could go back to the existing system. Can you see a choice as a mechanism?

Keith Page: I’ve contemplated how you’d roll this forward and not flip it back based on the win. My thoughts would be that you would let it go through a term and make it rescindable at the second term. You’d have to allow it to go through a cycle.

I think more importantly, just from my experience being with the UBCM board, you’d want to make sure that you’re actually consulting with local governments, that you’re working through UBCM and that you’re in touch with Lidstone. Don Lidstone is leading pieces with Nanaimo and other regional districts and other area associations on a legislative reform piece for the regional district side.

This is a place where there’s an opportunity to suggest a change, and there’s willingness from the province to make a change. Then there’s got to be some consultation, through UBCM, with local governments on how best to implement that.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I’ve met Don, so I will give him a shout. Thank you.

Keith Page: I think most people have, so I figured.

Rob Botterell: Yeah, I’ve actually worked with Don Lidstone for a bunch of years. We’ve got UBCM coming up, so this can be, definitely, a topic for discussion.

I share the view of my colleague that this is long overdue. Certainly, as we put together our committee recommendations, we’ll be looking at it pretty carefully.

What I was wondering about was just more discussion to follow up on the implementation. It seems to me that, in full consultation with UBCM and local governments, there’s no reason why legislative change couldn’t be introduced in the spring session next year in order to facilitate this change.

I guess the question has been partially answered, but just to confirm your thinking, do you see this as enabling, in the sense that the existing council in each local government would need to decide to go with this system in the next local government election?

Or would you see implementing it, then having a cycle, and then deciding whether to keep it? That’s my first question.

[9:25 a.m.]

My second question is that I’m having a hard time figuring out what the downside is to this. You know, when I was back in law school, I was always asked to argue the other side of the case. Can you come up with a convincing reason not to do this? I can’t.

Keith Page: Well we’re in a stage where you look across the country and some places are like, “Oh we have to count everything by hand. We have to make sure that it has the tactile nature to it,” so that it’s just simple in and out. So there’s an opportunity for people to tear it apart on a complication. I think that’s obviously where a lot of electoral reform has gotten hung up in the past.

That’s why I like the idea of enabling legislation. I haven’t…. It’s not my answer to give in terms of whether we should enable it in the spring session and then councils can have a waiting period.

We already run our own local elections. We’re already governed by legislation on how to do that and how to execute that and how to have our chief election officer. Providing them an additional ability to choose the system is that at the six-month time window, there are certain choices that have to be made around by-elections already that contain the parameters of how the council is able to weigh in on or not weigh in on filling a seat when it gets vacated. You lovely MLAs rise to your positions often out of our ranks. It happens all the time.

I think that’s a place where maybe it’s a six-month window that closes, that aligns with those other markers that already exist around by-elections, just to feel like it’s augmenting what we currently have.

But leave it to the…. I think you can safely allow enabling legislation, and then allow individual municipalities to have the discussion, which is also going to lead to a term where lots of municipalities and local governments will go through different kind of consternating questions. But because there are so many of them, 188 different local governments, those conversations will be had in very good ways and in very bad ways. But hopefully the ponderance of it is on the good side.

But I think you’re going to have a lot of conversations. I think that’s probably why this is steered away from initially. It’s just there’s going to be four years of people arguing about this at the local government level as different motions are brought forward to enable that change. And maybe that change is enabled for a by-election, right?

Rob Botterell: Sure. If I’m understanding you, then leave it, enable it, leave it to individual local governments to decide whether to change the system, but they’re able to do it if they wish. And then presumably in the fall 2026 local government elections, we’d have some, a sample anyway, if not everybody, trying it out.

Keith Page: Also to the other committee member’s point, I think you need to make it sticky. I’m not sure you need to make it not rescindable, but I think you need to make it stick for a term or two before it can be brought back so people aren’t whiplashing the system because that’s going to create distrust. So once it’s rolled over, I think it’s got to sit for a term, probably two.

Rob Botterell: Great, okay, thank you.

Keith Page: You could do that, but make it six years so you have to roll into a second term in order to pull it back.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great. Are there any further questions from committee

Thank you very much, Keith, for being here today. I hope you have a great day.

Next up we have Craig Henschel from Voter Equality.

Welcome, Craig, to the committee. Just as a reminder before you begin that you have 15 minutes for your presentation followed by ten minutes for questions, and please begin as soon as you’re ready.

Voter Equality

Craig Henschel: Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you today about electoral systems and about the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, which did its work 21 years ago. While the assembly’s process was about as thorough as one can imagine, with a very strong consensus, we found that B.C. STV would be the best electoral system for British Columbia.

Much has happened in the world since then, but the basic math of single-member districts hasn’t. The fundamental desire of all people to have a say in the laws and policies which affect them hasn’t changed.

I think that our recommendation is as valid now as it was in 2004. I have submitted the assembly’s 20-page final report for your review. The assembly’s 280-page technical report is available online. These two reports are the official voice of the citizens assembly, and I would encourage you to check out the 20-page report.

[9:30 a.m.]

Right now I’m presenting as a former member of the citizens assembly, and I would like to speak about the origins of the assembly, the assembly’s process, the assembly’s recommendation. As an individual voter, I would like to then offer some observations and advice to members and the public with respect to things that have happened in the last 20-odd years.

The origins of the B.C. citizens assembly really started after a very undemocratic election result in 1996, when the party with the most votes lost, and the party with the second most votes formed a majority government. In 2001, there were only two opposition MLAs, so they couldn’t even form an official opposition.

The B.C. Legislative Assembly unanimously created the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform with one simple goal: to assess models for electing members of the Legislative Assembly and issue a report recommending whether the current model for these elections should be retained or that another model should be adopted.

Our MLAs thought that voters should do this work, not politicians or political parties. For democratic legitimacy, this is something which needed to come from voters. The B.C. citizens assembly members took our responsibility seriously. After all, we had been asked to do this work, on behalf of our fellow voters, by the B.C. Legislature.

To do this, 160 ordinary non-partisan voters were randomly selected from the voters list to serve on the assembly — a man and a woman from each district, and a man and a woman from the First Nations. Jack Blaney, the former president of SFU, chaired the assembly as its 161st member.

The citizens assembly was kind of like the B.C. Legislative Assembly, except that we had twice as many members. We had two members, a man and a woman, from every district, as well as First Nations. We were selected randomly from the voters list.

The citizens assembly was non-partisan. We didn’t meet two swords’ lengths apart. The citizens assembly met in the concentric circles of the great hall of the Wosk Centre for Dialogue in Vancouver. We met for 11 months to address a single question: which electoral system would be best for British Columbia?

The assembly’s 11-month process included three phases: a learning phase, a public consultation phase and a deliberation phase. The learning phase comprised six weekend sessions from January to March 2004, conducted by political scientists from UBC and international experts. We had a textbook and plenty of fact sheets and handouts. For all the assembly weekend sessions, the members flew and/or drove from all over the province to Vancouver and, on one weekend, to Prince George.

After the learning phase, we published a preliminary statement to the people of British Columbia as a basis for the discussion during the public hearings. The public consultations were held in May and June. We held 50 public hearings, each attended by four to six assembly members. About 3,000 British Columbians attended the hearings. There were 383 presentations, 1,430 people made written submissions to us, and they made a total of 1,603 of them.

At the conclusion of the public hearings, the assembly met in Prince George to discuss what we’d heard from the public. The dominant things of the public’s presentations and submissions included the need for change, a desire for more proportionality, the importance of local representation and a desire for increased voter choice.

The deliberation and recommendation phase lasted from September to November 2004. After hearing from voters, we brought in nine special presenters to speak about specific topics. We discussed fundamental principles and how different electoral systems might support these principles.

It was clear at this point that the two electoral-system families that held the most promise were MMP and STV. But which MMP and which STV? Small design changes can make huge performance differences. Electoral systems have a lot of interacting parts, some of which are incompatible with each other.

So we spent one weekend designing the best MMP system we could imagine, and the next weekend, we designed the best STV system we could imagine. We named these systems B.C. MMP and B.C. STV.

[9:35 a.m.]

We compared them based on the values voters thought most important and what we had learned. Then we voted to see which alternative system we thought was preferable. B.C. MMP got 20 percent support; B.C. STV got 80 percent support. This is from assembly members. This was a remarkable consensus. Knowledgeable voters from across the province preferred B.C. STV by a huge margin.

We then reviewed our current first-past-the-post system and compared it to B.C. STV. First-past-the-post got 7 percent support; B.C. STV got 93 percent support. We then voted 85 percent to recommend B.C. STV to the people of British Columbia in a referendum on May 17, 2005.

The citizens assembly worked at the behest of the B.C. Legislature and on behalf of B.C. voters. Political insiders were kept out of the process. The assembly found an electoral system which gives more power to both B.C. voters and B.C. MLAs, improves local representation, increases voter choice and provides proportional results.

In the referendum, B.C. STV got 57.7 percent support provincewide and was favoured in 77 of 79 districts. Unfortunately, the province had set a dual 60 percent threshold for the referendum to pass.

What is B.C. STV, and how does B.C. STV work? The assembly made a custom design of STV for B.C., creating B.C. STV. To represent multiple points of view in a district, STV uses multi-member districts. To accommodate the differences in B.C. geography, B.C. STV proposes districts with two to seven MLAs in each.

To ensure that voters have an equal voice and equal legislative power, each MLA in a district would be elected by about the same number of voters. To do this, B.C. STV uses a preferential single transferable vote ballot and counting system, basically the same system that they use in Ireland and several other jurisdictions. This also eliminates the need that some voters feel to vote strategically.

A preferential ballot with multiple preferences encourages candidates and MLAs to be more civil towards each other and tends to reduce extremism on both ends of the political spectrum. Candidates from different parties will be elected based on the proportion of their voter support in the district. Parties will tend to run one more candidate than they expect to win in each district in order to be able to benefit if the election goes their way. As a consequence, voters will be able to rank candidates from their preferred party, effectively giving them a say in the party’s nomination process.

Voters will also be able to vote across party lines if candidates from different parties appeal to them. For parties which put up more than one candidate in a district, there will often be an electoral advantage to have more diversity and greater gender balance.

Independent candidates will have a very real chance of winning election. This makes it more possible for MLAs to break with their party on policy issues without fear of losing in the next election. In Ireland, I think about 9 percent of the TDs are independents.

Because multiple points of view will be represented in each district, a fuller picture of each district’s needs will be heard in party caucuses and the Legislature. Because most voters will have an MLA they voted for, and every MLA in a district will be elected by about the same number of voters, the overall disproportionality of the system will be very low.

That’s my take on the citizens assembly as a member. I would like to talk a little bit about my perspective, since the assembly wrapped up its work. I’ve listened to or read in some of the transcripts from your hearings.

With respect, there seems to be some confusion about why we elect you. We don’t have partisan elections to hire non-partisan advocates in the unlikely event that we might need help interacting with the provincial government. We elect you to speak and vote on our behalf in the B.C. Legislature about the laws and policies which affect our lives. We also vote for you based on our broadly held partisan preferences. In the Legislature, we want you to support our choice for the Premier and who will form government.

Additionally, we vote for some of you because we respect, admire and like you. The idea that we need a partisan election to hire non-partisan constituency caseworkers makes absolutely no sense. Given what we expect from you and require from you as voters, it should be obvious that a single MLA in a district cannot fulfil this responsibility. To represent multiple points of view, you must have multiple-member districts. It’s just math.

[9:40 a.m.]

At the most basic level, a single MLA cannot support both David Eby and John Rustad for Premier. A single MLA cannot be for big government and be for small government. A single MLA cannot vote for and against resource development. A single MLA cannot be for addressing climate change and also against addressing climate change. A single MLA has one voice and, more importantly, only one vote.

MPs and MLAs who say that they represent everyone in their districts are not being truthful to themselves and the electorate. This is not — I repeat, this is not — a victimless falsehood. When you say that you represent everyone in your district, you are denying representation to the people in your district who did not vote for you. On average, in B.C., about 50 percent of voters didn’t vote for you. If you really want to represent them, change the electoral system so that there are multi-member districts to represent multiple points of view in your district.

Some people assert that being elected in a multi-member district would be too hard for a candidate or an MLA. Wouldn’t the added inconvenience be worth it if democratic representation can be given to the 50 percent of voters in your district who currently lack representation?

My primary ask of you today, and the most important concept to agree on, is to say two things very clearly.

The first is that the primary responsibility of an MLA is parliamentary, not providing constituency services. We didn’t fight wars for better constituency services. We don’t have partisan policy elections to hire constituency caseworkers.

The second thing I would really like you to do in your report to the Legislature is to state that a single MLA cannot represent everyone in their single-member district. This is a critical flaw of our current electoral system and other electoral systems which use single-member districts.

It’s important to think…. I’m sure you’ve had a lot of discussions about proportionality. But proportionality is a symptom; it’s not the problem. The discussion is often framed as a trade-off between local representation and proportionality.

This is especially the case with MMP. As you sacrifice local representation by doubling the size of the single-member districts, you have more compensatory MLAs and better proportionality. Do you do that? Or do you try to keep closer to current levels of local representation by only increasing single-member districts sizes by 50 percent, which frees up fewer compensatory MLAs, making less-proportional systems?

This is a hopelessly flawed paradigm and relies on the demonstrably false idea that an MLA can represent everyone in his or her district. It’s also based on a demonstrably false idea that a single-member district equals local representation.

You cannot say that an electoral system has local representation if only 50 percent of voters are represented locally, whether in first-past-the-post or in MMP. The other 50 percent of voters have no representation at all. They get zero local representation.

I think that’s pretty close to my time, so maybe I should just go to questions.

Amna Shah (Chair): Yeah, thank you, Craig.

We’ll open the floor for questions, and we’ll start with MLA Stamer.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Craig, for your presentation. One of the things that we’re still having a conversation with around the table is regional representation, and when you start talking about changing the boundaries…. I mean, we just went through another boundary change.

I think most of the people that are our constituents don’t even realize what we actually do parliamentary here in Victoria. I think the expectation is, regardless of what our political stripes are, we’re going to be as apolitical as we can be at the constituency office level.

To me, we keep grappling with this idea that there could be anywhere between 5 percent and 10 percent of the people out there that have a contrary — or 15 percent — view of, say, two major parties, whether it’s a left party, a right party or whatever it is.

Yet even if we were here in this room in exactly the same proportion, you’re only going to be represented at 10 or 15 percent. If 80 percent of the room wants to go one way, we all get our say, but at the end of the day, it’s still going to be a majority. Sure, the two parties may not have more than 50 percent of the votes, but I would think that they have more than 50 percent of the people in our province.

So how would a rural-urban MLA be able to service those greater areas that you’re suggesting?

[9:45 a.m.]

Craig Henschel: When we met back in 2004, there wasn’t Zoom. There weren’t any video conferences. There wasn’t Facebook. We heard from especially assembly members but also other people that what they really wanted was to have multi-member districts, so that multiple points of view from districts could be heard in Victoria and in the different political parties in their caucuses.

There’s obviously a geographic difference. That’s why we recommended having one two-member district in the province and other three-, four- and five-member districts, depending on geography, and, in the cities, up to seven-member districts. We acknowledged that there is a difficulty providing services geographically, but a lot of that can be overcome with technology, with constituency offices and broader constituency support, which the province could do if it wanted to.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. I had two questions. I apologize; I haven’t read the materials, but are the terms of reference in the materials? I mean, you described it verbally to some extent, but can we get a copy of the terms of reference for this?

Craig Henschel: Yes, the terms of reference are in the 20-page report. Also, the entire paperwork for the assembly is in the 280 technical pages.

Rob Botterell: Great. That’s helpful. Then I wondered…. Obviously, you’ve described a very comprehensive, detailed process that led to a recommendation for B.C. STV. That was in 2004. You’ve highlighted, just now, one of the changes that have happened since 2004 that certainly impinges, to some extent, on the recommendation that was made, which is the social media, the internet and the expansion of digital ways to communicate. That’s only one example.

As you look at the political climate today and the democratic institutions today, what has changed, from your perspective, that could influence a choice on whether or not to move to STV? Obviously, you’re a sample size of one, but you’ve seen things, and you were involved in the citizens assembly. It’d be helpful just to hear your thoughts.

Craig Henschel: Yeah, I mean, politics is politics, right? Some parties define themselves by what other parties are saying or doing. There’s always a scrappiness.

What we haven’t had recently is an election like in 1996 — when the party with the second-most votes formed a majority government, which is clearly sort of an unexpected, undemocratic result — or a situation where, I think, with 56 percent of the vote, the Liberals took 77 of the 79 seats, leaving only two MLAs from the NDP not even being able to form an official opposition.

We don’t have those examples, where the system has totally crashed, but they’ll come back. We’ll have them again. The whole idea of the citizens assembly was to fix this problem before we have those mistakes happen again.

With respect to technology, communication is much easier and more fluid now, so the larger district size is not such a problem as it was 21 years ago. I’m speaking right now in Markham, Ontario, and we’re having a discussion on policy. We couldn’t have done this 21 years ago; we didn’t envision this. Things have moved forward, in a positive sense, for larger districts.

[9:50 a.m.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions from the committee?

I actually have a question for you. My question revolves around some of the presentations we’ve had in the past from presenters who have recommended the citizens assembly as being a great way for legislators to discern the public’s views on key issues in the province beyond electoral reform.

Do you think that that is a reasonable suggestion, based on your experience? It could be about issues that pertain to a housing strategy, for example, or an economic strategy, with a particular question posed to the citizens assembly.

Craig Henschel: Yes. I think it’s a bit of a difficult thing because people say…. You know, a bunch of people from a jurisdiction meet over a weekend and they call it a citizens assembly. The important thing about a citizens assembly is that, one, they have a lot of information and understanding about the topic, they have a lot of time and they have resources to address the topic.

The other thing they really need is a clear question that is sort of difficult to answer or needs to be answered by voters. So the B.C. citizens assembly…. We had a difficult question to come to grips with, and we had 11 months to do it. We had full-on educational support and technical support to do our work, and we had massive public consultations, and we had a lot of people, 160 people, working away at it.

If you’re going to have a citizens assembly, you’ve got to give them enough time and enough resources and enough expertise and a really specific question. Otherwise, it’s just a…. It’ll be just a consultation process, you know, where you get the Post-its and you write something on them and they stick them on a big sheet of paper. That’s not a citizens assembly.

Amna Shah (Chair): Just another question. Other presenters have also mentioned that we do not need a referendum to have change in the electoral system. Considering that the political climate, society has changed quite a bit since 2005, with unique challenges and maybe even some successes, do you think that the question should be posed to the electorate as to whether we change the system now? Or do you think that the citizens assembly’s recommendations and the results from back then still hold true today?

Craig Henschel: I think our recommendations hold true today.

I think that’s really a very simple math problem. I mean, in a single-member district, you can’t represent more than one point of view, and that results in 50 percent of voters not being represented.

Personally, I think that being represented in government is a human right, and you don’t put human rights to referendum. How you address it…. You may have choices on how you address a human right, but you don’t say, back in 1917 in B.C.: “Do you want to give women the vote?” No, you don’t have a referendum for that. It’s a human right. You don’t ask the same question for Indigenous people or people from other ethnic origins.

Having representation is a human right. Fifty percent of voters do not have representation right now, so the B.C. Legislature and this committee should recommend moving forward with a way to fulfil that human right.

The model that you use could be up for debate, but here’s the problem. With electoral systems, they’re really complicated. I’m sure you’ve heard this from your previous speakers. Small system changes can make a big difference.

Now, you’ll have heard from, I’m sure, MMP supporters saying they’re better for women, so they can zipper a list. That only works with closed lists, and voters that we found wouldn’t go for a closed list. So that good thing that MMP could provide is not open to people, is not open for really a benefit from.

[9:55 a.m.]

There’s a lot of expertise that the public…. We tried this in 2018, to educate the public about a bunch of different systems. It’s really confusing for them. So a referendum — no. You’ve got the power to do it. You’ve got the constitutional power to set the electoral system.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you.

We have two brief questions, starting with MLA Botterell.

Rob Botterell: What’s your view on an approach that would have a citizens assembly to essentially validate or review the work that was done previously on BC-STV, and then the government, if it was recommended, would proceed, and then have a referendum after to see, as in New Zealand, if citizens want to continue with it?

Craig Henschel: Having a new citizens assembly to review the previous citizens assembly work — I think that would be perfectly fair. And it would add a sense of legitimacy to the whole process. You wouldn’t have the MLAs, for instance, deciding which political system to choose, which electoral system to choose. So I think that’s a good idea.

What was the second part of that question?

Rob Botterell: If that were the case and the government implemented whatever the citizens assembly came up with, what are your thoughts on, after a couple of election cycles, like in New Zealand, having a referendum to see if citizens want to continue with it?

Craig Henschel: I think that’s fair. Just for your information, we thought, when we went into the citizens assembly, that we knew there’d be a referendum. We figured it’d be 50 percent. We didn’t find out until a couple of months into our process that they were going to set a double 60 percent threshold. No government in B.C. has ever gotten 60 percent support. So they’re really asking something extraordinary from us. And we got 57.7 percent support in the province, which is remarkable.

The consensus on the assembly — 80 percent for STV, 20 percent for MMP, 95 percent to change the electoral system. It’s really a no-brainer for…. The more informed you are, the more you’re going to support it. And that’s why I support another citizens assembly reviewing our work. I’m perfectly confident they would come to the same or similar conclusions.

Amna Shah (Chair): The last question is from MLA Stamer.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): I just want to have a point of clarification. It’s that proportional representation is not a human right. The right is to vote. You’re making an opinion on whether that is a human right or not. We can agree to disagree, but you’re making an opinion. Right now, the right is to vote. It isn’t on proportional representation. So I just want to put that in the record.

Craig Henschel: Well, actually, the right is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It isn’t just a vote. Beverly McLachlin very clearly stated, of the Supreme Court, that the right is for effective representation, that every voter should have effective representation. So it is a right. It’s been stated so by the Supreme Court.

I’m not talking about PR being a right. I’m talking about that every voter has a right to representation, has a right to an MLA who they voted for. It turns out that that creates or gives a proportional system, proportional results. But the right is in the constitution. It’s in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as clarified by the Supreme Court.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Okay, but you said “effective.” We’re still determining percentages and thresholds and everything else, so we’re arguing on a word.

Craig Henschel: Well, the word “effective” is a good word to focus on. There is currently a case at the Ontario Court of Appeal, I believe, looking into what exactly effective representation means, the word “effective.” If you read Beverly McLachlin’s writing on that, I think that you’ll conclude that not having a representative is not effective. You’ve got to have a representative to be effective in any sense. If you don’t have a rep who you voted for, you’re not getting representation — period.

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Seeing as there are no further questions, thank you very much, Craig, for your service and for taking the time to be here today and your thoughts.

Craig Henschel: Great. Thanks, guys. Good luck.

Amna Shah (Chair): We will now take a brief recess until 10:15.

The committee recessed from 10 a.m. to 10:17 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, committee.

We will now start the session back up with Bob Hackett from the qathet Climate Alliance.

Welcome, Bob. Just as a reminder, you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions. Please fire away as soon as you’re ready.

Bob Hackett

Robert Hackett: Okay, thank you. I’m Bob Hackett, holder of a political science doctorate, retired professor and now a freelance journalist and, as you mentioned, a member of the qathet Climate Alliance, based in Powell River.

I’m speaking as a concerned citizen because liberal democracy is in trouble. People, especially the young, feel disconnected from a political system they see as unresponsive. Extremist ideologies and misinformation abound.

Economic inequality is too easily translated into unequal political power. Vested interests like large fossil fuel corporations wield disproportionate policy and media influence while the world edges closer to ecological collapse.

I see electoral reform as a small but important part of the remedy. Proportional representation makes it easier for smaller parties to represent interests and policy options otherwise marginalized. That could reduce polarization and the influence of vested interests, introduce more innovation in the system and increase voter engagement and turnout.

The easiest option, in my view, is a mixed-member proportional system, or MMP, like New Zealand or Germany. Half the MLAs are elected as they are now, through winning a plurality of votes in a riding, and half are allocated based on each party’s share of the popular vote, with individuals selected from a ranked list drawn up by each party. You’re probably already familiar with that.

But I do want to address some usual arguments against prop rep that, in my view, no longer hold water. First, it’s claimed that it gives party leaders and bureaucrats too much control, but they can already vet and veto individual candidates. I think they already have that control.

[10:20 a.m.]

Secondly, it’s claimed that prop rep makes it too easy for extremist parties to gain a foothold, but the existing first-past-the-post system creates an incentive for extremist movements to take over major parties and even form the government, as we’ve seen with the MAGA movement in the U.S.

Third, it’s claimed that prop rep reduces the likelihood of stable majority government. Perhaps, but is that a bad thing, necessarily? It forces parties to cooperate, like the NDP-Green agreement in 2017, which I think worked quite well.

Besides, a modified version of MMP would alleviate that concern about majority government. That’s if the principle of proportionality was applied only to those 50 percent of MLAs elected through the party lists, without trying to make the entire Legislature reflect the party’s share of the popular vote.

Finally, it’s claimed that voters don’t know what policies they’ll get if the government is determined through post-election negotiations. But that’s an unknown in any event. Governments often depart substantially from the platforms they ran on.

Consider the advantage to voters under an MMP system. It does actually seem to incentivize voter turnout, as voters know that nearly every vote influences the partisan composition of the Legislature. People don’t have to feel forced to choose the lesser evil, as I personally often feel that way. I would still have a local MLA, but if that person doesn’t share my priorities or values, I could approach those MLAs on the party list who do.

Let’s recall that a solid majority approved a version of prop rep in the 2005 referendum, but the government of the day insisted on a supermajority, so nothing changed. We shouldn’t have to do that because, unlike a pipeline, electoral reform can be reversed if we don’t like it.

In the bigger picture, though, revitalizing democracy is about more than voting every few years. We don’t want tyranny of the majority. Individual and group rights and treaties with First Nations have to be respected. But people do need to feel that they have a say in shaping the conditions and rules that frame their lives.

More areas of social life, particularly the economy, should be brought within the scope of democratic decision-making, not just through government but trade unions, co-ops, tenants associations, local councils and so on. We also need a more democratic and public service- and community-oriented media system with less dominance of disinformation and corporate ownership.

That said, electoral reform is a small but important step in the right direction, and I wish you luck in your efforts.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you very much, Bob.

I will open it up to questions, and we’ll start with MLA Stamer.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Bob, for your presentation. It was great.

One of the questions that I’ve had over the session is…. Our social media and legacy media and how things are evolving now…. There’s so much disinformation and people in their silos and algorithms and everything else. I know other jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, are trying to put guardrails on some of this stuff.

Is that something that is concerning to you as we go forward, whether it’s the next municipal election or our next provincial election — what is actually true and what is untrue?

Robert Hackett: Absolutely. I think you’re absolutely right. It definitely is a concern, and it’s hard to know how to deal with it now that that’s already embedded in the system. The huge corporations, mainly American-based, that dominate the internet and social media make money from encouraging silos and, indeed, encouraging clickbait that stokes hate, anger and disinformation.

So how to deal with that? One modest proposal is to require corporations that run the social media to reveal their algorithms, to make them public. So transparency — that’s one.

A longer-term and more fundamental solution would be what we should have done 25 years ago, and that is to restructure the whole internet, really, so that it’s more operated like a public service along the lines of libraries rather than something profit-making for, basically, a handful of billionaires. But that’s a pretty major undertaking.

But yes, it is a concern, and it’s difficult to know how to deal with it.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Can I have a supplement?

Thank you for that. Do you think that Elections B.C. should be more proactive when it comes to the amount of information that is occurring between our elections?

[10:25 a.m.]

Spending the time and the resources to make sure that we have more voter engagement, we have more opportunities, whether it’s a citizens assembly or town halls or just a better feel — even in our schools — to be able to get more information out so that we’re not just trying to bombard everybody in a 30-, 60-, 90-day period, so that we’re actually fully engaged throughout the whole process…?

Robert Hackett: Yeah, I think that would be a step forward. I agree we do need more civic education in schools for young people.

To return to my original point, I think there is evidence that a proportional representation system of some sort does incentivize voter turnout, if you look at the rate of participation. Most stable Western democracies — if indeed that term still applies — have prop rep systems rather than first-past-the-post. The only exception is Australia, which has first-past-the-post but the highest turnout because voting is mandatory. That’s part of it.

Maybe there’s a role for Elections B.C. and/or other independent agencies to counter outright disinformation. I worry, as a member of the Climate Alliance in particular, about how vested interests have been able to stall and sabotage effective climate policy in this country and elsewhere. It’s hard, again, to know how to deal with that, but more scientific literacy and critical thinking skills would be part of it.

Also, you need trusted sources of information that people can turn to. The crisis of journalism is a problem that you can’t deal with directly through Elections B.C., but it also has to be addressed.

Sheldon Clare: Dr. Hackett, I postulated about bicameral systems in British Columbia, to provide improved and enhanced regional representation. Given your background in political science, I thought I would ask what your view might be on a bicameral system provincially.

Robert Hackett: I haven’t really thought about that, frankly. I don’t know that we really need it. I don’t know that the Canadian Senate in the bicameral system there really serves, any longer, much of a useful function, quite frankly. Its original purpose was to act as a sort of sober second thought on legislation from the Lower House. That no longer really seems to be its function. It has become, historically, frankly, more of a place to reward party loyalists with a sinecure.

I’m not sure that a bicameral system would really change things fundamentally, although Australia does have one. Maybe it would be a place where you could explore using the proportional representation system in one of the Houses and not the others. That’s the system they have in Australia, right? That might be quite interesting to look at.

Sheldon Clare: Very good. Thank you for your answer. I appreciate that.

Rob Botterell: I’ll just pick up on Australia. What’s your perspective on mandatory voting?

Robert Hackett: Yeah, I think that on balance, I would favour it, as long as people aren’t harshly punished for not voting and can decline to do so on grounds of conscience. I know there are people in my own town who don’t vote for religious reasons.

I think it does make the outcome more representative of what the population really wants. The people who don’t vote tend to be lower income and younger. I think that introduces, itself, a bias in the electoral outcome. Certain segments of the population are underrepresented simply because they don’t know how to participate or are not sufficiently encouraged or incentivized to do so.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions?

Seeing none, thank you very much, Bob, for your presentation. I hope you have a wonderful day.

Robert Hackett: Thank you very much, and good luck with your work. It’s very important.

Amna Shah (Chair): Next up we have Matthew Hulse.

Thank you, Matthew, for joining us here today. Just as a reminder, you have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions.

Matthew Hulse

Matthew Hulse: Thank you very much. As introduced, my name is Matt Hulse. I am a staff lawyer at Ecojustice.

[10:30 a.m.]

Ecojustice is Canada’s largest environmental law charity. We have a mission to use the law to defend nature, combat the climate crisis and fight for a healthy environment for all. In pursuit of this mission, we go to court, and we also, as I’m doing today, advocate for legal reform that will establish the laws and governance structures that we need to address these issues.

As I will explain, I’m here today to recommend that B.C. adopt a system of proportional representation, because doing so will enable B.C. to better address the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, which will better protect the health, safety and economic security of British Columbians.

As you are no doubt aware, B.C. is already facing the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss. Between 2017 and 2024, for example, we had four years where the total area of wildfire in B.C. surpassed a million hectares. In the ten years prior, the highest annual burn area was under 400,000 hectares. In 2023, the burn area was almost 3 million hectares, which cost the province over $1 billion to combat.

According to a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Vancity, the total economic cost of climate events in 2021 — the heat dome, wildfires, floods and landslides — was between $10 billion and $17 billion. Of course, these costs don’t capture the 619 lives lost in that heat dome that year.

With respect to biodiversity, Canadian Pacific salmon are declining across their range, with 70 percent of populations dropping below their long-term average abundance in recent years. Salmon have, of course, significant economic and cultural value for many communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, across B.C.

Our southern resident killer whale population — iconic west coast species — is critically endangered, with only 73 individuals remaining. Their population health is closely tied to some populations, as you can imagine.

Unfortunately, B.C. hasn’t taken the necessary action to address these issues. The province has never achieved a climate target that it set and is currently not on track to meet its current emissions targets. It is also making the climate crisis worse by approving fossil fuel infrastructure, namely natural gas pipelines and LNG terminals that will increase the export of fossil fuels around the world. We don’t have a legal framework for the protection and stewardship of our threatened biodiversity, and the government continues to drag its feet on meaningful action.

So how can switching to proportional representation help? Well, research indicates that democracies with proportional representation have better outcomes in tackling climate change and other environmental issues than democracies with first-past-the-post. Proportional representation shows as much as 11 percent greater emission reductions than first-past-the-post democracies and score higher in environmental performance. They have more stringent environmental policies and legislation and use more renewable energy. Of course, benefits of proportional representation don’t stop there, but I won’t go into detail at this time.

Why is it that proportional representation can help? Well, biodiversity and climate change are long-term issues that have society-wide causes. Unfortunately, first-past-the-post is unable to do so because of how it introduces instability into governance, whereas proportional representation, through the facilitation of a greater diversity of perspectives into the Legislature and the encouragement of coalition governments, actually increases political diversity, improves dialogue and ends up resulting in more effective policies that have greater buy-in from political parties, which results in policies that last longer, policies that last years, decades, instead of lurching from party to party as elections occur.

They also encourage greater scrutiny of all the parties, who obviously have to buy in if they are going to agree to them, which means that these policies are more likely to work. We also find that proportional representation avoids election campaigns that focus on wedge issues and swing ridings, which means that the broad issues that face society as a whole can rise to the top of the agenda and generate ideas and solutions from the parties in that election.

I see my time’s coming to a close, so I’ll open to questions.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great. Thank you, Matthew, for your presentation.

Are there any questions from committee members?

Seeing none, thank you for your time, Matthew, and I hope you have a wonderful day.

We will now recess until our next presenter.

The committee recessed from 10:35 a.m. to 10:46 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Welcome back.

Our next presenter is Susan Hughes.

Welcome, Susan, to the committee. Just as a reminder, you have five minutes for your presentation followed by five minutes of questions. Please begin when you’re ready.

Susan Hughes

Susan Hughes: Thank you. I’m joining you from the traditional, unceded territory of the Coast Salish First Nations.

I believe one of the most effective things we can do to strengthen our democracy is to implement a voting model of proportional representation that includes multi-member ridings, top-up seats or both, and that this should be implemented in time for the next provincial election.

In The Crisis of Canadian Democracy, Andrew Coyne describes how the first-past-the-post voting system distorts election results in our multiparty system. As he points out, how much your vote counts depends on where you live and which party you vote for.

Many votes do not count at all, and I know this from personal experience. I am 72 years old, and I voted in every provincial and federal election since I was 18. I can only recall two instances where my vote counted, and one of those times, I was forced to vote strategically.

Many people would have given up voting altogether by now and, sadly, many have, but I have five grandchildren, and I want their future votes to count. As an engaged, concerned citizen of South Surrey, my views are not represented either provincially or federally. I do not have an MLA or an MP who represents my views in the Legislature or the House of Commons.

I’m not alone. We are seeing the growing disillusionment of younger voters and their increasing disengagement in the democratic process. This is largely the result of using the first-past-the-post voting system, a system that discourages voters from voting, wastes their votes or forces them to vote strategically and leads to a large percentage of the population being left unrepresented.

I do not support a system of ranked ballots in single-member ridings. Ranked ballots are fine in a proportional system, but ranked ballots in single-member ridings result in the same problems that we have with our current first-past-the-post system.

I am also against holding another referendum, because people do not vote for change if they don’t understand it. I’m also against referendums because the question posed is often loaded and designed for a specific outcome.

The first-past-the-post voting system is used in very few democracies — Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. the only ones in the developed world. So the results of first-past-the-post are low voter turnout; disproportionate election results; a party winning a minority of the popular vote that can win more than 50 percent of the seats and, hence, 100 percent of the power; increasing polarization among voters and regions; policy lurch when government changes; and the creation of policies designed to provide short-term political gains to ensure success in the next election, rather than focusing on the longer-term solutions that may be necessary.

[10:50 a.m.]

Proportional representation, on the other hand, will result in higher voter turnout and more voters feeling that they are represented. Establishing a citizens committee or citizens assembly to examine methods of proportional representation used elsewhere would provide informed citizen input to the process and lend credibility to the implementation of the reform.

I believe that the single biggest thing that the B.C. government can do to strengthen democracy is to lead by example, as B.C. so often does, by reforming our electoral system. As Martin Luther King Jr. said: “The time is always right to do what is right.” I urge you to implement a system of proportional representation that includes multi-member ridings, top-up seats or both in time for the next provincial election.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you, Susan, for your presentation.

Now for questions.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Susan, for your presentation. A couple of questions on the citizens assembly. If we look back in the past, in the last referendum, we had a fairly extensive citizens assembly. There was a recommendation, and then there was, I think some people can argue, an unattainable threshold at the 60 percent, because it had to be a supermajority.

Would you want it set up so that if there was a citizens assembly, those recommendations would be binding to the Legislature? Or would it still be favourable for the Legislature and the MLAs to be able to decide themselves on, say, a proportional representation opportunity and then to vote on it and then to implement it?

Susan Hughes: I guess I have not thought that through, but I don’t think I would be in favour of the recommendations of a citizens assembly being binding. I think it should be debated in the Legislature.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Okay. If I may follow up, would you also…? There were also opportunities of different staging and how that could occur. I mean, there is a legislative ability with the MLAs right now to be able to implement it without consultation. We could just decide as a group that this is what people want. We could implement it for one or two cycles, with the opportunity of maybe changing it back. We’ve heard that that’s never happened before. Or third, we just don’t do it at all.

Is there any of those three that would be preferable to you?

Susan Hughes: The first one being to implement it with the….

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Basically, with us being able to go ahead and do it. There wasn’t really any mention of a citizens assembly — just be able to have recommendations and then to go forward with it.

Susan Hughes: Oh, I see. No citizens assembly.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Correct.

Susan Hughes: Well, I’m in favour of a citizens assembly to provide recommendations, but I would be open. I don’t think it’s essential. What is essential is some form of proportional representation. Whether it’s decided in the Legislature to implement it, something…. Perhaps the single transferable vote in a multi-member riding would be the easiest form to implement in a short time period. But I do believe in the value of a citizens assembly.

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

[10:55 a.m.]

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. I guess the…. As you can tell from the questions we’re asking and Deputy Chair Stamer, we’re just trying to understand presenters’ perspectives on various implementation approaches. Some presenters have said that they’d recommend that the parties in the Legislature agree on an approach so that there’s all-party agreement and then simply proceed.

I guess my question around citizens assembly is: if you had a citizens assembly and there was an agreement amongst the parties in the Legislature to be guided by the outcome of that citizens assembly, would you still see the Legislature having a vote on whether to proceed with the outcome?

One of the things we heard from presenters on the 2004 citizens assembly was that they proceeded to develop recommendations in the understanding that the threshold in a referendum would be 50 percent plus one, only to have the government say: “Oh no, we’re going to make it a supermajority of 60 percent.”

Anyway, I’d appreciate your thoughts on: if there’s prior multi-party agreement to be guided by the recommendations that come from the citizens assembly, would you still want a vote of the Legislature?

Susan Hughes: No, not necessarily. And I must confess I wasn’t a resident of British Columbia during the last referendum, so I’m not fully aware of how that all worked, just what I’ve heard, little bits and pieces. So, no, it would not necessarily have to come to a vote in the Legislature, if that is the question you were asking.

Rob Botterell: That was, yeah. Thanks.

Susan Hughes: If prior informed…. If all parties agreed to abide by the recommendations of the citizens assembly….

Basically, I believe any form of proportional representation would be better than what we have now. It is absolutely the worst voting system in the world, and obviously, other countries agree. Eighty-five percent of OECD countries use some form of proportional representation. Any form of proportional representation voting system would be preferable to using first-past-the-post. It leaves so many voters unrepresented.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions from committee members?

Seeing none, thank you so much, Susan, for being here today, and I hope you have a wonderful weekend.

Susan Hughes: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you.

Amna Shah (Chair): Of course.

Next up we have Taylor So.

Taylor So: Good morning, members. My name is Taylor. I’m a….

Amna Shah (Chair): Oh, good morning, Taylor. Just before you begin, a reminder that you have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions.

Taylor So: Thank you, Chair. Got it. I’m ready.

Amna Shah (Chair): No worries. Go for it.

Taylor So

Taylor So: I’m a policy student and knowledge translator in Minister Ma’s riding. Today I’m going to offer a couple of ideas about voter participation and then about non-partisanship.

I think secure online voting could be a really good option for those busy and out-of-town voters that Elections B.C. mentioned. If it is adopted, I think it would need to be heavily promoted well in advance of an election.

There are a couple of other things we could do to increase participation. There’s a tax credit for voting, which some people think is vote buying, but it’s not. And then other presenters and members have mentioned compulsory voting. I think that could be much more useful, especially if ballots contained a none or abstain option, because it would give us a clearer picture of what’s going on in B.C., and we wouldn’t have to rely as much on stoking anger to get people to vote.

I want to talk about our potential to outgrow the party system. I looked at several representative democracies that have already done this: Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and five nations in the Indo-Pacific. All of them are formerly colonized and now self-governing jurisdictions. Their representatives are overwhelmingly Indigenous, so even though the structure is technically Western democratic, the governing itself is often informed by clan ties.

[11:00 a.m.]

I want to briefly share a news clipping with you from 2003. Niue’s only political party dissolved from the country of Niue: “Observers say the collapse of the Niue People’s Party followed infighting within its ranks. An opposition MP, Terry Coe, says he hopes this marks the end of party politics, which have been widely blamed for causing rifts in families and villages. Niue’s first Premier, Robert Rex, had opposed party politics, saying it would split communities.”

I thought that was really profound and fascinating. Reducing divisiveness is one of many benefits we could see from dissolving parties. There are actually so many benefits that I don’t have time to go into them. But in addition to that, there’s also a possible defence aspect that I want to draw to your attention.

I’m interested in the potential for non-partisanship to prevent the establishment of a white power party. It could reduce the number of opportunities for those threat actors to formally organize within the Legislature. And everyone knows that addressing those intergroup connections at every level of society is critical. We have socioemotional learning, deradicalization programs, surveillance by law enforcement, and I think that these are all well and good. They are very resource-intensive. I think that we can go a little bit further by just taking away the ability to form a party, which could complement all of those efforts.

While, yes, abolishing parties is a very drastic proposal, I hope I’ve made clear a couple of the potential benefits. I can take questions now.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great, thank you for your presentation.

Are there any questions from committee members?

Rob Botterell: Can you describe a bit more from your experience and research on the approach taken in Nunavut?

Taylor So: Thank you, Mr. Botterell.

Yes. I think something that’s also important to note about these jurisdictions is that they are literally small government, which B.C. is not. I’m pretty sure that both Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have 19 representatives each. They operate on a consensus basis, and that’s probably not feasible for us.

But one of the things that I found really remarkable when I was going through some of the transcripts for Nunavut’s Legislative Assembly was that question period was very literal. It was really just about putting, exchanging information on the public record. One person would ask questions; another person would answer. It was very straightforward and easy to understand. Yeah, a very unique system, I think.

Does that answer your question?

Rob Botterell: Yeah. That’s great.

I guess the other question I had really just related to eliminating the party system. You described that as a fairly major change, but maybe it’s got some major benefits. I’m just wondering if you could recap, from your perspective, what the benefits would be of not having party affiliations.

Taylor So: Of course, yeah. I can see it from both a voter perspective and also, to an extent, from a representative’s perspective.

A couple of, I guess, case studies, you could say, that I noticed over the past few years here in B.C. were Adam Walker, who was removed from the NDP caucus, and John Rustad, who was removed from the B.C. United caucus.

I think what was very surprising to me was that if you become an independent, the amount of funding that your office receives almost doubles. So that’s automatically more resources that representatives can unlock to help support their offices and subsequently their communities.

Something I also noticed about Mr. Walker was that once he was out of the caucus, he seemed a lot more relaxed and empowered. He was able to engage with his constituents a lot more directly.

If I have a few seconds to give a specific example, I remember…. It was, I think, early last year, in the spring, that the Premier issued a smartphone ban in schools. What Adam Walker did was…. No longer being in the caucus, he organized a town hall at one of the public schools in his constituency. He went in, and the students didn’t have to be in class. Instead, he just asked them for their thoughts and asked them to educate him a bit on smartphones in schools.

It wasn’t so much an oppositional move as it was a truly representative move about connection. I thought that was very, very interesting.

Rob Botterell: Great. Thank you.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much, Taylor. I hope you have a wonderful day.

Taylor So: Thank you. You too.

Thank you, Members.

Amna Shah (Chair): We will now recess until our next presenter.

The committee recessed from 11:04 a.m. to 11:17 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back. Our next presenter is Akshay Balakrishnan.

Welcome, Akshay. Just as a reminder before you begin, you have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions. Please take it away when you’re ready.

Akshay Balakrishnan

Akshay Balakrishnan: Hello, everyone. My name is Akshay. I’m a software developer living in Vancouver, and I am strongly in favour of proportional representation. I am honoured to deliver my remarks for the first time to this kind of committee. Thank you in advance for listening.

I’d like to start by taking you back to October 2007 in Ontario. I was exhausted from school, but I still remembered that there was a provincial election happening, mostly because it would be my first time to vote. Entering the ballot box, I was surprised to find a fun bonus: a referendum question. It read: “Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature? The existing electoral system, first-past-the-post? Or the alternative electoral system proposed by the citizens assembly, mixed-member proportional?”

This question, though impressively neutral in its wording, still left me confused. Apparently, some citizens assembled at some point, but what is a citizens assembly? What does a mixed-member proportional system look like compared to what we have now? And wait, what does first-past-the-post even mean again?

Thinking on it now, my surprise in that moment is not that surprising. The citizens assembly deliberated for eight months and delivered the report in May 2007, but as one article in the Canadian Political Science Review put it: “After the assembly completed its work, the issue seemed to die from neglect.” There were merely five months between the report and the combined election and referendum votes, with “strict rules that constrained the debate surrounding the referendum,” which meant that “there was hardly any debate and discussion during the campaign.”

Elections Ontario’s attempt at a public information campaign amounted to a plain but expensive website, which would tell you that the upcoming vote was important, but that you would have to do your own research on the proposed system or proportional representation in general. Even if I found the website, I would be on my own, which is not very encouraging.

[11:20 a.m.]

Ultimately, and regrettably, I voted to keep the existing electoral system simply because it was the existing electoral system. You don’t need a master’s degree in political science to understand proportional representation, but back in 2007, I did not have the time, energy, research data, context or even interest to properly weigh the merits and drawbacks of the proposed system. I am certainly more interested now. However, it would still be a challenge for me to adequately prepare for a referendum vote.

Even though proportional representation is more popular and more actively in use globally than ever, I believe that many folks today will, understandably, be more concerned with their daily lives than to prepare for a referendum vote. Even if we don’t know what the current system is, “current” is less scary than “other.” An uninformed choice or even a partially informed choice will tend to go to the status quo.

I do not support the use of a referendum for this very important decision, and I do not think that a better execution on an education and information campaign from Elections B.C. would make the use of a referendum any better, though a well-funded and well-executed campaign will be essential once a new system has been implemented.

I am in favour of creating a citizens assembly once again, where a representative group of us would have the time and resources necessary to make well-informed recommendations, aiming for something that would work for as many people in B.C. as possible. I would like to see the citizens assembly’s recommendations not treated as an ultimatum but instead treated as feedback to our duly elected representatives.

I want my government to start with the citizens assembly’s recommendations and negotiate and compromise to define a proportional representation system that works for them and their constituents. Ultimately, I expect our representatives to be accountable for their decision, empowered with the research and constituent context from the citizens assembly.

To further showcase my current interest in civics, at this point, I would like to state that I do not want ranked ballots for single-member ridings. Other than that, I am open to any system that a citizens assembly proposes and to what our representatives determine to be fair and, well, representative. Ideally, I would like our representatives to implement the chosen system in time for our next election.

In closing, I hope that this committee finds that proportional representation is popular, and the citizens assembly itself is popular. The citizens assembly in 2004 inspired thousands of assemblies around the world, resulting in incredible, citizen-led changes.

As Aftab Erfan, from Simon Fraser University, put it: “It embodies the best of what is possible when every element of the design — from the form of the seating to the choice of who presents the results — serves the vision of citizen-led democracy.”

Thank you for your time today.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you, Akshay.

We’ll go to questions.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. I think you’ve flagged and identified an item that is central in the discussions we’ve been having over the last couple of weeks as it relates to citizens assemblies. The way you framed it is that whatever the citizens assembly comes up with should not be an ultimatum.

The flip side of that is the experience in 2004 when the citizens assembly did its work, and then the government went to a referendum, setting a supermajority threshold, and effectively kiboshed the idea — at least in the view of some presenters — by the way in which the approval process was done.

I guess what I wondered about were your thoughts on something short of an ultimatum but more than giving the Legislature the ability just to ignore the citizens assembly recommendations altogether. A number of presenters have said that it is in the self-interest, certainly of existing mainline parties, to stick with the status quo. I didn’t know if you had any thoughts on how to navigate that balance.

Akshay Balakrishnan: Yeah, it’s tricky. There’s nothing that you could…. I would find it hard to frame a scenario or legislation that would say: “Okay, the government has to use whatever the assembly proposed, or it has to consider it.”

[11:25 a.m.]

The point that I’m trying to make, at least, is that the result of the citizens assembly is a well-researched set of recommendations. These should be discussed and evaluated. A part of that may be having the parameters of the output of the citizens assembly be a set of options or alternatives and not just one thing that you have to decide on, take it or leave it. It’s that “take it or leave it” mentality that I think is key to address.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for your presentation. Further to that, on the citizens assembly, we had a couple of people yesterday…. We had one from Canseco research talking about polling. From my perspective, most of the polling has been fairly accurate, within that 2 to 3 percent, depending on the size and scope of the catchment area, on the polling data.

Is that something that you’d like to see along with the citizens assembly, where we could make sure that we have two or three of the polling companies try to also get a feel of part of the engagement of the public that is not part of the citizens assembly — whether that means more education or more opportunities for people to know that this is something that’s important to try to pay attention to? Is that something that we should be weighing as well?

Akshay Balakrishnan: The tricky problem that I was trying to illustrate is the use of education and information before anything is implemented or decided upon. I think the data that you can get could be useful but might run into similar problems, as I illustrated, where people don’t know what it is that they’re talking about — and may not even fully be interested. They know as far as getting to the ballot box and putting an X on a circle.

As far as polling is concerned, it can be useful for after. Once the system is in place, polling to get a sense of the preferences, of how people engaged with the voting process and how the results are, would be very useful.

Beforehand, what is important is to have the citizens in the citizens assembly be representative of B.C. but also to have the time and resources to make this sort of decision. I find it hard to think of a situation where people could have the potential to have an informed decision beforehand.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): If I may expand on that, we’ve had discussions in the last couple of weeks, and we had a presenter this morning, that there’s a resolution coming up at UBCM specifically on a rank-based system municipally.

We’ve talked at length that that would be an opportunity for people, especially at the grassroots level, to experience it, totally non-mandatory, optional for whatever municipality or regional district that would be willing to try it. It’s coming up. Our next set of elections is 2026.

Is that something that you think would help further educate the public to be more comfortable in the process if we were then going to be doing something at a provincial-election level?

Akshay Balakrishnan: Definitely. That would address the concern I have of polling people on something that is theoretical and that hasn’t been seen locally yet.

The point that I want to reiterate is that as long as it isn’t a ranked ballot to decide a single winner, then that to me sounds good. It would be in line with the systems that are mainstream and would be proposed, I assume, from a citizens assembly. I can speak to more on that a little bit if you want.

Rob Botterell: Just to follow up on that, I think getting experience with different voting systems happens at two levels.

[11:30 a.m.]

One is the change to another system, which would be going to a ranked ballot at the next local government elections, but the electoral system in a local government setting is different than provincially. You’d be doing exactly what you’re describing, which is having a ranked ballot. It wouldn’t necessarily be the system that a citizens assembly came up with, provincially; it would sort of introduce you to change but maybe not exactly the change that a citizens assembly might recommend.

I want to shift gears a bit and ask you a question, just briefly. What’s your perspective on the types of issues that we’re running into around misinformation, AI and social media? Do you have any thoughts, in your experience, on how to address that somewhat related issue?

Akshay Balakrishnan: Yeah. Oh boy. It further highlights to me the reasons against using a referendum specifically, actually.

A common thread that you will see in referendums throughout the world is that most people will not go to the ballot box with a very informed decision but instead the most loud slogan that has appeared to them in the run-up to the vote. In our current ecosystem of increasing AI, generation of cheap content, misinformed content, that just makes the use of a referendum even worse, in my view.

As far as the citizens assembly process is concerned, care would have to be taken to vet the sources, the people that would come to present to the citizens assembly. But it is a more structured process, and there are more safeguards in that process. That should, hopefully, lead to a better-informed decision or set of recommendations.

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much, Akshay, for being here today. Have a wonderful day.

Akshay Balakrishnan: Thank you. You as well.

Amna Shah (Chair): Next up, we have Eileen Stephens.

Welcome, Eileen, to the committee. Just as a reminder, you have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions. Please, begin when you’re ready.

Eileen Stephens

Eileen Stephens: I’d just like to thank you for assembling this committee and offering the opportunity for the public to have this conversation with you. My name is Eileen Stephens. I hold a master of public policy. I have volunteered and worked on provincial and federal election campaigns, I have successfully and unsuccessfully run for elected positions in my union, and I’ve been voting since I’ve been 18.

I think a way to increase voter participation is to enfranchise more voters. One of those ways would be to lower the voting age to 16.

Across the world, there are 11 jurisdictions in Europe, North America and South America that have lowered their voting age to this age, with the United Kingdom being the most recent. I believe it was announced yesterday that they would be lowering their voting age to 16. A study by the Universities of Edinburgh and Sheffield found that people under 30 who had been able to vote at 16 voted more than people who could vote at 18.

The Youth at the Booth initiative that Elections B.C. has is a really great way to introduce youth to behind-the-scenes ways of participating in democracy, but I think it’s unfortunate that they are able to work at a booth but are not able to vote in one.

Social science classes and curriculums that include government and civics are introduced when students are approximately 16. Lowering the voting age to that age would give them firsthand experience as they learn about government systems and how to participate in them.

[11:35 a.m.]

Federally, there was a private member’s bill that was introduced in Canada in 2022 to lower the voting age, so I don’t think proposing a lowered voting age at the provincial level would be surprising or coming out of left field to folks.

To allow more people to vote, we could also allow permanent residents to vote in municipal elections. This is a popular initiative throughout Canada. There are various social service organizations that are advocating for this type of voter reform in provinces from coast to coast.

The municipal governments are also in favour. Recently, when Gregor Robertson was mayor of Vancouver, his council had passed a motion to ask the provincial government to allow for this. Throughout the world, there are at least 40 different countries that allow permanent residents to vote in their elections at different levels.

Permanent residents can join political parties. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada estimates there were approximately 63,000 permanent residents in B.C. in 2024. This number has increased by almost double since 2015, and the population in B.C. is expected to continue growing. We are seeing a trend of more permanent residents moving to the province, but they’re not able to fully participate as residents within the province.

Finally, for voting reform, there was a referendum that was held in 2018 that had a 42 percent turnout. I believe it was by mail-in ballot only. Fair Vote Canada noted that only two countries had successfully introduced proportional representation by referendum. The other 26 were by multiparty agreement.

The political landscape has changed since the referendum was held. Folks feel like there’s less representation across parties and that politics within Canada are starting to turn into a two-party system, where we see more not only parties but policies that are kind of consolidating around two or three major parties.

Then, most recently, the Pew Research Centre, in 2024, found that electoral reform ranked second out of 17 options for improving democracy in Canada.

I think having more choices about who can be a resident’s representative, as well as allowing more residents to choose their representation, will not only increase voter turnout but will increase participation with parties as well as in grassroots organizing.

Thank you very much for the time.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you for your presentation, Eileen.

Are there any questions from committee members?

Seeing none, thank you very much for your time and your thoughts, and I hope you have a wonderful day.

Next up, we have Meena Wong from the Civic Engagement Network Society of Canada.

Welcome to the committee, Meena. Before you get started, just a reminder that you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions. Please begin when you’re ready.

Civic Engagement Network
Society of Canada

Meena Wong: Okay, great. Thank you. I’m just trying to get my notes here.

First, I would like to say thank you for having this and for inviting me.

I would like to say that I’m a first-generation Canadian. I came from a country, like many new Canadians, without any electoral system at all. The current party had been in power for the last 76 years, the Chinese Communist Party. There had never been a general election during this time, and people’s voices have not been heard during this time.

There’s been abuse of human rights, basically, to the Uyghurs, as most people know and are aware, as well as Tibetans, and the imprisonment of lawyers and the massacre in Tiananmen Square of students. These are the situations that are facing people without proper representation.

[11:40 a.m.]

When I came to Canada, I was actually quite elated that we are a democratic country, and there are elections, but throughout the past 40 years, my personal experience is disappointment. The current system of first-past-the-post has not been fairly representing the wishes of the people, and the voting system has not been fair. My vote, due to my preference, has not been accounted for because I support a small party. In certain ridings or electoral districts, that party has never won the vote.

In 2011, I ran, actually, as a representative of the party, in a riding that the party, ranked the third in Canada, had never elected a candidate, even though many of the voters supported the party. Due to the first-past-the-post electoral system, the party’s voters have never been really represented or were able to elect the party or the representative that they preferred.

The current system. I’m sure that many people have pointed out the problems, like wasted votes and the false majority, such as during the 2019 election in which the Liberal Party only won 33 percent of the vote, yet it was able to rule as a majority government and make decisions for all the country, 100 percent of Canadians.

Also, I believe it was in 2021 that, again, the Liberals won a minority vote in the 30-percent range, yet again, it formed a minority government that made decisions for 100 percent of Canadians. That, to me, is not fair representation. What I’m looking for is some kind of a voting system that is more representative, where more Canadians’ voices can be heard and can be represented in parliament.

I think the other problem with first-past-the-post is the regional polarization. In some areas, some regions and their ridings, one party can win almost all the vote, such as in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and because people’s voices are not represented, there’s a low voter turnout.

When I talk to people, people feel that politics is a game for people with influence, with power and with money and that regular Canadians’ voices cannot be heard. People who support the environmental movement and are for equality, who fight poverty and who live in poverty — their voices are often not being heard, due to our current electoral system. Also, there are barriers in our current voting system. People live in remote areas, marginalized, like I mentioned, living in poverty. Indigenous communities often face difficulties in participation in the voting process.

What I would like to see is the introduction of a more proportional electoral system, such as mixed-member proportional or single transferable vote. The province I live in is B.C., and we had two referendums on STV. Unfortunately, it got voted down. I blame that on the government in power. They were not enthusiastic in promoting it. I believe the federal government, if it’s determined, can make this happen.

[11:45 a.m.]

Also, I believe mandatory voting, like Australia, would increase the voter turnout and political encouragement. I would also like to see more education and community engagement on the political process. I’m glad to see schools are starting to engage students at a young age on what is democracy, and they encourage students to participate. Unfortunately, once people go into the workforce, none of those exist.

I believe very vividly…. When I was trying to become a Canadian citizen and I had to pass examinations, then often the questions were asked, “Who is the current Prime Minister or Premier?” or your local representation. Often Canadians couldn’t help me.

Amna Shah (Chair): Sorry to interrupt, Meena. We are beyond time. So if you could just wrap up, that’d be great, thanks.

Meena Wong: Okay. Yeah.

Basically, I would like to see Canada and the federal government investigate and make up its decision. Don’t waste time in any more process. I believe, if you ask, make a referendum — I think there are tons of research and polls done — that most Canadians would prefer a more fair and representative electoral system.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you.

Meena Wong: You’re welcome.

Amna Shah (Chair): Wonderful. Thank you for your presentation.

Are there any questions from committee members?

Seeing none, thank you so much, Meena, for being here today, and I wish you a wonderful day.

Next up we have Kevin Rupasinghe from Unlock Democracy.

Welcome, Kevin. Thank you for joining us. Just as a reminder, you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions. Please begin when you’re ready.

Unlock Democracy

Kevin Rupasinghe: Sure, thank you very much. Good morning, members of the committee, and thank you for taking the time to hear from me and others today. My name is Kevin Rupasinghe. I’m speaking on behalf of Unlock Democracy Canada. We are a national charity that is working to educate Canadians on democracy and civic engagement. Ultimately, we would like to see voting systems changed to strengthen our democracy at every level of government, coast to coast.

Our current political landscape is too polarized, divisive and alienating to most voters. The current voting system used in British Columbia, first-past-the-post, amplifies our differences rather than bringing us together. Democratic reform can transform these combative political spaces into more inclusive arenas of collaboration. The list of problems with first-past-the-post is quite long, so I’ll just focus on two recent examples from the 2024 provincial election.

First, the voter turnout trend — it’s not looking good. Voter turnout has gone down over time, certainly over my lifetime, and B.C. is not far from dropping below 50 percent turnout, which would be a huge blow to the strength of B.C.’s democracy. This recent provincial election had fairly low turnout, part of that downward trend over many years. It’s not good.

As another example, consider in this most recent election that there is a bizarre instance of two major political parties collapsing into one, with the sole purpose of challenging the incumbent government. This is a very odd symptom that is caused by the current first-past-the-post voting method, which tends towards two-party systems and fuels divisive wedge politics.

There is a better way, and that means changing the voting system so that the true will of the people is better reflected in the outcomes and so we don’t see declining voter turnout trends and bizarre insider political party behaviour, like last-minute collapses to try and stop another party.

Moving away from first-past-the-post is imperative. Every one of the options that B.C. is exploring would be an improvement. I’d say it’s especially important that for any of these changes, you move forward and try it out for a few years, for a few elections and leave the door open to make adjustments. A democracy should be living, where we tinker and make adjustments and improvements, not something that is frozen in amber. That’s the best way to move forward.

[11:50 a.m.]

Unlock Democracy supports moving to proportional representation, particularly the single transferable vote, STV, or mixed-member proportional, MMP, models. Those both could be very effective for B.C. and could build on a track record of success where these systems have been used internationally.

Making this change to proportional representation is going to ensure that election outcomes more accurately reflect public opinion. It’s going to boost the public’s confidence in elections, in the value of being civically engaged and in politicians.

We’ll see underrepresented groups, like youth, more likely to engage in the political process because they feel like their voice can actually be better heard. Moving to PR means more candidates from underrepresented communities will actually choose to run as a candidate because they would rather run in a more collaborative PR environment than in the more divisive first-past-the-post system we have now.

Moving to PR is going to put B.C. on the world stage for democracy and continue to have B.C. leading in Canada when it comes to giving people a strong democratic voice. The benefits of switching to PR are numerous, and we’re going to reap those benefits for many years to come.

While the committee is focused on future provincial elections, I do want to also urge you to move forward with giving municipalities the option to run their local elections how they see fit for their communities. At Unlock Democracy, we have our local choice campaign, and it is about giving municipalities that power to choose for themselves whether they use first-past-the-post or ranked choice voting, whether elections should be ward-based or at large or a combination of both, whether voting should be on weekends or weekdays.

The reality is that most Canadians live in cities now, and local government is more important than ever. Giving municipalities that choice of how to run their local elections is the right thing to do to boost local civic engagement and strengthen local democracy. That will have positive effects as well, provincially and federally.

Please move on from first-past-the-post provincially to any of the options identified, especially the proportional representation options, and please grant municipalities the power to choose how they run their own elections, including with a ranked ballot. These two things could lead to a generational improvement in B.C. civic engagement and participation and a stronger province forever.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you for your presentation.

We’ll go to questions.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for your presentation. At the early part of your presentation, you went over a couple of recent elections, and provincially you highlighted the fact that turnout is down. I think, actually, turnout in the most recent provincial election is up from the previous one. It’s still…. I mean, it’s in the 50 to 60 percent range.

But it raises a question that I wanted to ask you: what would be the view of Unlock Democracy on adopting the approach in Australia, which is mandatory voting?

Kevin Rupasinghe: It’s an interesting question. Absolutely, in this most recent provincial election compared to the prior one, turnout is up. But the overall trend line is still heading in the down direction. We see one election to the other, it always fluctuates.

I think that at the end of the day, of course you’ll have a pretty significant turnout if you adopted Australia’s mandatory voting. But at the end of the day, democracy is about choice, and my view on it would be that right now we have other tools in the toolkit, like changing our voting system and giving people the option of how they want to participate without actually making it mandatory. I think we’ll probably see much higher turnout in civic participation by doing that rather than forcing people to go vote in a system that they don’t actually have confidence in.

I’d rather get to the root of it and see people actually feel confident in the voting system. Changing to something like proportional representation is actually a really good way of saying: “These are the inputs at the voting stage, these are the outputs, and they actually match.” That’s going to do a lot more, I think, for people’s confidence and willingness to vote.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions?

Seeing as none, thank you very much, Kevin, for being here today and for your thoughts. I hope you have a wonderful day.

[11:55 a.m.]

Next up we have Randal Hadland.

Welcome, Randal.

Randal Hadland: Thank you. I’m pleased to be here.

Amna Shah (Chair): Well, we’re pleased that you’re here. Just before you get started, just a reminder that you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes for questions. You may begin when you’re ready.

Randal Hadland

Randal Hadland: I want to express appreciation for a chance to speak to try to improve democracy and for the land that we live on and for the chance to share it with First Nations who have been here so long.

Canada’s democracy has meant a lot to me. We’ve had an amazing life in an amazing country, but it seems now that things are getting edgier and more problematic, more confrontational. That democracy that we had when I was growing up has been, it seems to be, degrading over time.

By way of an introduction, I went to school in Dawson Creek, and I went to college in Guelph, Ontario — agricultural college. I was raised on a farm on the north banks of the Peace River. So if I was involved in politics at all, it was through farming and through the Site C dam issue. I remember Mr. Botterell from the ’82-83 hearings at Site C.

I’m opposed to first-past-the-post. We can’t have a democracy that elects a majority of MLAs with a minority of votes cast. It just doesn’t work. When governments with one-third of the votes rule, it isn’t a form of democracy I can support.

As all of you know, it’s a very complicated world with multiple issues, and first-past-the-post elections impose a simplistic single-issue framework for discussions. A single issue by definition rules out emphasis on other issues.

I realize that all parties try to present a full social platform, but it is easy to focus on voters’ immediate short-term concerns — rent and groceries, or as Mr. Vander Zalm tried to do, cheap beer. Those all come to mind. Proportional representation will give a more long-term and more diverse concern its proper place in legislative discussions. We need to be involved in that wider set of issues: energy, environment, finance, food security.

I’m not a fan of technocracy, but we can draw some advice from the idea that a government should have representation. A legislature should have people involved that include all of the areas of concern to society, a well-rounded, even cooperative government rather than a confrontational one. A confrontational government enforces limitations on our representatives. You have to follow party lead. You don’t acknowledge mistakes.

I argue that we don’t have time for petty politics anymore. We’re at a serious crossroads. We need all issues brought into all discussions because it is all linked together — land protection, air quality, water availability, population, housing, energy, minerals and a sense of community. And we’re going to have to work together.

Labour, business and social reform are seen as oppositional, to the point of exclusion. So when an election occurs and any large number of voters are left out of the Legislature, it’s impossible to have that broad-ranging and thorough discussion of priorities and policies.

[12:00 p.m.]

A proportional representation system will enable more complete plans for the province to be implemented, and it will remove a lot of voter frustration and apathy that has led to poor turnouts and a democratic deficiency. Please recommend some form of proportional representation.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you very much, Randal, for your presentation.

We’ll now move into questions, starting with the Deputy Chair.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Randal. We were discussing, when we talk about opportunities with proportional representation and voters not having a say, so to speak…. We’ve been talking about implementation if we had a PR system and how we would actually do it.

One of the speakers this morning brought up an idea which we’ve been chatting about the last couple of week. It’s about allowing municipalities the flexibility by changing the charter and then allowing those municipalities to choose whether they would like a rank-based or STV-type system in their next upcoming municipal election to give people an idea of how it would actually work in a community.

One of the things I can see, when we talk about engagement, and this is just from my perspective, is that municipalities and regional districts used to have more power than they have now. Having been a mayor and being on a regional district, I would suggest that a lot of the powers that were afforded to municipalities and school boards have been taken away little by little so that so much power is now concentrated with the provincial government. That might be part of the reason why people feel disenfranchised with the system, because sometimes those powers that local authorities used to have, have now been taken from them.

Do you support that notion of…? There’s a resolution coming up at UBCM where municipalities may have the opportunity in the next civic election to be able to do some form of proportional representation. That would be kind of the training wheels to get people more engaged, to understand and feel more comfortable with the system.

Randal Hadland: Well, I don’t see single transferable vote as a system of proportional representation. It just seems to me that it is more of a way around first-past-the-post that results in the same legislative seating.

I can see a benefit in having a small-scale opportunity given to local governments and regional districts to have that kind of an election. I think that would be very beneficial.

Ward Stamer (Deputy Chair): If I may, I was also thinking more along the lines of a rank-based system. In some opportunities now, what we’re finding is that, particularly with the mayor’s position, you could be elected mayor with only 30 percent of the vote, not 45 or 48 or 50 percent — a significantly lower threshold. And there would be an opportunity where voters could vote more than once for a choice when it came to those positions.

Randal Hadland: I can see that it would work better with a municipal government for a ranked ballot system. I don’t think it’s appropriate for a provincial legislature. It seems that there is a more diverse set of problems that a legislature has to face, and I think that the wider-based voting system would be more beneficial.

Rob Botterell: Just to follow on this discussion, I just want to make sure I understand your definitions that you’re using.

A ranked ballot system — is it your understanding that that would…? How would you describe that? It gets to 51 percent before somebody is elected? And how does that compare to a proportional system in terms of approach? Can you just, maybe from your perspective…?

[12:05 p.m.]

Randal Hadland: A ranked ballot system seems like…. It’s an alternative, but what it does is it takes third- or fourth-place candidates’ votes away from them and gives them to first- or second-place candidates. What we have now is a system of voting for first- and second-place candidates, so I don’t see that it’s a difference.

Proportional representation, to me, would be where a party system or an association of independents would have the opportunity to have MLAs in proportion to the number of votes that those associations have.

Rob Botterell: Great. Okay, thanks.

Amna Shah (Chair): Any further questions from members?

Well, thank you very much, Randal, for being here today, and I wish you a wonderful day.

Randal Hadland: Thank you very much. I wish you good deliberations.

Deliberations

Amna Shah (Chair): That concludes the presentations to our committee. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to share their views over the last two weeks.

I’ll also note again for anyone listening that you can share your views by making a written submission by next Friday. To participate, please visit our website at bcleg.ca/consultations.

Our final agenda item is to have some initial deliberations and continue planning for our upcoming work.

I’ll ask for a motion to go in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 12:06 p.m. to 1:22 p.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): We are now back into public session.

Is there any other business?

I’ll seek a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 1:22 p.m.