Comments on the Preliminary Statement of
the Citizens' Assembly to the People of BC
I would like to submit some comments regarding the
“Preliminary Statement to the People of
BC”.
First, I would offer some general comments related to the
purpose for reviewing parliamentary structure in BC. I
believe when we investigate how to best represent voters in the
democratic process we sometime combine or confuse the question of
quality of representation with the parliamentary process in which
that representation is carried out. For example the
Premier recently spoke at the Association of Vancouver Island and
Coastal Communities Convention. All the communities are
struggling with the impact of cuts and a stumbling
economy. The Premier’s response was to
highlight the 2010 Olympics. It could be suggested that
if the parliamentary process were more representative there would
be more accountability for the
Premier. I would suggest that
if citizens concerns and local governments input is ignored so
readily that reshuffling the seats in the legislature is not going
to provide quality representation. I submit
that part of the report on governance needs to stress that elected
official, who ignore public input until a riot occurs or who make
promises which they do not intend to keep, are destroying the
public confidence in the democratic
system.
Second, I do not know if the Assemblies mandate includes
reviewing the relationship between government and the bureaucracy
which assists government but once parliament agrees to a program
the politicians need to take a large step backwards.(ie: Federal
Sponsorship scandal) Politicians should develop policy
and monitor effectiveness not manage program delivery.
I would like to offer some options for consideration.
To encourage people to vote and to reinforce the importance of
each vote, each person who votes should receive a voters tax credit
on their provincial income tax. We support political
party contributions with a credit why not individuals who take the
next step and give an additional credit to those who,
“get involved”.
We could consider splitting the province into wards or
states. Each riding in the ward would have a vote to
appoint a secretary of state for that region that would then sit on
a provincial board or “senate”.
Even if a party has the majority of seats in the province they may
not have the majority of seats in each state or
ward. The “senate “
would better represent the vast diversity in this province and the
“senate” could have review privileges on
all legislation. There role would be to insure all the
regions of the province are considered when developing legislation
and that legislation respects the reality that, “one
size fits all”, policies do not represent the provinces
vastness and variety.
Land claims have cast a shroud of uncertainty over may regions
of the province and has done so for many years. The
settlements include governance issues. These issues
must be resolved quickly.
In conclusion I have concerns about the proportional
representation model. Most dominant is the concern that
parties with novelty or protest appeal, who have not established
clear policies or an track record, could end up displacing
candidates, who may have won a majority of votes in their riding
and who have worked long and hard to represent riding
issues. These candidates would be removed to
accommodate a party representative who may have received a small
percentage of the provincial vote and possibly minimal votes in the
riding they are appointed to represent.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
levelCMS