News release - Surrey/White Rock public hearing

Examples from other countries touted

At a public hearing in White Rock today, presenter after presenter cited the electoral experiences of other democracies in drawing lessons for BC’s Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

While most presenters urged a greater degree of proportionality in BC’s electoral system, they differed on which country’s version of proportional representation (PR) was most appropriate. 

Carmela Clare and Benton Mischuk both supported the mixed member proportional (MMP) system employed in New Zealand.  Mischuk, however, did say that ideally he would prefer a single transferable vote (STV) system of PR, but feared it was too drastic a change and too complex.  He suggested that MMP would be a suitable evolutionary step for BC.  Drawing from his experience living in countries on five continents, Keith Wallace also supported an MMP system.

Neil Sutherland felt proportionality could be achieved by having a greater number of multi-member ridings, gaining “all the advantages of PR without the weaknesses”.

Citing the “Canadian ideal of consensus-building,” Robert Stirling, originally from Scotland, proposed a version of PR which would abolish electoral ridings and have voters simply vote for their choice of party.  To this, audience member, Ken Johnson, a former MLA, urged Assembly members to familiarize themselves with the work of a typical MLA, suggesting their energies were primarily focused on attending to the concerns of constituents.

Calling himself a “veteran political groupie,” Bill Piket proposed an electoral system mixing PR – which he said worked well in his native Holland – with geographic representation.  This, he maintained, would produce a realignment of parties and coalition governments which would temper “extreme swings” in government policy since change would be gradual and built upon broader consensus.

“Partisan politics is in violation of the interests of a nation and the citizens of a nation,” stated Louis Kaufmann, who urged a “citizen-directed society” modeled on the Swiss system.

“We need to restore authority back to our legislators so they can hold the executive accountable,” said Richard Papiernik, who saw the solution in restricting the funding of political parties, rather than changing the electoral system. 

Acknowledging any change is fraught with risks, Steven Faraher-Amidon admonished the Assembly to “bring in a more fair, accountable and representative system.”

The next public hearings are in Grand Forks and Prince George on Monday (May 10), Fort Nelson, Quesnel and Nelson on Tuesday (May 11), Fort St. John on Wednesday (May 12) and Dawson Creek on Thursday (May 13).

A full schedule of hearings – as well as information on how to sign up to make a presentation – is on the Assembly’s website at www.citizensassembly.bc.ca.

The Assembly is an independent, representative, non-partisan group of 160 randomly selected British Columbians. They must decide by December 15 whether to propose a change to BC’s electoral system. If they recommend a change, it will be the subject of a referendum for all voters in the May 2005 provincial election.