Speech by Jack Blaney

Transcript of address to the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM)

by Jack Blaney, Chair, Citizens' Assembly
(Note: Speech delivered from rough notes, not prepared text)

Thank you very much. I’m very honoured to be here.  I’m honoured to be here to represent 160 absolutely, extraordinary British Columbians.

Let me tell you what the Government of British Columbia has done and what a bi-partisan, unanimous vote in the Legislature has done.  They invited 160 British Columbians – ordinary British Columbians, they called them.  And, by virtue of the way they have selected these British Columbians, by virtue of the independence which they gave these British Columbians, by virtue of the very important task which they gave these British Columbians, and by virtue of giving them an enormous amount of power – by giving these British Columbians the power, if they so decide, to make a recommendation directly to all British Columbians. By doing all those things, these 160 British Columbians feel a great sense of responsibility to all British Columbia. They have become the most extraordinary British Columbians the government could have created. I am so proud to work with each and every one of them.

I’m also very pleased to be here at UBCM. All my family’s life and all my life, we have worked with local government. I remember my time as Chair of the Fraser Basin Council, with the social, economic and environmental problems we faced, the solutions always began and ended with working with local government. Other levels of government – their support, of course, is very important.  But it’s at the local level where things really get done.  So I’m very, very pleased to be here and to be part of your convention.

As you probably know, it is in cities that democracy began.  Twenty five hundred years ago, not only in Athens but in several cities around Athens and also a city in Italy – that is where democracy began.  It was practiced much differently than it is now – but the beginnings were there.  Over many centuries—with many ups and downs city-based democracy transformed to representative democracy—democracy that could take in a full country, and not just a city.

But it was just in the last couple of hundred years that democracy as we know it has been formed – particularly in the last one hundred years. You probably know that it’s only since the early 1900s that we gave women a vote. And it was only in the middle 1900s that many minorities got a vote in our country and in many other western countries. So we are still working with democracy and democracy is evolving. Thank goodness it is, otherwise it would decay.

Just recently there has been a very major study about whether democracies are, again, being transformed.  It is called Democracy Transformed, a study which was completed last year by scholars from all around the world, and they’ve come to several conclusions. One is that, throughout the world in every democracy, there is growing skepticism about political parties and about politicians. So, if you do hear any skepticism about politicians and political parties in British Columbia, you may take consolation in the fact that you’re not alone. It’s a world-wide kind of phenomenon.  There is also a drop world-wide in voter turnout – voter apathy – and, although some voting systems get a little higher voter turnout than others, the decline is roughly the same no matter where you are in a democracy.

But in the world of democracies there are some very interesting and intriguing things happening.  One is what we call “advocacy democracy.”  As members of organizations, citizens are being engaged in the democratic process more than they ever have, but not through elections.  Organizations like the UBCM, Fraser Basin Council, Fraser Institute, associations of universities and colleges, environmental associations and thousands and thousands of like organizations – many of them actually supported by governments – are working in partnerships with governments all the time.  And many have a major impact on government policy.  This activity has grown exponentially, especially in the past twenty to thirty years.  Some believe this to be a second major transformation of democracy.

Citizens do want to be engaged.  Enter into these developments the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Right here in British Columbia, we are doing something that has not been done anywhere else in the world.  The government of British Columbia – with full support of the legislative assembly – has taken the initiative to create a brand new tool in democratic governance. Nowhere in the world has this been done, and all around the world this is getting attention.  Many of us with the Assembly are asked to speak to groups throughout this continent and beyond.  As a matter of record – and this is not a political point – a very large part of the credit for creating the Assembly goes to the Premier of the province, Gordon Campbell. And credit also goes to the two political parties in the legislature, because they created the Assembly in a bi-partisan, unanimous vote.  I’m so pleased and proud that it was British Columbia that created the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

When the Assembly began to meet in January, we had 160 members and today we have 160 members of the Citizens’ Assembly.  Their ages are from 19 to 80; two members have taken leave, perhaps temporary leave.  Their spouses are not well, but we still have 160 members. Attendance at the meetings is about 98%.  This is a Guinness-Book-of-Records kind of statistic.  I have not in my life belonged to an organization where there has been such dedication and commitment.  The Citizens’ Assembly meetings formally start at 8:30 in the morning, but at 8:10 many are in their seats.  It’s quite incredible, the dedication of these citizens.

Now this is all about electoral reform.  The subject of electoral reform is fascinating.  We now have a system of voting that is called “first past the post”.  You go into the voting booth and you mark an X and the person that gets the most X’s wins. This is what we do pretty well throughout North America, but most democracies use different systems.  There’s system called Proportional Representation – where the seats in the House more closely reflect the percentage of votes the parties received.  Then there is the Single Transferable Vote, and the Alternative Vote.  So there are quite a number – there are five different families of voting systems – which I’m not an expert in and I’m not going to go into any detail.

This group more probably than most groups I would speak to knows more about the different kind of voting systems.  But the fact that we’re dealing with electoral reform is not unique. Five provinces are doing so: Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and the Yukon. As a matter of fact as we speak today, Ken Carty, who is our Chief Research Officer, is in New Brunswick telling them in detail about the Citizens’ Assembly.  The subject matter is not unique. What is unique is the process. Nowhere is anybody looking at electoral reform, or for that matter any important public policy question, the way we are doing it here in BC.

First of all, it is not being looked at by experts.  It is not being looked at by politicians.  It is being looked at by voters.  Imagine that, asking voters to review the electoral system. But it’s more than that. It’s not just that the voters are being asked to look at it, the voters have real power. When they make a decision, it is their decision. That is, they are not making a report that goes to the legislature for revision, for modification, for filtering, nor to sit on a shelf. Indeed, if the Assembly in the end – and it hasn’t made a decision yet – but if they decide that there ought to be a different voting system and they want to make that recommendation, the recommendation goes directly to the people of British Columbia in a referendum. This is what makes this so profoundly unique. This is what makes this a very bold, courageous move on the part of the government of British Columbia and the legislature of BC.

Our work has four phases and I’m going to quickly get through them so that I can tell you
where we are in terms of our decisions.  We began last fall, starting about right now, selecting two citizens from each of the 79 electoral area districts.  This might have been, for me, in many ways, the most exciting part of the Citizens’ Assembly – going to Fort St. John, Prince George and Nanaimo and all these places and selecting members to sit on this brand new creation.  People were absolutely delighted to serve.  If there were more time I could spend a half hour alone to tell you about the emotions that were in those rooms, about people wanting to serve their province.  They saw this as a unique, meaningful way to serve the province.  We finally selected 160 people.

Beginning last January, we spent six weekends spread over three months in the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue learning about different electoral systems. We learned about the Westminster model, we learned about our current system and we learned about the five families of voting systems.  We also started to learn about how we could effectively work together.

Then in May and June, we went on public hearings – fifty public hearings throughout the province – four hundred presentations at these public hearings. And, again, in almost every place in the province, we had a hearing. We started with fewer locations, but more places wanted hearings, so we established more hearings.

At the same time, we had over 1,500 written submissions.  Let me tell you very briefly what these presentations and submissions said.  There should be no surprise.  These submissions and presentations said that there should be change.  There should be change in the voting system.  90% suggested change.  That’s not surprising.  When you want change, you go to the meeting, you make a presentation.  If you don’t want change, quite often you sit home, you don’t make a presentation.  Most presentations recommended something like the Mixed Member Proportional type of system; also the Single Transferable Vote.  Some submissions wanted us to abolish the Queen.  Others wanted us to abolish taxes.  Essentially the overwhelming mood was for change.

However, presentations and submissions are not the only basis on which the members will consider whether or not they will recommend change.  They have read; they have talked to their neighbours; they have had very, very good instruction from two eminent political scientists.  Then, based on their own values, the presentations and from talking to other members – but essentially on their own values – they’ll make a decision.

Last weekend, the last weekend we met, the members indicated three preferences.  The first time I think that we got an inkling as to where they might be. The three preferences were for the following: 
1. First, some element of local representation.  They wanted to ensure that by some means or other – these are not exactly defined – but they want local representation.  They like having a local candidate.
2. Second, to some extent they want vote share to translate more directly into seat share. They want seats to mirror a little better than now the preferences of the voters.
3. And, third, they want as much voter choice as possible.  More choice than just an X on the ballot. They want more choice than that.

These are the decisions that members will make over the next month.  First of all, we’re going to review the preferences of last weekend.  We’re going to spend as long on that as we need to do.  What about local representation?  Is this important and how important?  What about some sense of proportionality?  What about voter choice?  Are these the fundamental values upon which you make your subsequent decisions?  This may take an hour, this may take three hours but we certainly want to be very clear and we’re going to do this in one large session; we’re going to do this in plenary session.  The answers to those questions create the foundation for everything else we do.

Thereafter, this is how it’s going to go.  We’re going to choose two electoral systems that reflect those values.  For example, it could be Alternative Voting, Mixed Member Proportional, Single Transferable Vote or whatever.  Let’s say Option A and Option B.  We’re going to choose two electoral systems – the contenders for the championship.  The champion is, of course, the current system.  Two contenders, then.  We’re going to take Option A and we’re all going to work on it and make it the best Option A possible for British Columbia.  Then we’re going to park that.  Then we’re going to take Option B, and together we’re going to work on Option B, and we’re going to make the best possible Option B for British Columbia.  Then we’re going to bring them together, A and B.  Which best serves British Columbia?  Indeed we might even decide then, that we want to take a little bit from A and kind of attach it to B – some integration there.

In the end we will choose one of those options to be the contender, to be the possible alternative electoral voting system.  After we have done that we are then going to revisit what I call, or what a member calls, the reigning champion.  The reigning champion is First Past the Post.  We’re going to review it.  Again, look at its merits, look at its strengths and look at some of its drawbacks.  Give it a really fair shot.  It’s very, very important that we give that a fair shot.  We then will take a look at the contender in the same way.  What are its strengths?  What are the weaknesses?  Then we’ll compare the two; here’s the champion, here’s the competitor.  The decision on October 23-24 will be, “Does the champion stay, or do we recommend a change?”  If we say the champion has had its time, then we will recommend the alternative.  We will recommend the contender.  That will be done October 23-24.  That is the means by which we will make our decisions.

We then will revisit the other part of our mandate.  What are the full implications of this decision?  And, of course, we will have lots of wording matters in our final report – a final report which will also have some commentary on some other things that we have learned that are of concern to members and our citizens.

Again I will tell you that nothing is decided until everything is decided.  Nothing is decided until October 23-24 when we look at the current system and the main contender.  Nothing will be decided until the conclusion of that weekend.  Indeed we might even postpone it one weekend, but I don’t think so.  Time is tight and I think the members are ready.

So far this process has been absolutely mind-boggling.  It has worked so beautifully well.  I’m just hoping – we all hope – that it continues.  I don’t know what the decision is going to be.  I truly do not know what the decision is going to be – and, if I did, I wouldn’t tell my best friend.  I really don’t know what the decision is going to be, but the process has been phenomenal.

I have not seen 160 people – or any group of people of that size – work so well.  I used to work in a University.  Do you think 160 faculty members would have such self-discipline over the course of a whole year?  This is absolutely phenomenal.  And ‘self-discipline’ I mean in the most positive sense.  The dedication, the commitment, the mutual respect, the hours they put in – it’s just unbelievable.

So why has this been the case?  Listen, British Columbia created this, it is unique, and it will not be just a footnote in history.  In the histories of democracies, this will not be a footnote.  This will be something very, very important.

There are three major reasons why this has gone so well – and I think it will continue to go well.  I have eight all together, but I’m only going to give you three.

One is the random invitation.  The make-up mirrors BC.  We have the courier drivers; we have the dentists; etc.  It mirrors BC.  Secondly, by the random invitation, people are not representatives of organizations.  They do not represent anybody but themselves and the Assembly and, at large, British Columbia.  They don’t represent an association or an organization.  Therefore it is non-partisan.

The second reason why I believe it has worked so well is the self-selection.  In each electoral district, for every 200 people first contacted, on average 12 came to a selection meeting.  They read all the material, and they came forward with a very strong commitment to community.  Whether they are courier drivers or dentists, they all have something in common.  They all have participated big time in their community.

And the third reason why this has been so phenomenally successful to this point is that real power has been given to the Assembly.  It’s independent from government.  It’s not there just for consultation.  If members do make a recommendation for change, it will go to a referendum.  One of the main creators of the Assembly put it this way.  He said “Jack, what’s important here is the power of the idea of the Assembly.  It’s the power of the idea”.  It’s this power of the idea that increased members’ strng sense of importance and responsibility.  They feel so responsible for what they are doing.

I have other reasons that I’m not going to mention, because it would take me another five or ten minutes.  But, I’ll give you the very last of eight reasons.  That is gender balance.  We have 80 female members, 80 male members.  Every member, male and female, is so proud of gender balance.

So British Columbians, members of UBCM, this is a great experiment in democracy.

My one last concluding comment … I am so pleased that this innovation which will be part of history was made, created, crafted in great British Columbia.

Thank you very much.