Skip to main content

Attorney General David Eby is pictured during a press conference in the press theatre at Legislature in Victoria, B.C., on April 26, 2018. Mr. Eby is serving as a neutral arbiter in the referendum process.

CHAD HIPOLITO/The Canadian Press

The B.C. NDP and Greens say a fall referendum should give British Columbians the option of voting for proportional representation but not allow them to choose a specific type of system – a request the Opposition Liberals warn would leave residents in the dark.

The NDP government, which is supported by the Greens in the legislature, has said the referendum will ask whether B.C. should keep its first-past-the-post voting structure or move to proportional representation. Referendums on a form of proportional representation, known as the single transferable vote, failed in 2005 and 2009.

The province has undertaken public consultation that closed at the end of February, but details, including those on the referendum question, have been scarce. Attorney-General David Eby, who is serving as a neutral arbiter in the referendum process, has said he will release a report on the issue by the end of May.

Story continues below advertisement

In a joint submission prepared for the consultation process, both NDP and Green caucuses recommended the referendum have a single, straightforward question.

The parties said that if the Attorney-General opted for a second question it should be “on the values that British Columbians believe should be included in a new, made-in-BC proportional representation system as opposed to a question on specific systems.”

The parties went on to recommend that the Attorney-General create an independent advisory body of “trusted experts and diverse citizen representatives” that would, in the event of a yes vote, provide recommendations on a proportional representation model “that best suits the needs and values of British Columbians.” The submission was written in late February.

A government spokesperson Thursday said the Attorney-General was unavailable for an interview.

Sonia Furstenau, a Green MLA who helped prepare the joint submission, said in an interview that she would have liked to see the referendum process move more quickly. But she said nearly 90,000 questionnaires were completed and processing them does take time.

When asked about voters not knowing what type of proportional representation system would be utilized if they voted in favour, Ms. Furstenau highlighted the submission’s post-referendum process. She said the advisory body would provide recommendations to the legislature.

“It wouldn’t be you have a referendum and then the government gets to decide on the system,” she said. “You have a referendum, which then results in an independent body with citizens involved.”

Story continues below advertisement

But John Martin, a Liberal MLA, said in an interview that far too much about the referendum process remains unknown.

“We’ve got this piece of legislation that says we’re going to have a referendum and that was introduced months and months ago and we don’t know a thing about it. We don’t know what the ballot question, or questions, is going to be; we don’t know about the funding models,” he said.

Mr. Martin said British Columbians should not be asked to vote on proportional representation without knowing exactly what type of system would be put in place.

“If they end up accepting this joint submission, people are going to be asked to vote for a great unknown, they’ll have no idea what it is they’re supporting,” he said.

Maxwell Cameron, a political-science professor at the University of British Columbia, said the devil is in the details.

“It would really depend on what the process would look like. And that would have to be laid out before the referendum because I don’t think you can ask the public for a blank cheque,” he said in an interview.

Story continues below advertisement

Genevieve Fuji Johnson, a political-science professor at Simon Fraser University, said she supports informed democratic processes and more detail would be preferred. But she said there is an argument to be made for having a straightforward question as a starting point.

“If [British Columbians] feel that that isn’t transparent enough, that they need more, that they actually don’t trust the government to follow through on having a broader consultation process with an advisory group … then they can decide to vote against that and stick with the status quo,” she said in an interview.

Both professors were earlier asked by the province to provide feedback on its planned questionnaire.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter