March 12, 2008
Whenever I start talking about election rules or electoral boundary changes, people's eyes glaze over and they start fleeing from the room. And that's in my own house! But like it or not electoral rules, electoral boundaries and governance are important because they play a critical role in determining how we establish the local, regional, and provincial governments that provide public services in our community.
Indeed they are doubly important in smaller rural communities like Metchosin, East Sooke, Otter Point, Shirley and Port Renfrew where issues like rural/urban amalgamation and incorporation can play such a large role in our daily lives. As we head into November's local government elections and next year's provincial election, these issues will take on greater urgency.
Changes to provincial constituency boundaries are still very much up in the air. In 2005, the provincial government appointed the Electoral Boundaries Commission to reallocate and redraw the province's electoral boundaries to better reflect recent regional, population and demographic changes. This is intended to be an independent non-partisan exercise. However, the independence of the Commission took one on the nose when Premier Campbell decided last August to reject the preliminary report and send the commissioners (that he appointed) back to the drawing board. He promised new legislation last fall to give new direction to the Commission, but after minimal debate in the Legislature he withdrew the Bill.
Last month the Commission issued its final report. So far the government has not turned the recommendations into a Bill to establish new boundaries. As of this writing we are still working on the old map that does not account for the population growth in urban areas and the depopulation of northern and remote regions of BC. If adopted, the new constituency of Juan de Fuca will follow the municipal boundaries of the CRD and include the unincorporated areas as well as Sooke, Langford, Highlands and Metchosin. A mix of urban and rural that will better reflect the changing nature of southern Vancouver Island.
In 2009, British Columbian's will be asked to once again vote in a referendum (to run concurrent with the provincial election) about changing our provincial electoral system from the current single member riding first-past-the-post system to a single transferable vote system with multiple member ridings. While the majority of British Columbians approved the changes in 2005, the question did not obtain the approval of the required super-majority and as a result, we'll be going through the process all over again, complete with a pre-election legislative debate and public funding for groups that support and oppose the plan. I heartily support any process that gets British Columbians more involved in important decisions like electoral reform. However, the imbalance in the last legislature has been corrected and many voters may feel that the system they know is better than one that they do not. Either way, a referendum will answer the question.
On the local government front, things are equally confused. Following the 2005 referendum that rejected joining Sooke, the unincorporated areas have been actively discussing new regional and local governance options. In East Sooke, progress was made on assessing the merits of joining with the District of Metchosin. A consultant's report confirmed that further analysis should be conducted and a referendum question was to flow from that work prior to the next series of local elections. That process, like the provincial one, is now in doubt and time extensions are being discussed while we regroup and reassess timelines and possible outcomes.
To the west of Sooke the review of governance options is moving along as well. I have been very supportive of the inclusive visioning process underway in Otter Point, as well as efforts in Shirley and Jordan River to research governance options. But the decision by the Minister of Forests to release private lands from the local Tree Farm License has created a new layer of complication to an already complicated debate.
So you can see why people run when that conversation turns to how we choose to govern ourselves. It is complicated, it is sometimes messy and divisive, but it is our duty and obligation to continue to refine and update our democratic institutions to ensure they grow to meet our changing needs.
