The province’s strategy on electoral reform will undermine public confidence

It is becoming increasingly clear that the NDP/Green approach to electoral reform violates important procedural safeguards.

First, we are told that when the referendum is held, a bare majority of 50 per cent plus one will suffice. But the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a different but related matter — Quebec’s attempted secession — that a higher bar must be set.

The court found that when fundamental alterations in our system of governance are contemplated, there must be clear and compelling evidence that a strong majority of the population agree.

I would have thought abandoning the electoral process that guided Canada for the past 150 years is one such instance. And indeed in the five referendums on electoral reform that have been held across the country to date (one in Ontario and two each in P.E.I. and B.C.), a strong majority was required in every case. All five failed.

Second, no allowance has been made for the special needs of sparsely populated regions. In the 2009 referendum, a vote for change required 60 per cent approval across the province plus 50 per cent approval in 51 out of the 85 ridings. This time around, those protections have been discarded.

It might be argued that the wishes of the majority should prevail, regardless of other considerations. Yet the principle that regions, as well as individuals, should be heard is embedded in our democracy. That’s why smaller voter lists are permitted in rural ridings than more densely populated urban districts.

Then again, the public questionnaire and information website on the referendum were created with advice from a committee of four academics, three of whom support proportional representation.

These are the kind of machinations you expect from a banana republic.

However, the issue I want to focus on is a bogus survey that the government is attempting. You can find it online at the attorney general’s website.

The stated intent of this exercise is to seek feedback. Its real purpose is to engineer an outcome favourable to reform. Here are some examples:

After canvassing background information, the survey invites respondents to select five values from a list of 12 that will inform their decision. Ten of the 12 listed options urge change.

Next, there is this cleverly worded question: “Alongside the option of keeping the First Past the Post voting system, which system or systems of Proportional Representation would you like to see on the ballot?” Then follow four variations on rep by pop.

If you were intent on presenting an honest choice, you would ask: “Which voting system do you favour?” and offer the status quo as one of the options.

Instead, that choice is buried in the prelude, and respondents aren’t given the opportunity of selecting it.

Lastly, we have this laughable piece of chicanery: “If B.C. changes to a system of proportional representation … should [there] be a second referendum after a trial period (for example, two elections) on whether to keep the new system”?

As if that will ever happen, once the legislature is stacked with MLAs who owe their seats (and six-figure incomes) to proportional representation.

Basically, this is a power grab by a party that has never in its history persuaded a majority of British Columbians to vote for it, and in a fleeting moment of opportunity, wishes to dispense with such a necessity.

We need to be clear what is going on here. Next to leaving Canada, this is the most radical proposition that can be placed before a provincial legislature.

That attempts are being made to ram it through by sleight of hand and outright subterfuge is most unfortunate.

Public trust in government, already a rare commodity, will be left in tatters if this deeply flawed process is allowed to prevail.