The Written Word: Rafe Mair September 12th
By Rafe Mair
The problem of rural seats in the Legislature has again surfaced with the preliminary report of the BC Electoral Boundaries Commission Preliminary Report.
It’s of interest to know what the Commission was mandated to do, this from the Executive Report of the BCEBC at page 2
* The Mandate instructed that the principle of representation by population be achieved, recognizing the imperatives imposed by geographical and demographic realities, the legacy of our history and the need to balance the community interests of the people of British Columbia;
* to achieve that principle, we are permitted to deviate from the provincial electoral quotient by no more than plus or minus 25 percent; and,
*[we] are permitted to propose electoral districts with deviations exceeding plus or minus 25 percent where we consider that very special circumstances exist.
In deciding whether to propose an increase in the number of SMP electoral districts, we must take into account:
(a) geographic and demographic considerations, including the sparsity, density or rate of growth of the population of any part of British Columbia and the accessibility, size or physical configuration of any part of British Columbia
(b)The availability of means of communication and transportation between various parts of British Columbia
The argument of city folks is that MLAs serve people not deer, moose and bears so that it you don’t have the numbers, so bad. The argument of the rural voter is that the distance involved in a huge northern riding makes it impossible for them to have the same sort or representation as other British Columbians have. The city folks reply that people that choose to live in places of sparse population must accept that they will not get the same services as urban voters get over a variety of subjects such as hospitals, schools and representation.
I’m afraid I’m going to disagree with the proprietor, Ben Meisner – at least insofar as his case demands more MLAs for sparsely populated areas. I believe that large rural risings ought to have better representation which is not to say more representatives. If you go beyond the 25% rule, you’re likely to run into a Charter of Rights and Freedoms problem. Moreover, this will confer a benefit on whatever party is usually preferred by those in large constituencies. That was the case when W.A.C. Bennett was able to rule with a mainly rural vote that so often is conservative. I say this, please understand, not to try to help the NDP get elected – I don’t think as God of miracles could accomplish that! I simply oppose dealing with those in remote areas by, in effect, using a type of gerrymandering to solve their problem.
To further my point let me say, as a former MLA, that “servicing” your constituency is very largely a matter of a good consistency office and good secretaries. Most MLAs, though they don’t admit it, spend very little time actually working for their constituents and the majority of their time – such as speeches, kissing babies, snipping ribbons and going down to “coffee row” so as to further help their political standing with voters.
I believe that there is a problem and it must be addressed and it can be done by making the MLA more visible in his riding. I think this can be done by increasing the allowances the MLA gets for his office, allowing for several constituency offices and permitting the MLA to have an executive assistant mandate to travel through the riding. Rural MLA ought to be able to use planes paid for as part of his MLA allowance.
I believe in fair representation but that fairness must not only be to the person in Takla Lake but to those in Vancouver ridings as well. As I said, the problem isn’t a lack of representatives but a shortfall in representation which can be fixed by a much fairer constituency allowance.
Previous Story - Next Story
Email
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.usReturn to Home
Posted by: Chadermando on September 12 2007 6:28 AM
Let us says the provincial government has the option to dam a river, flooding out land that is of huge value to the locals, or build a gas fired generator in a local sensitive air-shed, or maybe a controversial user pay essential infrastructure improvement like highways.
The local government under new laws has no say in the approval process, which the provincial government takes sole authority for decision making. The community through their municipal government has been stripped by the provincial government of all authority in recent years as part of the Hartland policy.
The provincial government ruled by population, of which 60% is located on less then 2% of the land in one corner of the province, then take representation consideration based on where the votes come from; thus effectively cutting off rural residents of multi-community mega ridings from any say they did have on issues they have no other form of recourse for direct political pressure to protect their community rights from the tyranny of the majority. That is not democratic representation.
This vastly different then the situation of a Greater Vancouver constituency that has the proximity to the majority to protect their own interests as a collective majority in the Provincial Legislature.
The urban majority can not have it both ways. They can not have the provincial government with powers to over rule local governments on local issues such as land use and environmental concerns, and then also claim to have all the power through majority rules in the provincial government. That my fellow word smith is a violation of the communities 'Charter of Rights' for effective representation for all stakeholders.
The claim that a deviation of the 25% rule is a violation of the urban majorities 'Charter of Rights' is laughable coming from a person that claims to be a serious commentator of politics. Obviously someone forgot to pass the memo to the Saskatchewan and Ontario governments. Don't even get me started on the Canadian Senate and the PEI example verse BC, because I know Rafe takes a hypocrites position on that matter since his is on the wrong side of the fence in Senate representation.
..
..
Worse yet lets say they make one area pay more for stumpage than another area for political purposes....
Or maybe just revive the Cariboo Connector during election years while dumping hundreds of millions on the Sea to Ski highway for 12,000 locals, but of course quick access for the Vancouver elite where all the votes come from... the Vancouver elites don’t drive on the roads up North..
What about Olympic spending and tourism promotion... votes votes representation....
What about the Charter of Rights to equality to access to education or health care if equality of the representation is so important....
What about infrastructure (eg PG Ring Road) to make the Northern port a viable success, when the votes down south see it as competition and have the political equivalent of a stick in the spokes of progress (representation wise) as exampled in the lead up to the Northern port opening, or better yet the games they play for the $11 million for the PG Airport expansion.....
Representation matters and the only good thing that comes from opinions such as Rafe’s is that it is further evidence of the biased mentality that will ensure Northern BC has no option in the future but to become the province of Caledonia or maybe just Northern BC.
I bet the likes of Rafe would sing a different tune if Toronto decided on Vancouver port infrastructure investments, BC forest policy, resource royalty water-bedding practices, essential service needs like education and health; and then relocated all public servants to Toronto and claimed the lower growth rates in Vancouver justify Vancouver losing seats so more seats could be added to the Toronto area, which (Toronto) will keep Vancouver and the Vancouver interest in mind when Toronto then determines the Vancouver future policies and government investments. Rafe would be yelling Federal Fisheries over that one you can be sure; and he'd be quick to make a Charter challenge to make his point from his new perspective.