Boundaries Commission Fiasco

By Peter Ewart

Part 1 – Like talking to a post

It is a fiasco by any measure.  The provincial Electoral Boundaries Commission, in defiance of what appears to be the will of the provincial legislature and the people in rural areas of the province, proposes, once again, to take away two seats from the North and Central Cariboo regions of the Interior (while adding six to the Lower Mainland region).  Premier Cambell then indicates that this proposal is unacceptable.

Thus one year before a provincial election and a referendum on whether to adopt a new electoral system, the electoral riding map of the province remains up in the air, as does the number of MLAs that will sit in the Legislature.  Voters still do not know what the actual boundaries will look like either under the current MMP system or the STV system, despite the fact that the three-man Electoral Boundaries Commission was appointed almost 2 ½ years ago and had ample time to figure out an acceptable electoral map. 

One of the reasons why another referendum was called was because there was a lot of confusion about the one held in 2005.  So in place of confusion, what do voters get?  Even more confusion.

How has this fiasco come about?  Certainly political partisanship has played a significant role with party interest overriding the interest of rural and Northern voters.  For example, of the original three people proposed for the Electoral Boundaries Commission (EBC) back in 2005, one of them, Louise Burgart, had actually lived and worked for some time in the North (Fort St. James).  Burgart might have played a counterbalancing role to the other two Lower Mainland based members of the so-called “independent” EBC, but that did not happen because she was disqualified for (as charged by the Opposition NDP party) apparently being too much of a supporter of the governing Liberal party.

In the dogfight over her nomination, what became the main issue was not whether or not she was competent and able to provide a much-needed rural and Northern voice on the EBC, but rather what her political “leanings” were.  As a result, the North lost out.  Another person was appointed in her place, i.e., a Victoria-based consultant who had previously spent some years in the Okanagan region.

The EBC did its tour of the province and then released its preliminary report on August 15, 2007.  Surprising to many, the report called for the reduction of 3 ridings in the North, Central Cariboo and Kootenay regions, while adding one seat to the Okanagan region and four to the Lower Mainland.

The 3 rural regions were outraged by their loss of representation, and this opposition was most vocal in the Prince George area where a demonstration of over 300 people was called by PG mayor, Colin Kinsley, and supported by local MLAs, other northern mayors and councilors, and people from across the political spectrum.

At the provincial level, both the Liberals and NDP made statements to the effect that they did not support taking away the 3 ridings in the North and other rural areas.  This left the EBC report and its proposed provincial electoral boundaries in limbo.  In an attempt to rescue the situation, Premier Gordon Campbell put forward legislation that gave the EBC “the legal tools to maintain the current number of representatives in the three regions of the North” including the option to add as many as 8 MLAs to the Lower Mainland / Southern region.

This legislation could have solved the immediate problem and allowed clear riding boundaries to be established throughout the province.  But it died in an acrimonious “turf” battle between the Liberals and the NDP.  Specifically, the NDP charged that the new seats would be added to Liberal “friendly” parts of the Lower Mainland and thus boosting their potential seat numbers.  The Liberals argued that the NDP was being “non-cooperative” and “inflexible.” And so on back and forth, until the legislation slipped away into oblivion.  Once again, the interests of the North and rural regions, and, indeed the province as a whole, were sacrificed to party interest and infighting with both parties pointing accusing fingers at each other. 

So, yes, political partisanship on the part of the governing Liberals and opposition NDP has played a role in this fiasco.  But there is another factor perhaps even more important.

And that is the Electoral Boundaries Commission itself.

As noted in previous articles that I co-wrote in Opinion250 during last August / September, the current EBC has some particular features to it that are a problem, at least for rural and northern regions.  For one thing, as I have already mentioned, the EBC is made up entirely of individuals from the South of the province.  But that is not the main problem.

What is most objectionable, is that this EBC, compared to previous ones in British Columbian history, has taken “a much more narrow approach” in determining how much and how many ridings in rural and northern areas can deviate from the “provincial electoral quotient” which is calculated by dividing the provincial population by the numbers of MLAs. 

The experience of previous electoral boundaries commissions shows that commissioners can vary widely in how much leeway they give rural and northern areas.  However, rather than responding to the obvious concerns that have been expressed about protecting these regions, the current EBC seems to have a downright dogmatic, stubborn and arrogant approach to setting riding boundaries that has sparked political chaos and posed serious problems for the provincial government itself and the legislature.

Let’s look at the record.  In 2005, the Provincial Government sets up the EBC and appoints as members Bruce Cohen, a former B.C. Supreme Court Justice; Stewart Ladyman, a consultant and retired school administrator, and Harry Neufeld, who is B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer.  In its Throne Speech of 2005, the government clearly emphasizes that it would like the EBC to “protect northern representation” when it establishes boundaries for the MMP and STV electoral systems.

This message was also driven home by the hundreds of people in rural and Northern regions who addressed the subsequent EBC hearings and made very clear that they did not want northern representation to be diminished in any way.

So what, in its “wisdom,” does the EBC do?  Just the exact opposite.  In its preliminary report of August 15, 2007, the Commission proposes to take away 3 seats from rural and Northern regions, as well as add 4 to the Lower Mainland and 1 to the Okanagan.  This, as discussed above, results in a huge controversy and debacle.  Many people are perplexed.  Just what part of the Throne Speech did the EBC, an unelected body established by the Legislature, not understand? 

After the attempt to rescue things through Legislation fails because of partisan bickering, the EBC then returns to the drawing board to write an amended report.  The provincial government, local MLAs, mayors, business and labour officials, and just about everyone else pleads with the EBC to find some compromise or adjustment by which the seats can be saved in the North and electoral maps be established in time for the 2009 provincial election.

On February 14, 2008, the EBC releases its “Amendments” to its Preliminary Report.  Did it get the message this time?  No, it didn’t.  While allowing the restoration of one Kootenay riding that it had removed in the Preliminary Report, it still advocates, through more tortured reasoning, to take away the two seats from the Central Cariboo and North regions.

At this point in time, government, MLAs, and citizenry would be forgiven for thinking that, for the last 2 ½ years in regards to the EBC, they might as well have been talking to a post. 

In its Preliminary Report and its Amendments to the Preliminary Report, the EBC goes to great lengths to argue that, given its mandate, it had no other choice but to recommend the taking away of seats from the North.  Indeed, it creates the impression that it was so severely restricted by “principles” and “limits” that no other outcome was possible.  (These rigid “principles”, of course, only seem to apply to the North, as they certainly didn’t stop the EBC from flipflopping and backtracking in regards to the Kootenay riding.)

But the EBC’s rationale is balderdash.  As John Courtney, a professor in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Saskatchewan, has said regarding the setting of riding boundaries by electoral commissions, there is a “lack of objective standards” and that “the matter is reduced largely to making an informed, subjective judgment.”  In other words, there is a considerable amount of latitude and leeway.

As BC’s electoral history amply shows, there is a multitude of ways to put together ridings in the province in a wide variety of shapes and sizes.  But the EBC dropped the ball.  Somehow, with all its staff, with all the leeway and good will from the legislature, government and citizenry, it couldn’t accomplish that one simple task of “preserving northern representation.”  There is no other way to put it – the current EBC has failed the Legislature and the people of this province, hopelessly tied up in the knots of its own dogmatism.  It could have done a much better job, but it chose not to.

But is the issue as simple as all that?  Is it just a question of dogmatism or incompetence that caused the EBC to fail?  Is it some kind of “rogue” commission with delusions of grandeur?  Or is something else happening here?  In Part 2 of this series, I will discuss these questions further.

Peter Ewart is a college instructor and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia, Canada.  He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca

Email | Print | Facebook | Twitter | Digg | Del.icio.us