by Guest Writer | Nov 6, 2018
Help! Recruiters Needed for Pro Rep Vote
Relational voting takes democracy back to the citizen level
By CHRIS HILLIAR
Two weeks ago I signed up as a recruiter with Dogwood to help get out the Yes vote to support proportional representation in the BC referendum. The strategy being used by Dogwood is intriguing and I wanted to know more about it and about the local person driving it.
I sat down to speak with Dave Mills. He’s the Deputy Director of Organizing at Dogwood. He has a degree in Science from the University of Victoria, and a 25-year career in resource management and public services. “Dogwood”, he said, “first became well known in BC when they created the “no tanker” loonie sticker – a simple statement of resistance you could paste on the back of our dollar. It was a simple tactic that got under the government’s skin, rallied supporters and put the public on notice. The group continues to be creative and their work promoting Pro Rep is a good example.
I asked Dave to describe the new tactic Dogwood is using to encourage support for Pro Rep. “It’s called Relational Voting” he said, “a simple concept – friends talking to friends. Our networks contain the people most like ourselves. If you’re a ‘Yes’ voter chances are your friends and family are as well.”
As a get-out-the-vote strategy Relational Voting has been used in select US district and congressional races over the past two years. “So in one sense it’s quite a new strategy” he said, “but in the truest sense, it’s as old as the bedrock of democracy itself – conversations between people who share values.”
Relational Voting is ideally suited to the current political climate of mistrust because it bypasses the untrusted messengers of today such as corporate media and government institutions. Even large organizations like Dogwood are not immune to mistrust but Relational Voting means you, personally, deliver a message to your friends and family. “It’s twice as likely to result in action”, he said.
I asked Dave why someone reading this article should take the time to get involved with Dogwood to support pro rep. His response came without thinking so I know it came from his heart. “Because without the individual’s participation democracy unravels” he said. “If we opt out of participating, then democracy goes on death watch.”
“And”, he said, “participation at the citizen level rather than at the party level is the best medicine for what ails our political system.” “Conversation around kitchen tables is how democracy started. Relational Voting gets those conversations started and gives you tools to amplify them.”
If you want to get involved with helping to get the vote out to support Pro Rep, click on this link: https://organize.votebc.ca/recruiter
By the way, if you are worried about how to answer question #2 on the ballot because you don’t feel confident about the different types of proportional representation Dogwood encourages you to just vote Yes to proportional representation on question #1 and leave question #2 blank.
If you want to take a seven minute questionnaire to determine which voting system is the best fit for your values please check out this link: www.referendumguide.ca
Chris Hilliar is a contributor to the Comox Valley Civic Journalism Project. He can be reached at hilliar1@telus.net
by George Le Masurier | Oct 31, 2018
ProRep boosts diversity, youth vote
PR helps young people feel invested in politics
Editor’s note: Katie Betanzo was raised in the Comox Valley and New Zealand. She’s a former editor of The Breezeway, the now defunct award-winning student newspaper at G.P. Vanier High School. Betanzo moved to New Zealand in 2001 and teaches media studies and English in Auckland. In this article, Betanzo writes about how proportional representative government works in her adopted country, in particular, how it has engaged younger voters.
BY KATIE BETANZO
Why didn’t you vote? “No one represents me.” “My vote doesn’t matter.”
It is a curious fact that the act of voting is habit forming. If you vote in an election, you are 10% more likely to vote in the next election than those who did not vote the first time around. If you are prevented from voting, or choose not to vote, even for one election where you are eligible, you are statistically less likely to vote in subsequent elections.
The most crucial election for a person’s future participation is the very first election after they are eligible.
Young people and their votes matter. If all young voters (aged under 25) voted, that would be a power block equal to the over 65 vote.
I work with teenagers every day, and I hear it all: I don’t care about politics; it’s boring; it doesn’t affect me.
You know what I don’t hear? “No one represents me” and “My vote doesn’t matter.”
Because in here New Zealand, it is obvious that the youth vote does matter (and, in fact, is on the increase). Less than 5% of votes cast in last year’s election were for parties that did not make it into Parliament. Every other vote went to determine the proportional makeup of the House. This is in stark contrast to FPTP. In BC’s election of 2017, ridings were won by as little as 38%; the remaining 62% of voters cast wasted votes.
As for representation, proportional rep has allowed us a far wider range of elected officials than we had under FPTP. Some of the most interesting movers and shakers in our current government were elected via the list vote in our MMP system – a little different from the one proposed in BC.
Our youngest current MP, Chloe Swarbrick, unsuccessfully ran for mayor of our largest city aged just 22. Two years down the track, she has been elected to Parliament via the Green Party list. Ms Swarbrick and her colleague Golriz Ghahraman, the first refugee to become a member of NZ’s parliament, are doing much to engage young people in politics.
Our Prime Minister is also making waves both at home and abroad. Of course it is news that Jacinda Ardern has had a baby during her first year in office, that she is the country’s youngest leader in more than 150 years and our first Labour PM (left of center) in almost a decade.
What is less often talked about is that she is only in office because of proportional representation. Had our 2017 election been FPTP, the incumbent National Party, which dominates in rural areas and small towns, would have been returned with a resounding majority of MPs – and less than half the popular vote. Ardern’s coalition partners, the Greens and New Zealand First, would have failed to make it into Parliament at all – despite gaining collectively over 10% of the vote.
It’s tricky to unpack chicken-and-egg, but my contention is that PR has increased diversity in Parliament at the same time as improving voter participation, especially for young voters.
Because that first vote really is critical.
Katie Betanzo may be reached at echo5@orcon.net.nz
by George Le Masurier | Dec 9, 2016
Let’s see if we understand this accurately:
- An independent and nationally recognized heritage consulting firm issued a Statement of Significance regarding the former home of naturalist Mack Laing — known as “Shakesides.” They said the building is of national importance and that it should be saved for its historic value and for the enjoyment of future generations.
- The chairman of Heritage B.C., (page 77, last page) a provincial agency committed to “conservation and tourism, economic and environmental sustainability, community pride and an appreciation of our common history,” believes the heritage value of Shakesides demands that Laing’s former home should be “conserved for … future generations” and that the Town of Comox should “use the building in ways that will conserve its heritage value.”
- Heritage B.C. has offered its assistance, at no charge, to the Town of Comox, for the duration of the process to repurpose Shakesides, and pretty much guaranteed the town a provincial grant through the Heritage Legacy Fund Heritage Conservation program.
- But council members of the Town of Comox have unanimously ignored this independent and professional advice. Instead, they have decided to reduce the building down to a pile of forgettable rubble.
What’s going on here?
Do Comox councillors lack any appreciation for history and the town’s heritage? Do they dislike pushy people — for example, the members of the Mack Laing Heritage Society — and want to tear down the building for spite?
Or both?
Either way, it’s a shame. And it’s another example of how out-of-step the Town of Comox is with the rest of the Comox Valley … and why, in the next municipal election, voters should toss the majority of them out of office.
The Town of Comox has been misusing Mack Laing’s financial gift of land and property, and cash, to maintain his home as some form of a natural history museum. The town has spent Laing’s gifted money on walkways, stairs and bridges for Brooklyn Creek — outside of the Mack Laing Park property — but hardly a cent to fulfill the last wishes of this community’s most widely admired naturalist.
Hamilton Mack Laing was a naturalist, photographer, writer and noted ornithologist, whose work from the Comox waterfront from 1922 through 1982 earned him worldwide recognition.
Laing gave his waterfront property, his home, substantial cash and personal papers from his estate to the Town of Comox “for the improvement and development of my home as a natural history museum.” The town accepted the money and, therefore, the terms of the trust.
But 34 years later, the Town of Comox has done little to satisfy his last wishes and mishandled the money Laing left, raising serious ethical and legal questions, which a provincial court may ultimate answer.
In the meantime, it’s unfathomable that seven council members and the mayor would support the demolition of a building that the provincial heritage agency and professional heritage advisors have declared has national significance.
Perhaps, the pleadings of Heritage B.C. will change the perspective of some council members. Let’s hope so.
A public and formal apology on behalf of the town for misusing Mack Laing’s financial trust for more than three decades would also be nice. But probably too much to hope for out of this council.
by George Le Masurier | Aug 2, 2016
Before Victorians and other west coast residents start congratulating ourselves for producing fewer greenhouse gases per household than most other Canadians, we should pause to acknowledge that this environmental fame may be fleeting. Because if Premier Christy Clark gets her way, British Columbia is headed in the opposite direction.
Researchers at the University of British Columbia studied the greenhouse gas emissions from households in 17 cities across Canada. The study examined data about consumption of gas, electricity and natural gas and other social and environmental factors that affect energy use, such as weather, population density and family size.
The study showed that households in Montreal generated the least amount of greenhouse gases per year, primarily due to the dominance of hydroelectric power. Vancouver ranked second. Victoria was studied but could not be ranked because of missing data on the use of natural gas, but was assumed to be slightly better than Vancouver.
Based on current provincial policies, our time at the top won’t last long.
The Clark government’s energy policy (designed in 2003 by former premier Gordon Campbell) has bankrupted B.C. Hydro, which has forced our electric rates to soar by double-digit increases. High electric rates encourage people to burn more natural gas. We should be doing the opposite.
Meanwhile, Clark promotes expansion of the liquid natural gas (LNG) industry to export to countries that don’t need any more gas, and a $10 billion Site C dam project to produce more hydroelectric energy that British Columbians don’t need.
It should be obvious by now that the Site C dam will power the fracked natural gas and LNG industry that wants to sell power to foreign markets. The B.C. Liberals are selling this sham even though the global economic drivers — China, U.S. Germany — are furiously abandoning fossil fuels for clean technologies.
The Site C dam amounts to an obscene taxpayer subsidy for the fossil fuel industry.
And it doesn’t get much better in Ottawa. Despite his campaign promises and his grandstand at the world Paris climate conference, Prime Justin Trudeau seems to have lost his courage to lead Canada away from fossil fuels.
Last week, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans approved permits for the Site C dam. Before that, the Environment and Climate Change ministry ignored widespread opposition — from the City of West Vancouver, among others — and approved the Woodfibre LNG project in Squamish.
So much for the concept behind Trudeau statement that “governments grant permits, communities grant permission.”
And where is the influence of Canada’s first aboriginal Justice Minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould? The Site C dam would destroy traditional hunting and fishing grounds of the Treaty 8 First Nations along with fertile farmland and adversely affect wildlife and wetlands. Wilson-Raybould has said the Site C dam would violate treaty rights.
The Clark government’s support of the fossil fuel industry are clear. The Trudeau federal government’s position is just confusing.
So, before Victorians, Vancouverites, west coasters and other Canadians break out the champagne to celebrate how green we are, we should open our eyes to where our ‘liberal’ leaders are taking us.
by George Le Masurier | May 31, 2016
British Columbia, a province usually anxious to tax anything within its reach, has curiously kept its hands off of a large source of potential revenue: marijuana.
While Washington state, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska inhale multi-millions of dollars of tax revenue by regulating the production, distribution and retail sale of marijuana for medical and recreation use, British Columbia lets this windfall slip away.
British Columbia could help shape the federal legislation expected next year by putting a regulatory system in place now, and jumpstart its revenue stream.
This wouldn’t take as long or be as difficult as it might seem. Our neighbors to the south in Washington state have an excellent model for a system that could be more or less copied and pasted into B.C. law.
Washington state collected $67.5 million in 2015, its first full year of operation. This year, it expects to collect $154.6 million. The state’s Office of Financial Management predicts a whopping $1 billion of new revenue over the next four years.
Imagine if B.C. injected that much new money — taken away, in part, from gangs and outlaw drug dealers — into early childhood education, better access to services for people suffering from mental illness and support for affordable housing projects.
And a windfall revenue isn’t the only benefit of a fully regulated system.
Right now, marijuana growers and sellers are running loose in the province. It’s a wild west environment. Nobody can verify who’s growing the pot sold in stores, who they are selling it to or what’s in it.
From Sidney to Vancouver to Toronto, marijuana retail stores are popping up as fast as the RCMP can raid them. The Liberal government says it’s committed to legalization, but while it dithers over the details of national legislation, the market is spinning out of control.
Instead of rushing into a national marijuana legalization program, the federal government should look the other way while British Columbia develops a regulated market that includes rules pertaining to DUI, banking, public consumption and retail store locations. A smaller provincial experiment can expose weaknesses and oversights and enact quicker corrections.
Those real life test results can lead to a better-written federal law.
For example, let’s not go down the road of simple legalization. Without provincial control over who’s growing and selling marijuana, gangs and Mexican cartels will continue to siphon off money that could be used to improve the quality of life in British Columbia.
Smoking pot outside the old Lorne Hotel, circa 1975
We must merge the recreational and medical markets. Let’s shake off the nudge-nudge, wink-wink reality of medical marijuana. Yes, it’s been a help for people with certain medical conditions, but it’s also been a false front for people who just want to get high.
In Washington state, it was estimated that 90 percent of cannabis sold for ostensibly medical purposes was, in fact, consumed recreationally. Interestingly, the medical market ballooned in 2011 when naturopathic physicians were added to the list of providers who could write pot prescriptions.
A regulated system should include a patient registry to differentiate bona fide medicinal users, who could qualify for tax exemptions, from recreational users.
If there is sufficient legitimate demand for the low-hallucinogenic, high-analgesic cannabis preferred by medical users, retail stores will provide it. And medical users would have the option of growing their own.
The province will also need to use some of the new tax revenue to fund substance abuse awareness programs, primarily aimed at children. Of course, parents must play an important role in educating their children about marijuana, and that includes keeping any edibles at home securely out of their reach. Colorado experienced a surge of hospital visits by children who accidentally ate pot-laced treats.
Marijuana legalization advocates have successfully argued that smoking marijuana poses no greater threat to society than drinking alcohol, and that prohibition will not work. Both are true. Like alcohol, marijuana is not risk-free, which argues for a government-regulated system of production, distribution and retail sales.
The federal government has recognized the historical transformation of social values during the early years of the 21st century. Whenever communal morals shift so significantly, governments must eventually conform their laws to reflect the public’s will.
British Columbia could and should generate millions of dollars in revenue and lead the nation in clearing up the current tangled mess of conflicting laws and regulations.
