referendum Archives - Decafnation

Readers write about electoral reform in BC

by George Le Masurier | Oct 30, 2018

Will British Columbians embrace electoral reform? Comox Valley residents have already started voting in the referendum to either retain our First Past The Post system of electing provincial governments, or switch to a version of Proportional Representation. Most households have received their mail-in ballots by now, and have until Nov. 30 to return them — postage free!

Readers of Decafnation have been sending us their thoughts on electoral reform. Here are three of them:

Vote yes, so your values and your votes count

By ALICE GRANGE

Too many of us have water that is not safe to drink, air that is not safe to breathe, and food that is not safe to eat; meanwhile corporate profits continue to soar.

I support Proportional Representation, (PR), because I am tired of the rich running and ruining British Columbia. Corporate funded ‘majority’ governments elected by less than 40% of the voters, continue to allow corporations to profit from our water and other natural resources. These same corporations dump toxic tailings into our waterways, incinerate their industrial waste, clearcut our remaining forests, and pollute our soil.

The 90+ Countries that have instituted Proportional Representation use 117% more renewable energy! They also have lower levels of income inequality, they spend less on the military, and are less prejudiced towards LGBTQ2+ and ethnic minorities…. Women are 8% better represented, 12% more of eligible youth vote, and civil liberties are better protected than in non PR countries. https://prorepfactcheck.ca.

I support PR because I want my values, my concerns for my neighbours and the water, air and soil we all depend on, to be heard. Politics has become a corporate money game. No matter how I vote, under the current FPTP system, unless I have oodles to donate, my voice is not heard in the Legislative Assembly and my vote doesn’t count!

We have an opportunity here, to turn the tide. To ensure that nearly everyone’s vote counts towards electing an MLA. The NO side’s well funded spokespeople would have you believe that party hacks will determine who represents you. That is not true. Under all of the systems proposed by the BC government there will be open lists. This means that you vote for who you want, even across party lines. As with the current system, the people on the ballot will be chosen by the party membership; as a voter you will get to put a check mark beside the person/people you wish to represent you and your vote WILL be represented in parliament.

Take the values related quiz at http://referendumguide.ca, as I did, to discover the form of PR proposed on the referendum ballot that best suits you.
And finally, let’s address the lie that PR will bring in more fringe parties. FPTP has saddled Ontarians with Doug Ford with a mandated ‘majority’ of only 41% of the popular vote. Surely we can do better than this with PR?

For more accurate facts on PR and FPTP, stop reading the slick corporate ads against PR and check out the facts. https://prorepfactcheck.ca.

Alice Grange is an Emotional Freedom Techniques (Tapping) practitioner who would love to live in a democracy. She lives in Courtenay

6 advantages of Proportional Representation

By DAVID ANSON

A party wins seats in parliament according to its share of the popular vote. (In the First Past the Post system, it is common for a party to get a majority of the seats with a minority of the votes cast.) Most “majority governments” were not elected by the majority of citizens. There is only one instance of a government elected in B.C. with a real majority since 1956.
The great majority of votes count—the great majority of voters elect someone. (In the First Past the Post system, a significant number of votes are wasted—a significant number of voters don’t elect anyone.) In “safe ridings”, where one party always wins, the experience of futility in voting happens repeatedly to the same voters. Voter turnout is 7% higher in countries with proportional representation.
Voters can vote for what they believe in. (In the First Past the Post system, voters often vote against a party they don’t like by voting for whatever alternative party has the best chance of winning.) This kind of “strategic voting”, even if successful, leads to a lack of representation.
The make-up of parliament is a close reflection of the diverse points of view of the voting population. (The First Past the Post system does not acknowledge the benefit of diverse points of view and skews the election result in favour of large parties.) Once a riding is won, all of its population is considered to be represented by the victor. This exaggerates homogeneity.
An election is marked by a general campaign aimed at all voters. (In the First Past the Post system, an election is marked by a specific campaign to influence voters in “swing ridings”.) The desperate effort to pick up votes in swing ridings has led to smear campaigns against opponents and even to violations of election law without significant consequences. There is less likelihood that elections decided by proportional representation will be subverted.
The government is obliged to work together with other parties to make decisions for the long term. (The First Past the Post system encourages hyper-partisanship in which the winning party follows its own agenda.) Some of the most popular and most enduring legislation in Canada was put into place by minority governments in which parties relaxed their separate agendas and focused on shared values.

David Anson is a Comox resident.

People don’t vote because the system doesn’t represent them

By JIM GILLIS

This November we have the opportunity to vote for Proportional Representation and change our present First Past the Post to an electoral system that represents all voters. We only have to look to the United States to see a two-party system locked in a death grip. In the New Brunswick recent election the Conservatives won by one constituency with 31 percent of the vote over the Liberals with 37 percent of the vote.

Citizens are not voting because they are not being represented in our present system. We need to change to Proportional Representation. Proportional Representation in a variety of forms is the method used by many Western countries. It is not new. It is a tried and true system that works. We as citizens should make a point of finding the facts
for ourselves by reviewing Fair Vote Canada’s fact checker website (https://prorepfactcheck.ca).

Over the last 150 years we have made many changes to our electoral system. In the beginning only rich men and landowners could vote, it was expanded to include all men, in the 20th century women were given the vote and in the last seventy years, Chinese, Japanese and our First Nations were given the vote. Let’s make another change that will include all voters in the final tally.

This November when your electoral reform package arrives vote for Proportional Representation a system that represents all voters.

Jim Gillis is a former Area B representative to the Comox Valley Regional District board, who still lives in Area B.

Yes vote on Cumberland referendum benefits two projects

by George Le Masurier | Oct 17, 2018

If Cumberland voters approve up to $4.4 million in borrowing to bring the village’s treatment plant up to provincial standards, it will help to acquire grants and free up funds for a new fire hall

Cumberland voters have an extra and important box to check on their municipal ballots this year. Besides picking a mayor and four councillors, residents will decide if the village can borrow money to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant.

This doesn’t seem like a controversial topic, one that might be expected to get an overwhelming “yes” vote from all but the grumpiest taxpayers.

Consider the benefits:

— An upgraded plant would discharge clean water into Maple Lake Creek and ultimately the Trent River.

— The village’s plan is affordable, less than half as expensive as the previous South Sewer Project proposed by the Comox Valley Regional District.

— The project is scaled for two decades of population growth and designed to meet increased Ministry of Environment standards.

— And, the most compelling argument of all, the village has to do the upgrades regardless of Saturday’s vote. Their wastewater treatment has been out of compliance with provincial standards for more than a decade. If Cumberland doesn’t act soon, it could face million dollar fines on top of the inevitable costs to upgrade.

But the project did become controversial this summer when a group of residents opposed the plan and defeated the village’s Alternate Approval Process, which would have achieved consensus without a referendum on the ballot.

REFERENDUM: Are you in favour of “Wastewater Upgrade Project Loan Authorization Bylaw, No. 1084, 2018” to authorize the Village of Cumberland to borrow up to $4,400,000, including interest, over a period not exceeding 20 years in order to finance the construction of an upgraded lagoon wastewater treatment plant? YES or NO

The opposed residents were supporters of the village’s Fire Department and its quest for a new fire hall. They feared that project would get lost if they supported borrowing for the wastewater plant upgrade.

According to Cumberland Councillor Jesse Ketler those differences have been resolved and she hopes the referendum will pass comfortably on Saturday.

Ketler told Decafnation that a decisive showing of public support in the referendum vote actually makes it more likely the village can obtain grants and other external funding for the upgrades. That would reduce the amount the village had to borrow, and in turn make more funds available for a new fire hall.

The village hopes to pay for the $9 million wastewater project with 73 percent of the funding from grants. The other 27 percent would come from the development cost charges (DCC) the village has accumulated and only $1.2 million from borrowing.

Ketler said it would be a win-win-win for the fire hall, the wastewater treatment plant and the environment if the referendum passes.

Cumberland currently uses lagoon aeration and settling to treat its sewage. The non-disinfected effluent is discharged into Maple Lake Creek, the Trent River and ultimately into Baynes Sound.

The proposed upgrade expands the lagoon aeration capacity, removes phosphorus, uses a “fish friendly” disinfectant and then “polishes” treated water to remove organic contaminants such as pharmaceuticals.

Village staff has estimated a total cost (capital construction and 20-year operating costs) to taxpayers of between $310 per property per year to $49 per property per year. The high figure assumes no grant funding, which Ketler says is unlikely.

The BC Ministry of the Environment sent enforcement notices in 2017 and again in 2018 warning Cumberland that it’s out of compliance with provincial regulations and faces possibly large fines.

“We need to develop an environmentally-sustainable method of treating the liquid waster,” said Mayor Leslie Baird. “This solution is the result of nearly two years of planning by community volunteers, technical experts and agencies and moving it forward will address a significant issue in our community’s infrastructure.”

Small number of voters will have large, long-term effect

by George Le Masurier | Jun 17, 2016

Many residents of Royston and Union Bay will vote tomorrow on whether to fund a new sewerage system to service their communities. This seemingly isolated decision will have a profound and long-term impact on the entire Comox Valley.

If voters approve this referendum, known as the South Sewer Project (SSP), they will create the Valley’s third separate sewerage system. The other two are the Courtenay-Comox system, also managed through the Comox Valley Regional District, and the system serving the Village of Cumberland.

On its website, the CVRD lists a fourth sewerage system for the Saratoga-Miracle Beach as a future initiative. In 2006, however, voters rejected the CVRD’s proposal for a wastewater management system for that area.

If the SSP moves ahead, it will lay more pipe in our estuaries and Baynes Sound, and commit the Valley to an uncoordinated sewerage system, perhaps forever. It will make it more difficult to achieve the ideal solution: a state-of-the-art Comox Valley-wide, all-overland sewerage system.

Of course, such an achievement would require Comox Valley jurisdictions to work together for the greater good. While that may not seem likely at the moment, it’s possible.

When the 13 municipalities and three electoral areas that comprise the Capital Regional District couldn’t agree on where to locate its new sewage treatment plant, Peter Fassbender, the minister for Community, Sport and Cultural Development, stepped in and formed a panel of experts to make the decision.

It’s not likely Fassbender would take a similar directive action here, but a nudge in the right direction could help.

Some people believe that such a major Valley-wide initiative could only happen if the municipalities amalgamate. Without allegiances to any individual community, a single governing body could focus on the entire Comox Valley.

But amalgamation presents a set of obstacles no less onerous than a Valley-wide sewerage system.

In the meantime, many failing septic systems in the Union Bay-Royston and Saratoga-Miracle Beach areas trickle untreated liquid waste into our waterways, and the Cumberland system adversely affects the Trent River watershed. The Courtenay-Comox system runs raw sewage through old pipes buried along the K’omoks estuary foreshore and pumps lightly treated wastewater into the Strait of Georgia.

So there’s an immediate benefit, albeit small, to approving the SSP. That plant would at least employ some of the modern technologies for sewage treatment. Its effluent would reach reclaimed water status, but would not be cleaned of pharmaceuticals or nitrates.

But does that advantage warrant spending tens of millions of dollars, putting miles of new pipe in our sensitive marine environment and most likely delaying the ultimate sewerage solution for many more decades?

Whatever voters decide tomorrow will have long-term consequences for all of us.