 |
| Original News Release |
|
| Original News Release |
|
The government’s proposed terms of reference for the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform are based on recommendations made in a report by Gordon Gibson. Following is a summary of Gibson’s recommendations, government’s decision on each and reasons for any differences.
Mandate
Recommendation: The citizens’ assembly’s mandate should be limited to the voting system – in other words, the process by which votes are translated into seats in the legislative assembly. Decision: Same.
Recommendation: The citizens’ assembly should consider the potential impact on the total political system if the electoral system is changed. Decision: Same.
Recommendation: Any new model recommended by the citizens’ assembly must be consistent with the constitution of Canada and the Westminster parliamentary system. Decision: Same.
Recommendation: If the citizens’ assembly recommends a new model, it must recommend only one such model and provide a detailed explanation of it in the final report. Decision: Same.
Establishment and Reporting
Recommendation: The citizens’ assembly should be established by a specific action of the legislature (i.e., legislation or motion). Decision: Same.
Recommendation: The citizens’ assembly should table its report with the Speaker. Decision: The citizens’ assembly will provide its report to attorney general but will also have power to release it publicly at the same time. Reason for Difference: The citzens’ assembly is legally a creation of the government; therefore, it must report back to the executive. Tabling a report with the Speaker does not automatically make it public. The added power given to the Citizens’ Assembly to publish its own report at the same time as it reports to the Attorney General will ensure a transparent reporting process.
Recommendation: The citizens’ assembly should report between October and December 2004, to permit sufficient time for debate leading up to a referendum, if needed. Decision: Same.
Recommendation: The citizens’ assembly should be able to issue interim reports and budget requests to a special committee of the legislature. Decision: The assembly may issue interim reports, but budget issues are to be administered through the Ministry of Attorney General. Reason for Difference: Overall budget responsibility for the citizens’ assembly resides with the Ministry of Attorney General, not the legislative assembly. Therefore, it is not appropriate for a legislative committee to be involved with budget matters.
Selection Process
Recommendation: The provincial voters’ list
should be used to draw the sample pool of Decision: Same.
Recommendation: The initial random draw of
names should be stratified by age, gender Decision: Same.
Recommendation: The selection process should be preceded by a publicity campaign for those not on the voters’ list to sign up. Decision: No decision taken - await recommendation of the chair.
Recommendation: Membership for those initially contacted should not be compulsory. Decision: Same.
Recommendation: Regional selection meetings should be convened for those individuals who are interested in participating. Final selection should be by peer-election, to raise the quality of membership. Decision: Regional selection meetings will be used, but final selection is to be by random draw. Reason for Difference: Voting by peers introduces an element of electioneering into the process and moves away from the random-selection model.
Recommendation: There should be one member per riding, for a total of 79, excluding the chair. The chair should have power to add up to 21 more members from among those not initially successful, if initial elections are highly unrepresentative. Decision: There will be two members per riding, for a total of 158, excluding the chair. There will be no top-up power for the chair. Reason for Difference: The larger membership will help ensure it is more representative of the population, removing the need for a top-up power.
Recommendation: The chair should have the reserve power to add up to four members if necessary to ensure the assembly is representative. Decision: There is no such power for the chair. Reason for Difference: The larger membership will help ensure B.C. demographics are adequately represented.
Eligibility
Recommendation: Per portions of Section 3(1) of the Jury Act, persons should be ineligible that are: · Not a Canadian citizen. · Not resident in British Columbia. · Under the age of majority. · A member or officer of the Parliament of Canada or of the Privy Council of Canada. · A member or officer of the legislature or of the executive council. · A judge, justice or court referee. · A person convicted within the previous five years, or currently under charge, for an indictable offence. The following should also be ineligible: · Candidates for membership in the legislative assembly at the last general election. · Immediate family members of such candidates, or of sitting MLAs. Decision: Substantially the same, with some changes. Those charged with or convicted of an indictable offence are now eligible. Others have been added to the list of partisan interests to be excluded: ·
A
member of a local government, including a school board or a ·
Candidates
in the last two federal, provincial, municipal or · Official representatives or agents of candidates mentioned above. · Current officers or official representatives of registered provincial political parties. · Chiefs and band councillors elected pursuant to the Indian Act and elected members of Nisga’a Lisims Government.
Reason for Difference: While the selection process is similar, there are important differences between serving on a jury and serving in the assembly. Accused and convicted persons are ineligible for jury duty because of real or possible biases that could result in an unfair trial for another accused. They can, however, participate in the electoral process and vote in elections. Offenders who are incarcerated will be unable to participate in the assembly. Those under charge are considered innocent until proven guilty.
Chair
Recommendation: The chair should be appointed by a special committee of the legislature. Decision: The chair is nominated by government, and the nomination will be reviewed and approved a special committee of the legislature, following a meeting with the nominee.
Reason for Difference: Selection by a full, special committee is a lengthy process that could take up to three months. The proposed endorsement by a special committee is time-efficient and transparent. The decision of the committee must be unanimous.
Recommendation: The chair: · Is a non-voting member of the citizens’ assembly, with a casting vote in the event of a tie. · Chairs meetings and retains overall administrative responsibility for the assembly. · Is empowered to make decisions on procedure. · May select and supervise staff. · May select up to four vice-chairs. · Is to receive a salary equal to that of Chief Provincial Court Judge. Decision: Same.
Procedures
Recommendation: Decisions of the citizens’ assembly may be made by simple majority. Decision: Same.
Recommendation: The citizens’ assembly should be able to expel a member for cause, as defined by the assembly, by a two-thirds majority vote. Decision: Same.
Recommendation: No replacements should be made for members who withdraw or are expelled until vacancies reach 25 per cent of total membership. Decision: Same.
Recommendation: The citizens’ assembly should be required to consult with British Columbia by holding public hearings. Decision: Same.
Recommendation: Members’ expenses should be reimbursed and members should receive an honorarium of $150 per meeting day. Decision: Same.
Recommendation: The citizens’ assembly should have a budget of $4.5 million. Decision: The assembly will have an estimated budget of $5.5 million. Reason for Difference: The assembly’s membership is almost twice the size originally recommended, to help ensure it is more representative.
-30-
| ||||||||||||
