DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL
was enacted. This prompted a further court challenge by many of the Island’s incorporated municipalities, who felt that the new system allowed for disproportionately large representation of the Island’s rural constituents. Following appeal the application was denied hearing by the Supreme Court of Canada. During the process the Electoral Boundaries Commission, received submissions on mixed member proportional representation. The
Below: The Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island is located in Charlottetown, Canada.
Commission went on to address them in their 1994 report, indicating, in essence, that the possibility required a great deal of further study before it could be addressed intelligently, particularly as the system had not been widely adopted. By the time the next Electoral Boundaries Commission was engaged in 2000, the global landscape had changed. New Zealand, very publicly adopted a form of MMPR (Mixed-member proportional representation) in 1994 and Scotland and Wales adopted Additional Members Systems when they achieved devolution in the late 90s. The Commission went on to
recommend that the possibility of an MMPR system be studied in further detail.
This recommendation in turn led to the institution of the 2003 Electoral Reform Commission, and its report, prepared by former Chief Justice of the Province, Norman Carruthers. This report, which was delivered after seven public meetings and a number of submissions from the public and experts, recommended that a further commission be established to engage and educate the public with respect to the potential options, and to refine a question for a referendum. Justice Carruthers proposed that an MMPR system, based on that of New Zealand, which would include 21 members elected by district, and 10 further members elected from lists to balance the result according to the proportional vote. This resulted in the formation of the 2005 Commission on PEI’s Electoral Future, which was comprised of eight nominated members of the Public. The Commission set out on a broad campaign of engagement, holding 12 public meetings across the Island, and participating in as many as 20 more. The Commission also undertook an extensive promotion and advertising campaign.
In the end, despite the fact that the plebiscite resulted in a ‘No’ vote, the Commission felt that the public had been much more engaged and educated on the
topic than when it began its work. Recognizing the previous efforts of citizens, litigants, committees and commissions in respect of democratic reform, and the result of the most recent plebiscite, it is clear that our committee must appreciate that its most important jobs, are to educate its members as to the possibilities; educate Islanders as to the possibilities; engage and solicit input from Islanders in respect of the possibilities and their desire for change; and to be open minded and prepared to listen to what Islanders are saying to us. We will not know, at least until the process is commenced in earnest, whether Islanders voted ‘No’ in 2005 because they did not want change or perhaps because they did not favor the particular option presented. That said, there is great comfort drawn from high voter turnouts on the Island. Taken in isolation from other factors, the willingness of Islanders to participate is an indication of a highly engaged population. In part, this may be due to their willingness to constantly re-examine their electoral system. The current examination of our electoral system is another phase in that democratic tradition. Once again, it is likely that our current exercise will provoke a lively and constructive debate over the Island’s democratic evolution. Recognizing that we are not starting from a blank slate, it is also my hope, and I believe the hope of our committee, that the progression through this process will be sufficiently educational, open, and engaging to allow for the preparation of a plebiscite question which may simultaneously gauge the appetite for and set the course of future democratic reform on Prince Edward Island.
The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue Three | 187
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104