Our health should be an election issue

By Dr. Trevor Hancock

To the extent health is an issue in the federal election, it will be about health care, as usual. Now I am not saying health care is an unimportant issue, but this focus on ‘health care as health’ is wrong for two reasons. First, health care is a provincial responsibility under the Constitution, so the federal government plays no real role in managing Canada’s various provincial and territorial health care systems.

Second, and more important, health is not health care, it is a much bigger issue – and one where the federal government can indeed play a major role. If we really want to improve health care, we must improve health, thus reducing the growing burden of disease and injury the health care system has to handle.

So as we think about the federal election, look at party platforms and promises, and engage with candidates, the question we should be asking is “What will you do to protect and improve the health of Canadians?” Here and in the next few columns I will discuss the policies I believe we should be looking for to determine whether our political leaders really understand and care about the health of Canadians.

In this I am not alone. The Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) has identified eight top election issues and has produced an excellent set of resources for citizens and public health professionals, giving easy access to the parties’ platforms and tools to help people engage candidates in their riding (see www.cpha.ca/election-2019)

CPHA’s priorities include such basic determinants of health as income, housing, early child education and climate change. They also focus on the opioid crisis, decriminalization of personal use of psychoactive substances, racism, and not surprisingly, on the funding of public health. To this list, I would add food, transportation and urban development, although the latter, like health care, is within provincial but not federal jurisdiction.

But over and above all of this is the need for a comprehensive and strategic approach to improving the health of Canadians. There was a time, in the 1980s and 1990s, when Canada was a world leader on these issues, but sadly that is no longer the case. As with so much else that is wrong with public policy, it is not lack of knowledge that leads to poor policy choices, but lack of wisdom, lack of a long term perspective and the inability to act in the public interest rather than in the interest of powerful corporate and institutional players.

The first step in making the health of Canadians a priority is to recognize that the Minister of Health is actually largely the Minister of Illness Care, and that it is the Cabinet as a whole, and the Prime Minister or Premier in particular, that is really the ‘Minister of Wellbeing’. Improving the health of Canadians depends more upon the Ministers of food, housing, education, finance, social development, environment and climate change and others than the Minister of health.

The Canadian Senate recognized this in a 2009 report that recommended “A new style of governance: leadership from the top to develop and implement a population health policy at the federal, provincial, territorial and local levels with clear goals and targets and a health perspective to all new policies and programs”.

Specifically, the Senate recommended creating a Cabinet Committee on Population Health (which should be chaired by the Prime Minister/Premier) that would develop and implement a population health policy. This policy would require an assessment of the health impact of policies in all sectors, and a spending review to determine where we would get the biggest health/human development return on our investment.

To this, I would add the creation of an independent Canadian Population Health Officer, reporting to Parliament (not to the government) on the effectiveness of public policy and programs in improving the health of the population.

The report sank like a stone! So if you are concerned with the health of the population and the sustainability of the health care system, you should ask candidates if they will commit to creating a Cabinet Committee on Population Health, displacing economic development as the central focus and instead putting development of human wellbeing at the heart of government.

© Trevor Hancock, 2019

Originally published 17 September 2019

New Zealand leads the way by focusing on quality of life

By Dr. Trevor Hancock

One of the central themes in my columns, and in my academic and professional writing and presentations, is that, as a society, we have got our priorities wrong.

We have focused on economic growth and increase in material wealth rather than on increased human and social development and quality of life. With that in mind, it is heartening to see that at least one government is making the shift to these broader objectives.

Don’t get too excited — it’s not happening in Canada.

It’s New Zealand, where they have a different outlook. On May 30, the New Zealand government delivered what is surely the world’s first wellbeing budget. But what exactly is a wellbeing budget and what makes it different?

In her budget message, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern commented: “While economic growth is important — and something we will continue to pursue — it alone does not guarantee improvements to our living standards. Nor does it measure the quality of economic activity or take into account who benefits and who is left out or left behind.”

Here we have a government that understands not all growth is good, and even more important, that the purpose of the economy is not simply to grow, but to improve our living standards, without leaving people out or leaving them behind.

“[It] signals a new approach to how government works, by placing the well being of New Zealanders at the heart of what we do,” said Grant Robertson, the Minister of Finance. Instead of focusing on “a limited set of economic data,” with success defined by “a narrow range of indicators, like GDP growth,” this new approach measures success in line with New Zealanders’ values — “fairness, the protection of the environment, the strength of our communities.”

To do so, the government has built on 30 years of work in New Zealand and internationally to create a Living Standards Framework that considers “the inter-generational well being impacts of policies and proposals.” It recognizes four forms of capital — natural, human, social and the combination of financial and physical capital.

These are then linked to 12 domains of well being that include civic engagement, cultural identity, safety and security and subjective well being. These are similar to the domains in the Canadian Index of Wellbeing, which was initiated by the Atkinson Foundation in 1999 and has been housed at the University of Waterloo since 2010.

To my knowledge, regrettably, no federal or provincial government has adopted its guidelines.

The wellbeing budget “focuses on five priority areas where evidence tells us there are the greatest opportunities to make real differences to the lives of New Zealanders.” Priorities intend to: Support mental well being, especially for those under 24; improve child well being and reduce child poverty; increase incomes, skills and opportunities for Maori and Pacific Islanders; support a thriving digital-age economy, and create opportunities for organizations and communities to transition to a sustainable and low-emissions economy.

Just as interesting as the budget is the process used to create it. Rather than the usual siloed approach, where each ministry just considers its own issues and concerns, “ministers had to show how their bids would achieve the well-being priorities.” Cabinet committees then worked to create collaborative approaches across ministries, supporting collective approaches to the well-being priorities.

New Zealand is similar, in many ways, to B.C. With nearly five million people, it is a resource-rich country with a long coast line, a significant and increasingly assertive Indigenous population and a British colonial history.

But it also has a history of democratic innovation. In 1867, it created four parliamentary seats for Maori and in 1893 it became the first country in the world to give women — including Maori women — the right to vote in parliamentary elections.

It is also noteworthy that New Zealand has had proportional representation since 1996, which resulted in no party having a clear majority in the 2017 election. The government that introduced the wellbeing budget is a coalition, led by the Labour party.

Clearly, coalition governments can take bold initiatives.

If they can do it in New Zealand, there is no reason why we cannot have a wellbeing budget in British Columbia.

© Trevor Hancock, 2019

Originally published in Times Colonist, 9 June 2019

Innovation for Gender Equity, Youth & Representation [Symposium]

An evening of talks and networking to generate discussions surrounding social innovation, gender equity & representation, and youth development within communities, in alignment with Bridge for Health’s Youth Engagement initiative and proud supporter of Women Deliver 2019 — the world’s largest conference on gender equality and the health, rights, and wellbeing of girls and women in the 21st century.

What does social innovation look like beyond Vancouver? How can we think global, but act local to support our own community? As we move towards progress and changemaking, how can we simultaneously promote gender equity & representation to reflect our diverse communities?

ABOUT BRIDGE FOR HEALTH
Bridge for Health is an international cooperative of changemakers. By shifting dialogue and practices about health, from absence of illness to wellbeing, we can mobilize the change towards a safe, sustainable, and healthy future for all.

KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Patrick Mwesigye (Team Lead of the Uganda Youth & Adolescents Health Forum) will be presenting his talk “Young People at the Periphery of Universal Health Coverage – A case of Uganda Youth and Adolescents Health Forum”

PECHA KUCHA TALKS
Each presenter will share personal presentations about their work. The theme is “Social Innovation, Gender Equity & Representation, and Youth & Community Development”. Click ‘attending’ on the event to stay updated on our speaker announcements!

Tickets are free but limited – RSVP before they run out!
Link: http://b4hsymposium2019.eventbrite.com
#B4HSymposium2019 #WD2019

Please email Larissa (larissa@bridgeforhealth.org) for accessibility requests or more information.
www.facebook.com/bridge4health/

We face alternative health futures

By Dr. Trevor Hancock

Last week, I referred to Norman Henchey’s categorization of four sorts of future: Probable, possible, plausible and preferable. This week, I explore the latter three, especially in the context of the future of health and the health-care system.

But first, an important distinction. Many of those who describe themselves as health futurists are really health-care-system futurists. They are focused on the future of the health-care system, rather than on health itself.

But if you want to think about the future of health, you have to think about much more than just the health-care system; you have to think about the future of society as a whole and the state of our environment, as they are what largely determine the health of the population.

In fact, our society also determines what kind of health-care system we have, because that system will reflect the values and social norms of the society of which it is a part — not the other way around. So with that in mind, what can we say about the possible, plausible and preferable futures of health and health care?

The possible future encompasses all the things we can imagine happening, which can take it into the realm of science fiction. This is not to disparage science fiction; at its best, it can illuminate our present world and its values, and imagine and test ideas most of us have never considered.

But the possible can also get pretty wild, both scientifically and socially, which can make it implausible. The transporter beam of Star Trek is a case in point, as perhaps are its instant diagnostic scanners, or the extreme genetic manipulations in the novels of William Gibson or Iain M. Banks. I would put the visions of limitless free energy and hopes for instant cures for cancer and other diseases in the implausible zone.

The plausible future is a narrower band within the wide range of possible futures. It can be best explored by the use of scenarios — narratives of alternative futures based on what we know and can reasonably anticipate. In scenarios work, we not only explore the “business as usual” scenario, but a plausible future in which many things go wrong, which can be described as decline or collapse.

This is definitely not a preferable future, and people don’t like to explore it, but if asked, they find it plausible, even quite likely. By exploring such a future we can both recognize what we need to do to avoid it and/or to cope with and manage it.

Other plausible scenarios include some form of eco-social, economic and to some extent spiritual transformation, a sort of “green” future that sees us move away from the more high-tech “business as usual” or the conditions that lead to decline or collapse. Not surprisingly, such a future, while not necessarily seen as all that plausible or feasible, is often seen as quite healthy and thus desirable, especially when allied with the appropriate use of high-tech.

But embedded within and underlying each scenario are sets of values that guide the scenario, such as the value placed on health and how health is understood in that society — which in turn shapes that future’s health-care system. For example, is health just about physical well-being and length of life, or mental well-being and quality of life, or balance and harmony within society and nature?

In the first option, we might expect a more high-tech, biomedical system, but in the other two, a system more focused on achieving mental well-being or ecological well-being, while in a decline or collapse scenario we can imagine there would be a quite minimal, survival-oriented health-care system, and mainly for the rich and powerful.

But beyond imagining a range of plausible futures we face, the key question is what sort of healthy future we want for our kids and grandkids. As I said in last week’s column, thinking about the future should help us decide what we do and how we live today. Rather than just adapting to whatever happens, how do we help to shape and create the future we prefer? That will be the topic of next week’s column.

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy.

© Trevor Hancock, 2019

Originally published in Times Colonist, 31 March 2019

Future thinking can pay off

By Dr. Trevor Hancock

I am often accused, not unjustly, of being a “doom and gloom” merchant when it comes to the state of the planet and of our society. While there are good reasons to hold that view, it is not the only way of looking at the future.

Part of my professional work has been as a futurist, specifically a health futurist. That is to say, I have worked with people to help them think more effectively and creatively about the future of health and health care.

Futurists often get a bad rap, accused of being too visionary, even dreamy, by some, while others think futurists have done a poor job of predicting the future. Both those views, however, miss the point of good futures thinking.

Many years ago, I worked with James Robertson, a British futurist and author of an influential 1978 book, The Sane Alternative. In 1984, I brought him to Toronto to speak at a conference I was organizing, and one of the things he said captured for me the essence of good futures work.

“Thinking about the future,” he said, “is only useful and interesting if it affects what we do and how we live today.”

So good futures work is practical, because it helps us make better choices and decisions today that will shape our future. Of course, there is no guarantee that we will do so; witness the litany of failed opportunities over the past 50 years to avoid the environmental crisis that was predicted then and that we now face.

Which points to the other sort of problem: Futurists might help us understand and anticipate future events, but there is no guarantee their ideas will be understood, taken to heart and acted upon. Moreover, prediction is a bit of a mug’s game. As another colleague, and one of the world’s leading futurists, Jim Dator, used to say, the probable future is the least likely future.

By that he meant that predicting the future as a form of “business as usual,” especially based on past trends and performances, is inherently wrong, because it assumes that things will continue much as they are, when in fact the only thing that is constant is change. The future, as futurists like to remark, is plastic, it can and will be shaped, often in ways we don’t anticipate — witness the way the internet has changed our world.

Moreover, as we have come to understand complex adaptive systems better — systems such as the human body, the economy or the Earth’s natural systems — we have come to understand two important things about them that make prediction hard, if not impossible.

First, within such systems, small changes can perturb the system in ways that result in massive change, the so-called butterfly effect. (The analogy is that the beat of a butterfly’s wings in China today can spawn a tornado days later in America.) The opposite is also true. Large changes in input can have little or no effect, as the system adapts to them and smoothes out or absorbs their impacts.

The second realization is that there can be sudden, non-linear state-shifts in such systems. These systems are dynamic, but stable, though when enough strain builds up, or just the right small nudge occurs and they cross a threshold — which we might not know about in advance — they can shift suddenly to a different state. Some climate models, for example, suggest the Earth’s climate can be stable in its present configuration or two much different states: “Snowball Earth” or “ice-free Earth.” At present, we are pushing the Earth toward the latter.

All of this suggests that there is no such thing as the future, but rather we face many different futures. The Canadian futurist Norman Henchey put it well many years ago when he described four categories of future: Probable, possible, plausible and preferable.

The probable, as we have already seen, while interesting, might be neither likely nor preferable; the other three are more interesting, and I will describe them next week, particularly in the context of the future of health and health care, before turning to thinking positively about creating a preferred future in a third column.

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy.

© Trevor Hancock, 2019

Originally published in Times Colonist, 31 March 2019

Time to shift the bell curve toward health

By: Dr. Trevor Hancock

Life is lived on a bell curve. Many attributes of a population — height, for example — are distributed on a bell-shaped curve, with the average at the centre and then decreasing numbers of people as we get further from the centre.

At each end of the curve are the small number of people who are either extremely tall or extremely short. This pattern is found throughout nature, and is one of the most important concepts in biology, medicine and public health.

Understanding the bell curve is important for the work of public health. For example, we know that being overweight or obese increases the risk of developing diabetes.

An example from a Canadian population-health primer notes that those who are very obese have a 32 per cent chance of developing diabetes over the next 10 years, while those who are obese have a 21 per cent risk. But people who are overweight but not obese have only a 10 per cent risk, and those with a normal healthy weight or who are underweight have only a three to seven per cent risk.

So you might think it would make sense to focus our prevention efforts on those who are obese — and you would be wrong. Because in doing so you would miss 61 per cent of those who develop diabetes. Forty per cent of cases would occur in the overweight population and an additional 21 per cent of cases would occur in the low-risk normal weight population.

This is known as Rose’s Paradox, identified by the noted British epidemiologist Sir Geoffrey Rose. He pointed out that while the people at one end of the bell curve have a higher risk of getting a disease, more cases are found in the population with moderate or low risk. This is because there are far more people in these categories. For this reason, it is better to try to shift the curve for the entire population a bit.

Moreover, this doesn’t just apply to individuals, but to entire neighbourhoods. My friend and colleague, the late Clyde Hertzman, established and led the Human Early Learning Partnership at UBC. He led pioneering work in B.C. on early child development, and as a result, B.C. became the first jurisdiction in the world with maps of early development for every neighbourhood and school district in the province. These maps helped to show the relationships between patterns of vulnerability in young children and their socio-economic conditions.

As would be expected, lower incomes and more impoverished living conditions and neighbourhood resources were linked to worse outcomes. But importantly, HELP also showed that “although the highest risk of vulnerability is found in the poorest neighbourhoods of town, the largest number of children at risk is spread across middle-class neighbourhoods.”

This has important implications for public-health policy and programs. It is tempting to focus only on the small number of high-risk people, groups and communities — so called “targeted” interventions — because it seems as if that would be cheaper. But it’s not a very effective strategy because it misses most of the cases. For example, B.C.’s Nurse-Family Partnership provides regular visits by a public-health nurse throughout a woman’s first pregnancy, and those visits continue until the child reaches two years of age.

But it is only available to a select group of women; those under 19, or those age 20 to 24 who are lone parents, or have low income and education or are experiencing social, financial or housing challenges, including being homeless. Nobody would argue that this is not a high-risk group, but Rose’s Paradox and Clyde Hertzman’s work suggest the program may be missing most of the cases that need support.

If we want to have the greatest impact, we need to affect the entire population. What is needed, as Clyde and his colleagues at HELP point out in the B.C. Atlas of Child Development, is a combination of civil-society interventions that “create family-friendly environments across class and ethnic divides”; universal interventions, with barriers to vulnerable people removed; and targeted interventions.

In the U.K., this is known as “proportionate universalism”; everyone gets the intervention, but those with the greatest need get more. It’s the best way to shift the curve toward health.

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy.

© Trevor Hancock, 2019

Originally published in Times Colonist, 10 March 2019

 

Planning to feed a one-planet region

By Dr. Trevor Hancock 

The concept of a one-planet region is simple: We need to reduce our collective impact on the Earth so we — and others around the world — can live within the ecological and physical constraints of this one small planet we all share.

But at the same time, we want to maintain a high quality of life for all, both locally and globally.

When Jennie Moore and Cora Hallsworth determined the ecological footprint of Victoria and Saanich last year, they found, unsurprisingly, that we are consuming well above one planet’s worth of ecosystem goods and services. But what might have been surprising for many is that they found more than 40 per cent of our footprint is related to food; this compares with the 26 per cent of humanity’s overall global footprint that is related to food, according to a 2017 report from the Global Footprint Network.

The extent of the impact of our global food and agriculture system on the Earth is not widely appreciated. But a 2017 study by Michael Clark and David Tilman inEnvironmental Research Letters notes that agricultural activities are the source of between one-quarter and one-third of all greenhouse gases, occupy 40 per cent of Earth’s land surface and account for more than two-thirds of freshwater withdrawals, as well as being a significant contributor to deforestation, habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss and pollution.

Moreover, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization reported in 2014 that 75 per cent of the world’s agricultural land is used for raising animals, and world average meat consumption per person doubled between 1961 and 2011. But meat production is a large contributor to global warming and other environmental problems, with beef being particularly problematic. A 2014 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found beef production has a much larger impact — between five and 28 times as much, depending on the issue — than the average of dairy, poultry, pork and egg production.

In their study of the Victoria and Saanich footprints, Moore and Hallsworth found more than half our food footprint was due to fish, meat and eggs, and another 18 per cent was due to dairy production. So reducing our local footprint means changing our diet. Happily, a 2014 U.K. study found a low-meat diet results in only 65 per cent of the emissions resulting from a high-meat diet.

Two important reports that speak to the issue of food, health and the environment have come out this month. The first is from the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Since 2015, The Lancet — one of the world’s leading medical journals — has drawn attention to the concept of planetary health, because “far-reaching changes to the Earth’s natural systems represent a growing threat to human health.” The Lancet has produced reports on the health impacts of climate change, pollution — and now, diet.

Authored by 37 leading scientists from 16 countries, the report states “food is the single strongest lever to optimize human health and environmental sustainability on Earth.” Their prescription is clear: To safeguard both planetary and human health, “global consumption of fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes will have to double, and consumption of foods such as red meat and sugar will have to be reduced by more than 50 per cent.”

The good news is that “a diet rich in plant-based foods and with fewer animal-source foods confers both improved health and environmental benefits.” They estimate their diet could prevent about 11 million deaths a year, globally.

Now Health Canada has issued its revised Canada Food Guide, and while not focused on the environmental benefits, it concludes, on health grounds, that we should eat plenty of vegetables and fruits (about half our diet), choose whole-grain foods and eat protein foods — not just lean meat, chicken, fish and eggs, but nuts and seeds, lentils, tofu, yogurt and beans.

I have noted before that a good food policy would be to follow Michael Pollan’s strictures: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.” If we are to shift to a one-planet region, we need a one-planet diet, and that means a low-animal-based and high-plant-based diet. The good news is we will be healthier for it, too.

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy.

© Trevor Hancock, 2019

Originally published in Times Colonist, 27 January 2019

Solstice a timely reminder of our place in the universe

By Dr. Trevor Hancock 

I have never lost the sense of awe I experienced one night as a teenager as I lay down in a dark spot and really looked at the Milky Way. It was overwhelming and humbling to realize what a small part of the galaxy our own seemingly vast solar system is, and what a tiny part of all that I am.

But it also gave me a strong sense of my connectedness to the universe, a sense that has never left me. I can get much the same sense of awe and connection by looking at the immensity of the ocean or a mountain, or the beauty of a butterfly or a flower.

But many people, perhaps most of us these days, have lost that connection — or at least experience it too infrequently. A vivid illustration of our loss of connection comes from Los Angeles, where in 1994, an earthquake knocked out power. According to a subsequent report in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives: “Many anxious residents called local emergency centres to report seeing a strange ‘giant, silvery cloud’ in the dark sky. What they were really seeing — for the first time — was the Milky Way, long obliterated by the urban-sky glow.”

Sadly, this loss of any awareness of the night sky is hardly surprising. The first world atlas of the artificial night sky brightness tells us: “Two-thirds of the U.S. population and more than one-half of the European population have already lost the ability to see the Milky Way with the naked eye.” But if we can’t see the stars, how do we know our connection to and place in the universe?

At a somewhat smaller scale, how many people realize that we are almost at the midwinter solstice? For that matter, how many pay attention to the midsummer solstice, the spring and fall equinoxes and the phases of the moon? But for most of our history, these have been of immense significance to humans, helping to connect us with the great cycles of nature.

We often forget — or perhaps choose to ignore — that many of our various faith-based celebrations have been superimposed on these much older traditions. Christmas itself is about the birth of a child, the “light of the world,” just as the winter solstice marks the return of the sun and the birth of the new year, while Hanukkah is also a festival of the light. Indeed, the later Romans celebrated Sol Invictus, the birth of the invincible sun, on Dec. 25, thought to be grafted on to an older cult of the sun.

Many of the aspects of our modern celebration of Christmas — bringing green boughs and trees into the house, lighting fires and candles, hanging mistletoe — have their roots in pagan traditions such as yule, and it seems fires and lights were an important part of the celebration of the winter solstice in many cultures.

Other celebrations are related to the lunar calendar. Easter and Passover are tied to the full moon around the time of the spring equinox, while Sukkot (a Jewish harvest festival) and the Christian tradition of harvest festivals are also around the time of the fall equinox. They are reminders that we were once deeply connected to the seasons and the Earth.

But too many people, indeed much of society, have lost touch with nature, which is part of the reason we are in such environmental trouble. Yet while we might imagine that our technology and our cleverness have made us separate from — and even superior to — nature, that is far from the truth. We are as dependent upon nature as we ever were. It is still where all our food, water, air, fuels and materials come from.

If we could but experience that sense of wonder, awe and connection that our ancestors felt — and perhaps some of the fear, too, for nature’s power remains immense — we might treat the Earth with more respect. So take a few moments this week to contemplate the turning of the year. Go out and look at the night sky, admire the ocean and the flowers, because we need more than ever to re-establish our connection with nature. Happy Solstice.

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy.

© Trevor Hancock, 2018

Originally published in Times Colonist, 16 December 2018

B4H November newsletter

 

Hello Bridge for Health Cooperative members!

Bridge for Health Cooperative has been undergoing a strategic development planning process, through consulting the Board, committees, industry professionals & mentors, and most importantly, the cooperative members! In doing so, we aim to bring value to our members through strengthened partnerships, increased opportunities, relevant policies & best practices, and regular updates for you – through FacebookTwitterInstagram & our website!

We look forward to continuing our dedicated work and welcome you to get involved, check out some openings here and follow us on our media platforms to stay in the loop.

 

A Youth Perspective on Proportional Representation

My Experience with First Past the Post

By Marco Zenone

 I have voted in one provincial election (2017) since becoming of legal age. I was ecstatic to vote and be engaged in the democratic process – this was a major milestone. I had completed significant research on the platforms of the major parties and was confident in my voting decision.

On voting day the party I supported received 332,387 votes – or a total of 16.84% of the popular vote. They won 3 seats out of a possible 87. This was the most successful election of this party in the history of their existence.

Although I was happy to see this success – it was disconcerting that although 16.84% of British Columbians voted for this party – they only had about 3% of the legislative voting power. It was more concerning for me that the closest representative I felt I could contact was 147KM away from where I live.

Regardless of your political orientation – this should concern you and is a major flaw of the current first past the post electoral system.

Our previous three governments (2005-2013) had majority governments that did not receive 50% of the popular vote (2005-45.8%, 2009-45.8%, 2013-44.1%). The first past the post system allowed them to pass legislation unopposed – disregarding any opposition from other parties regardless of the validity of their concerns. Parties that were elected to represent those who voted against the majoritarian government based on their needs, values and beliefs.

This is not a system that represents the diversity of voices in British Columbia. We need to ensure all BC residents are adequately represented to inform public policy – regardless if your political beliefs align with the Liberal, NDP, or Green parties. We need proportional representation.

The Benefits of Proportional Representation

Reforming our electoral structure to a system of proportional representation will strengthen our democracy and reflect the needs of BC residents.

Proportional representation will encourage our governments to work collaboratively on public policy – having rich debate that will highlight the context of all BC residents instead of only a certain segment. PR may result in more minority governments and this is not negative – policy that is adequately debated will be better informed and of optimal quality.

Proportional representation will represent everyone fairly –if a party receives 40% of the vote, they will receive 40% of the seats and power – not 100%. All votes cast in an election will be meaningful – regardless of geographic location or which party a person supports.

Proportional representation encourages better and more transparent elections – our current system leads to parties focusing on electoral areas that are considered to be “undecided” – they will present platforms that are appealing to these specific areas to gain seats. Proportional representation will make major political parties focus on pressing issues affecting the entire province.

Proportional representation promotes equality and well-being – when people are confident their democratic engagement can have a real impact they are more likely to participate and advocate for the issues that affect them. Our most underserved and marginalized populations will benefit under proportional representation as their issues and votes are just as important as anybody else.

Closing Thoughts  

I encourage all persons regardless of your political leanings or prior beliefs to read how each system objectively operates.

We know that certain groups – in support or against proportional representation – are advocating aggressively through various forms of ads on social media. This can be effective in influencing our perceptions and we need to be aware of the motivation behind these ads. Question the advertisements you see.

Is their language positive and focusing on increasing democratic engagement – or is it fear mongering? Are they concerned with how this referendum affects everyone in BC – or only certain populations?

I’ve examined each system and questioned the advertisements I’ve seen – I strongly in proportional representation. We can change the way we do government for the betterment of all British Columbians. This referendum is an exceptional opportunity that we do not get often.

Our government has the chance to meaningfully represent all our residents – not only 40% of them.