As citizens of a beautiful province, British Columbians need to step outside the box and find new ways to include nature in our lives, and in the ways we govern ourselves.
Fortunately, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, passed this spring, provides a unique opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, judging from submissions to date, nature continues to take a back seat on the bus. And that’s a disservice to us, and to B.C.’s future.
Once every eight years, the commission holds public hearings to consider the lines we draw around ourselves. Asking this commission to re-draw electoral boundaries with nature in mind, as the act permits, is an environmentally friendly approach that carries little cost while offering many benefits.
Much of the boundaries commission’s work involves deliberations over the size and number of voters in each of our electoral districts, adjusting borders according to “representation by population.” But a closer look reveals dysfunctional ecosystems, partitioned watersheds and incremental reductions of habitat and biodiversity across our boundaries. Etch-a-Sketch lines splitting the Cowichan Valley from the Juan de Fuca district provide a close-to-home example.
We cannot, of course, expect to retain all corridors and contiguous natural systems within each and every electoral boundary. At times and in urban areas, other circumstances will take priority. We simply need to remind ourselves that where we draw the line matters. One location might be more critical for seasonal or migratory needs; some endangered species might be unable to be moved. This is where the flexibility of our legislation should invite new consideration with nature’s needs in mind.
Marginalization of boundaries should also be addressed, especially along the farthest reaches of jurisdictions. This is where administrators and politicians tend to place their most dangerous development and polluting industries, or just pay the least attention.
Recall the acid-rain controversy that saw Canada pitted against U.S. coal plants located along our border, lobbying against externalized emissions that caused downwind health and agricultural problems in Ontario and Quebec. And then there’s the close proximity of U.S. nuclear-power plants and disposal sites to nuclear-free B.C.
Here on the Island, we find regional politicians often agreeing that our shared geographic features extend across districts and jurisdictions. Ask regional planners what they do to ensure that similar zoning and co-operative practices actually extend across these same interdependent systems, however, and you’ll often get a blank stare.
In this light, with the Electoral Boundaries Commission now being directed by the B.C. government to protect declining populations in large northern and rural ridings, we are being given a chance to take a fresh look at the shape and size of our voting districts.
Unintentional as it might have been, this new legislation also offers opportunity to consider the geography and scale of natural boundaries, of the ecosystems where we live.
This, then, is our chance as citizens to go out for a walk and take a look at the historical, cultural and natural places that make our neighbourhoods and regions our home. And then tell the Electoral Boundaries Commission what we want to see protected and integrated within our society, what contributes to our community identities, and how our electoral districts should be configured.
It’s interesting to note that this is not really a new idea. The 1988 B.C. electoral-boundary hearings applauded this “natural” approach as a universal, constant and politically neutral foundation — one that could enhance electoral-boundary revisions.
And in 1995, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing reported that such public input could bring powerful support for governments “to preserve the natural communities in which they live,” concluding that “the concept is practicable, in at least some instances, and worthy of further consideration.”
So let’s consider it then. Here we are with satellite imagery and digital mapping galore. With little expense, we could integrate natural boundaries with our more traditional approach to “representation by population.”
It’s not radical or controversial, and incorporating natural boundaries would contribute to sustainable development as well as our long-term goals as a society. There’s really nothing stopping us but ourselves, and a reluctance to think outside the box.
Straight-line boundaries and sawtooth renderings need not define us or the political jurisdictions where we live. Ecological goals could be embraced and championed along with our governance practices, as systems are kept intact for the benefit of residents and the province.
And with protection of our lands and waters as a measure of our success, Beautiful British Columbia would set new Canadian standards for democratic principles and electoral-boundary reform, naturally.
Laurie Gourlay is president of the Vancouver Island and Coast Conservation Society.
