Kelli Dejong: In Defence of OneBC; Representation Follows the MLA, Not the Party

Image Credit:  UBC

If there is anything to be learned from the uproar around OneBC, it is this: in British Columbia’s parliamentary system, voters elect MLAs, not parties - and MLAs do not surrender their independence the moment they are sworn in.

Dallas Brodie and Tara Armstrong were duly elected by their constituents. They did not lose their seats when they left the BC Conservatives, nor should they have. Our system has always recognized that caucus affiliation is voluntary. Conscience, disagreement, or principled breaks are not defects of democracy - they are features of it.

The rules around official party status are not secret, novel, or accidental. They were debated, amended, and adopted by the legislature itself. If two MLAs meet the threshold, they qualify. OneBC did exactly what the law allows, no more and no less. Complaining after the fact because one dislikes the outcome is not a serious argument-it’s buyer’s remorse.

Public funding is not a reward for popularity; it is a safeguard for pluralism. It exists so that smaller or dissenting voices can function without being crushed by the major parties’ financial and institutional dominance. Today it benefits OneBC. Tomorrow it could benefit Greens, independents, or a breakaway caucus from the NDP or Conservatives. Rules built only for outcomes we like are not democratic rules at all.

Much has been made of the claim that OneBC “wasn’t on the ballot.” 

Neither are leadership changes, caucus defections, or confidence-and-supply agreements - and yet all are routine and legitimate features of parliamentary governance. Voters elect representatives, not fixed platforms frozen in time. Expecting ideological stasis for four years misunderstands how Westminster systems work.

Critics argue OneBC focused on the “wrong issues.” That is a political judgment, not a procedural one. Legislators are entitled to raise unpopular, uncomfortable, or minority positions. 

Democracy is not a curated menu of consensus views; it is a forum for open contestation. The remedy for speech you dislike is more speech - at the ballot box.

If British Columbians believe the threshold for party status is wrong, then by all means change it - prospectively, and for everyone. But retroactively delegitimizing OneBC because its existence is inconvenient sets a precedent that should worry anyone who values political diversity.

You don’t have to agree with OneBC to defend its right to exist, organize, and receive the same institutional treatment as any other qualifying caucus. In a free legislature, legitimacy flows from rules applied equally - not from whether the majority approves of the message.

That principle matters far more than any single party.