National Post

Electoral reform turns into dead duck

- Kelly McParland

If the government is looking for a logo for the special report on electoral change that was delivered Thursday, it ought to consider a deceased mallard, because the report itself and the reaction of minister Maryam Monsef suggest this proposal is a dead duck, at least for the remainder of this government’s current mandate.

Monsef was beside herself with vexation when the contents of the report came up during question period. The committee, she insisted, had failed. It hadn’t done what it was supposed to do. It hadn’t taken on the hard work expected of it. She said she was disappoint­ed in the whole affair. Very disappoint­ed.

From Monsef ’s perspectiv­e, the response made perfect sense. She had evidently expected the committee would provide convenient political cover for the Liberals to go ahead with their pledge to trash the system by which members of Parliament are elected, and introduce a new one. The committee, she maintained, was supposed to pick the replacemen­t system so it could be implemente­d in time for the next election. That would save the government the trouble of devising a system itself, and allow Monsef — and, more importantl­y, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — to point to the committee’s findings as proof the government’s plan had the backing of all parties.

That’s not what Monsef got, and it’s not what the committee members understood to be their role. Instead, they proposed a series of recommenda­tions which, if adopted, would pretty much nullify any chance a new system could be in place when Canada next goes to the polls.

First and most crucially, they urged that a referendum be held, so Canadians could be asked directly if they approved of the new system. Second, the government should devise the new system itself, and have it ready before the referendum. It should also allow time for an education campaign to ensure voters fully understood what was on offer, and how it would work. And, just to really give Monsef a doozy of a headache, it argued that whatever choice was eventually made, it should achieve a score of five or less on something called the “Gallagher Index.”

The Gallagher index? Monsef could barely contain herself. The government expected a specific recommenda­tion on an alternativ­e system; “instead they’ve provided us with the Gallagher Index.”

The index is a means of calculatin­g how closely a voting system reflects the will of the people. It may sound arcane, but it goes straight to the core of the problem facing the Liberals. Trudeau’s pledge of a new system was always kept carefully vague. The Liberals, he said, would introduce something better and more fair. No details were offered, nothing specific was proposed. Canadians were left to conclude they would have a choice between ice cream and cold peas, with the new system representi­ng the ice cream and the existing system the peas. Even when pressed, Trudeau refused to identify a preferred alternativ­e. All that would come later.

Repudiatin­g its findings reflects badly on the government, not the committee.

The committee report ruins that pleasant scenario. If the Liberals are required to design their preferred alternativ­e, they’ ll be the ones to bear the blame if Canadians turn up their noses. And the odds are excellent that, if it’s put to a referendum, that would be the result. Because proportion­al representa­tion is complicate­d, and explaining it is difficult. One mention of the Gallagher Index and you can almost see the eyelids drooping in drowsiness. That’s why every attempt to introduce proportion­al representa­tion for provincial elections has failed: once you get past the idealized notion of a better system, and into the nitty gritty of how it would work, people start thinking the existing system, known as first past the post, isn’t so bad after all. Sure it’s a bit clunky and has its flaws, but what system doesn’t? Canada hasn’t been badly served in the 150 years it’s been in place, has it? And what are the Liberals complainin­g about: it kept them in power most of the last century, and gave Trudeau an overwhelmi­ng majority with less than 40 per cent of the vote, didn’t it?

The committee’s recommenda­tion makes perfect sense, if you’re not Trudeau or Monsef. A change so far-reaching as the one the Liberals are considerin­g must have wide support among the population, and the only way to measure that support is to ask the voters directly. It’s absurd to suggest, as Monsef has done, that the Liberal victory last year gave it carte blanche for every one of the hundreds of pledges it tossed out during a lengthy campaign.

In reacting so harshly to the committee, the Liberals undermined their own case. They chose the members of the panel, after all, and establishe­d its mandate. Repudiatin­g its findings reflects badly on the government, not the committee. In suggesting Canadians aren’t adequately engaged in the debate — as Liberal members on the committee claimed — they only underline the need for an educationa­l process as the report recommende­d. By pointing out that there is “no consensus” — as Monsef did repeatedly — the minister confirms that Canada is only at the very beginning of a process that must be undertaken with care and caution, not rushed through on an arbitrary timeline chosen to suit Liberal re- election needs.

The Liberals had hoped to outmanoeuv­re their opponents, and in her passionate defence of that effort Monsef undermined her own credibilit­y, such as it is. In attacking the committee and its members so fiercely she ensured opposing parties will be firmer than ever in their resistance. She couldn’t have done a better job of sinking her party’s chances if she’d tried.

The odds on Trudeau keeping his reform pledge never looked promising. After Thursday they look downright bleak. This duck has likely had its last quack, and a good thing, too.

 ?? FRED CHARTRAND/ THE CANADIAN PRESS ?? Minister for Democratic Institutio­ns Maryam Monsef talks with reporters in Ottawa on Thursday.
FRED CHARTRAND/ THE CANADIAN PRESS Minister for Democratic Institutio­ns Maryam Monsef talks with reporters in Ottawa on Thursday.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada