Electoral reform committee needs fixing
Now we understand a little better the plot the Liberals and Conservatives are hatching over reforming Canada’s electoral system: They intend to bore everyone to tears so that, awash in nationwide ennui, voters beg them to set aside the subject altogether and focus on other things.
Here’s how the first day of the special committee on electoral reform went. “Referendum, referendum, referendum,” droned the Tories each time they spoke. “This is not a black and white issue. Not black and white. Not black and white,” repeated Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef each time she responded. Terrified of wandering off her talking points, she stuck to a half-hour recitation of arguments the government has mostly made before.
It fell to Ottawa South MP David McGuinty to finally turn off the referendum faucet. “Thank you for clarifying your position on this question of a referendum, not ruling it in and not ruling it out,” he summarized blandly.
By then, the full house in the committee room was well over an hour into the eye-glazing appearance of a senior minister before a panel of MPs trotting out rote partisan credentials rather than sharing in any sort of democratic “dialogue.”
Is this how Canada’s MPs plan to conduct their serious consideration of how one of the world’s most robust democracies should reform its electoral system? If so, we’re in trouble, voters.
Yes, House committees are always partisan. But this is no ordinary committee; it is a “special” creation whose work could, if taken seriously, reverberate for decades. How seriously did MPs take it? First, there were the four substitutions. Hull-Aylmer’s Greg Fergus and McGuinty warmed chairs for two Liberals who are on the committee but weren’t there to listen
How seriously did MPs take it? First, there were the four substitutions.
to a minister. On the Tory side, Jason Kenney, of course, had better things to do and was replaced by Blake Richards. The NDP’s David Christopherson sat in for Nathan Cullen.
Christopherson laid out the partisan positions early, saying the government wants preferential ballots, the Tories want the status quo and the NDP favours proportional representation. No one much contradicted this: Monsef’s claim that she hasn’t made up her mind sounded half-heartedly choreographed.
Then there were questions about how much weight the committee’s final report — not a word of which has been written, mind you — will carry with the government. Would it promise to do every single thing the committee might recommend? Only the Greens’ Elizabeth May injected a flare of interest by posing questions sent via Twitter from apparently ordinary Canadians. That’s good, because Monsef says Twitter is a very, very important forum for the nuanced, complicated “not black and white” discussion ahead.
Ministerial handlers must have been overjoyed with the results of Monsef’s appearance: either absent or at the bottom of newscasts, overshadowed by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan speaking about procurement; a briefing on the prime minister’s trip to Europe; Kenney’s announcement on his political future; coverage of Tony Blair and Iraq; and, well, the fact that this is the first full week of July and ... electoral reform? Really? Z-z-z-z.
Thursday, the second day of hearings and the last of the public sessions until near the end of the month, went more smoothly. Serious, detailed questions elicited equally serious answers from Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, and Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer.
But this committee must do better. MPs need to treat it as a national exercise, not a competition, if they want it to matter at all, either to Canadians or to the government that will ultimately determine changes.
When I was 12, my first letter to the editor was published (in Maclean’s), arguing for what seemed to a kid a clever idea about elections: offering a “none-of-the-above” option at the ballot box. After this week’s mind-numbing meeting between the minister and the members, that option suddenly seems appealing.