Liberals should heed all sides on electoral reform

Ontario is about to begin a journey into the unknown territory of electoral reform. The path will be tortuous; the outcome is unpredictable. Among their many promises in the last provincial election, the Liberals said they would toss the question of electoral reform to a “ citizens’ assembly” made up of randomly selected individuals. The assembly’s recommendation would, in turn, be subjected to a provincial referendum to determine whether we should abandon our traditional first- past- the- post, constituency based system and replace it with some newfangled method of selecting a Legislature. But before the citizens’ assembly is assembled, we get to hear first from the Legislature’s own select committee on electoral reform, which is to table its report this week. The all-party committee was ensnared in controversy last summer when news broke of its plans for a round- the- world tour to look at electoral systems in other countries. The government forced a scaling back of these plans, amid some grumbling from committee members about how the perfidious media ( including me) had spoiled their fun. But when the MPPs got over their pique and got down to work, they produced a useful report with several recommendations on how to avoid the pitfalls that were experienced in British Columbia.

In B. C., a citizens’ assembly on electoral reform was left pretty much to its own devices. What the assembly came up with was a weird system called the single transferable vote, or STV, which almost nobody understood. The recommendation was put to a referendum earlier this year and fell just short of the required “ super majority” of 60 per cent as most voters opted for change — even change they didn’t understand — over the status quo. As part of its pared-down travel schedule, the select committee did visit Ireland, one of the few countries that uses STV and came away convinced that it is a dumb idea. But the committee report does not actually recommend against STV or for any other electoral system. That was not its role.

Rather, it was asked to recommend ground rules for the citizens’ assembly. My sources say that the recommendations include:

That the citizens’ assembly not just look at electoral reform in a vacuum, as it did in B. C., but consider the impact of various reforms on the stability of governments ( perpetual minorities?), effectiveness of the Legislature ( constant deadlock?), and the party system ( hopelessly splintered?).

That there not be a ban on former politicians participating in the assembly, as there was in British Columbia.. Indeed, each party in the Legislature should designate a former MPP as an “ ex officio” member of the citizens’ assembly.

That Elections Ontario — the office that runs provincial elections — be responsible for a major public education campaign in conjunction with the referendum. No such campaign was conducted in B. C.

In a minority report, the Conservative members of the committee call for the establishment of Yes and No committees to focus debate on the referendum question.

That there be a sunset clause requiring a review of the new system after 10 years. In their minority report, the Conservatives say this sunset clause should also include a requirement for a second referendum to test the public’s continuing appetite for whatever new system is chosen.

Overall, the committee reportedly stresses that electoral reform is neither a panacea for the so- called “ democratic deficit” nor a sure- fire way to increase representation by women in the Legislature, one of the goals stressed by advocates of reform.

Marie Bountrogianni, the minister responsible for electoral reform in Ontario, says she hopes to release the ground rules for the citizens’ assembly early in the new year. She would be well- advised to heed the committee’s advice, including the minority report. Ian Urquhart’s provincial affairs column appears Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. iurquha@thestar.ca.