http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/electoral-reform-tire-fire-1.3876961
Canada's electoral reform file has reached tire fire status: Robyn Urback
The idea of changing Canada's voting system seems just as far off as it's ever been
By Robyn Urback, CBC News Posted: Dec 01, 2016 4:23 PM ET
Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef
lambasted the electoral reform committee in the House of Commons
Thursday following the release of its recommendations. (Adrian
Wyld/Canadian Press)
The all-party committee recommended holding a referendum on changing Canada's electoral system from first-past-the-post to proportional representation in time for the next election. That part is clear. Except, according to a supplementary report from Liberal committee members, the "recommendation to proceed with a national referendum is inconsistent with both the evidence received and the will of Canadians."
What?
In their supplementary report, the Liberals also called the recommendation "radical" and "rushed," despite the fact the Liberals have been the ones leading the charge to overhaul Canada's electoral system in time for the next election.
"Our position is that the timeline on electoral reform … is unnecessarily hasty and runs the risk of undermining the legitimacy of the process by racing toward a predetermined deadline."
What? It was the Liberals who set the deadline in the first place.
Election promise
This "what the hell is happening?" tenor has generally been the theme of everything electoral reform for the past year, ever since the Liberals made their ill-fated promise that 2015 would be the last federal election under first-past-the-post.
It was a pledge with basically no plan of execution, other than a vague commitment to "consult with Canadians." But since the Liberals also vowed to introduce legislation to enact electoral reform within 18 months of forming government — ostensibly regardless of whatever those consultations would reveal — the exercise of hearing what Canadians had to say would be more of a symbolic ritual than an actual prerequisite for moving forward.
Cullen says Liberals may not be interested in keeping promise1:40
The most obvious way of gauging public support for changing the electoral system — a referendum — was dismissed by Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef as not "inclusive" enough, since, according to Monsef, some people don't vote in referendums. (Fact check: true. Some people also don't vote in general elections. We should probably look at cancelling those, too.) The Liberals doubled down, arguing they had the mandate to change Canada's voting system because Canadians handed them a majority last fall … based on a method of voting the party has deemed illegitimate. Everyone following so far?
Talking to Canadians
That kicked off the government's talking-to-Canadians summer tour, where people who actually enjoy talking about things like proportional representation in their spare time participated in town hall discussions about electoral reform. These discussions, which we were to take as more "inclusive" than a poll of the entire electorate, seemed to reveal a preference for proportional representation, which, for the Liberals, is a system that is far less likely to guarantee them successive majority control over the House of Commons than, say, a ranked ballot system.
Monsef nevertheless claimed there was no indication people were leaning toward one system or another, while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suggested his government might be stepping off the gas on the electoral reform file altogether because Canadians are now less enthusiastic about changing the way we vote after getting rid of Stephen Harper.
To cap it all off, Monsef went rogue in the House of Commons Thursday following the release of the committee's recommendations. She lambasted the committee for not fulfilling the mandate assigned to it (in fact, it fulfilled its mandate exactly), for using an "incomprehensible" formula to propose a referendum (which is false) and for not completing "the hard work we expected them to do."
That is a fitting end — for now — to the tire fire that is the electoral reform file. The idea of changing Canada's voting system seems just as far off as it's ever been, with a minister all but throwing out the recommendations of her committee. Why, if we didn't know any better, it would appear this might have been nothing but a lofty campaign promise all along.
This column is an opinion. For more information about our commentary section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.
171 Comments
Paul Bigras
I get the feeling there won`t be any electoral reform. Another broken promise.
David Raymond Amos
@Paul Bigras Need I say that I
knew that out of the gate particularly when the Clerks of the Committee
would not accept my brief? However they could not stop me from saying
my two bits worth for two minutes on the evening of October 7th in
Fredericton NB. The liberal chair from Quebec made an interesting Faux
Pas though. Instead of just allowing me to speak for two minutes he kept
interrupting me. Thus I got to speak for seven minutes. In the end he
turned of my mike but not his. If you listen closely you can hear Elizabeth May laughing until I
informed her that her email account acknowledged what the Clerks did
not. She quit laughing then. Enjoy
vladimir pucel (Putin not allowed)
@John Lawless For a guy you have small idea of hunking, 39% really?
David Raymond Amos
@David Raymond Amos Here is the link to what was said
https://archive.org/details/MeanOldMeVersusTheERREPeople
https://archive.org/details/MeanOldMeVersusTheERREPeople
38 minutes ago
David Raymond Amos
@Paul Bigras CBC obviously
blocks my comments for political reasons. However I always make certain
that their lawyer boss Hubby Lacriox and his many minions know that I
repost what the Crown Corp block within my blog.
That said lets see if they will allow the text from the Hansard that night to stand within with the Crown's public domain.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8493010
Special Committee on Electoral Reform
NUMBER 039
l
1st SESSION
l
42nd PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
Friday, October 7, 2016
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
(1335)
[English]
The Chair:
Thank you very much.
Mr. David Amos, the floor is yours.
Mr. David Amos (As an Individual):
Mr. Chair, I ran for public office five times against your party.
That said, I ran against Mr. DeCourcey's boss right here in
Fredericton in the election for the 39th Parliament.
I was not aware of this committee meeting in Fredericton today
until I heard Mr. DeCourcey speaking on CBC this morning. I don't
pretend to know something I don't, but I'm a quick study. I thought I
had paid my dues to sit on the panel. I notified the clerks in a
timely fashion, but I received no response. At least I get another
minute and a half.
That said lets see if they will allow the text from the Hansard that night to stand within with the Crown's public domain.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8493010
Special Committee on Electoral Reform
NUMBER 039
l
1st SESSION
l
42nd PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
Friday, October 7, 2016
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
(1335)
[English]
The Chair:
Thank you very much.
Mr. David Amos, the floor is yours.
Mr. David Amos (As an Individual):
Mr. Chair, I ran for public office five times against your party.
That said, I ran against Mr. DeCourcey's boss right here in
Fredericton in the election for the 39th Parliament.
I was not aware of this committee meeting in Fredericton today
until I heard Mr. DeCourcey speaking on CBC this morning. I don't
pretend to know something I don't, but I'm a quick study. I thought I
had paid my dues to sit on the panel. I notified the clerks in a
timely fashion, but I received no response. At least I get another
minute and a half.
David Raymond Amos
@David Raymond Amos
The previous speaker answered the $64,000 question: 338. I can
name every premier in the country. Governor Maggie Hassan is my
governor in New Hampshire. The people there who sit in the house get
paid $100 a year plus per diem expenses. I think that's the way to run
a government. There are lots of seats in the house for a very small
state.
My understanding of this hearing is that you have to report to Mr.
Trudeau by December 1, because he said during the election that if he
were elected Prime Minister, the 42nd Parliament, which I also ran in,
would be the last first-past-the-post election. You don't have much
time, so my suggestion to the clerks today, which I published and sent
to the Prime Minister of Iceland and his Attorney General, was to do
what Iceland does. Just cut and paste their rules. They have no first
past the post. They have a pending election.
The previous speaker answered the $64,000 question: 338. I can
name every premier in the country. Governor Maggie Hassan is my
governor in New Hampshire. The people there who sit in the house get
paid $100 a year plus per diem expenses. I think that's the way to run
a government. There are lots of seats in the house for a very small
state.
My understanding of this hearing is that you have to report to Mr.
Trudeau by December 1, because he said during the election that if he
were elected Prime Minister, the 42nd Parliament, which I also ran in,
would be the last first-past-the-post election. You don't have much
time, so my suggestion to the clerks today, which I published and sent
to the Prime Minister of Iceland and his Attorney General, was to do
what Iceland does. Just cut and paste their rules. They have no first
past the post. They have a pending election.
David Raymond Amos
@David Raymond Amos
A former friend of mine, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, founded a party
there, for which there is no leader. It is the Pirate Party. It's high
in the polls right now with no leader. That's interesting. I tweeted
this. You folks said that you follow tweets, so you should have seen
what I tweeted before I came here this evening.
That said, as a Canadian, I propose something else. Number one,
my understanding of the Constitution and what I read about law....
There was a constitutional expert named Edgar Schmidt who sued the
government. He was the man who was supposed to vet bills for Peter
MacKay to make sure they were constitutionally correct. He did not
argue the charter. He argued Mr. Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights.
In 2002 I read a document filed by a former deputy minister of
finance, Kevin Lynch, who later became Mr. Harper's clerk of the Privy
Council. Now he's on an independent board of the Chinese oil company
that bought Nexen. As deputy minister of finance, he reported to the
American Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of the
corporation known as Canada. It is a very interesting document that I
saved and forwarded to you folks. It says that he was in a quandary
about whether the charter was in effect.
(2005)
A former friend of mine, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, founded a party
there, for which there is no leader. It is the Pirate Party. It's high
in the polls right now with no leader. That's interesting. I tweeted
this. You folks said that you follow tweets, so you should have seen
what I tweeted before I came here this evening.
That said, as a Canadian, I propose something else. Number one,
my understanding of the Constitution and what I read about law....
There was a constitutional expert named Edgar Schmidt who sued the
government. He was the man who was supposed to vet bills for Peter
MacKay to make sure they were constitutionally correct. He did not
argue the charter. He argued Mr. Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights.
In 2002 I read a document filed by a former deputy minister of
finance, Kevin Lynch, who later became Mr. Harper's clerk of the Privy
Council. Now he's on an independent board of the Chinese oil company
that bought Nexen. As deputy minister of finance, he reported to the
American Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of the
corporation known as Canada. It is a very interesting document that I
saved and forwarded to you folks. It says that he was in a quandary
about whether the charter was in effect.
(2005)
David Raymond Amos
@David Raymond Amos
The Chair:
Could it be in relation to a particular voting system?
Mr. David Amos:
According to Mr. Lynch, because of the failure of the Meech Lake
and Charlottetown accords, he was in a quandary as to whether the
charter was in effect. I know that the Supreme Court argues it on a
daily basis. That charter, created by Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Chrétien,
his attorney general at the time, gave me the right to run for public
office and vote as a Canadian citizen. However, in the 1990s, Mr.
Chrétien came out with a law, and because I am a permanent American
resident, I can't vote. Yet the charter says I can.
The Chair:
That's a—
Mr. David Amos:
That said, that's been argued in court. In 2000, Mr. Chrétien came
out with a law that said I couldn't vote. Right? He also took away my
social insurance number.
The Chair:
I don't know about the case—
Mr. David Amos:
No, he did.
The Chair:
But I don't know about the case.
The Chair:
Could it be in relation to a particular voting system?
Mr. David Amos:
According to Mr. Lynch, because of the failure of the Meech Lake
and Charlottetown accords, he was in a quandary as to whether the
charter was in effect. I know that the Supreme Court argues it on a
daily basis. That charter, created by Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Chrétien,
his attorney general at the time, gave me the right to run for public
office and vote as a Canadian citizen. However, in the 1990s, Mr.
Chrétien came out with a law, and because I am a permanent American
resident, I can't vote. Yet the charter says I can.
The Chair:
That's a—
Mr. David Amos:
That said, that's been argued in court. In 2000, Mr. Chrétien came
out with a law that said I couldn't vote. Right? He also took away my
social insurance number.
The Chair:
I don't know about the case—
Mr. David Amos:
No, he did.
The Chair:
But I don't know about the case.
@David Raymond Amos
Mr. David Amos:
I did prove, after I argued with Elections Canada's lawyers in
2004.... You might have taken away my right to vote, but you can't
stop me from running for public office, and I proved it five times.
The Chair:
Given that you're an experienced candidate—
Mr. David Amos:
Very experienced.
The Chair:
—does that experience provide you with a particular insight on the
voting systems we're looking at?
Mr. David Amos:
In Mr. Trudeau's words, he has to come up with a plan and no more
first past the post. My suggestion to you, in my contact today, is to
cut and paste Iceland's rules.
The Chair:
What kind of system does Iceland have?
Mr. David Amos:
It's just what you need, just what Mr. Trudeau is ordering now.
It's proportional elections.
The Chair:
Is it MMP, or is it just...?
Mr. David Amos:
I tweeted you the beginner's book for Iceland.
Mr. David Amos:
I did prove, after I argued with Elections Canada's lawyers in
2004.... You might have taken away my right to vote, but you can't
stop me from running for public office, and I proved it five times.
The Chair:
Given that you're an experienced candidate—
Mr. David Amos:
Very experienced.
The Chair:
—does that experience provide you with a particular insight on the
voting systems we're looking at?
Mr. David Amos:
In Mr. Trudeau's words, he has to come up with a plan and no more
first past the post. My suggestion to you, in my contact today, is to
cut and paste Iceland's rules.
The Chair:
What kind of system does Iceland have?
Mr. David Amos:
It's just what you need, just what Mr. Trudeau is ordering now.
It's proportional elections.
The Chair:
Is it MMP, or is it just...?
Mr. David Amos:
I tweeted you the beginner's book for Iceland.
David Raymond Amos
@David Raymond Amos
The Chair:
Okay, we'll look at Iceland.
We're just checking on the kind of system they have, but I
appreciate the input, especially from a candidate, from somebody who
has run many times.
But we do have—
Mr. David Amos:
I have two other points, because I don't think you can pull this
off. I don't think it will happen.
The Chair:
Well, I'm hoping we do.
Mr. David Amos:
Here is my suggestion. You guys are going north.
The Chair:
Yes.
Mr. David Amos:
Look how parliamentarians are elected in the Northwest
Territories. There is no party, and I like that.
The Chair:
That's true. We were just up in Yellowknife, in fact, and we
learned all about that. That's why it's good for us to be travelling
the country.
But, sir, I—
Mr. David Amos:
I have one more suggestion.
The Chair:
One more.
The Chair:
Okay, we'll look at Iceland.
We're just checking on the kind of system they have, but I
appreciate the input, especially from a candidate, from somebody who
has run many times.
But we do have—
Mr. David Amos:
I have two other points, because I don't think you can pull this
off. I don't think it will happen.
The Chair:
Well, I'm hoping we do.
Mr. David Amos:
Here is my suggestion. You guys are going north.
The Chair:
Yes.
Mr. David Amos:
Look how parliamentarians are elected in the Northwest
Territories. There is no party, and I like that.
The Chair:
That's true. We were just up in Yellowknife, in fact, and we
learned all about that. That's why it's good for us to be travelling
the country.
But, sir, I—
Mr. David Amos:
I have one more suggestion.
The Chair:
One more.
David Raymond Amos
@David Raymond Amos
Mr. David Amos:
Mr. Harper changed the Canada Elections Act and I still couldn't vote.
The Chair:
Yes, I was in the House when that happened.
Mr. David Amos:
Anyway, that said, when you alter the Canada Elections Act, make it....
The biggest problem we have is, look at the vast majority of
people who, like me, have never voted in their life. Apathy rules the
day.
The Chair:
Except that you've put us on to an idea about Iceland—
Mr. David Amos:
Let me finish.
I suggest that you make voting mandatory, such as Australia does.
Make it that if you don't vote, it costs you money, just like if you
don't report to Statistics Canada.
The Chair:
Well, we're talking about that. That is part of our mandate, to
look at mandatory voting and online voting.
You already had your last suggestion.
(2010)
Mr. David Amos:
Put in the line, “none of the above”, and if “none of the above” wins—
The Chair:
That's right, we've heard that, too.
Mr. David Amos:
Well, I haven't.
The Chair:
We've heard that in our testimony.
Mr. David Amos:
You and I will be talking again, trust me on that one, by way of writing.
You answered my emails, Ma'am.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, sir.
Now we'll hear from Julie Maitland.
Mr. David Amos:
Mr. Harper changed the Canada Elections Act and I still couldn't vote.
The Chair:
Yes, I was in the House when that happened.
Mr. David Amos:
Anyway, that said, when you alter the Canada Elections Act, make it....
The biggest problem we have is, look at the vast majority of
people who, like me, have never voted in their life. Apathy rules the
day.
The Chair:
Except that you've put us on to an idea about Iceland—
Mr. David Amos:
Let me finish.
I suggest that you make voting mandatory, such as Australia does.
Make it that if you don't vote, it costs you money, just like if you
don't report to Statistics Canada.
The Chair:
Well, we're talking about that. That is part of our mandate, to
look at mandatory voting and online voting.
You already had your last suggestion.
(2010)
Mr. David Amos:
Put in the line, “none of the above”, and if “none of the above” wins—
The Chair:
That's right, we've heard that, too.
Mr. David Amos:
Well, I haven't.
The Chair:
We've heard that in our testimony.
Mr. David Amos:
You and I will be talking again, trust me on that one, by way of writing.
You answered my emails, Ma'am.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, sir.
Now we'll hear from Julie Maitland.
Glen Clark
@Paul Bigras
Electoral Reform is the love child of a very vocal minority. Conservatives knew this; Liberals know this. It would not pass a referendum. It may have got JT some extra fringe votes but now is not in their best political interests to peruse. There is nothing wrong with the current system. We elect a person from our riding to represent us. We have a multi-party system a candidate needs to win the most votes; not 50+%. We all get 1 vote: Use it wisely. Don't whine that my guy didn't win so I want a second vote now. I personally would never mark a second choice on a ballot. I accept the result whether I like it or not.
Electoral Reform is the love child of a very vocal minority. Conservatives knew this; Liberals know this. It would not pass a referendum. It may have got JT some extra fringe votes but now is not in their best political interests to peruse. There is nothing wrong with the current system. We elect a person from our riding to represent us. We have a multi-party system a candidate needs to win the most votes; not 50+%. We all get 1 vote: Use it wisely. Don't whine that my guy didn't win so I want a second vote now. I personally would never mark a second choice on a ballot. I accept the result whether I like it or not.
Patrick Dool
@Paul Bigras Promise is a
word Liberals use to make people believe a lie backed up by the
media.... in your best interests, of course.
tom barry
@Paul Bigras
"I get the feeling there won`t be any electoral reform. Another broken promise."
That's a broken promise i will cheer.
"I get the feeling there won`t be any electoral reform. Another broken promise."
That's a broken promise i will cheer.
David Raymond Amos
39 minutes ago
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-electoral-reform-opinion-1.3814319
@David Raymond Amos YO Hubby
Lacroix i got bored waiting to see if your moderators were gonna
maintain their MO and block me or not. However as soon as I saw that you
dudes allowed posts after me I moved on.
Feel free to compare my work to yours.
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2016/12/the-mindless-minister-overseeing.html
Trust that I will Tweet about your malice and send your lawyers and Minister Joly another email about my indignation towards you in short order as per my MO
Feel free to compare my work to yours.
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2016/12/the-mindless-minister-overseeing.html
Trust that I will Tweet about your malice and send your lawyers and Minister Joly another email about my indignation towards you in short order as per my MO
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-electoral-reform-opinion-1.3814319
How does Justin Trudeau really feel about electoral reform? Let's go to the tape
What the prime minister has said about the need for change and proportional representation
By Aaron Wherry, CBC News Posted: Oct 21, 2016 9:00 AM ET
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and family leave a polling station after
voting in Montreal, Quebec on Monday, Oct. 19, 2015. (Sean
Kilpatrick/CP)
Six months before Justin Trudeau's recent suggestion to Montreal's Le
Devoir newspaper that the public's enthusiasm for electoral reform had
dissipated in the wake of his own government's arrival, the prime
minister said the same thing to an audience of students at the
University of Ottawa.
"A lot of people I've talked to have said, 'Oh yes, we really, really wanted electoral reform because we had to get rid of Stephen Harper, but now we have a government we sort of like so electoral reform just doesn't seem as much of a priority anymore,'" he explained at that forum.
In the case of his interview with Le Devoir this week, his observation was generally interpreted to suggest his government is backing away from its commitment that the 2015 campaign would be the last election conducted under the first-past-the-post system.
But at the University of Ottawa six months ago, the comment was made in the midst of what was otherwise a passionate argument in favour of reform.
"I believe fundamentally that we can do better," he said. "We can have an electoral system that does a better job of reflecting the concerns, the voices of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and give us a better level of governance."
Then, after rhetorically invoking the waffling reformer, he responded.
"Well, it's a priority to me," he said. "It's a priority to a lot of Canadians who say, you know what, we need to make sure that going forward we have the best possible electoral system. One that values Canadian voices. One that creates good governments. One that makes sure that people can [be] and feel involved in the political process.
"That they don't have to make impossible choices between options they don't like. That we are able to create the kind of governance that we need in this country."
Maybe he still feels this way. Or maybe something changed between April 19 and Oct. 19. (Granted, without a complete transcript or recording, we can't know whether any similar enthusiasm was uttered during his interview with Le Devoir.)
Either way, instead of imagining how the Liberals might get out of this, we might ask three questions: What does Justin Trudeau think about reform? How strongly held are his beliefs? And what are the chances that circumstances line up with his thinking?
According to a Liberal source, no final decision on whether to pursue reform has been made. But the government has also specified that broad public support is a prerequisite for major reform and, in that, it's easy to imagine how this could end without a new electoral system.
But first there are the deliberations of the special House of Commons committee on electoral reform. What if that committee produces some kind of bi-partisan, or even unanimous, proposal for a new system?
A unanimous report might be difficult for the government to dismiss, but Trudeau has, in years past, expressed distinct opinions on the alternatives to first-past-the-post.
In 2013, while running for the Liberal leadership, he proposed moving to preferential voting (whereby voters rank the candidates instead of choosing one). Liberal MP Joyce Murray, also running for party leader, proposed moving to proportional representation.
During a debate in Halifax, the two engaged on the subject and Trudeau expressed strong objections to proportional representation.
"The problem with proportional representation is every different model of proportional representation actually increases partisanship, not reduces it," he said. "What we need is a preferential ballot that causes politicians to have to reach out to be the second choice and even the third choice of different political parties.
"We need people who represent broader voices not narrower interests. And I understand people want proportional representation, but too many people don't understand the polarization and the micro issues that come through proportional representation."
His campaign material at the time raised concerns about MPs who wouldn't represent specific communities, presumably a reference to the fact that the mixed-member proportional model can add MPs elected from party lists.
(CPAC also has footage of Trudeau in 2012 making the case for a preferential ballot at a Liberal convention.)
But preferential voting is often thought to be a model that would most benefit the Liberal party, so it is difficult to imagine any of the other parties joining the government in endorsing the system.
In an interview with The Canadian Press last December, Trudeau said he wanted to be "careful about pushing my own views on this," but at the University of Ottawa in April, it was apparent the ramifications were still at the forefront of his thinking.
"Is it better to create diversity of voices by making as many different political parties as possible so that in the House of Commons there are all sorts of different perspectives reflected?" he asked the university audience.
"Another way of doing it is to make sure that parties that reach out themselves to fold in a broad diversity of voices and perspectives within their party get rewarded as well."
He seems to prefer the latter notion.
But could the special committee come up with a model that satisfies Trudeau's concerns or could his concerns be allayed?
If Trudeau tries now to make the case against something like mixed-member proportional, he will be challenged.
But even if he was persuaded, there would still likely be the small matter of public acceptance.
In the case of something less than broad support, how willing would Trudeau be to devote time and energy to trying to bring the public on side? How many other priorities might be competing for his attention? And would he, if necessary, be willing to put it to a referendum?
(Given that any decision to move to a new system must be made by next fall, a referendum might push reform past 2019.)
This does seem to be a topic that Trudeau has given some thought to.
At the University of Ottawa forum, his musing went on for more than six minutes. A week later, at New York University, his response to a question on the topic ran nearly five minutes.
In both cases, he declared himself "excited" about the conversation to come. Perhaps he might re-engage that conversation once the committee has returned a recommendation.
In New York, he conceded he was "challenged" by that same dissipating desire for reform.
"I still believe we need to push for electoral reform," he then said, "because I think we need to have a better system that will hold the test of time."
Maybe he still feels that way. If so, this might depend on how hard he wants to push.
"A lot of people I've talked to have said, 'Oh yes, we really, really wanted electoral reform because we had to get rid of Stephen Harper, but now we have a government we sort of like so electoral reform just doesn't seem as much of a priority anymore,'" he explained at that forum.
- How electoral reform is like the Stanley Cup finals
- Trudeau says government's popularity has dampened public's desire for electoral reform
- A primer on the main alternatives to how we vote
In the case of his interview with Le Devoir this week, his observation was generally interpreted to suggest his government is backing away from its commitment that the 2015 campaign would be the last election conducted under the first-past-the-post system.
But at the University of Ottawa six months ago, the comment was made in the midst of what was otherwise a passionate argument in favour of reform.
'What we need is a preferential ballot.' — Justin Trudeau, in 2013
"I believe fundamentally that we can do better," he said. "We can have an electoral system that does a better job of reflecting the concerns, the voices of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and give us a better level of governance."
Then, after rhetorically invoking the waffling reformer, he responded.
"Well, it's a priority to me," he said. "It's a priority to a lot of Canadians who say, you know what, we need to make sure that going forward we have the best possible electoral system. One that values Canadian voices. One that creates good governments. One that makes sure that people can [be] and feel involved in the political process.
"That they don't have to make impossible choices between options they don't like. That we are able to create the kind of governance that we need in this country."
'I still believe we need to push for electoral reform.' — Justin Trudeau, in April
Maybe he still feels this way. Or maybe something changed between April 19 and Oct. 19. (Granted, without a complete transcript or recording, we can't know whether any similar enthusiasm was uttered during his interview with Le Devoir.)
Either way, instead of imagining how the Liberals might get out of this, we might ask three questions: What does Justin Trudeau think about reform? How strongly held are his beliefs? And what are the chances that circumstances line up with his thinking?
Trudeau says electoral reform is a priority to him0:50
What Trudeau has said about proportional representation
According to a Liberal source, no final decision on whether to pursue reform has been made. But the government has also specified that broad public support is a prerequisite for major reform and, in that, it's easy to imagine how this could end without a new electoral system.
But first there are the deliberations of the special House of Commons committee on electoral reform. What if that committee produces some kind of bi-partisan, or even unanimous, proposal for a new system?
A unanimous report might be difficult for the government to dismiss, but Trudeau has, in years past, expressed distinct opinions on the alternatives to first-past-the-post.
In 2013, while running for the Liberal leadership, he proposed moving to preferential voting (whereby voters rank the candidates instead of choosing one). Liberal MP Joyce Murray, also running for party leader, proposed moving to proportional representation.
During a debate in Halifax, the two engaged on the subject and Trudeau expressed strong objections to proportional representation.
"The problem with proportional representation is every different model of proportional representation actually increases partisanship, not reduces it," he said. "What we need is a preferential ballot that causes politicians to have to reach out to be the second choice and even the third choice of different political parties.
"We need people who represent broader voices not narrower interests. And I understand people want proportional representation, but too many people don't understand the polarization and the micro issues that come through proportional representation."
His campaign material at the time raised concerns about MPs who wouldn't represent specific communities, presumably a reference to the fact that the mixed-member proportional model can add MPs elected from party lists.
(CPAC also has footage of Trudeau in 2012 making the case for a preferential ballot at a Liberal convention.)
But preferential voting is often thought to be a model that would most benefit the Liberal party, so it is difficult to imagine any of the other parties joining the government in endorsing the system.
Power Panel: Trudeau's electoral reform promise10:12
How Trudeau views electoral reform's possibilities
In an interview with The Canadian Press last December, Trudeau said he wanted to be "careful about pushing my own views on this," but at the University of Ottawa in April, it was apparent the ramifications were still at the forefront of his thinking.
"Is it better to create diversity of voices by making as many different political parties as possible so that in the House of Commons there are all sorts of different perspectives reflected?" he asked the university audience.
"Another way of doing it is to make sure that parties that reach out themselves to fold in a broad diversity of voices and perspectives within their party get rewarded as well."
He seems to prefer the latter notion.
But could the special committee come up with a model that satisfies Trudeau's concerns or could his concerns be allayed?
If Trudeau tries now to make the case against something like mixed-member proportional, he will be challenged.
But even if he was persuaded, there would still likely be the small matter of public acceptance.
In the case of something less than broad support, how willing would Trudeau be to devote time and energy to trying to bring the public on side? How many other priorities might be competing for his attention? And would he, if necessary, be willing to put it to a referendum?
(Given that any decision to move to a new system must be made by next fall, a referendum might push reform past 2019.)
How hard does Trudeau want to push for electoral reform?
This does seem to be a topic that Trudeau has given some thought to.
At the University of Ottawa forum, his musing went on for more than six minutes. A week later, at New York University, his response to a question on the topic ran nearly five minutes.
In both cases, he declared himself "excited" about the conversation to come. Perhaps he might re-engage that conversation once the committee has returned a recommendation.
In New York, he conceded he was "challenged" by that same dissipating desire for reform.
"I still believe we need to push for electoral reform," he then said, "because I think we need to have a better system that will hold the test of time."
Maybe he still feels that way. If so, this might depend on how hard he wants to push.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-electoral-reform-1.3876735
Time for Liberals to decide if they're serious about electoral reform: Aaron Wherry
Trudeau government has options, but is it still determined to keep campaign promise?
By Aaron Wherry, CBC News Posted: Dec 02, 2016 5:00 AM ET
Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef holds up a
printout of the Gallagher Index, a mathematical formula for assessing
the representative quality of electoral systems. She mocked the
electoral reform committee's use of the index in its report.
On June 16, 2015, as he announced a broad agenda for political reform, Justin Trudeau declared that his Liberals were "committed to ensuring that the 2015 election will be the last federal election using first-past-the-post."
Standing behind him were a few dozen Liberal candidates who applauded in agreement, including Maryam Monsef, prominently positioned to Trudeau's right and smiling, no doubt blissfully unaware of what that commitment would mean for her.
A year and a half later, the four Liberal MPs assigned by Trudeau to participate in a study of electoral reform declared it would be a bad idea to keep the prime minister's promise.
- 'More specifics' on electoral reform needed before planning for referendum: chief electoral officer
- Minister 'disappointed' as electoral reform committee recommends referendum on proportional representation
- Baloney Meter: Did the Liberals promise electoral reform only with broad support?
The alternative — as proposed by the other members of the committee — is to proceed forthwith to organize a potentially treacherous referendum.
In response to that, Monsef stood in the House of Commons on Thursday and denounced the committee as a failure — notably choosing to mock the committee's decision to refer to a mathematical formula, the Gallagher Index, for assessing the representative quality of electoral systems.
Electoral reform clash in the House of Commons2:31
And for that she was condemned by the Conservatives, New Democrats, the Bloc Québécois and Green Leader Elizabeth May and publicly challenged by a Liberal MP's husband who didn't appreciate the suggestion his wife's time away from her family had been wasted.
Did Trudeau imagine a new electoral system would be easily adopted? Had he thought much at all about the how?
That is perhaps for the history books.
For now, if one is still willing to hold out any hope for change during this prime minister's time in office, the relevant question remains this: How much does Justin Trudeau want to reform the electoral system?
Committee agreed and disagreed
The 348-page committee report is, in the words of NDP reform critic Nathan Cullen, "a historic document, the most comprehensive ... study of Canadian democracy in Canada's history."
And maybe someday someone might make some use of it.
There is at least a little something for everyone.
The majority report recommends the referendum the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois had demanded.
It also says any alternative electoral system should achieve the result of proportional representation, as the New Democrats and Greens prefer.
The electoral reform committee wants the
Trudeau government to design a new proportional voting system and hold a
national referendum to gauge how much Canadians would support it.
"We contend that the recommendations posed in the majority report regarding alternative electoral systems are rushed, and are too radical to impose at this time as Canadians must be more engaged," the Liberals write.
"Our position is that the timeline on electoral reform as proposed in the [majority report] is unnecessarily hasty and runs the risk of undermining the legitimacy of the process by racing toward a predetermined deadline."
If only those same Liberal MPs hadn't run on a platform that expressly specified a predetermined deadline for reform.
The opposition parties have nearly cornered the government with a proposal to meet the prime minister's target. In response, Monsef complained that the committee hadn't landed on a specific alternative system. To which Cullen suggested the Liberal members could have joined the New Democrats and Greens in proposing alternatives.
The question of a referendum
The Liberal committee members concluded Canadians are not yet sufficiently engaged with the topic of electoral reform, which could perhaps be read as an indictment of the committee's own efforts, not to mention those of the prime minister and his government.
But it's plausible that Canadians will remain unengaged unless or until there is both a specific proposal for change and the imminent possibility of that change being implemented — something, for instance, like a referendum.
Unfortunately, the Liberals aren't so sure about that option, either.
- Committee wants referendum on electoral reform
- How electoral reform is like the Stanley Cup finals
- Let this be the last time Parliament debates electoral reform (at least for a while)
There are many reasons to question the efficacy of a referendum for deciding major issues of public policy, but it's difficult to make those arguments without seeming to oppose democracy itself.
There are though real reasons to hesitate before plunging a large, regionally diverse federation into a national referendum.
When prohibition was put to a vote in 1898 and conscription in 1942, national majorities were in favour, but Quebec was opposed. Could Parliament implement electoral reform now if Quebec was an outlier again?
What if Quebec was the only province that voted in favour? What if only Alberta was opposed? Or Alberta and Saskatchewan?
What would be the reaction elsewhere if a lone province (or two) scuttled reform?
The Liberals could still try to get something through Parliament without a referendum — an option the New Democrats and Greens seemed to leave open with a supplemental report that suggested a national vote wasn't necessarily necessary.
But doing so would invite Conservative fury and accusations of undemocratically imposing a new method of voting.
Cullen says Liberals may not be interested in keeping promise1:40
Will the Liberals walk away?
The Liberals could also simply walk away. And they might get away with it without suffering great harm. At least so long as they don't seem insultingly cynical or brutish in doing so.
But a prime minister who stood in front of a chalkboard decorated with algebra and proudly explained quantum computing to reporters might want to question the sight of his minister in the House mocking the equation used by some academics to measure the results of electoral systems.
And Trudeau might want to worry that electoral reform could leave a promising minister with lasting political scars.
- Maryam Monsef's earnest guide to electoral reform for cynics
- Referendum on electoral reform would be fraught
For now, the government is at least committed to going through the motions: it will soon launch another round of public outreach, this time involving postcards mailed to millions of homes and an online survey.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has sounded
passionate about electoral reform in the past, but there are signs
that's changed. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
"We require an electoral system that provides a stronger link between the democratic will of Canadians and election results," she told the committee in July.
And Trudeau himself has sounded passionate about electoral reform in the past.
Does he believe enough in the cause to do whatever is necessary to get something done?
If he decides that he doesn't, there will be all the more reason to wonder why he made the promise.
To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.
975 Comments Commenting is now closed for this story.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maryam-monsef-apology-electoral-reform-1.3878457
'Words that I deeply regret': Maryam Monsef apologizes for accusations against MPs
Minister said Thursday that MPs 'did not complete the hard work we had expected them to'
By Kathleen Harris, CBC News Posted: Dec 02, 2016 12:29 PM ET
Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef has
apologized for suggesting MPs on the electoral reform committee were
shirking their duties. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef has apologized to
MPs she suggested Thursday were shirking their duties on electoral
reform.
Standing in the House of Commons on Friday, Monsef said sorry for the behaviour her opposition critics denounced as "appalling" and "a disgrace."
"Yesterday in this House, I used words that I deeply regret," she said.
"And if you'll allow me, I'd like to sincerely apologize to the members of this House, to Canadians and to the members of the special all-party committee on electoral reform. In no way did I intend to imply that they didn't work hard, that they didn't put in the long hours, that they didn't focus on the task at hand. Mr. Speaker, I thank them for their work."
On Thursday, the special committee of MPs studying electoral reform recommended holding a referendum to survey Canadians on whether they want to keep the current system or adopt a system of proportional representation. The committee did not specify the exact alternative model.
Liberal members on the committee disagreed that a referendum should be held.
The discord among committee members provoked a sharp rebuke from Monsef in the House.
"I have to admit I'm a little disappointed, because what we had hoped the committee would provide us with would be a specific alternative system to first past the post. Instead, they've provided us with the Gallagher Index," Monsef said, referring to an academic equation that is used to quantify how well electoral system results reflect the popular vote.
"They did not complete the hard work we had expected them to," she said. "On the hard choices that we asked the committee to make, Mr. Speaker, they took a pass."
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who served as a member of the
electoral reform committee, accepted Monsef's apology via Twitter.
"For my part I accept @MaryamMonsef's apology. It is hard to admit making a mistake, but all mere mortals do. Now 4 fair voting!" she tweeted.
The inability to find consensus on the committee raises questions about whether the government will deliver or retreat from its promise to have a new voting system in place for the 2019 general election.
During an event with elementary teachers in Toronto on Friday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said while some members found agreement around a referendum on the issue, there was no consensus on a particular model.
"That doesn't get us forward on what kind of system might actually suit the majority of Canadians, because there wasn't agreement on that," he said.
Trudeau suggested that Canadians aren't necessarily as passionate or plugged in on the "intricacies of political questions" as they are about their mortgages, jobs or the environment.
To that end, the government is sending out notices to every household
beginning this weekend to ask Canadians what they want achieved
through electoral reform.
The goal is to gain a better understanding of how Canadians want their values reflected in Parliament and in legislation, he said.
"Those are the questions that are top of my mind as we move forward on figuring out how we're going to move forward on electoral reform," he said. "It's a challenging issue, but it's one that I am very, very much taking seriously."
To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.
1073 Comments Commenting is now closed for this story.
Standing in the House of Commons on Friday, Monsef said sorry for the behaviour her opposition critics denounced as "appalling" and "a disgrace."
"Yesterday in this House, I used words that I deeply regret," she said.
"And if you'll allow me, I'd like to sincerely apologize to the members of this House, to Canadians and to the members of the special all-party committee on electoral reform. In no way did I intend to imply that they didn't work hard, that they didn't put in the long hours, that they didn't focus on the task at hand. Mr. Speaker, I thank them for their work."
- Minister 'disappointed' by committee
- Are Liberals serious about electoral reform?
- More details needed on reform plan
On Thursday, the special committee of MPs studying electoral reform recommended holding a referendum to survey Canadians on whether they want to keep the current system or adopt a system of proportional representation. The committee did not specify the exact alternative model.
Monsef apologizes1:15
Liberal members on the committee disagreed that a referendum should be held.
The discord among committee members provoked a sharp rebuke from Monsef in the House.
"I have to admit I'm a little disappointed, because what we had hoped the committee would provide us with would be a specific alternative system to first past the post. Instead, they've provided us with the Gallagher Index," Monsef said, referring to an academic equation that is used to quantify how well electoral system results reflect the popular vote.
"They did not complete the hard work we had expected them to," she said. "On the hard choices that we asked the committee to make, Mr. Speaker, they took a pass."
Electoral reform clash in the House of Commons2:31
"For my part I accept @MaryamMonsef's apology. It is hard to admit making a mistake, but all mere mortals do. Now 4 fair voting!" she tweeted.
The inability to find consensus on the committee raises questions about whether the government will deliver or retreat from its promise to have a new voting system in place for the 2019 general election.
During an event with elementary teachers in Toronto on Friday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said while some members found agreement around a referendum on the issue, there was no consensus on a particular model.
"That doesn't get us forward on what kind of system might actually suit the majority of Canadians, because there wasn't agreement on that," he said.
Trudeau on electoral reform1:40
Trudeau suggested that Canadians aren't necessarily as passionate or plugged in on the "intricacies of political questions" as they are about their mortgages, jobs or the environment.
These cards will be distributed to households
across the country as the government tries to engage Canadians in
electoral reform. (CBC News)
The goal is to gain a better understanding of how Canadians want their values reflected in Parliament and in legislation, he said.
"Those are the questions that are top of my mind as we move forward on figuring out how we're going to move forward on electoral reform," he said. "It's a challenging issue, but it's one that I am very, very much taking seriously."
To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.
1073 Comments Commenting is now closed for this story.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-monsef-shuffle-electoral-reform-1.3930891
Maryam Monsef escapes the Liberal adventure in electoral reform
Minister's move follows string of missteps - but suggests she isn't seen as a lost cause
By Aaron Wherry, CBC News Posted: Jan 12, 2017 7:57 AM ET
Maryam Monsef, third from the left, sits with her
colleagues after being sworn in as the minister of status of women
during a cabinet shuffle at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on Tuesday. (Sean
Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
"I will leave that for you to decide," demurred the former minister of democratic institutions and the new minister for the status of women.
- Time for Liberals to decide if they're serious about electoral reform
- Liberal government launches online survey meant to spur electoral reform conversation
- The Pollcast: What the cabinet shuffle means for electoral reform
Setting aside the question of which portfolio technically ranks higher in the pecking order — the general welfare of women has been a rather prominent concern of this government — it is unquestionably the case that Maryam Monsef is no longer responsible for fronting the Liberal commitment to electoral reform.
Of course, a decision to change things does not typically reflect well on the previous situation. The change also lines up neatly with a general sense that electoral reform has been a mess for Monsef and this government.
A year into the Liberal adventure on electoral reform, a change may also be seen as best for everyone involved.
The trouble with electoral reform
Electoral reform is inherently fraught: esoteric and philosophical in its details, but fundamental to the nature of a democracy, even while the general public is only vaguely interested in the topic.
The particular value of any given option is difficult to objectively quantify. And any discussion of the topic is subject to the impassioned arguments of advocates, as well as the real or perceived self-interest of the partisans involved.
The specific promise Monsef was tasked with carrying was then challenging in its own right: the implementation of an unspecified new system, after multi-party study, in time for the 2019 election.
And to that the Liberals added a further degree of difficulty when they decided to quibble, indecisively, with the suggestion of holding a referendum before a new system is enacted. There are real reasons to be cautious about proceeding with a referendum, but it is difficult to question a public vote without seeming to question the public's ability to make a decent decision.
Monsef's attempt to navigate that reluctance inspired the first furor of the new Parliament in December 2015, and the Conservatives thereafter made a cause of demanding a referendum.
There followed a tempest over the allotment of seats on the committee that would study reform, which bolstered allegations that the Liberals were aiming to rig the federal system.
After the Liberals compromised on the committee's membership, it came back with a majority report that opted to not endorse a particular alternative and awkwardly tried to recommend a referendum — the New Democrats and Greens simultaneously endorse a referendum and questioned the need for one.
Meanwhile, in a dissenting report, the Liberal members recommended that the government abandon the promise of reform in time for 2019.
Monsef responded by criticizing the committee's efforts, an attack for which she apologized a day later.
Shortly thereafter, the government unveiled a new survey that asked participants about their values and then grouped them under several amorphous personality groups ( "co-operators," "guardians," "challengers," "innovators" or "pragmatists"). The opposition responded with gleeful mockery ("a dating website designed by Fidel Castro").
And, on that note, Monsef was dispatched to the status of women.
What now for Monsef and electoral reform?
With the exception of her attack on the committee, it is difficult to say how much Monsef was individually directing the Liberal approach, but it stands to reason that she was not merely left to her own devices and there is an acknowledgment, from all sides, that she was put in a difficult position.
Sending her to the backbench might have only confirmed every criticism of the past year, but keeping her in cabinet also suggests she is not considered a lost cause.
Maryam Monsef is embraced by Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau after being sworn in as Minister of Status of Women
during a ceremony at Rideau Hall on Tuesday. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian
Press)
It is possible to imagine how the reform debate might otherwise be further along by now.
A "values-based" survey might have made more sense if it was launched last spring as the start of a conversation. The special committee on electoral reform could have been struck earlier than last June. And instead of avoiding any serious talk of alternative electoral systems, the government could have more firmly seized the issue and put options on the table for discussion — dozens of town halls have been convened and postcards have been mailed to millions of households, but without something to focus the debate.
So the current situation is perhaps not simply a matter of electoral reform being hard. And that things aren't further along and that a new minister has been given the file could seem to bode poorly for the Liberal promise.
But the prime minister didn't obviously back away when he was asked about that commitment on Tuesday. In the past, he has seemed genuinely interested in the subject.
At last report, the Liberals were promising something in the spring, but an indication of intent could conceivably come sooner. If the government is going to come forward with a proposal or if it's going to push the process past 2019 or if it's going to abandon the idea, it might be nice to have that clarified sooner rather than later.
Regardless, Karina Gould can be thankful that she's only getting to this file now. And Maryam Monsef can be thankful that it's no longer her concern.
To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.
No Comments Remain
No comments:
Post a Comment