The issue of electoral reform has boiled over into what could be seen as the first major disagreement of the 42nd Parliament. The Conservatives have become quite vociferous in demanding that any change to the electoral system be put to a referendum – no doubt out of selfish considerations, knowing that most forms of alternative voting would be seen to disadvantage them, and secure in the knowledge that every time that such alternative ballots have been put to a vote either in Canada or the UK, that the existing First-Past-the-Post system ends up winning out. (Kelly McParland and the Maclean’s editorial are also in favour of a referendum). Even in Canadian polls on electoral reform, there remains a preference for a simple ballot that can deliver a stable government – something that most forms of alternative voting won’t deliver. While some pollsters have had fun with the numbers, trying to build models of what the election results would have delivered under different systems, the truth is that we can’t know what would have happened because there’s no guarantee that we would have had the same parties or configurations thereof in the election – particularly under a proportional representation system that encourages fringe parties, and given the country’s geographical, linguistic, and cultural diversity, a system that rewards smaller parties could very well fragment the “big tent” parties that currently exist. While people insist that we wouldn’t turn into Israel or Italy, the real worry is turning into Belgium, where the linguistic divisions in their PR system were so fragmented that they couldn’t form a workable government for over a year. While the government (and in particular Dominic LeBlanc) say they will engage in a broad consultative process and try to come to a consensus, I’m pretty sure that political consensus with the other parties won’t happen – the NDP favour one form of MMP, the Greens favour a PR system of some variety, and the Conservatives favour the status quo while the Liberals are more keen on ranked ballots, it’s hard to see how consensus will be built out of that. And at least LeBlanc concedes that consultations may show that the status quo ends up being preferable, and if there is an argument for that, it’s that our system right now allows you to throw the bums out – something that becomes all but impossible in PR systems where coalition partners get shuffled around but the central party remains in power for decades. It’s hard to see how that can in any way be preferable in a robust democracy.
Good reads:
- The Bloc are obstructing the formation of a special committee on assisted dying because they don’t have enough MPs to merit membership – never mind that they once insisted that the NDP and PCs didn’t have enough MPs to sit on committees.
- The Conservatives got their first Opposition Day, and they debated the ISIS mission, accusing the government of “cutting and running” and looking like “cowards.”
- The first flight of Syrian refugees sponsored by the government arrived in Toronto.
- The chair of Canada Post wants the Liberals to rescind the letter asking their CEO to reconsider his early reappointment by the Conservatives.
- There is currently little appetite in the Senate for suspending Pamela Wallin a second time.
- In the Duffy trial, he described his “friend-raising” for the party. (Reevely, Blatchford and O’Malley here).
- Rona Ambrose said that Harper will show up for key votes, but won’t leave by the front doors or scrum, as though he ever did that. Ever.
- The NCC is legitimately still figuring out what to do about 24 Sussex.
- Maclean’s gathered 50 economists to submit their charts about what the economy looks like in 2016.
- The former head of the Royal Canadian Navy pens a lengthy piece about the state of the procurement process for new ships.
- Jen Gerson writes about Quebec’s medically assisted dying bill coming into force.
Odds and ends:
Here’s a look behind the scenes at the Trudeau shoot for Vogue.
It’s Rodger Cuzner’s annual Christmas poem in the Commons!