It appears Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is craftier than anyone imagined. Trudeau had meant to use his majority in the House of Commons to ram through a fundamental change in our model of governance. Specifically, he wants to get rid of the first-past-the-post electoral system.
But last week, beset on all sides, he agreed to cede control over the committee designed to advise on reform. And to whom did he cede that control? Allies who want “reform” even more than he does.
Initially, the committee was to be composed of six Liberals, three Tories and one New Democrat — in effect a majority of seven to three, since the NDP supports reform.
Under the new arrangement, the membership will be five Liberals, three Tories, two NDP, one Bloc Québécois and one Green. But that gives the reformers a nine-to-three majority, since the Bloc and the Greens are with the Grits on this.
Let’s be clear what’s going on here. Since the Second World War, there have been only three elections in which the winning party outgrossed the rest in votes. Yet over that period, we had 14 majority governments.
That means there were 11 elections in which the winning party gained more seats than the others combined, even though the latter, collectively, had more votes.
Proportional representation — one of the principal alternatives — would have dissolved those majorities, forcing unstable minority administrations or, more likely, coalition governments.
Why, then, would anyone pursue such an option?
If you look at election results back to 1960, the reason becomes clear. Apply a strict system of proportional representation over that period, and we would have had exactly one Conservative administration — Brian Mulroney’s first term.
In all the others, a coalition of Liberals, New Democrats and Greens would have outnumbered the Tories in any scenario but one — a Conservative alliance with the Bloc Québécois. But no mainstream party would survive getting in bed with separatists as the price of office.
In other words, Trudeau is preparing the way for a series of stitch-up administrations with the NDP and Greens, as the price of consigning conservatism to the dustbin.
If this all sounds cynical, note that the other main option in play — preferential ballots — also benefits the Liberals. Follow this link for an analysis on the subject: cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-preferential-ballot. The only difference is that proportional representation appears, over the long run, to confer a more consistent advantage.
Yet while the Grits would gain at the outset, I suspect we would all lose in the end. Pretty soon, we’d have an Alberta party (I’m surprised we don’t already), a seniors party (as they do in Israel) and a menagerie of fringe groups hoping their chance has finally arrived.
Yes, electoral reform might appear more fair. Everyone has a voice.
But they don’t have a say. For if you turn parliament into a political menagerie, nothing that gets promised on the hustings counts any more.
What matters are behind-the-scenes deals hammered out in the equivalent of a political bazaar. If the math is right, 10 seats get you the Health Ministry, five might get you Defence. This isn’t government of the people, it’s government by barter.
Our country was built on a sturdier system. It took stable majority governments to reconcile the viewpoints of different regions, languages and cultures.
It was also critical that opposing philosophies be heard. During the 20th century, we had 18 Liberal administrations and 10 Conservative. This (approximate) balance held Canada together.
Could a Parliament of fractious minorities have created universal health care, stared down Quebec separatism or kept the often-rebuffed western provinces in Confederation?
It might have wished those things, but I doubt it could have accomplished them.
