LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Day: February 1, 2017

News on Wednesday that Justin Trudeau had decided to break his promise that 2015 would be the last election under First-Past-the-Post was met by the expected howls of indignation from NDP and Green parties.  The reason, Trudeau stated in the updated mandate letter for newly minted minister of democratic institutions, Karina Gould, was that a clear preference for a new electoral system had not been made, nor was there any kind of consensus, and there was no clear question by which to hold a referendum.  Henceforth, changing the electoral system was no longer in her mandate.

In the face of angry denunciations in Question Period following the announcement, Trudeau stated that without any consensus on a system, this was not the right time to move forward on it.  And while everyone tuts that this is him breaking a "major" electoral promise, let me state unequivocally that sometimes, breaking a bad promise is the right thing to do, and this was without a doubt, a really bad promise.

Let's go back to when it was made.  It was summer of 2015, before the election had been called, the Liberals were still polling in third place, and Justin Trudeau summoned the media to the Chateau Laurier where he unveiled a package called "A Fair and Open Government" which contained 33 different items, ranging from improved access to information, free votes, Senate and Supreme Court of Canada appointments, and strengthening Elections Canada.  The promise to "make every vote count" was one item buried in the middle of it.  It wasn't highlighted or made prominent in any way.  It was also phrased with a caveat baked right in, that everything would be studied and considered.

"We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.  As part of a national engagement process, we will ensure that electoral reform measures such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting are fully and fairly studied and considered.  This will be carried out by a special all-party parliamentary committee, which will bring recommendations to Parliament on the way forward, to allow for action before the succeeding federal election.  Within 18 months of forming government, we will bring forward legislation to enact electoral reform."

While the language of "making every vote count" is civically illiterate nonsense and the rallying cry of sore losers every vote already counts it's also important to remember that this was also an era where the accepted wisdom among pundits that we were in for an age of perpetual Conservative governments so long as the Liberals and NDP remained separate parties, and that they needed to "unite" in the same way the right side of the political spectrum did to form the modern Conservative party.  This is part of the sentiment that the Liberals were responding to when they made this promise.  Oh, and there was also no consensus within the party about what reform looked like.  Trudeau personally favoured ranked ballots, but former leadership candidate Joyce Murray favoured proportional representation, and Stéphane Dion had written a proposal for multi-member ridings that would have resulted in some form an a single-transferable ballot system.

It was a bad promise, made without considering the consequences.  It didn't need to be made given the scope and breadth of all of their other reform promises, and it would also have been nearly impossible to fulfill.  It also had the very real possibility of undermining Trudeau's ability to govern for the next three years, leading up to the election, as any objections would be met by "You've admitted that your government isn't legitimate because you only got 39 percent of the vote."  (Never mind that the 39 percent figure is a logical fallacy and doesn't actually exist, but that would be the talking point).  This would only get worse as the election drew closer, as parliament would be further bogged down in not only the implementation of the new voting system, and the inevitable howls that each party was self-dealing in the process.

And then there was the question of the referendum that the Conservatives demanded as part of the process.  If there is anything that Trudeau has become quite wary of in the wake of Brexit, the first Colombia peace agreement, and the proposed constitutional reforms in Italy, it's that referenda are dangerous things in an era of heightened populist sentiment

"It would be irresponsible to do something that harm's Canada's stability," Trudeau said in QP on Wednesday, and he's not wrong particularly as the government has its hands full dealing with the fallout of the Trumpocalypse to the south, and having electoral reform consume the time and attention of Parliament would be a drag on their ability to deal with what's going on, particularly if he undermined his own legitimacy by agreeing with the sentiments behind the drivers of reform.

And then comes the debate about whether politicians should always keep promises, even then they're bad ones.  Is it worse that Trudeau and his minister have made the decision to smother this promise now, a little over a year into his mandate, admitting that this wasn't a wise policy to pursue at this time given the gong show results of the Electoral Reform special committee?  Or would it have been better for him to drag this out and carry on the fiction of coming to some kind of compromise on the file over the next three years when that was a likely impossibility?  Perhaps it's best that we acknowledge that sometimes governments should break bad promises, but also ensure that they own up to the fact that it was a bad promise to make in the first place.  Will it cost him some votes?  Maybe, but this isn't a burning issue for most Canadians.  And given that the system actually isn't broken, not moving ahead with reform is the right thing to do.

Editorial Cartoon: Jeff Burney

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Screen Shot 2024-02-26 at 11.27.30 AM

More from Dale Smith

Click here for more

Tracking the PCPO's screw-ups and their attempts to cover up those screw-ups is getting a little boring, so I think I'll shift my focus to the more technical aspects of Ontario politics until something more interesting happens.

Because the quality of Queen's Park journalism is disgustingly low, worse than even your average Canadian Journalism, you could be forgiven for not understanding exactly how the Ontario Liberals cling to power beyond "The Opposition just sucks that badly", and while that is certainly true it doesn't tell the whole story.

Thus it falls to me to explain the ways that the Ontario Liberals manage to clear the very low bar that has been set for them the specific manipulative tricks they play that escape most people's notice, beyond blaming everything on Mike Harris.

Keep It Boring!

Here's the biggest problem with Justin Trudeau's recent highly partisan, data mining, self promotional barnstorming tour from an Ontario Liberal perspective: It shines a light in inconvenient places.

What, an Ontario Liberal would say, is gained by lancing the boils?  Who benefits from having Kathy Katula's emotional plea for hydro relief broadcast all over the province for the people to see?

From an Ontario Liberal perspective there is no choice but to go forward and not backward.  Yes it's very sad that people's hydro bills are as high as their mortgage payments in some cases, but these orders come from the Very Top.

And so they will cite other jurisdictions who have made similar adjustments and where the world didn't end, and talk about how times are tough all around, but in truth the better course of action is to just not talk about the problem at all.

It's A Conservative Media Conspiracy!

Like most political people in this country, Ontario Liberals consume far, far more American news than Canadian news.  They also get their tactics drip-fed to them by the Democrats, to the point where they just blindly do whatever they're told without stopping to consider whether it makes sense.

In an unguarded moment, an Ontario Liberal may let fly with a comment about how corporate friendly, conservative-leaning Canadian news is responsible for whatever bad press the party is getting.  This tactic works quite well because most people aren't quick enough to reply that these conservative papers draw the least money a fact that the same Ontario Liberal knows and likely often uses to make fun of those same papers.

We're The Government Your Facts Are Wrong

When you are the government, you have all the facts and data at your disposal.  When you're not the government, you don't.  Therefore (goes the faulty logic) when the government says you're wrong, you are.  Every time.

No, Ontario's hydro bills are not the highest in North America.  No, the debt is not as bad as (insert whatever jurisdiction the PCPO is comparing it to this week).  No, Ontario's Liberal government has done absolutely nothing corrupt or wrong or in the least bit suspect, and they have FACTS that prove this.

This of course presupposes that the government is comprised of metahumans who make mistakes with less regularity than the rest of us, and, further, that the government has no reason to distort or twist the facts in any way.

If you've ever actually sat down and watched Question Period at Queen's Park, you'll know that the government defends itself not only with FACTS but also with a high-handed tone that shames the questioner for daring to question those FACTS.

No Nitpick Too Small

Perhaps you made a typo in your tweet, or got a date wrong in your question, or addressed your inquiry to the wrong Liberal MPP.  It doesn't matter.  An error or oversight, no matter how small, means you have "lost all credibility."

Rather than the government being held to a higher standard than those it serves, it's everyone else who gets called out for falling short.  On the rare occasion that a Journalist asks an inconvenient question of the government, they get their "objectivity" called into question.  It's always fair game to ask whether the critic is in the pockets of Big Whatever or Whoever, or if they are just "astroturfing" when they claim to speak on behalf of citizens or taxpayers.

I've seen this government send out flyers claiming the PCPO has no business criticizing the handling of public finances because one of their members once expensed a coffee and a donut at Tim Horton's.  If a quasi-governmental organization goes off the rails, they find evidence of involvement in that organization by a PC-affiliated person and the scandal deflates like a popped balloon.  Release a picture showing the PCPO tour bus idling, claiming that it shows the opposition's disregard for climate change?  Sure, why not.

I really hope I'm not making the OLP look like political geniuses here.  These lame tricks really do only work because the opposition allows themselves to be steamrolled by them.  Tune in next time when I go over why the PCPO allows themselves to repeatedly be made fools of by their Liberal counterparts.

Written by Josh Lieblein

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

loonie-thumb

More from Other Columnists

Click here for more