LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Electoral reform is rarely spoken of these days.

In Ottawa, the Liberals have gone completely mute on the subject.  I guess that was to be expected, after the Prime Minister completely reneged on his 2015 promise to scrap the first-past-the-post voting system.

But now, however, the government has gone to even greater lengths to sweep the issue under the rug of silence.

There isn't even a department responsible for the file, what with the elimination of the Ministry of Democratic Institutions.  If the Liberals wanted Canadians to forget about their broken promise, and about electoral reform in general, they've certainly done an effective job at closing off discussion.

Unfortunately, a similar silence over electoral reform seems to have permeated across much of the country.

Just over a year ago, the NDP government in British Columbia upheld its 2017 campaign promise to attempt to reform its voting system.

The government held a referendum, all in the hopes of securing enough support to implement a more proportional voting system over their first-past-past-the-post system.

Regrettably, that referendum, the province's third such attempt, suffered a decisive defeat at the ballot box.

Not for the first time, the issue has now fallen by the wayside in British Columbia.

B.C. wasn't the only province that had high hopes for electoral reform, only to experience the gutting disappointment of failure.

In April of 2019, the government in Prince Edward Island held its own referendum on electoral reform.

Alas, efforts at changing the first-past-the-past voting system failed to garner enough support there as well.

Since then, many observers might be tempted to write off the likelihood of electoral reform in Canadian politics.

That might be a little premature though.

Just take for instance what's been going on in Quebec.

The Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) provincial government has embarked upon a mission to nix its own first-past-the-post system and implement a mixed member proportional one in its place.

The proposed system is nothing radical.  For starters, it would retain the current structure of electing 125 Members of the National Assembly (MNA).

However, instead of the same 125 separate constituencies, the changes would result in 80 enlarged ridings for voters to elect their representatives, along with an additional 45 seats that would be allocated to parties, depending on their share of the popular vote.

With the support of the Parti Quebecois and Quebec Solidaire, both whom have professed a desire to reform the system, the referendum could very well prove successful this time around.

While it won't be held until 2022, the referendum is still something for advocates to look forward to.

And it's not only in Quebec that advocates can find a glimmer of hope.

According to a recent Angus Reid poll, support for proportional representation across the country has increased significantly.  Back in 2016, polling support for a more proportionate share of the vote by party came in at 47%.  Now, however, that level has skyrocketed to almost 70%.

Even many federal Conservative supporters, traditionally some of the most stringently opposed to reforming the system, appear to have come around to the idea.  According to the poll, almost seven in ten voters who supported the Conservatives in the recent federal election stated they are now in favor of reform.

And who could blame them?

In the 2019 federal election, Conservatives received a greater share of the popular vote (34.41%) than did the federal Liberals (33.07%).  Not that it did them any favors.

While the Conservatives did increase their seat totals, all while preventing the Liberals from securing a second consecutive majority, they failed to turn their votes into more seats than the grits.

So it's not really a surprise then that so many Conservatives are feeling frustrated.  Under a different, more proportional electoral system, they almost certainly would have increased their seat total.

Of course, some of the high polling levels for electoral reform is surely overstated, especially for many Conservatives who are likely just venting their frustrations.

And as witnessed in countless referendums, support for electoral reform doesn't always materialize come election time.

But still, news of this polling data should encourage proponents of electoral reform.  There is evidently still a largely untapped vein of support in the country.

It's not even unfathomable for a Conservative leadership aspirant to advocate such a change.  Heck, as recently as 2017, the federal Conservative party used a ranked ballot system to determine who their leader would be.

So why not take it a step further and advocate an end to first-past-the-post?

The fact is, Canada is no longer a two-party state, and hasn't been for some time now.  As a result, our current first-past-the-post system simply does not do an adequate job of representing the views of far too many Canadians.

So I say, enough with all the "wasted votes."  Enough with all the "manufactured" majority governments.  And enough with regional parties like the Bloc Quebecois, with hardly any more votes than the Greens, winning 10 times their seats.

It's time for a change and an end to first-past-the-post.  In its place, almost any other system would be preferable.

Fortunately, more and more Canadians are beginning to understand that as well.

Photo Credit: Fraser Institute

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.


Alberta's UCP government wants to open the door to citizen initiated referendums.

What devoted populist doesn't love that kind of direct democracy?  Taxpayer federations rejoice at the possibility of zipping closed the public purse.  Alienated western separatists can have their say at last.

What can go wrong?

The referendum is an expensive, blunt instrument in terms of governing.  The right end of the political spectrum seems to have a fondness for the idea but it is a simple idea fraught with complexity.

The details in the legislation Premier Kenney has promised to introduce this spring will determine just how the implementation of referendums will play out.  The province could go the way of some states in the U.S. which allow special interests to micro manage policy and even budgetary items.

They could set restricted bars on what type of governance actions can be voted on.

The size of the petition required to hold a vote makes a huge difference do you need 10 per cent of the number of voters in the last election?  Do you need signatures from a wide distribution of constituencies across the province?

All that should be answered in the legislation and Kenney has tweeted out that Albertans should let his government know what the thresholds should be.

Legislation already exists to allow the government to call its own referendums.  And there have been referendums in the province's past on questions such as prohibition and daylight savings time.

Kenney has expressed a hankering to try the tool out.  He said he will call a referendum on federal equalization policy if there isn't progress on oil pipelines and repeal of anti-resource development federal legislation.

Experts agree the results of such a referendum would have no effect in changing equalization but that hasn't dampened Kenney's enthusiasm.  An overwhelming positive result would be window dressing for his own negotiation efforts.

After springing a trial balloon about opting out of the Canada Pension Plan, Kenney attempted to calm the waters by promising to hold a referendum before actually taking action on the pension, an initiative never mentioned during the last election campaign.  Given the number of "don't touch my pension" speakers at the Kenney travelling road show on the need for "Fair Deal" for Alberta, a referendum would seem unnecessary to convince the government to drop the idea.

Potential petitioners might take note of that idea if the government didn't campaign on a controversial policy perhaps it should be ripe for a referendum question.  Maybe Albertans should ask for a say on the size of corporate tax cuts or $30 million going to the pro-oilsands 'war room' — neither of which were spelled out in detail in the UCP platform.

Indeed referendums can hand politicians unexpected and unwelcome results.  Just ask former British prime minister David Cameron about Brexit.

In an era of fake news and divisive politics, mishandled referendums can amp up polarization by framing every policy issue in simplistic partisan terms.  Yes/No questions lead to oversimplification of complicated or nuanced issues.  In an era of fake news and hyperbole, there is always a risk of voter manipulation.

In a parliamentary democracy representatives are elected to consider, debate and come to conclusions that benefit society as a whole, not necessarily the majority of voters.  It's what they're paid to do.  Why give them cover to delegate that decision making?

It's interesting that while Kenney is now promising referendum legislation, he hasn't recently mentioned recall often a companion idea touted by populists.  Maybe that's one step too far in direct democracy for the premier.

In Canada it's an uphill climb to ensure a politically engaged and informed electorate will come out to vote in general elections.  Adding referendums to the mix seems like a needless and expensive complication.

Photo Credit: Edmonton Sun

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.


Now that we've learned that over 5,000 classified documents were mishandled by the federal government last year, we know… nothing.  At least, nothing we didn't already.  And possibly less.

Perhaps some people didn't know government was inept, from voters right up to politicians.  But I suspect most bureaucrats are wearily aware of the issue and surely most citizens would have bet the number was higher.  As it probably is.

I'm not knocking the Tory MP who submitted a written question and got the response that made for Monday's news story.  Written "Order Paper" questions get a better response than the oral variety, which isn't saying much.  But while he did succeed in drawing some attention to the problem, he didn't get much illumination.

The National Post noted that 5,000 annual total works out to a distressing 20 incidents a day across government.  And we know it happened in 38 agencies so it's widespread.  Or rather, we know there was a paper record made of such things over 5,000 times in 38 agencies.  But here's what we don't know.

How serious were the incidents?  What's in the documents?  Who got at them?  How reliably are such incidents reported?  What is then done, either to individuals who violate rules or to security systems that are unsatisfactory?

What details we have make the picture blurrier not clearer.  Employment and Social Development Canada reported 811 cases between January and September.  But of course it's a big drop since last time because they're so great and "Meetings with employees, management and security officials are held for repeat offenders to establish plans to improve security habits."  Doubtless.  But such bureaucratese could describe everything from a reprimand so scorching it set off smoke alarms to a nod and a wink over stale doughnuts.

Ditto Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada saying all staff got mandatory security briefings and "Steps have also been taken to ensure they are provided with the necessary training on how to appropriately store and handle sensitive information."  Which sounds like two ways of saying the same thing.  But in any case staff get all kinds of briefings.  Some don't stick.

As usual I'm not counselling despair here.  Just common sense.  Governments love to quantify things because they have a very hard time qualifying them.  And if they said there were no incidents, we'd think they were lying.  (Which they would be, unless it's not a lie if you don't know something because you deliberately didn't look.)  If they said there were hundreds in their department, we'd think their security was feeble.  (Which it probably is.)

So they report a reasonable number, and go bwa bwa bwa about taking the problem seriously the same way they all do if the Auditor General comes calling and raps their knuckles.  The one where they admit mistakes and promise to mend their ways in keeping with their long-standing high standards that prevent mistakes.  For instance "The government says it is committed to the highest standards of document security.  Violations are identified through routine security sweeps — a measure designed to continually improve practices."  Such rhetoric is designed not to inform but to stultify.

Meanwhile the Communications Security Establishment reported 197 incidents.  But it burbled that they all concerned documents inside secure areas and "the Communications Security Establishment applies rigorous security measures to ensure the protection of classified information, including random security checks on all security personnel and exiting the building".  So the only major security breaches they aren't admitting to are the ones they don't know about.  Feel better informed now?

Don't.  Because we're talking "classified or otherwise protected" documents.  Which sounds either ominous or soberly responsible until you start wondering what "classified" means.  Who classified them?  Why?  To what level of security?  And is "otherwise protected" more or less serious than "classified"?

A great deal of the material in government is not meant to be thrown out the window to the nearest journalist, citizen or Chinese spy because it contains cabinet confidences, personal information, tentative plans not to be mistaken for a firm intention like, say, licencing journalists or preliminary budget numbers.  And very little of it would matter if it was revealed although I'd rather they didn't give out my Social Insurance Number or my tax return.

Also, the sensitivity of a document is no measure of the severity of a breach.  The Post reminds readers that the director-general of the RCMP'S National Intelligence Co-ordination Centre was arrested in September for doing a bad thing we can't know about.  So how many times did the RCMP claim it mishandled documents in 2019?  Three.  Feel better informed now?

Don't.  Even if we did know how important the documents were, the Post says they were handled in ways that "did not meet security requirements".  Which are what?  In some cases too strict, in others too lax, in others a mix of the two with a dash of incomprehensible.  If someone left a document in a closed briefcase where colleagues with similar security clearance not assigned to that file might have looked but didn't, it's pretty minor.  If Huawei hacked into a DND server, it's pretty major.

Here's one thing we do know.  Not one person lost their security clearance because of one of the 2019 lapses.  Which tells you whatever requirements are in place aren't enforced strictly.  But even that fact isn't really news given how rarely people in government are fired for any sort of incompetence.

One less thing.  If you're one of the people who bet the real number of incidents was higher than the reported 5,000 you win, because Global Affairs Canada did not report numbers in 2019 but did admit to thousands of such incidents three years earlier.  Of course all they handle is our diplomacy and security so what could go wrong?

If you think at least you've learned that the government is lying to us, I must again suggest otherwise.  If they knew what was going on, they probably would lie.  But they don't.  Government isn't just opaque to us.  It's opaque to itself.

So there's one thing we do know.  Unfortunately it tells us nothing.

Photo Credit: The Guardian

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.