No way to Electoral Reforms

Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, has estimated that it would cost about $300 million to hold a stand-alone referendum on electoral reform. He also sounded another word of caution when he said that if the law was changed and a referendum vote was held in conjunction with a federal election, it would cost marginally more. Appearing before the special House committee on electoral reform last week Marc Mayrand said “Legislation enacting reform should be in place well in advance of the next election” and that he would be comfortable with that legislation being in place by May 2017, based on his understanding of the government’s commitment. He made an obvious reference to the campaign promise of Liberals –whereby the party had committed to introducing reform legislation within 18 months of taking office.  Going by the committed timeline –Liberals would have to table the bill by April 2017.  He also emphasized that if the ridings need to be redistributed to implement the new system, these changes could take 26 months to complete.  A man who came prepared with right answers with plans facts and figures in place and found an acceptance with the members of the committee.

On the other hand, leaders from Conservative party went all out to question the Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef over her lack of clarity on the government’s position on holding a referendum. A peek at what transpired during the discussion reveals a lot. The minister was asked by Tory MP Blake Richards whether she would support holding a referendum on electoral reforms, “It’s not as simple as yes or no. There are a diverse range of opinions.  I’m open to all opinions.” Minister Maryam Monsefalso refused to say whether she believes in the principle of proportional representation. Her response that she wasn’t prepared to update the referendum act as the legislation was more than two decades old, did come as a surprise not only to the members but also to Canadians. However, she also expressed that the summer would be well utilized to develop a contingency plan in case it needs to gear up for a referendum.

The Tories argued that a referendum is required before any changes are made; Minister Monsef maintained that “she thinks one isn’t needed”.  In her opening remarks, Monsef made the case against holding a referendum on changing the country’s electoral system, but ultimately took a rescue by saying it was only her personal opinion. The major revelation came from the flip-flop stance that the minister maintained and at times contradicting herself. While the conservative party has been maintaining and its members in the parliament were categorical in stating that no new system should be implemented unless the public directly approves of the charge through a referendum. Minister Monsef argued that referendum were imperfect instruments.”As I have said in the past, although I recognize that a referendum is one way of seeking clarity from Canadians, I remain to be convinced that it is the best way. Referenda do not easily lend themselves to effectively deciding complex issues. They can and often have led to deep divisions within Canadian and other societies, divisions which have not been easily overcome.”

Those who listened to Minister Monsef, could make out that as compared to the chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand, she lacked conviction on the matter and was morehappy expressing her personal view than consideringthe need, and the election promise. She was trying to focus more on the objective than on the consequences of that decision which not only sounded so personal but was also called by her as “personal opinion”. She contradicted the chief electoral officer, the best person to conduct the referendum if any and whenever called to do so, she was far away from the party line. Going be her stance the Liberals may run out of time and won’t be able to consult Canadians directly on the choice of electoral system because of the campaign promise to have a new voting method by the 2019 election.

A minister stating without the right frame of reference, and coming to the house with more of “personal opinion” than the facts and figure needs to be reminded that she has been elected as majority of the voters of her riding voted for her so that she could reflect on the collective opinion of the Canadians and not try and sail through difficult circumstances by citing personal opinion. If Prime Minister Trudeau has the right will to fulfill this electoral promise, he would have to firm up his opinion based upon what analysis the Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand has carried and not what minister Monsef wants the Canadians to believe.