Duane Hicks
If the federal Liberal government wants electoral reform, not only must it put the change to a referendum, but Canadians are going to need to be broadly consulted and then educated in order to make a well-informed vote.
That’s the takeaway from a town hall-style discussion on federal electoral reform held by local MP Don Rusnak last Thursday afternoon at the Fort Frances Public Library Technology Centre.
The government has committed that 2015 would be the last federal election held under the current “first-past-the-post” electoral system.
But as to what system should replace it, whether voting should be mandatory, and whether online voting should be implemented remain just a few of the important questions up in the air.
“I think the question Canadians should be debating about is what do we want our electoral system to do in this century?” said Fort Frances resident Dave Bourgeault, who was among the 20-plus citizens in attendance.
He noted there’s several different electoral systems that can be implemented, and a national referendum is only way the government will provide the answer as to which one citizens want.
“Whatever Canadians decide is fine with the rest of us,” Bourgeault remarked. “Then you know that everybody’s had a say, or at least they’ve had a vote, if they understand the process.
“And let it fall where it will.”
Bourgeault also said that if the federal government wants to take reconciliation with First Nations seriously, “we have to be prepared for some type of change to the governance of Canada in years to come.”
“That’s really important—to include First Nations’ communities in what’s going to happen with this,” he stressed.
Rusnak said he’s heard that national referendums, more often than not, end up maintaining the status quo.
“But what I’ve also heard is that those national referendums have been national referendums done on an unclear question and without proper education,” he added.
“If we’re going to talk about transparency in government, we can’t hide behind one simple question and not educate everyone,” Rusnak noted later.
“Quite frankly, who has the time—unless you’re really into politics—to look at electoral systems?
“You’re concerned about your water bill, going to get groceries, going to the cottage, making sure the dog’s been walked—everyone has everyday concerns that they’re dealing with,” Rusnak said.
“If you’re not really interested in this, it’s disingenuous for us to throw you a question and say that it’s legitimate.
“We need to educate all of Canada before we have these conversations,” Rusnak stressed.
“That’s my view, but ultimately I’m going to take your view back [to Ottawa].”
Several citizens in attendance agreed educating the public before a referendum is important, otherwise people won’t vote “yes” for a change they don’t understand.
Rather, they’ll vote “no” by default and keep things the way things are.
Several others didn’t support holding a referendum, determining that many voters already have agreed to it.
“I think we’ve seen the Liberals campaign on proportional representation. So did the NDP, so did the Greens,” said Matt Soprovich.
“I think we’ve had 70 percent of voters indicate those are parties they support, so I think we already do have implicit support,” he reasoned.
“I think the will of the people has already been expressed and I think that it does have that—what was that line that Trudeau used—‘social licence.’”
But Bourgeault disagreed, noting not everyone who voted for those parties necessarily supported the electoral reform aspect of their respective platforms.
“A lot of people voted, right across Canada, to get rid of an unpopular government,” he remarked.
“That was the reason for voting any other way.
“A lot of people voted in favour of Don Rusnak—we loved him, great guy. Platform—didn’t know anything about it,” added Bourgeault.
“That’s why I’m in favour of a referendum.”
But Soprovich countered that while a referendum “sounds like a great idea,” the reality of having to demonstrate to Canadians why the current “first-past-the-post” system, which everyone has lived with for nearly 150 years, needs to change and why it is, in his opinion, an “unfair system,” “is easier said than done.”
“If you get a 30 percent turnout, you don’t have a mandate anyways,” he added.
Meanwhile, a couple of people spoke in favour of making voting mandatory for all eligible voters.
But Sara Mainville countered that although she knew when voting in the federal election that certain parties were in support of changing the Election Act, she did not know that there would ever be any discussion about mandatory voting.
“I think that’s something new and you don’t have a mandate to do that, particularly with indigenous people because many chose, as politically-sovereign people, not to vote,” she remarked.
Mainville added mandatory voting has to be “off the table” unless the government does wider consultations and specific consultations with communities that, as a collective, will not vote in the federal election (or provincial elections for that matter).
“It would be an act of violence to require them to vote,” she warned.
Other comments at last Thursday’s sessions included:
•The federal government should not rush into any electoral reforms without making sure it’s the will of Canadian citizens to do so.
•The town hall consultations being held right now must not be the only chance for the public to have their say (everyone should have the chance to provide input, not just those who speak loudest).
•Many people don’t understand electoral systems other than “first-past-the-post.”
•Various other electoral systems are being used other parts of the world and the Canadian government should provide information on how those are working in those countries.
•At least one person wanted to see a preferential ballot system, in which voters would rank each candidate as first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. to determine the winner.
•The “first-past-the-post” electoral system favours “big tent” parties like the Liberals and Conservatives, and a preferential ballot system, for example, most parties are going to split up into small parties because there’s no advantage to being the biggest.
•Changing the system has a “domino effect,” where if one thing changes, everything will change.
•Elections should take place over a two-day period, including a Sunday, to increase voting convenience (the notion of making election day(s) a statutory federal holiday(s) also was suggested).
The feedback from the discussion will be submitted back to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform once Parliament resumes sitting in the fall.
“Electoral reform is about giving everyone a stronger and more representative voice in future elections,” noted Rusnak.
“This town hall, and the other town halls happening across the country, will help us determine the democratic principles that should be reflected in our electoral system,” he added.
“Our government’s goal is to have a system in place that works for all Canadians.”
Rusnak said the public consultation emphasized to him “how monumental of an undertaking this is going to be.”
“The systems are complex,” he conceded. “There’s so many different options that I think Canadians need to be properly educated.
“Is it going to take a lot of time? I don’t have that answer,” added Rusnak.
He noted the next federal election is set for Oct. 21, 2019 under fixed election date provisions, but it’s quite possible any electoral reforms would be not be complete prior to then.
“I don’t know what the correct forum to educate Canadians is?” Rusnak admitted.
“Do we need teams going out across the country, holding forums? Do we do it online?
“I don’t want to presuppose what the [Special Committee on Electoral Reform] comes up with,” he added.
Rusnak noted the all-party committee has been doing its own hearings in Ottawa with experts from around the country and around the world, and will be reporting to Parliament on Dec. 1 with its recommendations.
“The committee’s been doing amazing work and there’s amazing members from all parties on that committee,” Rusnak said.
“I know they’re working hard and I know they’ll have a great report Dec. 1.”
He noted the input provided at the public consultations also will be going back to Democratic Institutions minister Maryam Monsef.
The submission Rusnak’s office will be making to Monsef will be posted on social media (www.facebook.com/rusnak2015) and Rusnak’s website in the future.
Rusnak added anyone who feels they weren’t heard at the public consultation here then can add their comments to Rusnak’s submission.
They also can submit their thoughts via www.canada.ca/en/campaign/electoral-reform
