The Liberals’ bold reform plan

The reforms offered by Justin Trudeau’s Liberals on Tuesday are deserving, in the main, of praise, and cautious optimism. In a political environment that has too often been consumed by incremental changes and petty reforms designed by focus groups, conceived by strategists and shaped by polls, it is refreshing to see a party offering such bold proposals.

Probably the boldest part of Trudeau’s 32-point plan would involve wholesale electoral reform. While the specifics will depend upon an all-party parliamentary committee, the Liberal leader has promised 2015 would be the last election in which Canadians voted in a first-past-the-post system. He’s promised to study ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting and online voting. Changes would be implemented within 18 months of the election.

The problems with our current system are well established. Notably, it favours regionally dense voting blocs that can elect majority governments without a commensurate level of popular support, exacerbating regional tensions and undermining government’s perceived legitimacy.

The obvious cautions against broad reforms also apply: many of the alternatives would add a degree of complication into the electoral system; they could introduce obstacles to smooth governance; they could cement a succession of milquetoast compromise parties in power, rather than offering voters (to borrow a phrase) real change at election time.

Still, this is a useful debate to have; for this alone the Liberals deserve to be commended. And there are other unequivocally good ideas in their plan, many of which would address some of the more outstanding complaints about how the country has been governed, especially under the Harper Conservatives.

The Liberals have promised open and transparent government data, greater independence for parliamentary officers, more free votes in Parliament and a re-formatted Question Period that would demand more accountability from government ministers, including a British-style prime minister’s Question Period.

Yes, some skepticism is warranted here, considering the party’s shaky relationship with “open nominations”; the leaders’ commitment to free votes likewise squares awkwardly with his refusal to allow the same on issues of conscience like abortion.

There are also ideas in the Liberals’ plan that deserve open derision. Among them, the party’s plan to restore Canada Post home delivery — a popular promise that ignores shifting economic and practical realities. The proposed requirement that all Supreme Court of Canada judges be bilingual would effectively shut out Western Canada from the bench. And the flat declaration that all future Liberal cabinets would have an equal number of men and women — no matter how many of either sex are elected, or what their relative talent and experience — places gender parity ahead of merit. The country can ill afford this tokenism. Why not simply affirm his intent to hire the best people for the job?

On the whole, the Liberals have presented a proposal that is broad in vision, but shallow in detail. What, exactly, does it mean to “mobilize the experience and knowledge of Canadians and incorporate their input into our decisions and evaluations of existing programs and policies,” for example? Or to ensure “meaningful gender-based analysis in Cabinet decision-making”? The plan is littered with these kinds of cozy catchphrases that could mean anything. Some details would be helpful in dispelling fears they will mean nothing should the Liberals come to power.

The most revolutionary elements of the Liberal plan bring it broadly in line with the NDP, which has come out foursquare for proportional representation. The Liberals’ express disavowal of first-past-the-post makes it the second of the three major parties to advocate for major electoral reform.

Given the Conservatives distaste for the idea, the next election is shaping up as something of a referendum. Should either or both of the major opposition parties form the government, Canadians can expect a sea change in how politics is conducted in this country — for good or ill.