Keep climate a national priority
Mark Carney’s installation as Canada’s next duly elected Prime Minister seems a near certainty at this point. Whether he leverages that early success into lasting prosperity for Canadians is, however, an open question.
The morning after Carney’s champagne bubbles have dissipated, the terrifying threats facing our country must become his singular focus. Trump’s economic wrecking ball. A revived and newly emboldened Western secession movement. Declining faith in politicians and democracy, coupled with a perhaps not entirely unfounded belief that governments have lost the ability to tackle the fundamental problems of our time.
Underlying all of these challenges is one that could potentially compound them all: an archaic electoral system that is no longer fit for purpose, which is sliding Canada inexorably toward an entrenched, adversarial two-party duopoly not unlike the one Americans are stuck with.
If Preston Manning and Andrew Coyne are reading the room accurately, a Carney victory could be the final straw for the many Albertans who have long felt ignored and disrespected by the Liberals under Trudeau. Unless Carney wants to deal with a trade war and a national unity crisis at the same time, he will need to take immediate action to address their legitimate concerns.
If Carney were smart (and we have every reason to believe that he is), he would take the one action that would simultaneously strengthen our democracy, address the grievances of Western separatists and create optimism by rebuilding the public trust in government that Justin Trudeau so foolishly squandered. And this potent instrument is within easy reach.
A bold move by Carney to quickly implement proportional representation would not only be the right thing to do, it would solve multiple problems elegantly and efficiently. Not only would he be breaking definitively from Justin Trudeau’s legacy and finally removing the stench of betrayal that continues to linger over the Liberal Party, he would be neutralizing the threat of a constitutional crisis that a fourth Liberal term could trigger by helping to reduce the polarization that is driving Canadians apart.
Canada can’t afford internal fractures right now. While the ugly separatist rhetoric may well be overstated (an April 1 Leger poll shows that a supermajority in every province would vote to remain part of Canada), Carney must acknowledge that westerners have a valid gripe.
Our winner-take-all voting system leaves the governing party, elected with 40 per cent support or less, free to ignore ridings in areas where they have little support ― and they usually do. Perversely, the government is equally free to ignore areas where their party is very strong, since those votes can safely be taken for granted. Certainly, when it comes to Liberal governments under our current system, many Albertans are not entirely wrong to feel they simply don't matter.
First-past-the-post rewards geographic concentration of votes and exaggerates regional differences, a fact that not only guarantees a sea of blue in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but has been key to the disproportionate number of seats going to the Bloc Québécois as well.
While each of the major parties actually has significant support in every region of the country, first-past-the-post creates the impression of regional monoliths by allowing only one winner per riding.
Under a proportional system, Toronto would elect some Conservatives, just as Calgary would elect more than just one Liberal ― because those votes are already there.
By shifting to a system that accurately mirrors voter preferences, elections would become a lot more competitive all across the country. It would be worth voting, no matter where you live, because almost all votes would serve to elect someone.
No longer would federal elections be won or lost by the time Ontario’s votes were counted. No longer could the governing party ignore all except a very few swing ridings. Each region of the country would likely have representation in every cabinet, regardless of which party forms government. Power would be more evenly distributed across the country.
Of course, there are additional benefits to upgrading to a more representative voting system. Policy would no longer be vulnerable to the dictates of one party acting alone, which has precipitated Canada’s slow but persistent decline in world rankings. Wasteful government flip-flops would become significantly less common, improving economic certainty for investors.
Multi-party cooperation, which has been the most common route to proportional representation around the world, ought to be easy for Carney to win. It would pave the way for critical long-term progress on energy and climate policy. Housing, healthcare, education, reconciliation, senior care: all would benefit from a more collaborative approach that incorporates the best ideas from each party.
Carney is positioned to become one of the most consequential Prime Ministers in Canadian history. Will his government strengthen the fabric of Canada, or continue its slow unravelling? To be successful, he must recognize a fundamental truth: A strong country needs a strong democracy and an electoral system that can bring Canadians together.
Gisela Ruckert is a board member of Fair Vote Canada, a national citizens' campaign for proportional representation.
Comments
Immediate introduction of PR is a fabulous idea. New Zealand, which shares our Westminster system, adopted it years ago with great success and no one wants to go back.
Article: "If Preston Manning and Andrew Coyne are reading the room accurately, a Carney victory could be the final straw for the many Albertans who have long felt ignored and disrespected by the Liberals under Trudeau. Unless Carney wants to deal with a trade war and a national unity crisis at the same time, he will need to take immediate action to address their legitimate concerns."
Namely?
Who says Albertans' (which Albertans?) concerns are legitimate?
The ideological opposition to all climate and environmental policy?
The resistance to any regulation or restraint upon the O&G industry?
In what sense are such "concerns" legitimate?
Why legitimize anything Preston Manning has to say about anything? He does not speak for me.
Classic fallacy of begging the question: Assuming the truth of a premise that itself needs to be proved.
Article: "long felt ignored and disrespected by the Liberals under Trudeau"
Why? Because Alberta's O&G industry is earning sky-high profits?
Alberta's oil mafia complains about record profits on record production as if they are being badly treated. Absurd.
Albertans enjoy the highest GDP per capita by far in the country — and they are still not satisfied.
Poor rich Albertans. My heart breaks.
Right-wing Albertans believe that the oilsands' under their feet is somehow a credit to them, not geological accident. Albertans believe that they are propping up Confederation with their tax dollars. For decades, Alberta politicians have told Albertans that they are getting a raw deal. Albertans believe they pay for Quebec's equalization payments. Forever inflating Albertans' contribution to federal coffers as leverage for more pipelines.
Innumerate nonsense.
Alberta federal taxpayers contribute 14 cents on the dollar. The other 86 cents flows from taxpayers outside AB. (StatsCan, 2023)
For any Albertans still laboring under the delusion that Alberta props up the Rest of Canada (RoC), just think what would happen if Alberta seceded.
Canada carries on with 86% of its original revenues.
End of argument.
The Cons want us to believe that without Alberta's 14 cents, Canada will come to a screeching halt. 86 cents of every federal tax dollar flows from taxpayers outside AB. Quebec taxpayers contribute more to Quebec's EQ payments than Alberta taxpayers do.
Hard to argue that Albertans largely fund transfers including (Quebec's) equalization payments when 86% of the funds come from taxpayers in other provinces. Trace back equalization dollars to their source. Most of those dollars do not come from Albertans.
Numerically, AB taxpayers do not outnumber, outweigh, out-earn, or out-contribute other wealthy Canadians residing elsewhere. The vast bulk of the wealth — and the vast majority of tax dollars — that fuel Canada's economy and governments are generated outside Alberta.
Alberta's righties have an inflated view of the province's economic significance. Alberta's energy industry contributed an average of 3.8% of Canada's GDP from 2015 to 2023 inclusive. The peak was 5.1% in 2022. (NRCan)
Article: "Perversely, the government is equally free to ignore areas where their party is very strong, since those votes can safely be taken for granted. Certainly, when it comes to Liberal governments under our current system, many Albertans are not entirely wrong to feel they simply don't matter."
Conservative governments are also free to ignore the West because they can take those seats for granted. The Liberals bought Alberta a pipeline, for crying out loud.
Max Fawcett: "The oil and gas sector will miss Justin Trudeau. No, really" (National Observer, January 8, 2025)
"The truth here, one the oil and gas industry’s advocates would never dare acknowledge, is that JUSTIN TRUDEAU HAS BEEN THE BEST PRIME MINISTER THEIR INDUSTRY HAS SEEN IN DECADES. He has done more to advance their interests, often at the cost of his own political capital, than any of his living predecessors.
"Carney must acknowledge that westerners have a valid gripe."
Are Preston Manning, Alberta right-wingers, and the federal Conservatives clamoring for proportional representation? Under PR, the federal Conservatives don't have a hope of ever forming government. False majorities under our first-past-the-post system are their only hope.
I am all for PR. I am not going to bother to vote today, because I live in a staunchly blue riding. I want my vote to count.
I am referring to the legitimate concerns that many Albertans have that their voices are not heard in government. That includes many Liberals, as well as many Conservatives. Fair representation should be a right, not subject to the vagaries of a patently unfair voting system. We ignore these voices at our peril. It would be disastrous for our country to end up in the same polarized two-party doom loop that we see in the US. There is a better path for Canada, and I sincerely hope that our new Prime Minister has the courage and integrity to move on this.
Article: "If Preston Manning and Andrew Coyne are reading the room accurately, a Carney victory could be the final straw for the many Albertans who have long felt ignored and disrespected by the Liberals under Trudeau. Unless Carney wants to deal with a trade war and a national unity crisis at the same time, he will need to take immediate action to address their legitimate concerns."
The author made specific and explicit reference to Preston Manning and Danielle Smith's threats of a national unity crisis. The Reformers and UCP eternal whining and rage farming about equalization, vaccine mandates, and climate/environmental policy. "Woke" policies and institutions. Diversity initiatives. The CBC. WEF.
None of these concerns is legitimate.
Not merely my opinion. A majority of Canadian voters just rejected the Reform/UCP brand of "conservativism". Again.
Gisela R: "I am referring to the legitimate concerns that many Albertans have that their voices are not heard in government."
Then provide specific examples. It is misleading to start the piece with a reference to Preston Manning and Smith's threats of a national unity crisis.
Under first past the post, all votes cast for "losers" do not count. Across the country.
Preston Manning gets to elect his Conservative MP. His vote counts. Mine does not.
In the House of Commons, Opposition MPs give ample voice to Alberta right-wing views. If Conservatives want to form government, they must moderate their extreme politics —and sell their platform to a broader spectrum of voters beyond their base. Most Canadians rejected the Conservatives' platform, rage-farming, and polarizing politics.
It was evident from the start that Trudeau wanted the “Alternative Vote” system, similar to our present system but one in which voters rank the candidates in order of preference. Australia uses it. The argument against it is that it will end up with us having a never ending Liberal government because voters of the left or right will choose middle candidates as their second choice. That is presumably why Trudeau wanted it. This is not what actually happens in Australia, in which there are basically a party of the left and a party of the right (I know it is more complicated than that).
What we really need is what the Americans call “Choice Voting”, which is formally called the Single Transferable Vote”. It results in proportional representation, and has many advantages over the common PR systems. The first is that it gives the voters more power than the political parties; it lets the voters decide which of several Liberal, several Conservative etc candidates will be elected. Independents can readily be elected; for example if the current popular Burnaby mayor were on the ballot, he could easily be elected even without campaigning. The voter will not need to vote strategically, holding her nose while voting for the least worst candidate.
Yes, there are disadvantages. Electoral districts are larger, and a district may have five members of parliament, not all from the same party, which means the voter will have more work to do evaluating the candidates. MPs will not be as local as they are now, but the voter will have a choice when he needs help. Politicians hate this system because they have to compete with other candidates from their party; gone will be the system in which the MP for a safe seat is effectively chosen by two hundred people at the local nominating meeting.
Beware of skilful politicians using specious arguments, deceit, and occasional outright lies to persuade you to vote against your own interests. The electoral system must be chosen by the voters themselves in something like a Citizens’ Assembly like the one BC had in 2004. In the subsequent referendum the voters voted 58% in favour of its recommendation for STV. The politicians did not like it so it was not instituted.
I have a perennial pet peeve with part of your thesis: that support of 40% can lead to a majority government. The flaw is a function of fairly simple arithmetic, that a winning party has received support from as many people as that. Case in point, the recent election in Ontario. There, DoFo got approximately 40% of the votes cast. In simple terms, he did get 40% support. In reality, because voter turnout was only about 60% of the eligible voters, he was actually elected - to a MAJORITY government - with approximately 25% of Ontario voters (keep in mind, permanent residents, people going through asylum claims, etc. CANNOT VOTE), Why such a significant portion of the electorate chose not to exercise their franchise is anyone's guess. That a large portion just couldn't be bothered is a conclusion I do not doubt. Where electoral reform could help persuade those, and those who already stay away feeling their vote doesn't matter, is the key argument that needs to hammered on repeatedly.