The Dominion - Susan Thompson

"Anybody but Bush"

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:06:27 +0000

Canada-US relations and the next Presidential election

"Whenever there's a Republican administration in power it's more difficult for Canadian governments." photo: Fire Marshals Association

But is this realistic? Exactly how does the relationship between a Canadian Prime Minister and a US President affect Canada-US relations--and how might upcoming federal elections in both countries change the situation?

Canada-US relations since 2000

Further reading:

Prime ministers and presidents (CBC)

Martin likely shoo-in as next Prime Minister (Washington Times)

An American Take on Paul Martin (LA Times)

Dean honed his skills in Montreal

On the Issues (outlines each US candidate's policy positions)

Even before President George W. Bush finally declared victory in the last Presidential election, the Prime Minister's nephew, Raymond Chretien, stirred up controversy by making a speech that implied Democratic candidate Al Gore would be easier for Canada to work with. Historically, of course, Democratic US administrations generally are easier for Canadian governments to work with than Republican administrations. Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail columnist and author of several books on Canada-US relations, puts it this way: "This is a problem that runs through our history with the US--whenever there's a Republican administration in power it is more difficult for Canadian governments, [and] particularly Liberal governments which are usually in power here, to have good relations because of the ideological divide--they're more right-wing and we don't tend to agree with them."

In hindsight, it seems Raymond Chretien was right about the difficulty of working with the Bush administration, even if it wasn't the time to say so. The Canada-US relationship has experienced twists, turns, and diplomatic tantrums since Bush's inauguration that read like a political soap opera.

Although Bush met with Prime Minister Chretien at the White House as his first state visit, Bush's own first visit to another country was to Mexico, raising a few allegations that Bush was more concerned with his southern neighbour than his northern one. After Sept. 11, President Bush neglected to mention Canada in a speech in which he thanked the nations that had helped the US after that tragedy. In 2002 Francois Ducros, an aide to Chretien, called Bush a moron in a private conversation that was quickly publicized. Coupled with a later remark by Carolyn Parrish about Americans being "bastards," charges of rampant anti-Americanism in Canada became common.

But the real drama came when Canada decided not to join the war on Iraq. US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci responded by saying that the US was "disappointed" and that it was causing a "bump in relations"--comments which raised calls among MPs to send Cellucci back to the US, and calls from the business community and much of the media to make more concessions to US demands.

"The print media has certainly become more pro-American and more right-wing, and so there's greater media pressure on Canadian governments to get along with the US and to favour US policies like the Iraq war."
-Lawrence Martin

More indications of strain came when President Bush cancelled a state visit to Ottawa last spring three weeks before the appointed date--the diplomatic equivalent of storming out of a room and slamming the door, given that such visits take months to plan. In June, speaking to reporters on a plane, Prime Minister Chretien candidly criticized the huge deficit the US administration has incurred since Bush's inauguration. It's little surprise that the President has yet to invite Jean Chretien to his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

But have these tensions been due to a personal disconnect between Bush and Chretien, or ideological tensions between the US and Canada? If the disconnect is personal, then when Chretien leaves office conditions should improve. Canadian Ambassador to the US Michael Kergin has recently stated that he doesn't think it will make much difference in Canada-US relations if Paul Martin assumes the position of Prime Minister, because the relationship is "too important to be affected by any one person." Lawrence Martin believes that Kergin's opinion is "not entirely accurate." "I've done a book on the Presidents and the Prime Ministers and it's quite apparent that the personal rapport that they have or lack does cast a positive or negative tone over the relationship which is quite important," says Martin. "If you look at MacKenzie King and Franklin Roosevelt, for example, they worked out agreements on a piece of paper between one another and that type of thing. If you have a high level of communication that spirit gets channeled down through the system and [the countries] work in a more cooperative vein."

However, that doesn't mean that the current lack of rapport is due to a conflict between individual personalities. Colin Campbell is chair of Canada's first US studies program at UBC and author of several books on US presidential politics. According to Campbell, "That [the rocky relationship between Chretien and Bush] is really in many respects more symptomatic of the tensions than the source of the tensions. The fact of the matter is that unless you want to be a poodle to the [Bush] administration like Tony Blair, you're going to have difficulties with it."

Lawrence Martin points out that tensions have actually abated somewhat now despite Chretien still being in office. "I think the war increased the intensity of the dialogue and the criticism of Canadian policy vis-a-vis the Americans," Martin opines. "But I think that...the Canadian government's position has been looking more and more vindicated because of the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and because the aftermath of the war is not going well." Martin has a point--it's been a while, after all, since the US Ambassador to Canada has had anything negative to say about Canada. In fact, Cellucci most recently remarked that Canada had "stepped up to the plate" in Afghanistan and that relations were running smoothly once again.

Essentially, then, the tension between Canada and the US has been less about personal differences between leaders and more about working with a US administration that is unilateralist and demanding. But that still leaves the question of where prime-minister-in-waiting Paul Martin fits into the equation.

Paul Martin

Paul Martin is almost certainly going to win the November Liberal leadership convention, meaning that he will automatically become Prime Minister as soon as Chretien steps down, in February or possibly earlier.

Martin will likely call an election some time after assuming leadership of the country. When that election will be is still uncertain, but it will be before the next US election. So whether or not they both win the next federal elections in 2004, there will be an as-yet-unspecified period of time where Paul Martin is Prime Minister and President Bush is President. The two might meet as soon as January when both could find themselves at the Summit of the Americas in Mexico--if Chretien has stepped down by then. Roger Noriega, head of the US State department's bureau of Western Hemispheric Affairs, has already suggested a quick meeting between representatives of both leaders once a new prime minister is sworn in would be wise.

Martin is more conservative than many Liberals have been in the past and may actually relate fairly well to even a Republican administration. US opinions on Martin thus far have generally been favourable. The Washington Times called Paul Martin "an outspoken advocate for mending ties with the United States" in July. A Los Angeles Times editorial reprinted by the Toronto Star commented approvingly on Martin's fiscal policies and noted that "Before a recent major address, Martin also had a courtesy visit with US ambassador Paul Cellucci, an action that would not be Chretien's first instinct." Roger Noriega, who was appointed to the head of the US State Department's bureau of Western Hemispheric Affairs by President Bush himself, has expressed pleasure with a foreign policy speech Martin gave April 30, 2003 to a Canadian Press dinner. During the speech Martin stated that "What we must do is to pursue continuously a systematic and coordinated effort to confirm and strengthen the Canada-US partnership." Noriega responded that "these views reflected a healthy appreciation for the relationship. We would look forward to working with the next government team."

"If [getting along] means you simply give in to the policy directions of the Bush administration, it means you will be abandoning a number of very vital Canadian interests."
-Lloyd Axeworthy

Lawrence Martin muses, "I think that Paul Martin wants to create a more harmonious relationship with the White House. He is more of a business Liberal to begin with and will be viewed by the US administration in a more positive vein. Not to the extent that Brian Mulroney was, but as a former businessman he is more in synch with Republicans."

Some warn, however, that this may mean making some concessions to America, and potentially adopting more Americanized public policies. Speaking about the missile defence to the Canadian Press, former minister of foreign affairs Lloyd Axworthy said on Oct. 11 that "They (Martin's advisors) want to have a better relationship and no one argues with that in theory... [but] what do you do to get it?... And if it means you simply give in to the policy directions of the Bush administration, it means you will be abandoning a number of very vital Canadian interests."

But both Lawrence Martin and Colin Campbell feel that Paul Martin is unlikely to get too close to the Bush administration. "I don't see him rushing in to a warm relationship with Bush the way things are going for Bush right now, but I do see Paul Martin as wanting to improve the rapport, improve the level of dialogue, increase the security of trade across the border. He might do something to follow up on free trade and NAFTA agreements, to enhance them in some way," says Lawrence Martin. "Looking at the polls Paul Martin and his people realize that by and large Canadians supported Mr. Chretien's position on the war and are supporting it in increasing numbers--and they are seeing that the popularity of the Bush administration is diminishing. Therefore for Paul Martin to try and bring in a new American policy at this time would not be wise. He will wait for the American election next November to see what happens." Colin Campbell basically concurs. "The difficulty with Martin is that he tends not to want to be in conflict with people, so he's going to try to go along with Bush on a lot of things. But ultimately he's going to take a lot of heat, particularly since he's from the Liberal party and not from the Progressive Conservatives like Brian Mulroney. He's got to remember the preferences of his core constituency so he has, I think, limited maneuverability."

Campbell also notes that a Prime Minister doesn't necessarily have to give in to US demands in order to have good relations. "I don't think that with this particular administration you could ever have a smooth relationship because they are so xenophobic that it would never resolve the issues pending," he says. "But...I think that you can have exceedingly harmonious relations and not be making concessions of any great note that would in any way compromise Canadian sovereignty and values."

Of course, that depends on what sort of administration will have power after the next presidential election.

The US Election

It may seem a long way off to many Americans, considering that they have to endure twenty-two months of campaigning versus the much shorter Canadian campaign periods, but the next federal US election is getting close. It's scheduled for Nov. 2, 2004, with the newly elected or newly re-elected President to be inaugurated on January 20, 2005.

The field of contenders to Bush's re-election plans is large, but of those a few names stand out. Democratic candidate Howard Dean has created a considerable amount of excitement through his very effective use of the internet. And General Wesley Clark has stirred both excitement and controversy since entering the race at with the support of filmmaker Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine) and his considerable number of supporters, who billed Clark as an antiwar candidate despite his military background and inconsistent positions on the Iraq war.

On Bush, Campbell and Martin are in agreement--he needs to go. "George W. Bush doesn't really have anything in common with this country, being a Texan, and it's more difficult for him...his list of priorities is so long," says Martin. Campbell is to the point: "Even another Republican would be probably a lot easier to work with than George W. Bush."

"The fact of the matter is that unless you want to be a poodle to the [Bush] administration like Tony Blair, you're going to have difficulties with it."
-Colin Campblell

So what of the Democratic candidates? "The field is so large and I don't see that any of them would be antagonistic toward Canada. Virtually anybody... would be better than what we have now," says Campbell.

As for what characteristics would make the best President from Canada's point of view, Campbell points towards respect. "I think the critical thing is just respect for the fact that Canada is a sovereign nation and is going to have different sets of policy preferences from those which prevail in the United States... I think that that's not sufficiently understood by the current administration."

Martin places more of a priority on knowledge. "A familiarity with Canada, the Canadian system and the way it works here, and Canadian sensitivities is very important. If you look at Roosevelt he used to spend his summer holidays... near New Brunswick in Canada. He had a deep familiarity with Canada and it really showed in his relationship with the country."

If we're judging by Martin's criteria, Howard Dean emerges as a clear favourite. Not only does he represent a state which borders Canada, the Montreal Gazette reported that Dean got his political start by appearing on the Canadian show "The Editors" and discussing politics. Those who worked with him at the time have commented on his deep understanding of Canada and Canadian issues.

Campbell notes that "He obviously has a certain resonance with the more liberal wing of the Democratic party and I would be sympathetic towards him. He seems to be exceedingly good at raising money and... attracting appeal even outside of the groups which ideologically would find him most attractive. But there are a lot of pluses with Wesley Clark too so I'm not strong in my preference there."

As for what those pluses are, Campbell points towards Clark's military background. "Wesley Clark is going to be a pretty tough opponent for George W Bush, particularly the deeper [they] get into the difficulties with the Iraq war. He could perform the function of say, Eisenhower in '52--basically saying 'it's time for the US to get out of this quagmire and I know how to do this.' That was clearly a very important dimension to Eisenhower's appeal in '52."

Whether a new version of Eisenhower appeals to everyone is up for debate, however. Clark's military background is a red flag to many of the people who participated in the peace movement--some even consider him a war criminal for his actions in Kosovo. Nor has Clark been consistent when explaining his position on the Iraq war. Both of these factors have led to some intense criticism of Michael Moore for his support of Clark, as well as criticism of Clark himself, especially in the left and alternative media both in the US and Canada.

However, it may not matter much if it's Clark, Dean, or someone else who replaces Bush. Lawrence Martin points out "Canadians have to accept the reality that basically an American president has far more important things on his plate than to deal with Canadian issues as a top priority, and I think most Canadians have come to realize that. That's not to say the Presidents have been ignorant of Canadian issues. But there was that one incident where Lester Pearson was visiting [President] Eisenhower (this was while Pearson was external affairs minister). Pearson had some pressing Canadian issue to discuss with the President and he quickly discovered that Eisenhower hadn't even heard about what he was talking about. Eisenhower was known as the great golfing President and he'd golf almost every day of the week--so Pearson came out of the White House muttering to his aid that 'You'd think his caddy would have mentioned it to him.' That is an illustration of the type of difficulties that Canadian leaders face in trying to make Presidents know what's going on up here."

Pressure from a pro-US media

One of the most important factors affecting Canada-US relations may not be the leaders of the two countries at all, but rather a new source of pressure to get along. Where is this pressure coming from? Canada's own media. "The print media has certainly become more pro-American and more right-wing, and so there's greater media pressure on Canadian governments to get along with the US and to favour US policies like the Iraq war," says Martin. "[Prior to the Iraq war] there was this disconnect between the media and the Canadian population where polls were showing Canadians were saying no, not unless the UN approves [the war] while the editorial positions of the papers were pro-war. So this is a new dynamic in the country--the trend of the media. And let's face it, Prime Ministers pay attention to what the media is saying because it creates a lot of pressure."

In the end, then, it may be up to the alternative media and grassroots efforts like the Dominion to carry the torch for Canadian sovereignty and balance out the push to concede to US demands. Canada-US relations may not be the better for it, but Canada itself likely will be.

Canada-US relations and the next Presidential election

The relationship between Canada and the US has been rocky since George W. Bush took office. Some have blamed this on a personal disconnect between Jean Chretien and President Bush. For example, in March 2003 Liberal MP David Pratt said "I don't think things will change until our leadership changes"--i.e., when Chretien leaves office. Many pundits and politicians agree with Mr. Pratt.

But is this realistic? Exactly how does the relationship between a Canadian Prime Minister and a US President affect Canada-US relations--and how might upcoming federal elections in both countries change the situation?

- by Susan Thompson -

One Citizen, One Vote: Towards Proportional Representation

Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:16:55 +0000

An interview with Larry Gordon, Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada

Fair Vote Canada’s Larry Gordon advocating proportional representation. photo courtesy of Fair Vote Canada

Fair Vote Canada (FVC) was formed in August of 2000 as a multi-partisan citizen's campaign to reform Canada's voting system. FVC promotes the adoption of a system that is proportional, uses positive, effective votes, and results in a stable and accountable government. The organization does not recommend a specific type of proportional representation, but calls for a public process which will allow Canadians to learn about voting system alternatives and choose a new one.

In keeping with its multi-partisan mandate, FVC had left-wing feminist Judy Rebick and Walter Robinson of the right-wing Canadian Taxpayers Federation co-write an op-ed article on fair voting for the Globe and Mail after the last federal election. They both continue to serve on Fair Vote Canada's National Advisory Board along with many other prominent Canadians such as David Suzuki, Karen Kain, and Pierre Berton. FVC also maintains regional chapters across the country as well as several special interest caucuses. The organization's website was recently revamped to include more information and a new online petition.

Dominion: Why is fair voting important?

Further reading:

We Vote to Scrap the System, by Judy Rebick and Walter Robinson

Proportional Representation: Medicine for Canada's Ailing Democracy?, from CAW.

Why I reject our voting system and rejected my ballot, from StraightGoods

Arguments against:

Should a system of Proportional Representation be adopted in Canada?, by Ian Robertson

Proportional Representation Has Clear Downside, by Bill Tieleman

Larry Gordon: The heart of the political system in a representative democracy is the voting system because that's the tool we citizens use to create government in our own image. Unfortunately, Canada has one of the most widely discredited and ridiculed voting systems among major democracies. We are one of the few industrialized democracies still using the first-past-the-post voting system which most major countries scrapped between 50 and 100 years ago. Could you explain briefly what that means? What are the characteristics of the first-past-the-post or winner-take-all system?

A winner-take-all voting system is just what it says. Some people win the right to have their voices represented and everybody else loses. In a single riding, whoever has the most popular partisan viewpoint as expressed at the ballot box wins the right to be represented by parliament. Everybody else who voted--equal citizens, with equally legitimate viewpoints under the law--loses the right to be represented in parliament. And that basically subverts the whole idea of democracy. Representative democracy is a system in which every citizen wins the right to be represented and then we agree that the majority wins the right to make decisions until the next election. Our voting system does neither. Many of us do not win representation at voting time because of the winner-takes-all system, and we seldom actually have legitimate majority governments.

How many legitimate majority governments have we had?

Since WW I we've had exactly four legitimate majority governments. It's a very rare occasion. Currently, we have a government that controls 57% of the seats in parliament, which is a significant majority--but they were voted in by only 41% of the voters participating in that election. That is a dramatic distortion of what voters said at the ballot box and created yet another phony majority government. So we have minority rule in a parliament that is not representative of the people of this country. That isn't tolerable in a democracy.

According to Fair Vote Canada, a large number of votes are wasted as well--and your organization recently did a study which found that a majority of votes in Nova Scotia are wasted--is that right?

That's right. Wasted votes are defined by political scientists as votes cast that do not produce representation for voters. So anybody who cast a vote in our current system for a losing candidate has cast a wasted vote. They might as well have stayed home or destroyed their ballot.

Is that contributing to voter apathy in Canada?

Yes, exactly. This all follows a very common sense logic. If you have a voting system where many people understand at a gut level that they do not get representation, that really decreases the motivation--it's frankly not logical for many people to vote in many ridings across the country. So it's not surprising that countries that use the winner-take-all voter systems have lower voter turnout and more voter disgruntlement than countries that use fair voting systems.

Which countries use the first-past-the-post system?

Among the major industrial democracies it's really just Canada, the U.S., and Britain. Interestingly, Britain has brought in proportional representation in the Scottish assembly that was just started recently, the Welsh assembly, and they use proportional representation to elect their representatives to the European parliament. About the only place in Britain that they're not using PR right now is electing parliament itself. So among major industrial democracies its really been Canada and the U.S. that are wedded to this system.

Getting back to some of the perceived flaws in the first-past-the-post system, how does it exaggerate regional differences, at least according to Fair Vote Canada?

There are some regional differences in Canada, but the voting system has dramatically blown them out of proportion. If you look at an electoral map, you could be forgiven for drawing the conclusion that everybody west of Ontario votes Alliance. In every MP's office you'll see this electoral map that has the country coloured by what party controls what riding. There are these great big blocks of colour across the country, showing that everybody in the West is an Alliance supporter, that everybody in Ontario is a Liberal, everybody in Quebec votes Bloc. But in the last election, and I was surprised at this because I kind of fell into this myth also, half as many people voted Liberal as Alliance in the four Western provinces. But the Alliance got five times as many seats, so you can see the distortion there. In my home province here in Ontario, 50% of Ontarians voted for the Liberals, but the Liberals got virtually every seat. People like Preston Manning and Stephen Harper have been lambasted for no breakthrough in Ontario--well, a million people in the last election in Ontario voted for the Canadian Alliance. A million people. They should have about 20 - 25 Alliance MPs. So in a fair voting system, the Alliance wouldn't be a western party. In a fair voting system, the Liberals would not be the party of Ontario.

I've read the argument that proportional representation would supplant small, regionally supported parties and that would eliminate the representation they now have in the House of Commons, the argument being that PR would thus actually exacerbate regional conflicts.

Proportional representation would allow regional parties to exist. Proportional representation will essentially allow whatever political viewpoints the public has to be fairly and appropriately represented in parliament. If there's a critical mass of people supporting a particular regional party, proportional representation wouldn't hinder or help. It would just allow it to be represented as it deserves to be represented. The current voting system does allow regional parties to exist if they reach critical mass. However, it doesn't allow the other type of small party to get established, which is the smaller party which represents a scattered constituency across a wide region of Canada. The Greens are the classic case. Under our current voting system, it's a wasted vote to vote for a Green anywhere in this country. But, if you had a fair voting system where every vote counted equally, I suspect there would be 15-30 Green MPs in parliament. In most European countries with proportional voting systems, five to ten percent of the seats are often won by the Greens. In Canada, if the voting system allowed that viewpoint to be represented, I suspect that although the party may never hit critical mass in a particular winner-take-all riding, it would represent a reasonable and significant minority in this country. So proportional representation wouldn't stop regional parties from being formed or represented, but it would open up political space for other parties that right now cannot participate in the voting system because their support is scattered across the country.

But isn't that one of the arguments against fair voting, that the parties could actually get so small that very few would have a national scope and then that would somehow damage our political process.

Critics of proportional voting systems will often point to a place like Israel where there are 30 or 40 parties and all of them represent 5% and 2% of the country and so on. Proportional representation does allow more parties to be formed, and essentially allows whatever political viewpoints there are to be represented. So if you had a very diverse, fragmented society that could be represented in the political system. Now, why don't more countries go down that path? Why don't you have Germany in utter chaos? Why is Switzerland not in chaos?

Yes, and I think the question is, how do we make sure that Canada doesn't become a worst-case scenario?

Well there's a certain common sense logic to a political system. Voters and citizens are not, on the whole, stupid. Unfortunately, because we have bad voting systems and sometimes archaic political institutions and people have become disgruntled, there's a kind of blame voters attitude. The argument becomes "Oh My God, what would happen if everyone had a free and equal vote. Imagine the chaos it would raise." And that's an argument that has been used against allowing people without property to vote; it was an argument used against giving women the vote; it was an argument against lowering the voting ages to let younger people vote. And sometimes people use that argument against PR. But as history has shown, give people a good voting system, and a good society where there is education and dialogue and so on, and you will usually end up with a society where there are good decisions. I don't fear a system where everybody has an equal vote. I fear continuing with a system that is so obviously anti-democratic and contrary to the values Canadians believe in.

Do you think it's mainly that kind of conflict between maintaining the status quo and trying something new, i.e. the fear of change, that's prevented proportional representation from taking hold in Canada thus far?

There are two dilemmas that you face with this sort of change. One is that often the people who have gotten into power through the current voting system don't see a problem with it. The second dilemma is that citizens are not aware of just how fundamentally important the voting system is, or that there are choices. In Europe it's easy to look across the border and see that there are other countries doing things different ways, but in Canada you look across the border and you see the U.S. Although they have a different political system, they're using the same voting system as us. So many Canadians are simply unaware that there are other ways to organize the system.

But doesn't that raise the question of whether it's realistic to expect change? If the Liberals for example, are in power, and benefit from the current system because they're in power, what are the chances of building a new system?

I would say that the situation has never been better in Canada's history for reform to happen in the very near future. As a matter of fact it is definitely going to happen, that's already clear. It's just amazing what's going on right now. In Quebec [Jacques Dupuis, the Minister responsible for Reform of Democratic Institutions] (and this is reaffirming what Charest said in his initial speech to the national assembly) has said that the next election in Quebec is going to be with a more proportional voting system.

And that's a move supported by all three of the parties there as well.

Exactly. And in British Columbia there's the formation of the citizen's assembly which will look at bringing forward a recommendation to a referendum to be held at the next provincial election, on bringing a new voting system into B.C. Here in Ontario we're about to have a provincial election, and both of the opposition parties, the Liberals and the NDP support a voting system reform process. Dalton McGuinty's Liberals are now leading in the polls in Ontario and he is committed to having a binding referendum on voting system reform in our province. It's also being examined in P.E.I. and New Brunswick. It really is only a matter of time now. As soon as one province changes it's going to be like dominoes.

What about at the federal level?

It will be interesting to see how the federal level develops because quite often in Canada the provinces are laboratories for political change. A reform is brought forward first at the provincial level then it's adopted at the federal level. That's certainly one scenario. There might be more of a parallel movement for reform happening at the federal level. The Law Commission of Canada, which is an independent federal agency, just wrapped up a one and a half year public consultation and research project on whether Canada needs a new voting system and they're going to be tabling a report with parliament sometime next year with their recommendations. It's unsure how far they'll go but they've certainly got a tremendous amount of input both from experts and the public about the need for a new voting system. Also, the NDP is bringing forward a votable motion this fall, which I'm pretty sure will get voted on, calling for a referendum on proportional representation. That'll be the first time since 1923 that the parliament has voted on the issue of proportional representation. Jack Layton has also announced that if there is a minority government in the future that calls on the NDP for support, one of the conditions of support would be a national referendum on proportional representation.

And you have a petition which is online now calling for public process on this issue.

Yes, we have a petition that's basically stating that we [need to] have a national deliberation where Canadians can learn about the problems with the current system and the alternatives and have that process culminate with a binding referendum on a more proportional voting system.

By the way, we just didn't pull the process we're talking about out of the air. It's exactly what happened in New Zealand in the early 1990s. There was essentially a public uproar about the voting system and the political system and finally all the political parties got backed into a corner, which essentially allowed the process to happen. First it was a Royal Commission that looked into alternatives. Then they appointed a national body which provided objective information to voters. Then they had two referenda which allowed New Zealanders to choose a new voting system, and they did choose a mixed proportional representation system.

So Canada could pursue a mixed system like New Zealand.

Yes, and frankly most of the experts and people active in this issue think that some sort of mixed system would probably be the best fit with Canadian political culture. You can design the system based on any number of variations. You can get into all sorts of particulars depending on how much power you want to put into voters hands, how much power you want to put into the hands of parties and so on.

So according to you then, most of the arguments against proportional representation can be answered by creating a specific system which prevents some of the potential problems?

Yeah. One thing that just makes me want to scream is when I read an article in the newspaper which is bashing proportional representation using an illustration of a particular way of setting up a system that would be repugnant to Canadians. And not presenting either out of ignorance or political manipulation the fact that it's a choice. It's one way of doing it and it's a choice that you wouldn't make.

Isn't one of the best examples of that the argument that under a fair voting system MPs would end up more beholden to party leaders than to voters because party leaders would have the power to put them on the party list?

Exactly. I think that this is often presented very cynically by critics of proportional representation, because I think they know better, but they say "Oh that's a system that hands all the power to the party bosses." My first cynical reaction to that is "and how does the system work right now?" but that's just an emotional reaction. In proportional systems parties do generally bring out a list of candidates but those lists can be generated in any number of ways. [For example] you can set it up so that parties have primaries, where party members vote on the order of those lists. There are any number of ways to design the system. When somebody brings up that argument it's just an absurd and ill-informed attack on proportional representation.

What sort of support has your organization received so far?

Our national advisory board is just an illustration of the breadth and depth of support for [fair voting]. This is not about left versus right or east versus west or urban versus rural Canadians. This about the fundamentals of democracy. This is about one citizen, one vote, one value. And it's about a level playing field in the political arena. We're all a part of this.

For more information on Fair Vote Canada, or to sign the petition, visit: fairvotecanada.org

Or contact Fair Vote Canada by email at info@fairvotecanada.org, by phone at 416-410-4034, by fax at 416-686-4929, or by mail at Fair Vote Canada, 26 Maryland Blvd., Toronto, ON M4C 5C9.

An interview with Larry Gordon, Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada

Fair Vote Canada (FVC) was formed in August of 2000 as a multi-partisan citizen's campaign to reform Canada's voting system. FVC promotes the adoption of a system that is proportional, uses positive, effective votes, and results in a stable and accountable government. The organization does not recommend a specific type of proportional representation, but calls for a public process which will allow Canadians to learn about voting system alternatives and choose a new one.
- by Susan Thompson -