A12 O THEGLOBEANDMAIL| FRIDAY,MARCH6,
EDITORIAL
PHILLIPCRAWLEY
PUBLISHERANDCEO
DAVIDWALMSLEY
EDITOR-IN-CHIEFB
ringing about the end of Canada’s first-past-the-post
voting system has long been a source of frustration for
electoral reformers. British Columbia, Ontario andPrince Edward Island have all held referendums on switching
to some form of proportional representation (PR), yet voters
stuck with the status quo every time.
Canadians have yet to show an appetite for changing anelectoral system that, despite its flaws, can at least claim a
long history of stablegovernance.
But now Quebec is taking its shot. Premier François Le-gault and the Coalition Avenir Québecgovernment tabled
legislation last year to bring in a PR system.The government
intends to hold a referendum on the plan at the same time as
the next provincial general election, in October, 2022.
There is one rule to remember when it comes to proposalsto reform Canada’s electoral system: Pay attention to the
benefits accruing to the party doing the proposing.
A notable example was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’spromise to make the 2015 general election the last federal
vote to be held under first-past-the-post.
His proffered alternative was a ballot system in which vot-ers ranked their preferences in order. The choice was a self-
serving gambit: New Democratic Party voters and Conserva-
tive voters could both be counted on to make the centrist
Liberals their second choice.
When opposition to the idea mounted, Mr. Trudeau de-clared that there was no appetite for reform (nor even for a
different form of PR?) and broke his election promise.
The Liberals had also no doubt noticed that the 2015 elec-tion had delivered them a strong majority with just 39.5 per
cent of the popular vote. That’s a typical outcome for multi-
party elections under first-past-the-post, in which the candi-
date who receives the most votes in each riding claims the
seat in the House of Commons.
First-past-the-post emphasizes winning votes in specificplaces over winning a thin layer of votes everywhere, which is
good for some parties and bad for others. The Liberals are in
no hurry to eliminate it, as PR would make it much harder for
them to win a majority, given that their party shares many of
its voters with at least two other parties on the left at any
given moment.
That math is also why New Democrats have a great interestin moving to proportional representation. The NDP won 16
per cent of the federal vote in 2019, but got only 7 per cent of
the seats in the House of Commons – also a fairly typical out-
come under first-past-the-post.
So what, then, is the CAQ’s calculation? Why is Mr. Legaultprepared to end a system that, in 2018, gave his party 59 per
cent of the seats in the National Assembly in exchange for
37.5 per cent of the popular vote?
Is he so altruistic as to abandon his newly won majority, asa simulation ofhis government’s proposed system indicated
would have been the case had the system been in place in the
2018 election?
The CAQ’s plan would see the National Assembly split into80 “division seats” and 45 “regional seats.” People would vote
for one riding-level candidate, and also for a party’s list of
candidates for the regional seats. After the election, the re-
gional seats would be assigned based on the popular vote.
There appear to be two consequences of this proposal.One is that the island of Montreal, which contains most of the
province’s anglophones and visible minorities, and is a bas-
tion of federalist voters, would lose at least three seats in the
National Assembly. That’s not the fault of PR; it’s simply a
wrinkle in this plan. Those seats would go to regions where
support for the CAQ’s ethnic nationalism is more reliable.
The other consequence of the plan is that it could deci-mate the Liberal Party of Quebec. As the sole federalist party
lined up against at least three other parties leaning in the
opposite direction, it would beunlikely to form government
again.
So there you have it. Mr. Legault’s reform would lessen therepresentation from the province’s most diverse region,
where many voters are federalist and anglophone, and en-
sure that the one party that most speaks for those voters is
relegated to permanent rump status.
Proportional representation might offer benefits for Que-bec voters, but in crafting this plan, Mr. Legault and his party
have kept one eye firmly fixed on their own interests.
Thepolitics
ofvoting
inQuebec
ANDTHENTHEREWERE...Re The Nightmare Scenario Fac-
ing Divided Democrats (March 5):
Bernie Sanders may be stuck in
the 1960s, but it was a very pro-
gressive decade. Advances in civil
rights and a massive demonstra-
tion of the U.S. distaste for war are
two milestones that still resonate
today.
As for how Mr. Sanders, as co-
lumnist Konrad Yakabuski writes,
“hates everything,” that seems
very much not the case. He stands
for a single-payer health-care sys-
tem. He stands for free tuition for
students entering college, and the
cancellation of student debt. And
he stands for a government that
would work on behalf of working
people.
RobertMilanVictoriaThe current state of the Demo-
cratic race should not surprise
anyone. Super Tuesday certainly
showed who many Democratic
voters feel has the best chance of
unseating Donald Trump. Just as
importantly, it indicates who they
would be most comfortable lis-
tening to for the next four years.
Moderation and dialogue versus
stridency and intransigence – it’s
an easy choice for most to make.
ChrisMarriottChelsea,Que.Re U.S. Democracy May Be Run-
ning Out Of Time (March 5): Con-
tributor Sarah Kendzior’s view on
the inability of senior politicians
to govern, because they may die
soon and thus are a threat to
democratic progress, has to be
one of the most offensive ageist
opinions I have come across in a
long time.
If youth is the future, I suggest
the low turnout of younger voters
is more of a threat to democracy
than folks of my generation ever
can be.
BarrySingerTorontoRe Primaries Show That Gender
Equality Is A Pipe Dream (March
5): I believe there’s no arguing
with Lawrence Martin’s premise
that the U.S. primaries have
shown a bias against impressive
female candidates; that Sarah
Kendzior is right about a contest
between septuagenarians; that
Konrad Yakabuski is right about
an ideologically fractured Demo-
cratic Party. But all these prob-
lems could be constructively
solved.
Joe Biden could go a long way
toward winning the nomination,
and defeating Donald Trump, by
choosing a young, talented wom-
an as his running mate – and
soon. Someone such as Amy Klo-
buchar or Kamala Harris on the
ticket could bolster campaigning
power and send a clear message
to younger and more progressive
voters. It could help win upcom-
ing primaries and end the nomi-
nation race earlier. And it could
set the stage for the first female
president of the United States;
vice-presidents becoming presi-dent have become quite common
in the last 75 years.
SteveParishAjax,Ont.CANCONCONUNDRUMRe The USMCA Cultural Poison
Pill: Why The Broadcast Panel Re-
port Could Lead To Millions In
Tariff Retaliation (March 2): As
chair of the expert panel that pro-
duced the report in question, it is
appropriate for me to address
contributor Michael Geist’s con-
cern of “millions” in tariff retalia-
tion by the United States if our
recommendations are imple-
mented.
The basic trade principle upon
which Mr. Geist relies is expressed
in Article 15.3(1) of the USMCA,
commonly referred to as the “Na-
tional Treatment” provision.
However, the panel report specifi-
cally requires such national treat-
ment. Recommendation 60
states: “We recommend that all
media content undertakings that
benefit from the Canadian media
communications sector contrib-
ute to it in an equitable manner.
Undertakings that carry out like
activities should have like obliga-
tions, regardless of where they
are located.”
The basic principle espoused
in our report is simple: There
should be consistent obligations
to support Canadian cultural pol-
icy for all media content under-
takings involved in similar activ-
ities, whether foreign or Cana-
dian.
Because our recommenda-
tions would treat foreign and do-
mestic suppliers alike in similar
circumstances, nothing in the re-
port should give rise to a right of
retaliation under the USMCA.
JanetYaleChair,Broadcasting
andTelecommunicationsLegislative
ReviewPanel;OttawaRe Should Canada’s 1950s Ap-
proach To Culture Still Apply In
The 21st Century? (March 4):
When my 13-year-old daughter
comes home and tells me more
people in her history class seem
to know who George Washington
is than Sir John A. Macdonald, we
continue to have a cultural identi-
fication challenge.
Thankfully, we were able to
play for her CBC’sJohn A.: Birth of
a Country, which enriched her un-
derstanding of early Canada and
the struggle for nationhood. I
dare say she didn’t hate it – a tacit
teen endorsement if ever there
was one.
If we don’t do the work to build
Canadian identity, then who will?
We should empower and enrich
our public broadcaster so that we
may be enriched, in turn.
RoderickBennsLindsay,Ont.CONSERVATIVECONUNDRUMRe Carbon Pricing Conservatives
Can Support (March 4): I agree
with columnist Andrew Coynethat the Conservatives have
failed to put forward a credible
climate plan. However, I believe
the Liberal plan is only credible to
the credulous.
The majority of greenhouse-
gas emissions by resource pro-
jects result from consumer de-
mand. In my mind, no plan to re-
duce emissions can succeed with-
out addressing this issue. Yet the
Liberal plan, by rebating taxes to
consumers, shields them from
most of the direct impact. Such a
policy might work if the whole
world adopted it – I’m not hold-
ing my breath. The Liberal plan
may actually increase emissions
by transferring them to countries
with more lax environmental
standards.
Canada should have a carbon
tax that covers the life-cycle emis-
sions of the products and services
we consume. Not an easy task,
but I find nothing else is credible.
BarryBowerTorontoColumnist Andrew Coyne has it
right in saying that carbon pricing
is the simplest, cheapest and least
divisive way of signalling to pro-
ducers and consumers where and
how to cut emissions. But he also
suggests that Conservatives woo
voters, paradoxically, by burying
a carbon-pricing policy in a series
of others that he acknowledges
will be disliked by environmen-
talists, such as the abandonment
of current emission-reduction
targets.
Environmentally minded Can-
adians would surely see through
such a scheme. Wouldn’t it be bet-
ter to suggest Conservatives
adopt a carbon-pricing policy be-
cause it is the right thing to do?
JeffreyLevittTorontoYOURSTOREDISCOVERRe Ontario To Temporarily Dis-
tribute Old Licence Plates (Feb.
29): I would guess no one at 3M
Canada or the Ontario govern-
ment has ever read David Ogilvy,
or there would never have been a
licence-plate design of white di-
gits on a blue background.
Mr. Ogilvy – perhaps the godfa-
ther of contemporary print ad-
vertising – repeatedly found that
reverse type is much harder to
read than dark text on a white
background.
That is at least one reason why
police can’t read these embar-
rassing plates. And hopefully that
is the one reason Ontario will re-
vert to the blue digits on white
background with which we are all
so familiar.
MarkChristianBurgessCobourg,
Ont.LETTERSTOTHEEDITOR
Thesubjectwhoistrulyloyaltothechiefmagistratewillneitheradvisenorsubmittoarbitrarymeasures-Junius
LetterstotheEditorshouldbe
exclusivetoTheGlobeandMail.
Includename,addressanddaytime
phonenumber.Keeplettersunder
150words.Lettersmaybeeditedfor
lengthandclarity.E-mail:
[email protected]SINCLAIRSTEWART
DEPUTYEDITOR
CHRISTINEBROUSSEAU
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITOR,NEWS
ANGELAPACIENZA
EXECUTIVEEDITOR
SHAWNARICHER
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITOR,
FEATURESANDSPORTSGARYSALEWICZ
EDITOR,REPORTONBUSINESS
DENNISCHOQUETTE
MANAGINGEDITOR,ROBANDINVESTIGATIONSTONYKELLER
EDITORIALPAGEEDITOR
NATASHAHASSAN
OPINIONEDITORMATTFREHNER
HEADOFVISUALS
SYLVIASTEAD
PUBLICEDITOR