Will anyone stand-up for equality of parliamentary representation?

With our parliamentarians having returned to Ottawa this week, it seems appropriate to turn our attention to just how our parliament is composed. Representation in the House of Commons is sure to be a contentious issue once again, and I’m having a hard time finding a sensible position from any of the parties.

I won’t rehash all the background – long story short, representation in the lower house is supposed to be by population, but population shifts across the country over the years mean the current house isn’t truly representative of today’s Canada. Suburban/urban areas in British Columbia, Alberta are extremely under-represented.

The Conservatives have had a proposal on the table for several years to add 30 seats (five in Alberta, seven in B.C. and 18 in Ontario) that would make some progress toward more representative representation. It has gone through some modifications following complaints from various quarters, and they haven’t been in much of a hurry to move forward with it. Indeed, they seemed to agree with the other parties in the last parliament to quietly shelve it until after the election – none of them wanted the issue floating around during a campaign.

Why? That’s the heart of the issue: it’s all about Quebec. Any other province would accept their population doesn’t warrant more seats but, for Quebec, it’s a “national unity” issue. With other regions growing, they see their influence in the House of Common declining. And they’re demanding artificial measures (extra seats not warranted by population) in recognition of their “special” status. The most common ask: a guaranteed floor of 25 per cent of HoC seats, regardless of population.

It’s called the Senate

I strongly disagree with this. Representation in the House of Commons should be by population, period. Giving one region unequal weighting would mean taking representation from another region; that’s unfair and that’s not the purpose of the lower chamber.

Do I agree that Quebec has a unique perspective? Yes. And I believe the Maritimes, Ontario, Western Canada and British Columbia do too. And the territories. And I believe having a regional bulkwark to a pure rep by pop system that gives Ontario a very large voice is important and desirable.

And we already have a body designed to provide (in theory) that regional check: It’s called the Senate. The lower house is intended as the representative house; the upper the regional check.

Now the Senate is in need of reform and redistribution as well. But if you want to build a truly effective and representative parliamentary democracy, gerrymandering commons representation isn’t the answer. Reform the Senate so it is fairly distributed along regional lines, with elected Senators who have a clear mandate and set of powers and responsibilities.

About those Commons seats

Now, I won’t hold my breath for any of the political parties to start advocating comprehensive and meaningful Senate reform. And sorry, what the Conservatives have been doing here has been hurting, not helping.

I’d be more hopeful of someone taking a logical position on Commons representation though. Sadly, no such luck so far.

There’s some hope in the Conservative position. It could go further, but it’s a step in the right direction. While they’ve disavowed special considerations for Quebec, as mentioned they’ve shown no hurry to move forward with actual legislation either.

My Liberals have been hard to pin down. Before the election they helped to delay the proposal, and splits were evident between their Quebec caucus and the rest of the members. After the election? Interim leader Bob Rae gave an interview that left me puzzled.

(Rae) predicted that the prime minister will come up with a compromise on the seat legislation bill to deal with Quebec's concerns.

"I don't think you can take Quebec for granted, and I think the prime minister's going to have to look again at the question of the number of Quebec seats. It doesn't mean B.C., Alberta and Ontario won't get more seats - of course we will."

OK, so he wants special dispensation for Quebec?

Rae wouldn't say whether or not he supports the position of many Quebec nationalists that the province should be guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats.

So compromise if necessary, but not necessarily that compromise? OK, but what then? After all, this is about national unity, somehow.

With their new large Quebec caucus, the NDP has been a little more clear on its position: special seats for Quebec.

(Brian Topp) giving extra seats to Quebec would be a way to recognize its status as a nation within Canada.

"I think we need to find an appropriate Canadian compromise," he said at a news conference announcing his candidacy.

And the guy that may not run:

The NDP has argued that Quebec should be guaranteed to maintain its current share of the seats. That would require the 338-seat Commons to be swollen further by boosting Quebec's allotment to 82 or 83 seats, from the current 75.

Earlier Monday, Mulcair told reporters that such a move is consistent with the 2006 "nation" motion and the 1991 Supreme Court of Canada decision.

"It would be an irony to say that Quebec constitutes — the Quebecois constitute — a nation within Canada and then the first thing you do is you reduce the . . . weight of Quebecers within the House of Commons."

Nation reflux disease

There is a certain irony that many of the arguments being made come back to the Quebec nation resolution of 2006, hailed at the time as a master-stroke of strategic genius by Prime Minister Harper. My worry then was that you can say it’s just symbolism, but empty symbolism isn’t going to satisfy anyone; eventually they’ll want something real. Now those chickens are coming home to roost: the Quebec nationalists want some meat on that nation bone we gave them. The question is what happens if they don’t get it?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Fundamental myths about the Liberal Party and the interim leader

Let me start by making one thing perfectly clear: there is no rule that prevents interim Liberal leader Bob Rae from deciding to seek the permanent leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Once again, THERE IS NO RULE!

I resort to repetition and brief caps-lock because I’m hearing this false premise repeated again and again, by people that should really know better. And it’s pissing me off.

For example, when announcing her candidacy for the Liberal presidency yesterday, Sheila Copps made this statement:

Sheila Copps says she's running for president of the Liberal Party and she wouldn't stop Bob Rae from running as leader, despite rules that say the interim leader can't join the race.

That’s nice, but it’s not up to Ms. Copps, or whomever the next Liberal president is. Lawrence Martin takes the meme further in iPolitics today:

As party president, Copps couldn’t single-handedly change the rules, but she could certainly help the cause.

Copps knows every trick in the book. So does Bob Rae. They are a powerful duo.

They may well be the Batman and Robin of Liberal politics, but that doesn’t change the face that no trickery is needed: THERE IS NO RULE TO CHANGE.

Let’s back up a minute. When Michael Ignatieff announced his resignation (he was an interim leader, by the way, who ‘ran’ for the permanent leadership) it was up to the Liberal national board to pick an interim leader, with advice from caucus. The board chose to set several criteria on which they would base their decision, such a support from caucus, bilingualism, and a commitment to not seek the permanent leadership.

If those interested in the position didn’t meet those criteria, the board wouldn’t consider them. But once the board made their choice, the criteria become moot. It's not enforceable in any way. It's not codified into any constitution or rules of procedure. It was a rule to pick the interim leader, and that's done.

What it amounted to was a promise. Bob Rae, in deciding to seek and accept the interim leadership, promised to the caucus, the national board and to Liberal members that he would stay focused on party re-building, and would not seek the permanent leadership.

It’s not a rule in law that needs to be changed with tricks by an incoming party president. It’s a promise by Mr. Rae. And there is nothing at all preventing him from changing his mind. Ms. Copps is right on one thing, though:

"If Bob made a commitment [not to run], he can answer to the voters in the leadership race on that commitment.”

Exactly. No rule prevents Mr. Rae from running; just his word. The word I and thousands of other Liberals chose to accept at face-value. If he chooses to break his word to us and run anyway, it will be up to him to explain to us why. And in the end, the members will have the final say in what consequence, if any, breaking his word would have. Not the party executive.

A kabuki play

My concern is that this sowing of confusion around the rules for seeking the interim leadership is deliberate; a scripted political kabuki play.

There are no actual rules to change. But was a new executive to pass a motion deciding “we’ve changed the rules, the interim leader can run” as some seem to be advocating, it would serve one transparent purpose: provide political cover should Mr. Rae decide to break his word and run for the permanent spot. “Well, I wasn’t going to, but I promised to ‘follow the rules’ set by the executive and, hey, they’ve changed them, so it’s cool now.”

I’ve had a nagging fear of this scenario from day one. But it would be a farce. Still, I fear the national executive elections in January risk becoming a proxy battle to set-up such a scenario.

Why shouldn't he run?

One comment I hear often is “if, in two years, he’s super-popular and we’re doing well in the polls why wouldn’t we let him run?” Well, again, he can run if he wants to and if we’re willing to overlook the promise-breaking, that’s our choice. But there are fundamental reasons why I have insisted from day one that the interim leader, whomever that would be, should be someone who would not seek the permanent leadership.

From a post I wrote in May:

The interim leader has a good deal of power that would give them an advantage in the race. Consider, for example, that many of the leadership candidates are likely to be caucus members and caucus support is always a key indicator to watch. The interim leader controls a lot of things such as who gets what critic portfolio, who get to hold positions such as whip, and even who gets to ask questions in question period. If you want to miss a vote or have a day off from house duty, you need the whip's permission.

If the interim leader is competing with fellow caucus members for permanent leadership, that opens up a hornet’s nest of possible conflicts. Are they going to give their rivals prominent roles and questions, or relegate them to the back of the back bench? And how about caucus members that have chosen to support a rival? Even for an interim leader with the best of intentions, every move is going to be second-guessed and examined for motivations and agendas.

Also, the interim leader’s time is and should be focused on representing and running the party inside the House of Commons and building the organization and structure outside it. Even if we delay the leadership vote to next spring, which I favour, the race will begin now and candidates will begin campaigning across the country. It will necessarily mean time away from the House. We need an interim leader not distracted by a leadership campaign, focused on representing and building the party.

Finally, with all the advantages an interim leader has (the increased media and public profile and attention) there’s another major reason I reject their seeking the permanent leadership: they’re not given that advantage by the membership writ large. As I noted, the interim leader is anointed by the executive with advice from caucus; not by the membership. Allowing them to use the interim job as a springboard would amount to the party elites giving their preferred leadership candidate a huge advantage, and that would be a slap in the face to the membership at large who feel picking from a level playing field should be their prerogative, and don't want the deck stacked for an anointed choice.

End the games

All these objections still hold true. I would add that having a full and open leadership race is a key part of the renewal process that we need to be undertaking. Allowing someone anointed by the party elites to use the interim leadership (the time period of which they successfully lobbied to lengthen, by the way) as a party-funded head-start to the campaign would be unfair to the other candidates, and would make it difficult, if not impossible, to have the fair and open race we must have.

Finally, I should note that Mr. Rae has insisted from day one that he doesn't want to run for the permanent leadership, and has no intention of doing so. I believe he even mentioned his spouse would never let him. All this talk of rule-changing scenarios has come from others.

Look, here’s the bottom line: if he wants to run, he can run. I will view it as a broken promise and a character issue; others can make their own decision. But don’t mislead us with poppycock about rule-changing, and don’t take us for fools.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers