WINNIPEG—The Liberals will abandon their plans to overhaul Canada’s electoral system if they don’t have widespread public support, Minister Maryam Monsef says.

But Monsef said it’s up for debate how exactly the Liberals will gauge public support on whatever new system they propose.

“Frankly, that’s the debate. And we will not proceed with any changes without the broad buy-in of the people of this country,” Monsef told the Star at her party’s policy convention in Winnipeg Saturday.

“It means that there needs to be a conversation in the House of Commons including all parties. It’s an opportunity for us to engage in debate about how to move forward in the 21st century.”

“So Canadians can rest assured that unless we have their broad buy-in, we’re not moving forward with any changes,” Monsef later added.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pledged that 2015 would be Canada’s last election under first-past-the-post, a system that has governed Canadian elections since the country was formed.

Critics of the so-called winner-take-all system say it skews the will of voters, allowing majority governments to be formed without a majority of the popular vote. It could also lead to strategic voting, where voters sacrifice their personal preference to try and defeat a government.

The Liberals have faced criticism for failing to move quicker on the file, since Elections Canada needs years to prepare for a new voting system in 2019. Seven months after the Liberals formed government, a committee still has not been struck.

Monsef faced further criticism for proposing a committee where the Liberals would have the final say on any proposed system. When asked if she needs the support of at least one other party for the new system to have legitimacy, Monsef said the Liberals will continue to listen to Canadians.

“Did you hear what the prime minister said today at convention? That we were elected to listen to Canadians?” Monsef said. “And we’ll continue to do that. As far as any changes around democratic reform, we’re not going to proceed with any changes unless we have broad support.”

Speaking to reporters earlier on Saturday, Trudeau was asked if the Liberals will need the support of at least one other party for their new electoral system to be legitimate in the eyes of Canadians.

“We’ve been working very, very hard to demonstrate that our approach is to listen to Canadians, to consult with Canadians, as we talk about the values that underpin our electoral process and ultimately our system of government,” Trudeau told reporters. “So how we make sure that we’re including questions and concerns people may have about various options is integral to be being successful in improving our electoral system.”

Monsef told the Star that there are people within the Liberal party, both elected and not, who would prefer to see the first-past-the-post system maintained.

After all, the Liberals won a large majority government in 2015 with just under 40 per cent of the popular vote, as the Conservatives did in 2011.

“We’re a diverse party. You saw in (the convention) — we have people from all walks of life, representing the diversity of this country,” said Monsef. “So it’s natural to have, within this group, a wide range of opinion. And I think that’s what makes our party strong.”

The New Democrats’ democratic reform critic, Nathan Cullen, said the lingering confusion about how the Liberals are handling the file are contributing to fears a new system would disproportionately benefit government.

“Until we have a concrete understanding of how this is going to work, and how (Monsef) can calm the fears that the Liberals will simply force through a system that favours Liberals, until we have something real, then that suspicion will remain,” Cullen said.

“The words are nice, but the numbers (on the committee) don’t lie.”

Conservative critic Scott Reid could not immediately be reached. The Conservatives appear to support the status quo, but have demanded that any fundamental change to Canada’s voting system requires a national referendum. The Liberals have resisted that call, saying referendums aren’t the only way to test the will of Canadians, but have not explicitly ruled out a national vote.

The New Democrats have long called for a form of proportional representation, which they argue would better reflect the will of voters. But Cullen has recently said that any improvement on the current system would be welcome.

Cullen also proposed a committee structure that would require at least one other party to support the Liberals’ proposal, an approach ultimately rejected by the Liberals, who say the committee has to reflect the current membership elected under first-past-the-post, despite wanting to ultimately change the system.

Q&A with Democratic Reform Minister Maryam Monsef

Q: Are there many people in your party, whether elected or appointed, who would prefer the status quo? First past the post has been very good to your party in the past.

A: I’m going to tell you, I’ve been listening to all sorts of Canadians, people here at the convention, my colleagues in the House of Commons, people in (my riding of) Peterborough-Kawartha, the farmer’s market. There are a wide range of opinions on democratic reform, and my job as minister is to listen. And so that’s the stage that we’re at.

Q: And does that include a wide range of opinion within your own party?

A: Yes. We’re a diverse party. You saw in (the convention), we have people from all walks of life, representing the diversity of this country. So it’s natural to have, within this group, a wide range of opinions. And I think that’s what makes our party a strong party.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Q: When will the motion to strike the committee actually be called, so you can actually start getting to work on this? We’ve only got a few more weeks in the House (before the summer break).

A: That’s true. And as you know, the legislative agenda that we have before us is a heavy one, and I hope that at the earliest possible moment we can begin the work of engaging with Canadians about the substantive matters at the heart of this particular piece of our policy platform.

Q: Given that, I know you’ve had a number of different balls in the air in the short time since you’ve become minister, but the opposition points out the government has dragged its feet on this. What could have been a year-and-a-half, two-year consultation is now looking like legislation will have to come within a year. So explain why the committee still hasn’t been created.

A: Well, we began within my own ministry with a set of priorities. And the first priority for us was setting a process for Senate appointments. We committed to doing things thoughtfully. And it’s important to get the timing right. But it’s more important to get the policy right. And that took up a significant amount of resources. And we introduced the motion to form the committee in time to allow a debate in parliament and with Canadians. I believe that we have the time if we use it wisely to continue to include more people in the conversation.

Q: One of the criticisms you faced is that the Liberals have a majority on the committee and will ultimately decide the outcome. At the end of this, you will decide what goes forward, if anyone agrees with you or not. Do you regret in any way leaving that perception? Do you regret not taking the NDP’s suggestion to require at least one other party to support your proposal?

A: My job as minister, I believe, is to listen and to reflect on this wide range of opinions that exists on this particular topic. I want to assure all Canadians that we will not proceed with any changes without the broad support of Canadians.

Q: Okay but how are you going to gauge that support? You haven’t ruled out a referendum, but I get the sense that you don’t think that’s the best way to go. How will you know a majority of Canadians support your position?

A: Frankly, that’s the debate. And we will not proceed with any changes without the broad buy-in of the people of this country.

Q: Through polling? I’m just trying to get a sense of what that means.

A: It means that there needs to be a conversation in the House of Commons including all parties. It’s an opportunity for us to engage in debate about how to move forward in the 21st century. And that in itself is the conversation we need to be having.

Q: In the House of Commons when you’re asked about a referendum, you often say that you’re committed to consulting with Canadians in new ways, not just one-person, one-vote sort of system. Why are those two mutually exclusive? Why can’t you have this robust consultation and then put it to a referendum to ultimately gauge what a majority of Canadians want?

A: I haven’t been persuaded that referendum alone is the best tool that we can use in the 21st century. This is the conversation that we ought to be having in the House of Commons. What else exists for us to help gauge that support that Canadians have or don’t have for the changes we’ll be proposing as a House.

Q: If, at the end of the day, you don’t get opposition buy-in. You have a majority. It’s a promise that the prime minister made that he feels very strongly about. Why should Canadians trust your proposal if the opposition parties are not behind (it)? We saw that with the Fair Elections Act and it was a bit of a disaster.

A: Did you hear what the prime minister said today at convention, that we were elected to listen to Canadians? And we’ll continue to do that. As far as any changes around democratic reform, we’re not going to proceed with any changes unless we have that broad support. So Canadians can rest assured that unless we have their broad buy-in, we’re not moving forward with any changes.

Q: So is that 50 per cent plus one? Or is it a stronger majority, and if so, what’s the number?

A: Let’s have that debate.

Read more about: