Hugh Segal : Repairing the Infrastructure of Democracy before it Collapses (Transcript)

Hon. Hugh D. Segal, C.M.
Senator, Kingston-Frontenac-Leeds

Wednesday September 12, 2007
Economic Club of Toronto

I am pleased to take part in your speaker series. My topic is democracy whose core infrastructure is legitimacy. My worry is that we take its infrastructure for granted. My hope is that my presentation will underline why that is a bad thing.

This room understands better than most the relationship between corporate profits, efficiency and proper governance. You understand that legitimacy and accountability are not trivial to success and progress in business. Annual general meetings bring shareholders, directors and management together – as they are the owners and operators of any public company – and offer them the opportunity to express their views by casting their votes, votes plural, for the auditor, the board of directors and for any special resolutions requiring their approval. The right of management to manage, to spend, to invest, to innovate and plan is based on this core process of electing directors, one by one, and choosing the framework of corporate oversight and shareholder protection.

My question to you is this - why are taxpayers and voters not accorded the same rights when choosing their government’s board of directors (our parliaments), their leaders (our governments) and their representatives in what is usually the largest corporation, effecting all aspects of our lives and livelihoods? As taxpayers, we are the majority shareholders and stakeholders of the “government” corporation and also the investors - providing the necessary dollars for operational and capital expenditures. And the notion that we are prepared to “invest” our hard-earned dollars – albeit not always voluntarily – and then be hamstrung in voicing displeasure by not having the option of meaningfully changing the board of directors goes against all good common sense. But this is what our ‘first past the post’, old and hoary electoral ‘winner take all’ system actually ensures when a majority of votes are wasted in almost every riding.

On October 10th, we get our chance as Ontarians to say with a simple ballot that we want a system where every vote and every voter counts. Ontario today is a good deal different than the Ontario of 200 years ago – more diverse and populace. Yet we continue to elect our representatives in much the same way as we did two centuries ago. And until now, politicians elected under the old system, have largely and not surprisingly refused to update how we choose our parliament. On October 10th we have a chance to say as taxpayers what our preference is. The Minister Dr. Maria Bountrogianni who led this process is here today, I regret she is leaving politics. I salute her clarity and individual leadership.

The next Ontario election will allow Ontarians to do as they have always done, choose their local MPP. The party who ends up with the largest numbers of MPPs is most likely to form a government. I, without being partisan here today, will be voting for Mr. Tory and the Conservatives – because Ontario cannot muddle through with mediocre leadership that costs us jobs, excess taxes, quality healthcare and reduced investment. Others here will vote Liberal or Green or NDP for their own valid reasons. That is your right – and I defend it absolutely. But out partisan choices is not why I am here.

This election, the referendum ballot we will get on election day also offers voters the opportunity to significantly modify the way future governments will be selected – the opportunity to deliver real fairness to a system that currently and effectively discards a great percentage of votes cast under the present system. As it stands today, unless a voter happens to cast his or her ballot for the candidate of the winning party in their riding, their vote is in point of fact lost. It counts for zero. In the current system, results are rarely proportional - a party’s share of seats in the legislature rarely corresponds to its share of the popular vote. This distortion causes some parties to receive more than their share of seats, while other ones receive less than their share, if at all. This detracts from the fairness and legitimacy of Ontario’s electoral system. Seldom has a majority government in Ontario been elected with a majority of voter support – this has not happened since 1937. The most glaring example of inequity occurred in September of 1990 when the New Democratic Party rose to power in Ontario, much to the surprise of everyone - including the New Democratic Party, with 37.6% of all ballots cast. They went from 19 to 74 seats – a 279% gain. And this was in an election with a 64% voter turnout. So in effect, 37% of 64% - which equals 24% of the slightly more than the 4 million people who voted, about 1 million electors - imposed an NDP majority government in Ontario – something for which some might say we are still paying!

How many times have you, as a voter in a particular riding, scanned the roster of candidates and wanted to cast your ballot for the individual you knew for certain would make the most effective provincial representative - but unfortunately, also knew for certain that he or she represented a party that had no hope of coming to power? We are consistently asked, as voters, to cast just one ballot with which to express our preference as to who should represent our riding and as to who should form the government. Oftentimes these are not one in the same. Many voters have been faced with the dilemma of wanting to support a local candidate but not his or her party, or wanting to support a party but not its local candidate. Many a superb local candidate has been sunk because of a province-wide trend against their party or their leader. Ontario’s parliament does not currently reflect the way people actually vote. The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform (a non-partisan, province - wide group asked to reflect on our electoral system), put forward their proposal as to how this inequity might be managed and I am an ardent supporter of their final recommendation. It is that recommendation that we get to vote on, on October 10.

The Citizens’ Assembly was independent of government and made up of 103 randomly-selected citizens – one from each of Ontario's electoral districts. With the Chair, 52 of the members were male and 52 were female and at least one member was Aboriginal. Members of the Assembly were selected at random by Elections Ontario from the Permanent Register of Electors for Ontario and every registered voter was eligible to participate, with the exception of elected officials. Their process was open and honest. All views were canvassed. Their recommendation was well reasoned and, largely keeps in place the geographic district representative process we have always had. The Assembly members examined Ontario’s electoral system – the system that structures how votes are combined to elect the Members of Provincial Parliament. In a nutshell, the final recommendation of the Assembly is to institute a Mixed Member Proportional system for Ontario – voters would get two votes at election time – one for their preferred local MPP and one for their preferred governing party. The result would actually reflect how people voted.

The “first past the post” system discounts all votes locally that were not cast for the “local” winner – in most ridings that is a majority of the votes cast. These “losing votes” now have no impact on how our legislature is divided up. In my view, this creates two classes of voters - those who voted for local winners and those who voted otherwise. The winner-take-all status quo has, up until now, allowed for majorities to be formed in parliaments when voters had absolutely nothing of the sort in mind. A federal example was in 1993 when Jean Chretien’s Liberals received 38 percent of the votes but 60 percent of the seats in Parliament. One might deduce that this may be efficient, neat and even conclusive – but it is certainly not very democratic. The proposed reformed system would ensure that the share of votes any one party receives on Election Day would actually correspond to its final number of seats in the legislature. MMP gives you two votes on Election Day, one local and one province wide and creates one class of voters whose votes all count equally.

Wild swings in government and regulatory policy every four years is simply bad for everyone as individuals and businesses as a collective. Remember the aforementioned Rae majority government of 1990 (elected by a minority of voters) who altered the Labor Standards Act - at great cost to business? Remember the subsequent Harris government, also a majority elected by a minority, who changed it back? If political parties had been forced to work together because there was no artificial majority creating an undeserving "king of the road" (despite voters having voted otherwise), the swings would either not have happened, or been more moderate. Apply this to taxes, regulation, environment, business practices etc… Artificial and illegitimate majorities do not help business or political stability. Business may prefer the taxation or trade policies of one party, may even contribute financially to the party or the candidates. But on Election Day, it is the individual who marks his or her X on a single ballot. The option being presented, the ability to concretely state with both your Xs who should represent you and who should govern you provides a level of balance that is beneficial to the individual and to the collective. It would force bi-partisan cooperation; it would give voice to the campaign platforms of all parties and ensure the accountability of the representative MPP and the promises made by the separate parties. And to those entrenched defenders of the inequitable status quo – who argue that two ballots will be confusing to the average voters – let me say politely, how dare you attack the intelligence of Ontario’s voters – we all deserve more credit than that.

The MMP system would combine the old with the new - the familiar and important tradition of each riding having its own accountable MPP would be complemented by province-wide party lists for the second ballot that reflects our party preferences. And under the new proposed system, locally elected MPPs will have the mandate necessary to speak their minds. It would be a unique combination of 90 locally elected representatives and 39 “list members” and would provide Ontario with a more reflective representation – more women, visible minorities and a guarantee that all cities and regions have some representation in the legislature. Those proposed lists of 39 proportional members would be public record long before election day, and their quality and composition will tell us all more about the competence and representativeness of our political parties. This system in New Zealand, Germany, Wales and Scotland has proven the point through its historical records.

The new proposal for Ontario would include 39 “list members” who would be chosen to proportionally balance the final outcome of election results. The list of members would be open - made freely available by each party and could be scrutinized by the voting public. Electors would be well aware in advance of who might be taking a seat in the Legislature after all the results are tabulated. Any of the parties who do not seek out the best candidates and build their lists on balance, competence and quality, would be crushed like a bug. And I agree with the notion that if these lists are made up by the “back room gang” based on blind party loyalty, it would be a retrograde and unhelpful step. Any party that did not have an open process – transparent and even-handed – in the compilation of this list, so that the full face of Ontario, gender-balanced, rural, multi-faceted, from all walks of life and from all the rich hues and diversity of this province, would pay a serious price with electors. The proposed change and the scrutiny of the voting public would actually force political parties to be more open and accountable than they are today. And the ability to reach out to scientific, business, cultural, artistic and specialist leaders who might not win a nomination in what are often closed and manipulated Riding Associations would be broadly enhanced, as would gender balance – a vital and important concern.

The new proposed MMP system would provide voters with options – the make up of government and legislature at Queen’s Park would no longer be an accidental result of a ballot cast for the local Member of Provincial Parliament. Individual electors need not have to “hold their nose” and vote against their conscience in order to obtain their desired outcome – or as so often happens, the least objectionable outcome. A reasoned and thoughtful society need not be subjected to the “lesser of two evils” approach when making the most central decision of their democratic futures for the next 4 years. The MMP system would ensure that each voter has at least one effective vote. Even with no chance of winning in the single member constituency, the second vote for the preferred party would offer them a say through the “list member” – or vice versa. And finally, the separation of the ballot allows the voter to voice either approval or disapproval – something not possible under the “first-past-the-post” system. The individual can use his or her ballot to support a candidate without necessarily helping out the candidate’s party.

We have a rare chance here in Ontario to show leadership and take the simple position that every vote counts; that governments should not be chosen by accident; that the electoral system should not guarantee distortion and misrepresentation of how the voters actually voted! We have the chance to modernize, democratize, legitimize and upgrade the democratic process in Canada’s largest, most diverse province.

Winston Churchill wrote that, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Throughout history and civilizations all the others have been tried. Democracy is a good thing – governments formed by the people, through election are the cornerstone of a free and open society. The media coverage of the excitement of young Iraqis and Afghanis and especially the women, who were able to cast their votes for the first time, was a testament to the power of the ballot box. This sense of empowerment in areas of the world where powerlessness ruled for decades truly brought home the magnitude of the democracy that we, in the developed world, take for granted. But democracy is not stagnant – it must adjust with the people and the times. It is time to adjust two hundred years of status quo and more fully reflect the true nature of this province and allow the electorate to be accurately represented. To give equal time to a vocal anti-conservative, let me quote Sydney J. Harris, the American journalist for the Chicago Daily News and the Chicago Sun-Times whose work landed him on the master list of Richard Nixon’s political opponents, “Democracy is the only system that asks the ‘powers that be’ whether they are ‘the powers that ought to be’”. This is a chance for all of us, who are the taxpaying public, the voters, parents, church and community volunteers, investors, employees and employers, farmers, seniors, students and funders of our Parliament and Government to vote yes on MMP; to take the government back from the governors and make it clear that it is us who will decide, now and in the future, who will govern and who will be elected – and who will be our local representative – and that we have the competence to assert our democratic right to do so. It is time to step into the sunshine and vote for a stronger democracy, the equal right of each and every voter to decide who will govern our province and who will represent our local ridings and neighbourhoods in the process.

(Via, Vote for MMP)