It was through a phone call from one of François Legault’s political advisers, on a Friday afternoon at Christmas week, that the president of the New Democracy Movement (MDN), Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, learned that the Prime Minister abandoned his electoral commitment to propose a new proportional voting system. Not only between now and the next election, when a bill to this effect, presented by Minister Sonia LeBel, is at the detailed study stage, but also during a future term. This promise will therefore not be repeated in the next election platform of the Coalition d’avenir Québec.
Thus, François Legault will have finally made a Justin Trudeau of himself, the Canadian Prime Minister having also reneged on his electoral promise. Two cowards before the Lord. But it is perhaps worse in the case of the CAQ leader since the precise nature of the reform of the voting system, well described in Bill 39, was known and had been the subject of public consultations in parliamentary committee. Reformation is nipped in the bud, but the egg was about to hatch.
It was not even a question of modalities since these, with a few details, were consensus. The bill could have been adopted with the support of the two other parties which supported the reform, the Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire, even if certain provisions, such as the winner’s bonus, favored the CAQ. In other words: no legislative pitfall arose to prevent the Caquista government from obtaining the reform it wanted, on its terms.
The outlines of Bill 39, which was inspired by the work undertaken under the Charest government by Minister Benoît Pelletier in the mid-2000s, were familiar: a mixed voting system with regional compensation which kept the number of deputies at 125 with 80 elected representatives from constituencies and 45 elected from lists spread over 17 electoral regions. Similar systems are in force in the world without the electorate complaining, especially in Scotland, whose political situation within the United Kingdom is not without presenting similarities with the subjection of Quebec within Canada. .
Nor was it the main substantive objection that won the day. Commentators like Christian Dufour have been saying for years that Quebec needs a government with a strong majority given its status as a minority nation. This is a questionable argument that does not hold true in Scotland, or even in countries which have adopted a mixed member proportional system, such as New Zealand. There is nothing to indicate that their governments are less strong than ours.
At a time when we are talking about doing politics differently, when parliamentarians welcome their rare cross-party collaborations, such as the one which led to the unanimous adoption of Bill 92 creating a specialized tribunal in matters of sexual violence, a voting system with relatively modest proportionality would promote exchanges between the parties and enhance the work of elected officials. Thus, it would make it possible to form stronger consensus, which does nothing to weaken government action.
Obviously, the new voting method makes it possible to better represent the popular will expressed democratically. It is also worth remembering that in 2016, François Legault affirmed that, thanks to the list candidates, it would be easier to achieve gender parity within the deputation.
These are other reasons that prevailed, mainly the reluctance of elected Caquists whose personal interest, once properly seated in their seat as deputy, goes against a reform that would lead to the disappearance of dozens of constituencies, and possibly theirs. If a referendum were held on the issue, many would undoubtedly want to campaign for the no camp.
It can be easy for an opposition leader to promise reform that would make the democratic system work better. Justin Trudeau may have engaged in it lightly, but one would have thought that François Legault had thought a little bit about his case. This eloquently demonstrates that great principles can take the edge once power is conquered when the desiderata of elected officials outweigh the general interest. It is not for deputies to decide the fate of this reform, when they are in conflict of interest. It is up to the electorate to vote on this issue with full knowledge of the facts after an informed debate. As Charles de Gaulle once said: “Politics is too serious a thing to be entrusted to politicians. “