For an election that was sometimes described as being about “nothing”, it turned out to be an important one for climate change policy and the environment.

In the weeks leading up to the federal election, hundreds of thousands of people, stirred up by teenage activist Greta Thunberg, marched through the streets in Canada in support of action on climate change. The turnout reflected the fact that public opinion polling consistently showed that the environment, and more specifically climate change, was a top issue for Canadians.

All the party leaders, except Andrew Scheer and Maxime Bernier, joined the marchers to highlight their commitments to action on climate change. The Greens may have hoped the momentum might buoy them to a strong election outcome, perhaps even official party status.

Even though the election provided the Greens with what was in some ways their best outcome ever, in the end they fell short, leaving a complicated landscape ahead.

Widespread support but not seats

The Greens obtained nearly 1.2 million votes — the greatest number in the party’s history — and 6.5 per cent of the popular vote, falling slightly short of their 2008 record.

But support for the Greens, which is widely distributed across Canada, is notoriously inefficient at being translated into seats. That reality proved true again in this election.

The Greens held onto two seats in British Columbia and beat out a Liberal incumbent in New Brunswick — their best showing yet. But three seats is not enough for official party status in the House of Commons.

Strategic voting hurts Greens, saves Liberals

The Greens have held the balance of power in British Columbia’s NDP-minority government since 2017. But with the number of Liberal and NDP seats totalling 181 at the federal level, the Greens may have only limited influence on Trudeau’s minority government.

The Greens, however, can claim success in other ways.

Their polling numbers remained consistent — around 10 per cent — until the final weekend of the campaign. This forced the other progressive parties, particularly the Liberals and the NDP, to shore up the environment and climate change dimensions of their platforms, including more ambitious climate change targets, to avoid losing potential voters to the Greens.

In Ontario, voters made last-minute decisions to back Trudeau’s government and block a potential Conservative victory. Those choices came at the expense of the NDP, and to a lesser extent the Greens, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area.

The resulting electoral map looks surprisingly similar to the outcome of the 2014 provincial election. The Liberals and NDP split northern Ontario and the cities and towns in the south, while the Conservatives were left with their traditional southern and central rural Ontario base. The outcome reinforces the argument that Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s 2018 election victory was an aberration, and one that Ontario voters didn’t want to risk repeating at the federal level.

What’s next?

The Green’s presence in the election, and particularly leader Elizabeth May’s role in the leaders’ debates, was instrumental in keeping climate change and environmental issues at the forefront of the campaign.

Some, including May, argue that outcome is more important than seat counts. It may also be, under Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system, the best the Greens can hope for for the time being.

The election again highlighted how badly the current system works for smaller parties whose support, however substantial, is widely distributed across the country. The Bloc Québécois earned 1.2 percentage points more of the popular vote than the Greens. But with its support concentrated entirely in Québec, the Bloc emerged with 32 seats compared to the Green’s three.

In an age where the regional divisions in Canada seem to be deepening, the need to move to a system that rewards support across the nation and is less favourable to parties rooted in regional grievance seems more urgent than ever.

Both major parties have emerged from this federal election thinking the existing system has worked in their favour. This makes the prospects for reform, once part of the 2015 Liberal platform, seem even further out of reach.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This story was originally published in 2019. Go here for our explainer on what the 2021 election results mean for environment and climate policy.

Well, well, well, the dust has settled (kind of) and Canada has a Liberal minority government.

Wait, what exactly is a minority government?

Here’s how it works: there are 338 seats in Canada’s House of Commons. To govern unilaterally, a party needs to win 170 seats. That’s what we Canucks call a majority government.

If no party wins more than 170 seats, you have what we call a minority government. That means the party that forms government will need the support of other parties to pass any legislation. It also means they can face a non-confidence vote at any moment, so they better keep themselves in the good graces of some allies.

Who those allies will be is the big, unanswered question at this hour.

What we know is this: the Liberals need 13 extra seats to stay in power. As of Tuesday morning, the Conservatives won 121 seats, the NDP won 24 seats, the Bloc Quebecois won 32 seats and the Greens won three seats.

The Liberals could work with either the NDP or the Bloc Quebecois (or some combination thereof) and remain in power.

Both the NDP and the Bloc have strong environmental platforms — arguably stronger than the Liberals — so if anything the Liberals can be expected to take a stronger stance on environmental issues.

There’s much we don’t know, but here are a few things we can reasonably expect to happen on the environment file.

1) The carbon tax will stay in place

An escalating price on carbon has been the cornerstone of the Liberals climate plan and they’ll have plenty of support to keep the carbon tax in place. The NDP also promised a carbon tax, but vowed to take it a step further by removing exemptions for heavy polluters.

Meanwhile, the Bloc Quebecois proposed that Ottawa impose a carbon tax in provinces where greenhouse gas emissions per capita are higher than average and that the proceeds be paid to provinces where emissions are lower, creating a form of green equalization. Trudeau will almost certainly be concerned about Albertan alienation, so he’ll avoid getting involved in that plan.

2) About those fossil fuel subsidies …

Back in 2015, the Liberals promised to phase out fossil fuel subsidies over the “medium term,” but Environmental Defence estimates the federal and provincial governments are still handing out $3.3 billion a year to the fossil fuel industry. A September 2018 report found that although there has been some progress on fossil fuel subsidy reform in Canada in recent years, there is still a significant amount of work to be done for Canada to meet a G7 country promise to end all “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” by 2025.

The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois campaigned on a promise to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies — a policy that enjoys tremendous public support. With the parties needing to work together, we should expect this phase out to happen sooner rather than later.

3) The Trans Mountain pipeline debate is unlikely to be re-opened in Parliament, unless …

While many of the opposition parties might want to re-open this debate, it’s hard to see an opening for them to do so given the pipeline is already approved. Even if the NDP, Greens and Bloc Quebecois wanted to force a confidence vote on it, the Conservatives would side with the Liberals on this one.

However, the Liberals still need to find $10 to $15 billion to build the pipeline.

“The public financing of the project does seem to present a bit of a pickle,” said Kai Nagata of Dogwood, a B.C. democracy group. “It doesn’t seem likely the NDP/Bloc/Greens could vote for a budget with pipeline construction funds, but the Conservative party probably couldn’t stomach voting for everything else.”

Nagata added: “Even the Conservatives should be philosophically uncomfortable with borrowing money, in a deficit, to spend on corporate welfare.”

4) Buh-buy single-use plastics

The Liberals promised to start phasing out single-use plastics starting around 2021. The NDP, meanwhile, wants to intensify that approach by straight-up banning single-use plastics by 2022. Any which way, single-use plastics such as bags and straws are likely going the way of the dodo.

5) Full steam ahead on conservation

The Trudeau government has made significant progress toward meeting its Aichi Biodiversity targets: it pledged to protect at least 17 per cent of terrestrial area and inland waters, and 10 per cent of its oceans, by 2020. A flurry of big new protected areas has moved that along.

The Liberals have also committed to conserving 25 per cent of Canada’s land, freshwater and ocean by 2025 and to working toward conserving 30 per cent by 2030. They also plan to advocate for countries around the world to set a 30 per cent conservation goal.

Additionally, the Liberals have identified the opportunity to reduce emissions by 30 megatonnes by 2030 using natural climate solutions that support efforts to better manage, conserve and restore forests, grasslands, agricultural lands, wetlands and coastal areas — as well ad by planting two billion trees.

The NDP and Greens have also committed to the goal of conserving 30 per cent of land, freshwater and oceans by 2030.

So, watch for more Indigenous protected areas, national parks and marine protected areas.

6) Expect more electric vehicles

The Liberals have set a target of 30 per cent of all light-duty vehicles on the road being electric by 2030. The Bloc Quebecois also support measures to require manufacturers to sell more electric vehicles. And the NDP support maintaining the $5,000 federal incentive for electric vehicle purchases while eliminating federal sales tax on them. One way or another, electric vehicle incentives are here to stay.

7) A lot of Albertans are going to be outraged

With Conservatives winning a higher percentage of the popular vote than the Liberals nationwide, and winning every seat in Alberta and Saskatchewan except for one, Westerners are rightly going to be upset about ending up with so little say in Ottawa. How that will manifest is yet to be seen, but I’d wager a bet it ain’t gonna be pretty.

8) Will electoral reform have its moment in the sun?

The NDP and Greens have long supported a move to proportional representation — an electoral system that would ensure the allocation of seats is more in line with the popular vote than our current first-past-the-post system. With the Conservatives being the latest losers under the first-past-the-post system, one has to wonder if there might be a cross-party push for a referendum on modernizing our electoral system.

Much more will become clear over the coming weeks and months, but for now what we know is that the Liberals will have to work with some combination of the NDP and Bloc Quebecois — and that means that if anything, they’ll have a stronger mandate to take bold action on the climate crisis.

Updated Oct. 22, 2019, at 10 a.m. to include updated seat counts.

Updated Oct. 22, 2019, at 2:45 p.m. to add further comment regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline and to provide further detail about conservation promises. 

Updated Oct. 24, 2019, at 11:40 a.m. to correct an error regarding the source of fossil fuel subsidies. The $3.3 billion a year in subsidies are from both the federal and provincial governments, not just the federal government.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

It’s been a rough summer for B.C.

The worst — actually — in recorded history for wildfires, which are made worse by climate change.

And while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited B.C. last month to hold cabinet meetings and discuss climate change, the high-level talks shrouded in smoke were a poignant reminder that climate policy in this country is only as stable as the next election cycle.

In our current “first past the post” (FPTP) electoral system, there is nothing stopping reactionary parties from capturing majorities and reversing the hard-fought and sensible climate policies that represent the will of the vast majority of Canadians.

Indeed, North Americans have witnessed wild policy swings on climate in both the Trump administration and in Doug Ford’s Ontario. The U.S. has made the disastrous decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord and Ford is busily undoing policies that support a low-carbon economy. His government has, rather awkwardly, even instructed civil servants to stop using the term “climate change.”

Both leaders rule majority governments with broad powers over climate policy, and yet neither received more than half of the vote: 40.5 per cent, in the case of Ford, and 46.1 per cent of the popular vote in the U.S. presidential election, in the case of Trump.

First Past The Post is a winner-takes-all system that creates the possibility for a minority of the electorate to empower leaders who disregard existing climate policy, public will, and the burning reality of “Hot House Earth.”

Lost in the haze of the ongoing fires is the upcoming electoral reform referendum in B.C., which will run from October 22 to November 30 by mail-in ballot.

It will ask voters two questions: Whether they prefer an electoral system based on proportional representation (ProRep), and what type of proportional voting system should be used if ProRep is chosen.

The referendum is an extremely rare opportunity to advance our democracy by making it fairer, less prone to special interests and more representative.

A more democratic electoral system, in the shape of ProRep, is likely to have positive benefits for climate policy. Let us count the ways.

Limit policy whiplash

First, it would greatly reduce the likelihood of wild policy lurches that are the hallmark of majority governments. Anyone in Ontario considering the purchase of an electric vehicle will know what I mean. Reflect voters’ values Second, it would reflect the views of the average citizen, who clearly wants strong climate leadership in government, and ideally it would reduce the chance of politicians apathetic and ineffective on climate ever making it to government.

According to Abacus Data, more than 85 per cent of Canadians agree that the consequences of taking no action on climate change will be severe, very severe or catastrophic.

De-polarize our politics

Third, it would remove the logic of polarized politics and negative election campaigns, which tend to adversely impact low-carbon initiatives.

The mistaken political assumption that “we’re opposed to it because our adversaries are in favour of it” spells disaster for stabilizing the climate system in which all human beings live.

As John Ivison has shown in the National Post, the differences between Canadian federal parties on climate policy are relatively small: “But [even though the] political polarization on climate change is less than might have been supposed, […] the political parties in the U.S. and Canada are exaggerating the problem for their own gain, a classic case of the narcissism of small differences at work.”

Creating collaborative politics

Fourth, ProRep contributes to the kinds of compromises and collaborative politics that fosters long-term planning – and climate policy, by definition, requires multi-decadal plans.

In New Zealand, for example, the Green MP Gareth Hughes makes it clear that ProRep favours stability.

“When we moved to MMP [mixed-member proportional representation] in the 90s I remember the argument that New Zealand would become politically unstable if we adopted it. The reverse has been true. Our politicians learnt to talk, negotiate, and compromise,” Hughes said.  

Helen Clark, the former Prime Minister of New Zealand, recently told the CBC that ProRep made her country’s politicians more collaborative: “[It] required a lot more dialogue, a lot more give and take, a lot more transparency and a lot more consultation between the parties and with the public.”

Increase sustainability

In terms of environmental sustainability, countries such as New Zealand that have moved to ProRep score significantly higher on Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index, “which measures how well human health and ecosystems are protected.”

Academic research has shown that countries with ProRep are more willing to “pay the price of strong environmental policies, more likely to use renewable energy, and therefore produced a lower share of carbon emissions.”

As an added bonus, countries with ProRep typically elect more women and minorities to government.

Create bold action to meet B.C’s climate targets 

If B.C. votes in favour of ProRep, it could be the first jurisdiction in Canada to implement such a system.

It’s not guaranteed. The switch to Pro-Rep on Prince Edward Island, which passed in a 2016 referendum, has been tabled due to low voter turnout, and of course, Justin Trudeau abandoned his promise of ProRep after the last federal election. Also, Quebec might beat us to the punch.

A switch to ProRep would almost undoubtedly maintain and strengthen the current government’s climate leadership, which this province, and our planet, desperately needs.

Although Canada has committed to the Paris Climate Accord, our progress has been rather slow in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Even though Canada is supposed to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, our nationwide emissions have fallen by only 0.9 per cent in the past five years, and Canada still emits 3.2 times the wold average of GHGs per capita — more than twice that of China.

In B.C., things look only slightly better, where emissions have dropped a mere 2 per cent since 2007.

The B.C. government created new intermediate reductions targets — 40 per cent by 2030 and 60 per cent by 2040 — in order to achieve the 80 per cent reductions by 2050, but few existing policy decisions are likely to result in such drastic emissions cuts.

By 2050, B.C. will be allowed to emit only 13 megatonnes of carbon dioxide, which means that emissions need to drop by 4.22 per cent per year starting in 2019.

Making the kinds of changes that give our province a realistic chance of 80 per cent emissions reductions — 100 per cent renewables by 2040, banning of new gas and diesel vehicles by 2030 (not 2040), zero carbon buildings by 2024, and so on — will require bold climate leadership and stable, collaborative politics.

ProRep gives our province hope on the climate front, and would greatly reduce anxieties about a Ford-style reversal on climate progress.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Last week, the Ontario Progressive Conservatives won a majority government, receiving 40.5 per cent of the vote, 61.3 per cent of the seats and 100 per cent of the power.

It was a classic example of a first-past-the-post victory: the last two federal elections also saw majority governments emerging from receiving just shy of 40 per cent of the vote.

The result has launched a familiar round of consternation about the urgent need to reform the electoral system to more accurately represent the desires of voters (something that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau blithely promised to do but, well, we all know how that ended).

But this fall, British Columbians will actually have a shot at channelling such frustrations through a referendum that could radically overhaul how provincial elections are won and lost.

“We have an appetite for change, with Justin Trudeau outright lying to the public by saying ‘we want to make sure every vote counts’ and then not following through on that,” Keith Poore, president of Fair Vote Vancouver, told The Narwhal.

With such wild swings between governments in B.C., Poore said, there’s a growing appetite to strike a better electoral balance.

B.C. NDP-Green agreement a foretaste of proportional representation

Poore is right: B.C. has been having weird elections.

The most recent election saw the BC Liberal party actually gain a fraction more votes than the NDP, leading the NDP to strike an agreement with the province’s three elected Green MLAs to form government — an outcome far more reminiscent of an election using proportional representation, which creates more opportunities for minority governments, alliances and compromise.

In the 1996 election, the NDP under Glen Clark actually won a majority while receiving less votes than the BC Liberals. A few years later, in 2001, the NDP was dramatically reduced to just two seats in B.C.’s parliament.

That 2001 election represented the only B.C. election in the last 50 years where a party received 50 per cent or more of the vote, Laurel Collins, political sociology instructor at the University of Victoria, told The Narwhal.

“[This] means for every other election more than half the people who voted did not want the party in power to govern,” Collins, co-host of ShawTV’s program BC Referendum 2018: Are You Voting for Change, said.

“The B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens have been demonstrating that effective governance is not only feasible in a minority government, but that better policy emerges when parties have to come to the table together.”

Seth Klein, the B.C. director of the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives, said critics like to say this collaborate nature of proportional representation creates unsteady politics.

“There’s this narrative among the naysayers of proportional representation that it’ll always result in minority governments and they’re inherently unstable and they can’t get anything done,” Klein said.

“Well, I actually think most British Columbians are looking at this minority experience and thinking it’s pretty good.”

Proportional systems are used in more than 90 countries, Collins said, pointing out more than 80 per cent of OECD countries, including Germany, New Zealand, Sweden and Denmark, use some form of proportional representation.

Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. are the main holdouts, she said.

Under B.C.’s current first-past-the-post system, voters in 87 voting districts across the province elect a single representative from one party to represent them in the legislature.

“A proportional system would mean that the percentage of seats a party has in the legislature would reflect the percentage of the vote that that party got in the election,” Collins said.

“Right now our current electoral system tends to give parties who win with less than 50 per cent of the overall vote 100 per cent of the power. In a proportional system if you win 40 per cent of the votes you get 40 per cent of the seats.”

But there’s more than one way to do proportional representation — it’s essentially a family that contains an assortment of systems with unsexy, multi-letter acronyms like Single Transferable Vote (STV), Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) and List PR.

In B.C.’s upcoming referendum, you get to pick your flavour of proportional representation, which means it’s like a choose your own adventure brought to life.

You choose: Three customized proportional systems for B.C.

Recently, B.C.’s attorney general David Eby released his report on how the proportional representation referendum ought to be handled. It was the first glimpse at how government is likely to put the electoral reform question to the public.

Eby recommended voters be asked two questions.

The first question will ask the base question of whether voters want to stick with first-past-the-post or move to a proportional representation system.

A second question will ask those in favour of proportional representation to pick one of three potential systems.

There will be mixed member proportional (used in Germany, New Zealand and Scotland), rural-urban proportional (which combines single transferable vote in the cities and towns with mixed member proportional in the rural areas to maintain local representation) and dual member proportional (a curious system that hasn’t been implemented anywhere and many experts haven’t even heard of).

While there are differences between the three, with the rural-urban proportional working harder to ensure that northern B.C. ridings don’t get too large, they all feature the same basic principle: making every vote count equally.

“All three of these systems are going to lead to broadly similar results,” UBC political science professor Stewart Prest said. “The distinction between that and first-past-the-post is much greater.”

The pros and cons of first-past-the-post

The main message that you’ll find electoral reform experts emphasizing again and again (and again) is that each electoral system comes with trade offs.

Many are aware of the downsides of “majoritarian” systems like first-past-the-post or instant runoff voting: it creates “false majorities,” prevents smaller parties from gaining traction and can breed resentment and alienation amongst the populace if they feel their voice isn’t being heard and their votes don’t actually count.

But Daniel Westlake, political science professor at the University of Victoria, told The Narwhal that such systems do come with upsides as well.

For one, they can provide what he called “very clean lines of accountability” in which voters know which party to blame or reward for policy decisions. In the current B.C. situation, the NDP can always blame the Greens for failures, while the Greens can similarly blame the NDP.

Another potential incidental benefit of a system like first-past-the-post is that it increases the influence of any group that’s geographically concentrated in one area. Westlake said that ethnic minorities and immigrants tend to be concentrated in particular ridings. (This of course depends on how the ridings are actually drawn up, which raises the risk of gerrymandering.)

“There’s strong incentive in that kind of system for parties to pay careful attention to what immigrants and ethnic minorities want,” Westlake said. “In a proportional system, you don’t have particular ridings that you need to win in order to win government.”

Of course, there are a wide range of political attitudes among minority communities that one can’t easily homogenize.

But by benefitting geographically concentrated groups, a system like first-past-the-post decreases the influence of groups that aren’t concentrated. Think of supporters of strong environmental policies or gender equality or residents in what Prest called “yellow dog ridings” — places so politically monolithic a party could literally run a yellow dog and win.

“There are certain parts of the province where elections are effectively fought and large portions of the province where there are a diversity of opinions and we just don’t see the political debate take place,” he said. “The bus or the plane never stops there. Politics becomes a spectator sport for a portion of the population.”

“Fundamentally, from a civic participation point of view in having everyone feel like they’re part of their democracy, I don’t think that’s ideal,” he added.

Collins said a change in the way B.C. conducts elections has the potential to reinvigorate the voting public’s interest in politics.

“In proportional systems, no matter what your vote counts towards electing someone from a party that represents your values and priorities,” she said.

“In our current system, close to half of all voters cast their votes and those votes elect no one. Especially for people who might want to vote for smaller parties, whose support is not geographically concentrated, proportional representation gives them a reason to take part in electoral politics.”

Proportional representation reflects northern tendency to collaborate

Shannon McPhail, executive director of the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, said she’s a supporter of proportional representation primarily because it forces parties to work together.

“That is something in the north that we have to do all the time,” McPhail told The Narwhal. “The reason we have to collaborate all the time is because in small communities, you don’t get to ignore the people you have issues with. They’re your doctor or your nurse or your child’s teacher or your mechanic. We have to work things out.”

Compare that to a majority government in a first-past-the-post system, in which parties can launch a policy blitz for four years without any concern for what other parties think.

Klein of the CCPA suggested this often results in policy lurches from government to government: think of Ontario premier-delegate Doug Ford’s announcement to cancel the carbon pricing system that was only introduced in 2013.

Prest said a shift to proportional representation would also impact campaigns, with parties spending less time slamming each other and exaggerating minor difference.

With all that said, B.C. has already had two electoral reform referendums in recent years — and both failed.

The first one, in 2005, actually had majority support but fell just short of the 60 per cent threshold (this time, the threshold is a simple majority).

The second one, in 2009, fared far worse and only garnered 39 per cent of the vote — something which experts suggests was associated with a lack of non-partisan educational efforts.

But with the Ontario election fresh in everyone’s mind and a B.C. government actively forced to collaborate, advocates of proportional representation are feeling hopeful that this third time will be the charm.

Collins said governments elected under proportional systems on average out perform winner-take-all systems when it comes to environmental performance. They also decrease income inequality and result in higher voter turnout, higher satisfaction with democracy and more women elected.

“Switching to a more proportional system could have profound effects on how our government makes decisions, including about natural resource projects,” she said.

McPhail said she believes a re-engagement in the political system will actually benefit the work of conservation groups.

“We believe that when people are healthy and wealthy enough to make a living and pay their bills, the environment wins,” McPhail said. “Let’s develop the kind of economy that we can all be proud of — and that happens when governments and citizens collaborate.”

With files from Carol Linnitt.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In the wee hours of Wednesday morning major news outlets like the CBC made the official call: the B.C. Liberals had won a minority government in the 2017 provincial election.

Except they haven’t … quite … yet.

Here’s how the numbers are currently being reported: B.C. Liberals 43 seats, NDP 41 seats, Greens 3 seats.

These numbers are far from final. As Elections B.C. states right up there on its website, these are primary voting results from an initial count. “Final voting results will not be available until after the conclusion of final count, which will commence on May 22, 2017,” the site states.

There are about 160,000 absentee ballots waiting to be counted and some too-close-to-call ridings like Courtenay-Comox are facing a recount.

But, as Simon Fraser University student Steve Tweedale put it, we don’t need a final count to know it’s false to report the election resulted in a B.C. Liberal minority government.

“Assuming the preliminary count holds up, the outcome of the election is a hung parliament (sometimes called a minority parliament), meaning that no single party has a majority of seats. Under B.C.’s parliamentary system of government, elections determine the composition of the Legislative Assembly; they do not determine the composition of the government,” Tweedale writes.

The B.C. Liberals won 43 seats, just one seat shy of a majority. It is true that Clark will remain premier for the timebeing but she must retain the confidence of the house to continue as premier. If she cannot, one of several things can happen.

In this hung parliament situation, “the norm is the current premier gets the first shot at it, gets the first opportunity to form government,” UBC political scientist Kathryn Harrison told DeSmog Canada.

Clark could try her hand at governing with a minority government but in each act of convening the house she would run the risk of losing its confidence.

“One option would be for the Liberals to take their chances, stake out their positions, the route they would propose to go in government in a throne speech and invite other parties to defeat them which is an interesting option — it’s a bit of a game of chicken,” Harrison said.

“They won’t expect the popular vote.”

Or Clark could choose to step down.

“Sometimes it’s in the interest of a government to control the terms of their defeat,” Harrison said.

If Clark did announce her resignation to the Lieutenant Governor the buck would pass to NDP leader John Horgan to become premier with a minority government. Horgan, like Clark, would need to maintain the confidence of the house to carry this out.

But the B.C. Liberals and the NDP might also jockey for the support of the Green party's three MLAs in the hopes of forming either formal or informal coalitions.

As Clark said last night, “I will work with the other parties to do what needs to be done to keep fighting to protect” B.C.

Here’s where things get very interesting. If you watched coverage of the election last night you may have heard that Andrew Weaver’s Green party “held the balance of power” meaning the Greens have the option to formally (by forming a coalition government) or informally (by maintaining confidence through the support of policy measures and budgets, for example) prop up either the Liberals or the NDP.

“In the days ahead there will be plenty of discussions taking place between all parties,” Weaver told a room of supporters last night.

A BC Liberal Minority Government? Not So Fast https://t.co/CHmRlPXpub #bcpoli #bcelxn2017 @BCGreens #electoralreform @bcndp

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 10, 2017

A Liberal/Green Coalition?

It’s likely Clark will invite the Greens to join her cabinet, which they can do as Greens without crossing the aisle. But it is also likely that there will be some irreconcilable political differences that keep the Liberal and Green MLAs at loggerheads.

Weaver has yet to signal what his intentions are (although he did seem to suggest a preference for working with Clark in a controversial Global News interview) but throughout his campaign he stated banning big money in B.C. politics and electoral reform were up top on his list of priorities.

For years Weaver has campaigned to strengthen B.C.’s political donation rules, which currently allow unlimited amounts of foreign, corporate and union donations. The Green party has taken a strong stance on this issue by refusing to accept any corporate or union funds.

"Without any question, that's a deal breaker,” he said last week. “We've got to get the money out of politics.”

This could make the formation of a coalition government with the Liberals — a party awash in corporate cash — difficult.

The Green party is also committed to electoral reform, pushing for proportional representation in B.C. rather than the current first-past-the-post system.

“We support proportional representation because it is a fairer voting system, which encourages democratic participation and accurately reflects voters’ choices in the make-up of government,” Weaver said.

“It’s not obvious what the deal there would be,” Harrison said. “These are not issues that will be easy for Liberals and Greens to come to agreement upon.”

“Maybe financial reform,” Harrison said, “but electoral reform does not serve the Liberals' interests.”

On election night Weaver also stated his position on LNG is non-negotiable. Two LNG projects are approved in British Columbia — Woodfibre LNG in Howe Sound and Pacific Northwest LNG near Prince Rupert, which is projected to be one of the single largest source points of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, making it impossible for B.C. to meet its climate targets.

The Green party also pledged to cancel the controversial Site C dam, a crowning achievement and non-negotiable project for the B.C. Liberals.

So the differences in the Liberal and Green platforms seem pretty vast.

A NDP/Green Coalition?

As certainly as the Liberals will go courting the Greens, so will the NDP.

At a rally last night, John Horgan said a new government is in order.

“British Columbians have waited 16 years for a government that works for them, and we are going to have to ask you to wait a little bit longer until all the votes are counted and the final results of this election are known,” he said.

“But this is what we do know: A majority of British Columbians voted for a new government and I believe that’s what they deserve.”

A coalition between the NDP and the Greens seems easier to accomplish at least on the surface as the two parties share more general alignment on policies.

Of greatest significance is the NDP-Green alignment on two policies that would change B.C. elections forever. 

The NDP commitment to ban corporate and union donations falls squarely in line with one of the Green’s top priorities.

On electoral form, the NDP have also spoken in favour, vowing to send the issue to a referendum and campaign in favour of reform if if elected — also in line with the Green platform.

The NDP have also explicitly spoken out against the Pacific Northwest LNG project, due to significant greenhouse gas emissions and threats to the Skeena River salmon runs. So the NDP and Greens will likely have an easier time finding common ground when it comes to the LNG industry.

On Site C, the NDP have promised to send the Site C dam for an expedited review by the B.C. Utilities Commission, so it's also not hard to imagine the Greens and NDP finding common ground on this issue.

It’s possible a coalition with the Greens will give the NDP the political cover necessary to make several bold moves including banning big money in politics, moving to some form of proportional representation and possibly even scrapping the Site C dam altogether. 

Coalition a ‘Risky Proposition’ for Greens

The Greens will want to proceed carefully in their discussions with either the Liberals or the NDP, Harrison said.

“Coalitions governments are risky for junior partners,” she said.  

“I think for the Greens to enter a formal or informal coalition with either the NDP or the Liberals is a risky proposition because the junior partners in those coalitions tends to not fare well in the next election.”

The Green party will need to decide what its hardline tradeoff will be for supporting another party.

“Green parties internationally have a tendency to insist on some policy like a carbon tax — we already have one — as a condition for participation in the coalition and then get wiped off the map in the next election.”  

Yet there may be one key condition the Greens could place on their support: the promise of electoral reform.

“In this case I think the big win, the Holy Grail for the Greens would be a commitment to electoral reform for the system,” Harrison said.

The Green vote is depressed by the first-past-the-post system, Harrison said.

“It’s not that they don’t win seats, it’s that a lot of voters aren’t voting Green because they know their vote won’t count.”

A change in B.C.'s electoral system would both transform electoral politics in B.C. and would also change prospects for the Green party in the future, Harrison added.

“But it’s hard for me to imagine the Greens getting that concession from the Liberals because the Liberals have been the biggest beneficiary of the current electoral system.”

Image: Premier Christy Clark and Lieutenant Governor of B.C., the Honourable Judith Guichon, dissolve parliament for the 2017 election period. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Reconcile with Indigenous peoples. Make elections fairer. Invest many more billions in public transit and green infrastructure. Take climate change seriously.

Those are just a few of the things that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party committed to in the lead-up to the 2015 election, offering up a fairly stark contrast to the decade of reign by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. And on Oct. 19, 2015, almost seven million Canadians voted for that Liberal platform. In his victory speech, Trudeau spoke of “real change” and “sunny ways” and “positive politics.”

Fast forward almost 500 days.

Many major promises have been broken, and sentiments seemingly abandoned. Frankly, it’s getting rather difficult to keep up with the amount of backtracking and shapeshifting happening in Ottawa.

Most recently, Trudeau formally abandoned his repeated commitment that “2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system” by issuing a mandate letter to the new minister of democratic reform that included the statement that “changing the electoral system will not be in your mandate."

What follows is a breakdown of some of the other stunning reversals made by Trudeau and the Liberals in recent months, with a specific focus on commitments made to climate change, environment and Indigenous rights.

Modernizing Environment Assessment Processes Prior to Approving New Pipelines

In 2012, Harper and the Conservatives overhauled the way that major resource projects are assessed in Canada, gutting the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Among many other things, those changes resulted in the National Energy Board (NEB) being assigned exclusive responsibility to conduct federal environmental assessments for major pipeline projects.

It’s something that many voiced serious concern about: the NEB has been often accused of being a “captured regulator,” with a high concentration of staff members having worked in the oil and gas industry due to its head office being located in Calgary and legislation from the early 1990s requiring all permanent members to live in the area.

The Liberals pledged in its platform to “make environmental assessments credible again” and “ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public’s interest.”

And in August 2015, during a campaign stop in Esquimalt, Trudeau specifically stated the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain project wouldn’t proceed under existing processes.

The list of criticisms of the NEB review of the Kinder Morgan project is long: there was an absence of oral cross-examination of evidence, many people were arbitrarily denied intervenor status and potential climate impacts of the project weren’t considered.

Dozens of municipalities and Indigenous communities voiced serious opposition to the project.

But the Liberals didn’t call the review off. Instead, it created an ad-hoc environmental review panel, which was explicitly intended “to ‘complement’ rather than review or redo the NEB process.” Despite allegations of serious conflict of interest in its members, the panel produced a report posing six major questions about the proposed project that should be answered before making a verdict.

But none of those questions were answered.

As a result, the cabinet decision made on Dec. 29 to approve Trans Mountain and Enbridge’s Line 3 was ultimately based on an NEB recommendation made under Harper-era processes (the B.C. government also oddly accepted the flawed environmental assessment as its own, despite having the opportunity to order its own).

The path forward was clear: modernize the NEB, and repair the trio of acts that were gutted by Harper in 2012 prior to proceeding with new projects that will have major impacts on climate and local environment. Maybe that would have been just too “positive.”

Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Between 2013 and 2015, oil and gas producers in Canada received an annual average of $3.31 billion in subsidies, with $1 billion via the Canadian Development Expense and $1.2 billion from Alberta's Crown Royalty Reductions. This arguably makes the impacts of climate policies less effective.

That’s possibly why the Liberals pledged: “We will fulfill our G20 commitment and phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the medium-term.”

No further details were given about what “medium-term” means in the context of a four-year mandate.

In November 2015, B.C. Premier Christy Clark announced that the Liberals had assured they would be maintaining Harper’s tax breaks of $50-million over five years to the province’s struggling liquified natural gas (LNG) sector. In March 2016, Carr said it’s “not the moment” to phase out subsidies.

An August 2016 report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development noted: “So far, the government has been quiet about the details of its plan. As part of its G20 commitment, Canada has said that it will eliminate “inefficient” subsidies. But that hasn’t been clarified—nobody knows which subsidies will or won’t be considered inefficient.”

That’s still the case.

Grant Indigenous Nations “Veto” Power Over Resource Projects

One of the most compelling elements of Trudeau’s pre-election rhetoric was his repeated emphasis on establishing a “nation-to-nation” relationship with Indigenous peoples, and working towards the lofty goal of “reconciliation.”

Specifically, the Liberals pledged to "enact the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

It was also a significant pledge, given that Article 32 of the UN Declaration (which is commonly referred to as UNDRIP) stated “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources” and require states to obtain “free, prior and informed consent” from Indigenous peoples “prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories.”

Many people interpret that article as acknowledging the “veto” power of Indigenous nations, meaning they could refuse projects including pipelines, oil and gas extraction and mineral mining. And when asked on the campaign trail if “no means no” in reference to veto power, Trudeau said “absolutely.”

After winning the election, Trudeau emphasized in mandate letters to ministers that “no relationship is more important to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous Peoples.” In May 2016, Canada formally removed its objector status to UNDRIP, with Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett stating: “We intend nothing less than to adopt and implement the declaration in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.”

That was about as clear as you could get. Or so you would think.

Less than two months later, Bennett said the Liberals “do not believe this is an outright veto.” Then Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould stated that implementing UNDRIP was “unworkable.” Trudeau rounded out the betrayals by stating in December 2016 that “no, they don’t have a veto” in reference to three Indigenous nations who vehemently oppose the Kinder Morgan project.

The Liberals have also been criticized for approving the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal, Site C dam and the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline without the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples. In a recent video for CBC News, Mi'kmaq lawyer and professor Pam Palmater told Trudeau that "you betrayed us."

It would be difficult to draw much of a different conclusion.

Justin Trudeau participates in a town hall meeting in New Brunswick. Image: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

Repeal ‘Problematic Elements’ of Surveillance Bill C-51

Remember Bill C-51? That controversial “anti-terrorism” legislation that resulted in massive protests, petitions and condemnation from academics?

Well, it’s still very much law.

That includes the powers to arrest people without a warrant if someone "may" commit a terrorist attack, increases data sharing among government departments, grants significant powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and expands the definition of “security” to include anything that undermines “the economic or financial stability of Canada.”

The latter point led especially to fears among environmental activists and Indigenous defenders, given the potential arbitrary use of state power to suppress protesting.

The Liberals unanimously voted for C-51. During the election, they promised to “repeal the problematic elements of Bill C-51, and introduce new legislation that better balances our collective security with our rights and freedoms.” The new legislation would “guarantee that all Canadian Security Intelligence Service warrants respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms” and “ensure that Canadians are not limited from lawful protests and advocacy.”

Maybe you can guess what happened next.

Trudeau and the Liberals haven’t kept their promise.

The proposed bill to establish an all-party National Security and Intelligence Committee is still only in the report stage. CSIS is under serious fire for a decade-long storage of illegal metadata. Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr was recently slammed for implying that pipeline protesters would face the “rule of law,” which was interpreted by some as a veiled threat to use police and military against protesters in a similar way to the Oka Crisis.

Take Climate Targets Seriously

Credit where it’s due: the Liberals did manage to pull off the Pan-Canadian Framework.

That included national $50/tonne carbon pricing by 2022, regulations to cut methane and HFC emissions, a phase-out of coal-fired power by 2030, new building codes and the "intention to develop a zero emissions vehicle strategy and a Clean Fuels Standard."

But the federal approvals of the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal, Enbridge Line 3 pipeline and Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline seriously undermine the already underwhelming federal commitments to cut emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 80 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Sure, commodity prices may never rebound thanks to President Donald Trump’s plan to massively expand domestic oil and gas development. But everything could also change if he decides to start dropping bombs on Iran and takes four million barrels of oil production off the table. Either way, it’s a big gamble.

But one thing is known for sure: if the newly approved projects are indeed constructed, they will result in “carbon lock-in” for decades to come that will make it extremely difficult for Canada to meet its climate targets due to increased political pressures on future governments to avoid introducing legislation that seriously impacts profit-making abilities.

There’s a quiet push by the federal government to use international emissions trading to help it reach its 2030 target. Solid economic arguments accompany this option. However, some fear the required capital outflow associated with the mechanism will make it more difficult for Canada to reach its 2050 target, to say nothing of the lofty goal of phasing out all fossil fuels by 2100 (both of which will require fairly radical transformations in transportation, industry, electricity, agriculture and buildings).

There’s also little evidence for the math behind the government’s plan to reduce a massive 44 megatonnes of emissions reductions (which represents more than half of all the emissions from oilsands extraction and refining in 2015) from “public transit, green infrastructure, technology and innovation and stored carbon.”

The Pembina Institute’s Erin Flanagan kindly put it that “additional policy work is required to close [that gap].”

Trudeau’s got his rhetoric down when it comes to this subject, often referencing the need to “balance” the economy and environment. Frankly, there’s little evidence that his government is taking 2030, 2050 and 2100 climate targets seriously.

Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: 500 Days of Trudeau’s Broken Promises https://t.co/j4yt4xabv5 #cdnpoli #bcpoli @ClimateVoters @dogwoodbc @350Canada pic.twitter.com/o9wQXMrmBX

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 11, 2017

Big-League Investments in Public Transit and Green Infrastructure

It was supposed to be the “largest new infrastructure investment in Canadian history.”

Specifically, the Liberals pledged $125 billion in public transit, climate change mitigation and adaptation projects, social housing and water and wastewater infrastructure. The big problem?

That $125 billion would be invested over the course of a decade, well beyond the four-year mandate the Liberals won in 2015. Between 2016/17 and 2019/20 — you know, the party’s actual mandate — the Liberals only pledged a total of $17 billion. That was broken down into $5.65 billion for each of the three categories: 1) green infrastructure; 2) social infrastructure; and 3) public transit.

It might sound like a lot.

But the infrastructure deficit in Canada is staggeringly large — one estimate pegs it as high as $570 billion — which is the symptom of decades of serious underinvestment by the federal government in its cities. So how have the Liberals lived up to their measly platform pledge?

They didn’t even meet it.

The funding commitment to public transit is $1.1 billion less than what was promised ($3.4 billion over three years, instead of $4.5 billion). Meanwhile, the commitment to green infrastructure is short, with the budget allocating $5 billion over five years (instead of $5.65 billion over four years). It’s only in 2021/22 that investments are predicted to increase to levels promised in 2015/16.

There’s been no explanation for this.

Instead, the government pitched a private infrastructure bank, which will attempt to “leverage” four to five dollars from the private sector for every single dollar invested by the government. The $15 billion for the latter will be “sourced from the announced funding” for infrastructure, so subtract that amount from the original total.

Sure, the Liberal platform did outline the idea of a Canada Infrastructure Bank “to provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects.” But there was no mention of privatizing it.

This fact has resulted in serious concern voiced by some economists given the possibility of privatization doubling the cost of projects over 30 years than if built and operated by the government.

In addition, Finance Minister Bill Morneau has indicated that private investors won’t be interested in investing in smaller municipalities given their desire for high returns. All this led Laurentian University’s Louis-Philippe Rochon to recently dub Trudeau a “privatization czar” and note that he “has gone places even Mr. Harper never dared to go.”

Given the Liberal pledge to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 27 per cent by 2019-20 — and the fact it’s currently predicted to hit almost 32 per cent by that time — it seems doubtful the Liberals will even pretend to meet this promise.

Sunny, sunny ways.

Image: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau enters a town hall meeting. Image: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Liberal party and incoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made some big promises on the campaign trail. On election night we outlined how those promises relate to climate, environment, science and transparency in Canada.

But Trudeau also promised to make sweeping electoral reforms that would make the 2015 election the last of its kind.

Under a grand “Restore Democracy in Canada” 32-point plan, Trudeau promised to end Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system and overhaul the electoral system within 18 months of being elected. 

The Liberal party platform promised to establish an all-party committee that will 'fairly study and consider' proportional representation, mandatory voting, online voting and preferential or ranked ballots.

What are Proportional Representation and Ranked Ballots?

Under the current first-past-the-post system, the country is divided into 338 ridings. Within those ridings, which hold a roughly equal number of people, voters select one Member of Parliament to represent them.

“It’s a ‘winner takes all’ system,” Wilfred Day, electoral expert from Fair Vote Canada, told DeSmog Canada.

This means that even if a fairly large proportion of the popular vote goes to any given party, they may not win representation in parliament. Take the Green Party, for instance, which earned 3.5 per cent of the popular vote this election, but only one seat in the House of Commons. If seats were divvied up proportionally based on popular vote, they'd have earned 11 seats — not to mention the fact that if every vote counted, far more people would be likely to vote and vote their conscience.

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our email newsletter!

“Look at Alberta, where unless you’re voting Conservative, you’re wasting your time; you may as well stay home," Day said.

In the Calgary Bow River riding, for example, Conservative candidate Martin Shields won with 77.4 per cent of the vote. In the Battle River-Crowfoot riding next door, Conservative candidate Kevin Sorenson won with 81 per cent.

In a very different situation, the Quebec riding of Montmagny-L'islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-Du-Loup saw a near four-way split between Conservative candidate Bernard Généroux with 29 per cent of the vote, Liberal candidate Marie-Josée Normand with 28.5 per cent of the vote and NDP candidate François Lapointe with 24.2 per cent. Bloc Québécois candidate Louis Gagnon trailed closely behind with 16.1 per cent of the vote.

Source: CBC

“Fifty-one per cent of votes cast yesterday did not help elect anybody. That’s what happens every election in Canada and that happened again yesterday,” Day said.

“It’s never a waste to cast your ballot but in this system your vote is disregarded."

Proportional representation, on the other hand, would represent constituents in Parliament in a way that proportionally mirrors how they voted.

Rather than ridings being represented by a single MP, who may have been elected with less than 50 per cent of the vote, geographical regions would be represented by a number of MPs that directly reflect how voters in that area cast their ballots.

Every vote, in essence, would count.

Fair Vote Canada gives a detailed outline of different varieties of proportional representation used around the world. 

Ranked ballots, also called preferential ballots or alternative voting, allow voters to rank candidates according to preference. The candidate that secures the majority (over 50 per cent) of the first-place votes wins. In the case that no candidate receives more than 50 per cent of the votes, the candidate with the lowest first-place votes is eliminated from the running, with their second-place votes being added to the totals of the candidates still in the running. This happens until a candidate gets more than 50 per cent of the vote. 

Ranked ballots are used in many jurisdictions around the world and have been used internally in both the NDP and Liberal parties to select party leaders. Ranked ballots have also been at the centre of some controversy in Toronto with city councillors going back and forth on the issue. 

The CBC reported in 2013 that Justin Trudeau supported ranked ballots, although the Liberal party platform did not indicate a strong preference for or against ranked ballots. In a statement to Fair Vote Canada, the Liberal party said on the general issue of electoral reform "a study must be undertaken without any preconceived notions of what the best solution would be."

Day said he doubts the Liberals will push for ranked ballots because the change could appear self serving. He said ranking systems tend to benefit centrist parties, or second-choice parties, rather than marginal parties. So preferential voting would be great for the Liberals, not so great for the Greens.

"A preferential ballot…is the same system as today — winner takes all," he said.

"I’m doubtful the Liberals will try to go for the preferential ballot because it’s too obviously a partisan fix rather than a democratic reform. A democratic reform, of course, is to make every vote count equally." 

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

If Canada had proportional representation

This is what would have happened if Monday's election was carried out under a proportional representation system www.cbcnews.ca/canadavotes

Posted by CBC News on Tuesday, October 20, 2015

How Would Proportional Representation Have Changed Last Night’s Results?

Critics of our current system say that the first-past-the-post metric distorts election results.

Last night’s election won the Liberal party 184 seats in the House of Commons, a solid majority given only 170 seats are needed to form government — yet the Liberal party only earned 39.5 per cent of the national vote.

Similarly the Conservative party in the 2011 federal election won only 39.62 per cent of the vote but won a majority with 166 seats (less seats were required then when only 308 total seats existed compared to our current 338).

In this election, the Conservative party won 99 seats, the NDP 44, the Bloc Party 10 and the Green party one. If proportional representation were in effect, the results would have been drastically different.

In Atlantic Canada, for example, where the “crimson tide” first appeared, the Liberals won every single seat.

If votes were represented in proportion to how they were cast, the NDP would have won six seats and the Conservative party seven seats. If proportional representation were in effect, it is likely one Green MP would have been elected in New Brunswick.*

Nationally, under proportional representation (presuming voting stayed the same, which would be unlikely), the election would have resulted in 135 seats for the Liberal party, 109 for the Conservatives, 68 for the NDP, 15 for the Bloc and 11 for the Greens.

That would mean the Liberals would need either the Conservatives or the NDP to pass a bill, and Justin Trudeau would be the Prime Minister with a minority government.

How Could Proportional Representation Change Canadian Politics?

Proponents of proportional representation argue this kind of electoral reform could reinvigorate Canadian democracy.

Importantly, the system would give voters a sense that their votes actually meant something.

“The difference is that if every vote counts equally everyone is represented in Parliament equally,” Day said. “This gives the majority of voters a voice. The government actually represents the majority of voters.”

Day said under proportional representation this election would have resulted in a majority coalition, where representatives from all parties would be able to represent their constituents.

Parties and MPs would need to work on legislation that is palatable to a larger cross-section of society. Rather than appealing to one sector of society, say oil and gas under the Conservatives, bills would be required to serve the interests of local communities in addition to businesses.

Under proportional representation “you could potentially have a strong, stable majority coalition government that represented the majority of voters,” Day said.

“That’s what a lot of people were hoping would happen this time. But instead you get another majority government with 39.5 per cent of the votes.”

Day concluded: “The Conservatives have engaged in all sorts of voter suppression techniques. But the winner takes all voting system is the ultimate voter suppression scheme: it throws 51 per cent of the votes in the garbage.”

Want more details on proportional representation? Check out this Fair Vote Canada video featuring York University associate professor of political science Dennis Pilon:

* These figures have been updated.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.