Proportional Representation and Independent Members

Vincent J. Curtis

24 June 2019


As the election of a new Canadian parliament approaches, it is useful to recall a promise made by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau during the last election that set progressive hearts atwitter.  He promised to reform representation in the House of Commons from a member representing a constituency to party representation based on party proportional vote, or proportional representation.

It is hard to tell who were the bigger fools, Trudeau for proposing the thing or progressives for believing him without checking the constitutionality of such a change.

Jody Wilson-Raybold and Jane Philpott remain as members of the House of Commons after being expelled from the Liberal caucus.  Under proportional representation, they (and perhaps the trouble they caused) would have been expelled from the House with their expulsion from the caucus.  Their right to sit in the House would have depended upon their faithful representation of the Liberal party, and the moment they caused trouble, the leader of the party would have the right to replace them with someone who would.  That’s what proportional representation means: no independent members and nothing but faithful party-line votes in the Commons.

If you’re the leader of the party, proportional representation means never having to face a challenge from the ranks.  I don’t think the majority of Canadians are so tied to partisan party interests that they find the idea of an independent member intolerable.

The possibility of Independent membership in the House can make the political show less Soviet-like.
-30-