Debates of May 18th, 2000

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the vote be deferred until Monday, May 29, at the expiry of Government Orders.

[The Deputy Speaker]

At the request of the chief government whip the vote on the amendment is deferred until Monday, May 29, at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders.

It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Proportional Representation

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should work towards incorporating a measure of proportional representation in the federal electoral system, making use of a framework which includes: (a) a report on proportional representation prepared by an all-party committee after extensive public hearings; (b) a referendum to be held on this issue where the question shall be whether electors favour replacing the present system with a system proposed by the committee as concurred in by the House; and (c) the referendum may be held either before or at the same time as the next general election.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put a motion before the House as a private member, asking that the House conduct a study in a parliamentary committee of the idea of incorporating a measure of proportional representation into our electoral system; that a committee look at the various models which might be appropriate for the country; and that, if the House adopts one of these models, we put that model to the people of the country in a referendum at or around the time of the next federal election campaign.

I do this realizing that this issue has hardly ever been discussed in the Parliament of Canada. The last time there was a private member's motion on the whole idea of changing our electoral system and bringing in a measure of proportional representation was back in 1979 when then Liberal member Jean-Luc Pepin proposed a non-votable motion that was debated by the House. The last time parliament actually voted on the idea of proportional representation was back in 1923. That was a long time ago so I think the time has come now for a debate on whether or not we should look at changing our electoral system. Parliament was strangely silent on the issue for most of the last century.

I also believe that one of the great issues of the next few years will be the issue of governance or democracy, how we govern ourselves as a people, how we organize our society, how we organize our institutions. We talk about governance. We talk about democracy. We talk about an electoral system. We talk about the empowerment of people to make sure that they have a say over what kind of government, what kind of society and what kind of institutions they want to evolve in Canada.

I believe we have to take a serious look at changing our system. Most Canadians do not realize that we are one of only three countries in the world with more than eight million people that has a democratic system which does not have some measure of proportional representation. The other countries are the United States and India. The world has passed us by in terms of evolving an electoral system that reflects more accurately what the people want.

Even in the mother of parliaments, the British parliament, current Prime Minister Tony Blair in his policy of devolution of powers created a Scottish parliament where some people are elected through a measure of PR. It is the same in the Welsh parliament. As a matter of fact in the British Isles all members of parliament who go to the European parliament from Great Britain are elected strictly by proportional representation and the Jenkins committee has recommended PR in England, which I predict will happen in the election after next.

We are being left behind by modern democracies in the world along with the United States and India by using the old first past the post system designed for a two party system. We have left that behind us about 50 or 60 years ago with a multiparty system that creates tremendous distortions in terms of the representation in the House of Commons.

I remember very well when I was first elected back in 1968. There was excitement in the air. People were engaging in politics. People were involved in campaigns and fully 80% of the people in that election campaign cast a ballot. It was common in those days that 80% or more of the people would participate in federal campaigns and in provincial campaigns.

In the last campaign in June 1997 the turnout was 67% of the polls. The turnout has been plummeting in every province in the last 25 or 30 years. The reason for it is that people feel alienated from the political process. They feel politicians do not listen to them, that politicians do not reflect what they want.

There is truth in that and that is one reason people do not participate in the political system. I submit that we are sleepwalking to a crisis in democracy. If we do not look at changing the system to have it more reflective, we will have a real crisis in a few years time.

I want to take a look now at how distorted the present electoral system is. I will use the last election campaign. In 1997 the Liberal Party received 38% of the vote. It got a solid majority that could constitutionally run the country for five years in a system that concentrates a lot of power in the hands of the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office.

Let us look at the opposition side. We have two parties that got around 19% of the vote, the Reform Party and the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party got 19 seats and the Reform Party got 60 seats, with the same number of Canadians voting for each of those two political parties. Each of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois got 11% of the vote. The Bloc Quebecois got 44 seats and the NDP got 21 seats, with the same number of Canadians casting a ballot for each of the political parties.

We have a House of Commons that does not reflect or mirror how the people of the country voted three years ago. When people turn on their television sets and see a debate in the House of Commons, parliament does not reflect or mirror the composition of the electorate that voted for us in the first place.

As I said, we are one of only three countries in the world with a population of over eight million people which does not have a measure of proportional representation in the electoral system. That will have to change.

Let us look at the history of our country back in 1921. We have had many majority governments elected over the years but only four of them were elected by a majority of the people. Except for John Diefenbaker in 1958, Mackenzie King in 1945 and Brian Mulroney who had almost 50% of the noes in 1984, all other majorities have been elected by a minority, which means that a minority of the people are governing and ruling a majority of people. That leads to all kinds of alienation.

As a result many issues in the country are now realities that would not have been realities if we had proportional representation. I will name but a couple. I remember the 1988 election campaign. We had two parties, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, campaigning against the free trade agreement with the United States. Between the Liberals and the NDP, the two parties together picked up around 56% or 57% of the vote. That was reflective of the opinion polls which said that the overwhelming majority of the people did not like the free trade deal with the United States.

Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives got 42% of the vote. They won a big majority. Free trade went through and it changed the country forever. It was the same with the GST. There have been many such distortions over the years despite the fact that the majority of people voted against the party that was advocating a particular policy.

We have another distortion. For example, at the provincial level today two provinces have a majority one party government: British Columbia and Quebec. The leading opposition party received more votes than the governing party that by itself forms a majority. We have those kinds of distortions in the electoral system.

I think we need change. The motion today is saying that we should strike a parliamentary committee to look at the ways of incorporating a measure of proportional representation into our system. The motion is very deliberate in saying that we should set up a committee to study the ways of incorporating a measure of PR into the system or, in other words, mix some PR into the system. There are many examples of this in New Zealand, Germany and other countries. We have the Welsh example and the Scottish example. There are many other examples in the world where we have a measure of PR.

There have been studies in this country which have talked about a top-up of 20 members, 30 members, one-third of the members, one-half of the members, or a quarter of the members being elected according to the proportion of votes that a party receives. If at the end of the process a party receives 30% of the votes, say in the province of Quebec, that party should get roughly 30% of the members in the House of Commons from the province of Quebec.

We have great regional distortions today. I look across the way and I see three of my friends from the Liberal Party in Ontario. In Ontario in the last campaign 101 members of the 103 are Liberals. We would say that everyone in Ontario is a Liberal, but if we look at the results in Ontario the Liberals are members of a minority party in Ontario, receiving slightly over 49% of the vote. The majority of Ontarians voted for the NDP, the Reform Party, the Conservative Party and for independents. Almost 51% of Ontario residents voted that way yet only 2 of the 103 members from Ontario represent members who are now sitting in opposition in the House.

I do not think that fosters good nation building or a good vision of what the country should be. It has created great balkanization and great regionalism in the country. If we can bulk up with heavy votes in certain regions we can do well, but if the vote is scattered across the country we do not do anywhere near as well. I think it has created all kinds of regional tensions.

Imagine that we had a system of PR, whatever the appropriate model is for our country. I want to say to members across the way, including my friend from Hamilton who is opposed to the idea of PR, that my motion does not advocate any particular model. That is why I want a parliamentary committee to look at what models may be appropriate to our unique federation. Then take that model back to the House of Commons. If it is approved by the House of Commons, then go to the people in a referendum and let the people decide whether they want the status quo or a new model of proportional representation. What could be more democratic than that in terms of a process?

I appeal to my Liberal friends across the way to give this process a chance. Let us have a discussion for the first time in the history of our country since 1923 as to whether or not we should modernize our electoral system and whether or not we should engage people and empower people in a system that is much more relevant.

Back to regionalism. Imagine an election where we had a measure of proportional representation. Proportional representation would force all the parties in the country to have a national vision about Canada. If they did not have a national vision they would not receive votes.

It would force us in the NDP to look more seriously at Quebec and its uniqueness and distinctiveness. In the same way, Canadian Alliance would look at Quebec and its uniqueness and distinctiveness. It would force the Liberal Party to take the crisis of Saskatchewan and Manitoba farmers more seriously. As a matter of fact, part of the frustration was when farmers from our province came here to lobby, when they asked why the government would not take them more seriously the answer was it only has one seat in Saskatchewan anyway, so what does it matter?

If we had PR, a vote in Kamsack, Saskatchewan would be worth as much as a vote in Trinity—Spadina. It would force all parties to take all parts of the country equally seriously in terms of a national vision as to where they want the country to go. A dream people have, is that we have national parties that would knit the country together to unite it. PR would probably be the greatest step toward national unity we could possibly dream of in terms of the future of our country. I recommend that people think about that as we go on with the debate over the next few weeks.

Another thing is the empowerment of people. If we look at federal and provincial campaigns, the majority of people vote for losers. How many times have we heard, “Well, I vote for losers. My person did not win. My woman did not win. My man did not win. My candidate did not win. I wasted my vote. I voted for a loser”.

In fact, the majority of people in the last campaign voted for losers. The majority of people in my riding voted for losers. I got 43% of the vote. Fifty-seven percent of the people voted for other parties. Even in ridings where people had a majority, such as yours, Mr. Speaker, I suspect 40% to 45% of the people in your riding voted for losers. They feel they waste their vote so why should they engage themselves in the process?

Under proportional representation no one votes for a loser. Everyone is a winner. Every single vote counts. Every single vote has weight in the Parliament of Canada. When we turn on our televisions the day after the election, our vote will count no matter where we are in the country, because our vote will be going to a certain political party that will get a certain number of members in the House of Commons in accordance with the vote for that party. That is what almost every country in the world does. It means we could vote Reform in Newfoundland, it means we could vote NDP in Alberta, it means we could vote Liberal in rural Saskatchewan and our vote would still count.

Our point of view would still count. Our point of view would still be important not just on election day but for four years. Our vote would count for four years each and every single day as we empower a member of parliament to speak on our behalf because our vote is reflected in the House of Commons for four years.

It would do something else that is extremely radical, so radical for our system that maybe it is heresy. It would force politicians to work together. We could not harangue each other all the time. We would have to work together. We would have to form coalitions and work together like they do in most countries around the world.

Since the second world war Germany has never had a majority government by one party. There has always been a working coalition, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, the Liberal equivalent in that country, and so on. It is the same in most Scandinavian countries, France and many other countries around the world. It would force politicians to form a consensus in terms of what we want to do and where we want to go.

PR in Canada would radically change voting patterns. How many times have we heard people say, “I would vote for your party but you cannot win”. I have a friend who has voted for a party that he does not like for the last 20 years in every single federal election campaign. He votes for that party because he is trying to keep out another party he likes even less. For the last 20 years he has not voted for the party of which he is a card carrying member. Under PR he could vote for the party of his preference because his vote would count. We might see a radical change in voting patterns because we would not have such a thing as strategic voting. A vote would count no matter who an individual voted for. That is another reason we should look at PR in terms of empowering people.

Those are some of my arguments in favour of proportional representation.

Some people may ask would proportional representation not create all kinds of fringe groups and all kinds of instability and uncertainty? I want to respond to a couple of those questions. I think they are myths.

In almost every country in the world where there is proportional representation there is a threshold above which parties must achieve votes before they are represented in parliament. In some countries that threshold is 3%, some countries 4% and some countries 5%. That is something we could look at as well.

Other people may ask if it would not create a great deal of instability. We have more instability now because we are a first past the post system. With a minor change in the votes we create great U-turns in terms of policy. Free trade is a good example of that. I think with proportional representation where all parties were represented in the governing process there would be more gradualism in terms of policy changes and more stability in terms of the direction of the country because a consensus representing the people at all times would be needed.

There are a number of other criticisms of the PR system that some people have, but my time is coming to a close. I say to my colleagues that in private members' hour we have a chance to debate and vote on something that might be done outside the constraints of the party whips.

I appeal to all members of the Bloc Quebecois. René Lévesque spoke very passionately about proportional representation. Many people in the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc spoke about PR. I say to them that my motion does not define a particular method of PR. My motion deals with a process that will lead us to an appropriate model of PR for Canada which could be good for the Bloc Quebecois.

I say to the Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, that many of its people were among the first to advocate proportional representation in this country, including the member from Vancouver who is about to speak. This system could also be helpful to get their ideas in a permanent mix in the country. The same thing is true of our party in terms of being social democrats. It could be a system for the Conservative Party which is really underrepresented now because of our first past the post system.

I appeal in particular to the government. The first past the post system works very well for the government in power just because of the mathematics. I say to the government across the way that the day will come when it will not be in power. I would like the government members to think about that because when they are sitting on the opposition benches, when they get a lot more votes than seats in the House, then maybe the idea of doing what almost every other country in the world has done, having a measure of PR in our electoral system, will look a lot more appealing to them.

I remember sitting on this side of the House and seeing the huge Conservative majority of Brian Mulroney with 211 seats. Suddenly in a few short years that majority disappeared. I was very pleased to have heard many Conservatives talking about PR at their convention recently. I am talking of individuals such as Hugh Segal and others.

I appeal to the House to take my motion seriously and look at changing our electoral system to make it more democratic. Let us make sure it is a system where no vote is wasted, where people are empowered and the Parliament of Canada will truly reflect the way the people vote.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for an excellent and informative speech and for taking the initiative to bring this matter to the House of Commons. I also extend my thanks to members present who permitted me to speak in this order.

The motion as set out calls upon the government and all members of parliament to embark on what would be a very historic and important journey. That is to examine our federal electoral system making use of a report on proportional representation that would come about as a result of participation of an all party committee.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you personally and many others followed with great interest the proceedings of the Progressive Conservative Party's policy conference which took place last weekend in Quebec city. I note the acknowledgement by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. He would know that over 1,200 delegates participated in that exercise. They debated and voted on a number of policy issues, including this issue.

The issue of proportional representation, although judgment was reserved as to how we would proceed in the future, was a topic of great interest and participation by delegates. It signals the fact that this is a very important issue on the public's mind. It is something on which we should not close the options when it comes to this discussion.

The wording of the current motion troubles me somewhat in the sense that it calls upon the government to embark on a referendum process. Do not get me wrong. The Progressive Conservative Party has never shied away from national referendums and can lay claim to having been one of the national governments that ever openly participated in national referendums in a tangible way. It is a party that has done this and it continues to look at this type of participation in our democratic process.

The difficulty with the motion as framed is that it would be virtually impossible to carry it out within the timeframe we have to work in. The next general election is very likely less than one year away. It would be virtually impossible and highly dubious that the machinery which would be necessary to put it in place could be implemented. I do not say that with any false premise. I believe that this exercise is extremely fruitful and one which again I congratulate the member for having the impetus to bring forward.

In his speech the member mentioned the fact that it has led to certain policies. He mentioned the GST and free trade. The government when in opposition chastised and said the sky would fall if the country were to embark on these. We know it has embraced, expanded and called these same Conservative policies its own. This type of duplicitous reaction and approach is what has added greatly to much of the cynicism that exists not only about our electoral system but about politics in general.

What we are looking for and what is underlying this type of debate is the issue of relevancy in people's lives and the legitimacy of government in the undertakings which Canadians participate in on a daily basis. In a sense it is a very interesting scenario in that I know the hon. member was also present in the fall last year when we had a conference in which you, Mr. Speaker, were very much a participant and a chair with respect to citizen empowerment. And I openly thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that the exercise we are partaking in today is something that furthers the debate. It brings about hope for the achievement of some relevance and an achievement of a system that would be far more representative of Canadians' interest, their participation and their ability to hold government and elected members accountable.

At that conference much was discussed in a very positive light about a system of proportional representation. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, we discussed other countries that have embarked on such systems. There is much to be learned from examining those other countries.

One has to have a very healthy degree of caution as well when we go into this debate. There is no panacea. There is no one system or one magic bullet when it comes to changing a system which will ensure that it actually will improve what we have in the country today. The hon. member quite fairly indicated in his remarks that there is no one answer. However, the exercise of looking for that answer is what we should all be doing today.

With that reservation I say that we must proceed with caution. When we are talking about fundamental changes to our democratic process this must be ever present in our minds.

With that reservation it is fair to say that there are a broad number of academics and members of parliament present, who I expect we will hear from, who are very interested in this idea of empowerment and, by extension, citizens being empowered in a system of second round run-off elections.

It is interesting to see the electoral process being mirrored in some leadership races. That is something as well that can stand as a benchmark and stand as a precedent as we proceed in this exercise.

This run-off type of system would result in every member of the House being mandated to achieve at least a 50% threshold in the electoral district for which they were running.

The motion before the House calls for a statement of the opinion of the House as to actions that the government should take. We all know that the government could and likely will ignore this resolution. However, governments generally, in fairness, are very reluctant to embark or change a system that propels them into office and gives them a docile backbench. That is very much implicit in this debate as well, because it is not only members of the opposition but very much members of the government who are forced to clam up and bow down to a very centralized and very powerful executive branch of government.

It is even more unlikely, I suggest, that the current Prime Minister, in the dying days of his administration, would launch into such a vigorous reform of the electoral system. This Prime Minister is too comfortable and complacent with a system that has propelled him to office, and he knows that he has never been an innovator or very willing to embark upon new ideas. That is demonstrated, as I indicated earlier, by the policy approach which this government has taken.

The Prime Minister is at the head of a very powerful executive dictatorship. I do not use that word lightly, but that is the acknowledgement and that is very much the undertone of many academics who have been looking at this exact issue. There are no effective checks or balances in the current system. As Professor Donald Savoie described in his very important book Governing from the Centre , the Prime Minister is no longer first among equals, he is an all powerful individual. Even ministers in this government who wield a great deal of power are toiling in the shadow of the Prime Minister's senior staff. There is ample evidence of this outlined in Professor Savoie's work. The real power brokers are Eddie and Jean, not Paul and Allan.

Regionalism, which was touched upon by the hon. member, has also been exacerbated by our current system. I would suggest that this is very much a motivating and propelling force for us to look at the system we are currently saddled with.

This is not to belittle anyone personally; it is to set out a problem that exists and that very much weakens parliament in its ability to be effective and accountable. Accountability is something that we have to be conscious of.

One of the remedies that is put forward by many as leading to a stronger parliament, and one that I must acknowledge, is that if we abandon the parliamentary form of governance we must be prepared very quickly to move into a new and effective replacement. The proponents of proportional representation argue that members of parliament with the support of 50% plus one have the ability to enhance the mandate from their community and this would very much further embolden and empower the member who was elected. I agree with that sentiment.

Would that human condition be that simple. We know that is not the case, for party machinery will always play a role in our electoral process. Party leaders will always wield tools. We have seen instances in the very recent past where the government, without having a nomination process, simply appointed candidates. The current government has embarked on that process.

Any examination of this subject needs to pay particular attention and detail to the proponents of a new electoral law.

There is an important example of small changes to the system having important effects on the balance of power. When public financing became very much a part of the electoral system, a provision was inserted to require the leader of a party to sign the electoral papers of every candidate. The supposed purpose was to ensure, dare I say the word, clarity in who was to be the official party candidate, since public money would flow to that person's and that party's electoral machinery. This was seemingly an insignificant detail at the time, but the devil is in the detail and that is why I say we have to go forward with caution.

That procedure has led to a process which allows the government, or any party for that matter, to simply appoint candidates as opposed to having an electoral run-off system through a nomination.

This sort of backroom bludgeoning, I suggest, will continue to occur with proportional representation unless we have some defining guidelines. Change is fine. However, it should not be taken lightly and not embarked upon simply for the sake of change.

I am encouraged by the hon. member's initiative. I support him in what he is trying to do. We have reached a threshold of dissatisfaction and we must go forward from here.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very proud of the fact that they have one of the most stable and democratic political systems in the world. It has made Canada a model for many other countries.

This is not something that just happened by accident. We are the beneficiaries today of what our ancestors have provided and what political leaders over the last century and a half have handed down to us. However, even the best system in the world will have its critics.

It is natural that from time to time members of parliament and others interested in the political process will come forward with suggestions for improving our system, which in this case is our system of election.

Today's private member's motion is an example of this, with its call for the introduction of a new electoral system, incorporating a measure of proportional representation. If I may, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss some of the aspects of the motion, how it might impact Canadians and why in the view of some it may represent a risky gamble for Canadians, which I maintain might not be warranted under present circumstances.

To begin with, it is important to note that proportional representation is not a new idea. It has been tried in a number of forms in a number of countries all around the world, with varying degrees of success. Currently it is used in one form or another in many countries, notably Germany, Israel, Ireland and New Zealand. I understand that it was used in France, but it has now been substantially abandoned.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle indicated that we are one of only three countries in the world which does not use proportional representation. I did not quite understand that. If we include the U.S.A.—and I do not recall what the other country was—

[An hon. member]

India.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

India. Within the last couple of months I was over at Westminster in the United Kingdom. The last time I looked, they do not use proportional representation. Some British members of parliament and I discussed the issue when I was over there. Notwithstanding that the party in power had held out the possibility of increased proportional representation, I did detect a drawing back from that in the British House of Commons. They were looking at it carefully, and it is not everything that its advocates make it out to be. There are some pluses, to be sure, and there are minuses.

While all of these systems are called proportional representation, they often vary enormously and use different approaches, such as the following.

Some have preferential ballots where voters rank candidates in order of preference, with votes for low-polling candidates being transferred to the remaining candidates, according to voter preference.

There are pure proportional representation systems where the entire country is treated as one constituency, with members being selected from party lists based on the percentage of the popular vote received by the parties.

There are mixed systems where some members are chosen on the basis of first past the post, while others are chosen from party lists.

While proponents of the system claim it leads to better representation, particularly of minorities, minority interests and regions, with a higher voter turnout, the experience of those countries currently using proportional representation suggests that there may be some potential negative impacts as well.

For example, it could lead to a splintering of political interests in parties and therefore lead to more minority governments. It could make governing more difficult. It could increase political instability. It could force parties to engage in lengthy political deal-making in order to cobble together coalitions involving very different interests.

Some will say that process is actually quite democratic and representative but there are two sides to the coin and there is more than one view of this. As well, small one issue parties can sometimes find themselves in the position of being kingmaker which may allow them to force their own narrow agendas onto the nation as a whole.

Proportional representation sometimes can give a voice to extremist groups who would have been shut out in a first past the post system. Examples of such situations can easily come to mind.

Some countries have also found that proportional representation can exacerbate regional differences and cleavages within a society and can make it more difficult to reach a national consensus on some important issues. That is an important issue for a country as vast and as regionally segmented as Canada is.

Other countries have found that the use of party lists in selecting members of legislatures can strengthen the power of those party insiders responsible for deciding who will be on the list and in what order of precedence. I also as a member of parliament representing a constituency am curious as to what the balance would be, for example if I would continue to represent a constituency but those selected from a party list would not have that responsibility at all. They would not have the constituency responsibility, something to which all members of the House pay considerable attention and devote considerable resources.

These are just a few of the issues, some say problems, that we would encounter in moving toward a system of proportional representation. There are some other problems that might be specific to Canada. We have benefited in the past from an electoral system that allows for the diversity of our peoples to be drawn together in a parliament where there is a reasonable likelihood of a majority government. Minority governments might not so easily maintain our focus and our unity.

In addition it could under certain models involve a change. These changes could involve changes to our constitution, and this is a particular policy envelope that I am not convinced Canadians would want to open at this particular time. A referendum on the issue could also prove divisive judging from recent past experience.

Finally, one of the strengths of our electoral system is that Canadians are represented at the constituency level by members of parliament. All of us here do represent constituencies and that is a real strength for the House, something that might be—I am not saying would be lost—but could be lost if we are selecting MPs simply from party lists without reference to particular constituencies.

For these reasons, I am not inclined to support the motion in its whole. However, if there is a broad interest among members to pursue the issue of proportional representation, and I know there are members on both sides of the House who do have a real interest in this, the House could ask a committee of the House to look at this. I suggest the Standing Committee for Procedure and House Affairs as one possibility.

Members of that committee discussed the issue in the course of their 1998 review of electoral issues. There may be merit in further study. Such a review would provide us with information on the strengths and weaknesses of proportional representation, in international experience and the implications it could have in the Canadian context.

I want to sincerely commend the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his commitment to improving Canada's electoral system and for bringing this important issue to the House. I do not know what members will do with the issue in terms of the actual motion. I am certain that somewhere in the future there is a further study envelope of proportional representation to see how it might be adapted or used in Canada, and if there is a substantial consensus that would develop to do that in the House.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying to the member for the government side who just said that referenda are divisive, what could be more divisive than a government with 100% of the power with only 38% of the vote ramming its agenda down the throats of the people? Referenda are never divisive because people have the discussion and they all accept the democratic outcome.

That having been said, I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for bringing this issue before the House. However, I would say to him right at the beginning that it is highly unlikely, as I think he realizes, that the government would do anything with the motion, mainly because the history of changes to electoral systems indicates that the these things happen only during a time of crisis.

He mentioned that Germany, for example, since the war has a different system. He mentioned the Scottish system. Obviously a big change there allowed that new system to be introduced. In New Zealand, an example I know a lot about, it only happened because of the crisis in the financial system there which caused a huge reorganization of government. That was what led to the change to MMP down there.

The only thing I can think of that would happen in Canada which would cause such an upheaval would be a Quebec separation, for example. It would cause such a disruption to our electoral system that it would probably result in some serious looking at some other systems. That would be a terrible way for us to get to that point.

In talking about the motion before us it is flattering in the way that the motion is very similar or very close to Canadian Alliance policy, formerly Reform Party policy. The policy of the Reform Party, as I said, is very similar except that we would put the referendum or the decision-making to the people of Canada. Instead of a committee of the House looking at the alternatives and saying this is the one it favours and then asking the people of Canada in a referendum if this is what they want, we would take the decision-making fully 100% to the people.

The reason we reached that position within the Reform Party and now the Canadian Alliance is that we had many people who brought resolutions to our party conventions promoting one form of proportional representation or another. Whether it be straight proportional or the single transferable ballot, there are many different versions. The people who brought these motions forward were very firmly wedded to their particular form of proportional representation. It was very difficult to have any sort of meaningful debate on the floor of conventions.

We set up a task force to look at the alternatives. We had all the people with the different forms of proportional representation come before the task force to promote their views. We concluded that we would have to adopt a system similar to the one used in New Zealand to reach the consensus there.

Instead of choosing one of the forms of proportional representation being promoted by our members, we would give the job to Elections Canada to conduct an education process for the people of Canada across the country from coast to coast to coast for about a year, informing them how the different forms of proportional representation worked. Then we would have a referendum, first to find out if people wanted to change the system based on the information they had. If they did, we would have a second vote to indicate which form they would choose.

That is exactly what happened in the New Zealand case. I would like to go into a bit more information about the choices given to the people in New Zealand. Incidentally I should mention an interesting spinoff effect of what happened in New Zealand. The voters in New Zealand chose mixed member proportional, a system where the house is divided in two. Half of the members are elected under the first past the post system that we have in Canada. The other half are selected from a list based upon the proportion of vote received by each of the parties.

In New Zealand the parties have to get 5% in order to get any members into the house. In the last two elections in New Zealand there have been 30 or more parties on the ballot, but only four or five have managed to get into that grouping above 5% to actually get members in the house. The interesting side bar spinoff that has occurred is that with mixed member proportional some of the members in the house do not actually represent ridings because they are selected from the list.

How would we address them in the House? We could not say the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle because if he is a list MP he would not necessarily represent a riding. They had to change the standing orders in New Zealand to refer to members by their names. It really begs the question why we have to refer to one another by our ridings in the House? There was no good reason to retain that rule in New Zealand and they scrapped it. Everybody calls one another by their names now.

I have pages in front of me from the documentation that was sent to every voter in New Zealand in order to have the discussion take place over a 12 months period. The booklet described the various forms of proportional representation that could be selected by the voters.

Straight proportional is where everyone is elected on the basis of the proportion of the vote from lists that are provided by the parties. Then we have the supplementary member system under which most of the members, perhaps about four-fifths, are still elected on first past the post and about one-fifth or one-quarter of the total would be elected based on the proportion of the overall share of the votes. It can be a very complicated system in terms of allocating the votes to the parties, because how do they decide who will be on the list of members who get elected under the proportional system.

As mentioned by the government representative there are different ways of doing that. Sometimes it is a party list selected by the party brass, for want of a better word. Sometimes it is more democratically selected, perhaps by members of the party going through some sort of nomination process to get people on the list. A third way would be for people to argue in elections in an open nomination process pretty much like the first past the post system.

Under the supplementary member system usually there is very small representation from the smaller parties so they still tend to get a dominant larger party in the house. That was not the system that the New Zealand people chose.

Then there is the preferential voting system which is not truly proportional but ensures that the winning candidates get more than 50% of the vote. The person marking the ballot would mark their first, second, third and fourth choices. When they count all the first choices on the ballot, if the candidate who is in the lead does not get over 50% then the candidate receiving the bottom number of votes gets knocked off. Then all the second choices from those ballots get added in, counted again, to see whether one of the candidates gets more than 50%.

These are complicated ways of doing things but they are a little more democratic than what we have. I mentioned that was used in Australia. That system is also used in the Canadian Alliance, formerly the Reform Party, to select the national counsellors who run our party between elections.

Another system that is pretty complicated is the single transferable vote system. It is very similar to the preferential voting system but it involves having numbers of members representing one riding. It could be anything from three to seven members in one riding. It is used in Tasmania. Whilst I cannot show the House the examples I have here from the Tasmanian elections, it does allow a variety of smaller parties to get involved in the house itself.

Then we have the mixed member proportional system which I mentioned was finally chosen in New Zealand. The party list system there is actually chosen by the party brass because it really wants the opportunity to ensure that it has skilled people selected to come into the house. For example, my colleague who was here in the last parliament, Herb Grubel, the member for West Vancouver, is a very accomplished economist. He might, for example, be put on a list so that a party would make sure that it had those sorts of skilled people brought into the house.

I guess the bottom line here is whether or not I would recommend to my colleagues that they support the motion presently before us. I pointed out that the one flaw perhaps is that the decision on the type of system would be made by the committee and it would only be the final decision given to the people of Canada.

However, in reading the motion carefully I get the impression that there might be enough flexibility at committee to actually manipulate that a bit and for the committee to recommend what I am talking about, which would be that we cannot quite make up our minds which would be the best, that there are so many good advantages we want to put the whole package to the people.

On that basis I am certainly recommending support of the motion. I will be supporting it myself. In conclusion, once again I say congratulations to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for bringing this important subject to the House of Commons.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak today in the debate on Motion No. M-155, introduced by my NDP colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

I am grateful to him for this motion, since it gives us the opportunity to debate an important question that I will look at from three angles.

First, can democracy be improved? Second, is the electoral process a component of democracy? Third, could proportional representation serve to improve democracy?

Members will have understood the importance of this debate, since it involves thinking about parliament as the favoured place of the democratic expression of a country.

To my first question, “can democracy be improved”, I have no hesitation in answering yes. Our electoral system is of course democratic. However, it is not perfect, since it promotes the hegemony of the majority party. I must quote a 19th century author who wrote “Truth, laws, rights and justice depend on 40 rumps that rise among 22 that remain seated”.

How many governments have been elected and will be again, even though a strong majority of electors do not want them elected? In the present system, the person getting the most votes is the person elected, and the party with the most seats forms the government. Tough luck for the tens of thousands of voters who have no voice in parliament.

Everyone remembers the 1993 federal election, which robbed the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party of party standing in the House of Commons.

To my second question, “is the electoral process a component of democracy”, I answer yes as well, since it enables the public to choose the person best able, in their opinion, to represent them. If they are wrong in their choice, they will try to correct their fire a few years later in another election.

The last question focuses on the value of proportional representation as an instrument likely to improve democracy. To this question, I answer yes, but on certain conditions. But before briefly describing those conditions, I would like to give a few figures.

A UN study listed 174 countries according to their degree of human development. Of the 64 countries said to meet the criteria for superior human development, 34, or just over 50%, have a proportional representation system. The percentage drops to 33.5% for the group of countries considered to have an average level of human development, while in the last group of countries only one in four has proportional representation.

In short, the more developed a country is, the greater the likelihood of proportional representation. In fact, of the 174 countries, 66 elect their parliament proportionally—the less developed a country is, the less this is the case.

However, it might also interest the House to know that, of the 222 political systems listed in 1997 by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, only 64 elected their parliament using a first-past-the-post system.

A hard look at other countries obviously requires that some serious thought be given to this topic, since fewer than 30% of them elect their parliament based on the number of votes.

Is proportional representation a panacea for democracy? What are its advantages and its disadvantages?

In Esprit des lois , Montesquieu wrote “The love of democracy is the love of equality”. A century later, in his Du Contrat Social , Jean-Jacques Rousseau associated the notions of liberty and equality, saying “If we seek to find precisely what comprises the greatest good of all, that which must be the goal of any system of legislation, it will be found that this can be reduced to two principal objects: liberty and equality. Liberty, because any individual dependency takes away an equivalent amount from the strength of the body of the state; equality because liberty cannot exist without it”.

Proportional representation seems to work in favour of a better women's representation in parliament.

It cannot be mere happenstance that, if any country has more than 20% of women MPs, it is one which uses proportional representation. In Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, the proportion of women varies between 33% and 40%, while it is a mere 12% in the United States. The same conclusions apply to the figures for minority groups.

There is one other interesting element. The rate of popular participation is also higher, no doubt because the individual citizen has the assurance that his vote will be worthwhile.

While the single constituency single ballot system, known as first-past-the-post system, promotes government stability, one of the disadvantages of proportional representation is, no doubt, the instability it can generate, with all the political, economic and social consequences that may follow. This disadvantage is not insignificant. It does not take much imagination to see that a parliament with 30 parties sitting in it could, at times, be a bit of a circus.

Another not insignificant aspect is the lessened importance of the elected representative's link to his riding. We all know people who vote for the man, as we say. In my case, they vote for the woman. It is the candidate's personality that, for some voters, makes all the difference.

With a proportional vote, the party's program takes precedence. It is easy for voters to believe that the person elected from their riding will represent their party rather than themselves.

The Bloc Quebecois considers it worthwhile to hold a serious debate on the various types of voting, including proportional representation. One element seems fundamental, however, and that is recognition in the debate of Quebec's uniqueness.

Since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has been a federal party devoted to the interests of Quebec. We are the first case, but who here can say that our situation will always be unique, a sort of artifice without real importance? Everyone knows how interests differ from coast to coast.

The advantage of proportional representation is to give the difference a fair place. Because we rightly consider that our difference as a people warrants respect in the electoral process, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding, after the word “proportional” wherever it appears in the motion, the words “by province”.

In closing, I would express a hope that democracy may end up resembling the portrait Jules Romain painted of it:

A democracy is first a way of life in which people dare to talk to each other of important things, all the important things, in which they feel entitled to speak as adults and not as disguised children.

This comes from his work about men of goodwill, which I claim we all are.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a chance that there might be a minute or two left in this debate. I have some, I think, very relevant and, I would like to think, important things to say. Is it possible, rather than have my speech cut off after a minute or so, that we see the time for Private Member's Business as being completed?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As a matter of fact I will just have time to propose the amendment, provided that it is in order, and then debate will be terminated for the day. I will not be calling on the member for Wentworth—Burlington today in any event. The motion is receivable. When the bill next comes before the House the debate will be on the amendment.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the House today on the issue of newspaper concentration.

On February 15 of this year, based on a query by the House leader of the New Democratic Party, the Prime Minister said that the government would study the concentration of newspaper ownership in response to Thomson's announcement that it would sell off most of its newspapers.

On May 1, given that Hollinger announced that over 300 community papers and over 50 daily papers would be up for sale, I asked the Prime Minister what the progress of his study was. I was stunned to hear him say at that point that he really saw no need whatsoever for a study any longer because it seemed that the problem had cured itself. He said that if Mr. Black was selling his papers, someone else would buy them and there would be less concentration rather than more. The Prime Minister said that it would be better to wait and see what Thomson will do with his newspapers.

I would suggest that the government abandon its wait and see policy on newspaper concentration and act now to re-establish a healthy environment for Canadian and community owned newspapers. I want to tell the Prime Minister that there are alternatives to his wait and see policy but they have to happen quickly.

Yesterday I had the great pleasure of hearing Tom Kent present to the industry committee an ongoing review of the Competition Act. Mr. Kent headed the royal commission in 1980 which recommended legislation to curb media concentration. That was 20 years ago. He said then and says now that the reason newspaper concentration is dangerous to democracy is, quite simply, that owners choose the viewpoint that rules their papers, that they in fact are the ideological masters of their papers. This is fine if there are dozens or hundreds of owners running hundreds of newspapers, a wide teaming forum of diverse views, but that is not the case in this country.

We have instead a spectacle of very few owners in control of all the papers. Two companies, Hollinger and Thomson, have a stranglehold on newspaper ownership, both weekly and daily. Lo and behold, something happened. We are not exactly sure what but some kind of economic force has intervened and newspapers are once again on the block and up for sale.

I would like to join with Mr. Kent and urge the Competition Bureau and the government to do something ambitious right now. The government should amend the Competition Act to allow the review of any purchase that would give a buyer more than 10% of the Canadian circulation of a newspaper owned either in English or French.

I would urge the government to create tax incentives that will assist community groups, institutions, co-ops and groups of investors to reinvest and rebuild community ownership of our means of expression, rebuild the diversity of opinion which is in fact democracy's oxygen and what we need to have a healthy citizenship.

I urge the government and the Prime Minister to make the necessary changes in the Competition Act during this very brief window of time that it has to actually cause some real change in the balance of ownership in our newspapers. I strongly recommend that the government act quickly so that we can re-establish a balance of diverse opinions in Canada.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I think there has been some kind of glitch in the proceedings. I believe on April 4 the member opposite asked a question about proposed telephone rate increases, and subsequent to that, I believe she asked a question about the consolidation of newspapers.

However, in being drawn for a late show tonight, the question that was drawn was her April 4 question which had to do with telephone rate increases not newspapers. Am I correct, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The parliamentary secretary is quite correct. If she would like she can respond to the telephone request and when the other comes up she can respond to it then.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that affordable telecommunications services to Canadians in both rural and urban areas across Canada is a fundamental policy objective of the Telecommunications Act and it is key to the government's program called Connecting Canadians.

The CRTC has taken a number of initiatives to ensure that Canadians have access to a affordable, high quality telecommunication service, including an explicit subsidy from long distance carriers to support local telephone service which particularly benefits high cost rural and remote areas.

The CRTC has mandated that the level of basic telephone service generally available in urban areas must be provided in rural and remote areas. The CRTC has ordered the incumbent telephone companies to file service improvement plans to provide this level of service in those few areas where it is not available. This will mean significant investments by the telephone companies. However, in the end it will eliminate party lines and ensure that all Canadians can have access to the Internet without paying long distance charges.

Until 2002 the CRTC has capped annual price increases for residential service. Increases in residential rates are limited to inflation on average, with a maximum allowable increase of 10% on any particular local rate.

Under this price cap regulation, the telephone companies must file with the CRTC annual proposals for price changes.

Most of the telephone companies are proposing increases to be brought in over two years. In some cases, the companies are seeking approval for the maximum allowable increases in areas where the disparity between the cost of providing service and the price of service is the greatest. In Bell's territory, for example, most rural customers pay less for telephone service than urban customers even though the cost of providing them service is higher.

It is worth noting that, according to the OECD, Canadians continue to enjoy among the lowest telephone service rates in the world and the lowest—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, the parliamentary secretary had two minutes when she actually started the response after the explanation.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to address the House on behalf of my constituents.

On May 8, 2000, I put a question to the Minister of Human Resources Development. I submitted to the minister that:

—the counties of Albert, Petitcodiac, Hillsborough and Salisbury, are part of an urban economic zone, when they are in fact rural communities with high rates of unemployment.

I asked the minister to tell the House when she was going to begin the consultation process. I also reminded the minister that workers needed an answer before next fall.

Under subsection 18(2) of the EI Regulations, employment insurance regions must be reviewed at least every five years. Finally, this week, consultations began.

I was very happy to see that Hopewell Cape, Alma, Riverside-Albert, Fundy, Salisbury and Petitcodiac had been included in the new rural zone. I will explain why this move was so important.

I will give the House the example of Alma, which has Fundy National Park, and Kent county, which has Kouchibouguac National Park. The employees at Fundy National Park, who were doing the same work as those at Kouchibouguac National Park, needed 655 hours to qualify for employment insurance with a duration of about 15 weeks, while workers at Kouchibouguac National Park needed only 420 hours for a maximum of 32 weeks. That created quite an injustice between the communities.

Unfortunately this spring people working in Albert county, Hillsborough, Petitcodiac and Salisbury, which were zoned in with urban regions, went four months without income because of the 1996 legislation which shortened the period.

I would like to thank the government for correcting some of this injustice. We have to thank it when it does something good and I did see something good happen this week.

However, two communities were excluded from the rural zone in my riding. That is going to cause these communities quite a lot of hardship. The two communities that have been excluded are Elgin and Hillsborough. We have statistics from 1996 which show that those communities were at 17.8% unemployment. I strongly recommend to the minister that these two communities be taken into consideration during the consultation. Both Elgin and Hillsborough have very high rates of employment.

For example, if it stays as proposed, workers from Hillsborough and Elgin will be working in Hopewell Cape. Working side by side in the same industry, one worker will need 420 hours to qualify for maybe a period of 32 weeks, while the other worker working next to him or her will need over 600 hours to qualify for maybe a period of 15 weeks.

I think the government is on the right track in solving the injustice created by the economic zones that we had before. It now has a chance to make it fully correct and just for everyone. I certainly hope that the minister will take my recommendations. I am sure the mayors and community leaders are going to be putting forth recommendations also that those communities be included in the rural zone where they should be.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, as the member has noted, a review of the employment insurance economic boundaries is now under way. These reviews as set out in the regulations must be conducted every five years. They are conducted because just as the national unemployment rate changes over time, local and regional unemployment rates also change. We need to ensure that the system reflects local unemployment rates and remains fair.

These boundaries are set out fairly and are based on four factors: the urban-rural split as in the case of the member's riding; the homogeneity of the labour market; the geography; and the reliability of employment.

We have issued a proposal for public comment. The member has suggested that part of her riding is happy with that and part of it is not so pleased. We have put that notice in the Canada Gazette starting May 13. The opportunity for the member and the public to comment will last for 30 days.

The EI commission has reviewed the economic zones and members of parliament of all parties have now been briefed on the proposed changes. The commission has every intention of having the review finalized by the summer of this year. I encourage the member opposite and her constituents to put their views forward within the 30 day period. I am sure they will be taken into consideration.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)