Mr. Speaker, there is an elephant in the room, and there is a mouse, but we are talking about the same thing. The elephant is some people's desire to see a reform of Canada's electoral system that would bring it closer to what is known as proportional representation. What is happening is that the elephant is trying to hide by disguising itself as a mouse in the hopes of going unnoticed.
Indeed, this motion is an attempt to leave the door open on a file that did not come to fruition about six years ago because of differences of opinion among the parties in the House concerning the system that should replace the current first-past-the-post system, as well as a lack of public interest in such a reform. I will explain.
In 2016, the Prime Minister asked me to chair the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, whose mandate was to do an in-depth study of the issue. That is one of the reasons I am so interested in today's debate. The committee held a series of hearings in Ottawa before touring the country to meet with Canadians where they live.
We crossed the country, stopping in every province and territory. In all, we visited 18 cities in three weeks, moving on to a new city each morning to hold hearings in the afternoon and evening, and starting again the next morning. Unfortunately, the hearings were not standing room only. Sometimes we heard enthusiastic and even passionate testimony in favour of reform. Sometimes people read prepared and almost identical texts, a sure sign of a well-coordinated campaign behind the scenes. In Victoria, the hall was full. In Quebec City, it was not.
I was able to reconnect with some of my former NDP colleagues, who had clearly come to present briefs in favour of proportional representation in support of their party's official position.
The committee did a remarkable job. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of its members, including the members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston and Joliette, as well as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is currently a minister in the B.C. government. They worked with diligence and zeal.
We produced an exceptional report, which provides a list of electoral systems from which a democracy can choose based on its political culture. The report is even used today as a political science textbook.
Two weeks ago, I was hosted at Concordia University by Professor Donal Gill, an outspoken supporter of electoral reform. He told me that he used the committee's report in class.
Unfortunately, the committee could not agree on a replacement for the current first-past-the-post system. Conservatives preferred the status quo. The NDP and Greens wanted PR. Liberals have always favoured the preferential ballot.
One practical issue that arose is that any major reform of the voting system would necessarily require a national referendum. I say in jest that, if one really loves this country, one does not wish a national referendum on it. If one has lived through two Quebec referenda, one has developed a healthy aversion to plebiscites on existential matters. In a country as vast as Canada, with a great diversity of deeply held regional perspectives, a referendum on a national scale on such a fundamental question can only lead to divisive results that further challenge national unity. No thanks.
Also, a national referendum would require a singular focus by the government when so many urgent issues of importance to Canadians abound and demand attention. One must remember that, at the time the committee released its report, a major development was suddenly monopolizing the government's energies: the election of Donald Trump, who was bent on tearing up NAFTA. There are priorities.
The problem with our politics, in my humble view, is not the electoral system. Therefore, engineering it will not lead to the democratic renaissance we hope for.
Further, proportional representation is not a panacea for all that ails our politics. The real problem is the sad state of political discourse. We are losing the capacity to dialogue and reason with one another, because we cannot agree that a fact is a fact and because we judge the merits of people's views on whether they resemble us ideologically. It should not matter whether I like someone when it comes to recognizing the value of their experience or the merits of their argument.
That it does is the tragedy of our present-day politics, and I am not sure the splintering of voices in Parliament that could accompany proportional representation is the solution we are looking for. Big-tent politics that has flourished under our present system, a system that requires compromise, has its advantages.
Last, I do not believe that proportional representation is the solution to low voter turnout, especially among young people. Millennials can still be excited by a candidate and get out to vote in large numbers, regardless of the electoral system. We saw that in 2015. Rather, I suspect that low voter turnout is the product of a more and more individualistic and atomized culture. These days, personal agency seems a stronger value than collective action. Added to this are the facts that many problems seem too complex and intractable, and that big corporations and technologies, especially digital ones, seem more powerful and faster moving than governments.
When it comes to motivating young people to vote, I find that the traditional appeal to duty is no longer as effective as it was with older generations, especially those who have seen and lived through the sacrifice of war. When I speak to young people about voting, I speak of a different kind of duty, a duty to self. The ethos of personal authenticity that prevails today has in some ways become the highest value, whether we are talking about musical artists expressing themselves through their own compositions, or people broadcasting their views on every little thing on social media. What I say, especially to younger people, is that if they really live by the credo of personal authenticity and view it as the highest form of personal integrity, then to be true to themselves, they must express their views at the ballot box, whether it changes the electoral result or not.
I understand and respect the views of the member who has sponsored the motion in good faith and out of real concern for our democracy. However, I do not believe we need to revisit electoral reform at this time.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank and congratulate the principal analysts from the Library of Parliament who were assigned to the committee and who produced such an incredible report, which, as I said before in my speech, is still being used today as a textbook in political science classes. I am speaking of Dara Lithwick and Erin Virgint, who were really exceptional.
I would also like to commend Christine Lafrance, clerk of the committee, for her unsurpassed professionalism. She is an outstandingly effective and experienced clerk. With Ms. Lafrance at the helm, it was smooth sailing all the way.