Thank you.
Ms. May is next.
Evidence of meeting #16 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was issues.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #16 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was issues.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll also admit that I was once a practising lawyer. It's been a while since I've been in practice, so I'm not sure, but we have had a number of constitutional lawyers' briefs. The most recent was Benoit Pelletier's from the University of Ottawa, who did a brilliant and concise review of the BNA Act, the Constitution Act of 1982, all the leading Supreme Court cases. He looked at fundamental principles and then set out a course of “as long as you don't do the following”.
I don't know...did you see Professor Pelletier's testimony?
2:55 p.m.
Prof. Matthew P. Harrington
Yes.
2:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Okay. In terms of his conditions, he said, “If you don't trip any of these trip wires, you have clear sailing for Parliament to amend electoral reform.” Your question was, “Why are these people so certain?” , but that seemed to me to be a fairly cautious and well-informed path forward.
2:55 p.m.
Prof. Matthew P. Harrington
Yes, I think I'm in the minority on this. I do recognize that a number of my colleagues suggest that this is a section 44 problem.
I will say this. First, no matter what Parliament comes up with, this will be litigated, sadly. Second, the court has not given any guidance. I see the checklist, if you will, or the recipe for success, but the court seems rather capricious in this. In other words, in defining its own structure, the court discussed the fact that if you attempt to alter the essential characteristics of the Supreme Court, then you're going to need provincial consent. Nowhere did it bother to explain to us what the essential characteristics of the Supreme Court were. When you look at the House and the electoral system, I think it's not unreasonable to think that the court would have to take on that question as well.
People will say we've always used first past the post. That's not true in the Westminster system, as we all know. It isn't necessarily entrenched by virtue of the Constitution Act of 1867, but it seems to have become, arguably, entrenched over time. When you look at the idea of changing the qualifications for justices, which is a statute of Parliament, and the court says the usage is such that it is firmly entrenched, and now you're talking about something that at least has been in practice even longer, I'm not sanguine about that point.
3 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
In 1867 the U.K. parliamentary tradition included multi-member districts, so if anything is entrenched, it would have to include multi-member districts. I think you're in a minority in thinking there are issues here.
I wanted to also ask Professor Axworthy a question, and you again, Professor Harrington, and I'm only leaving you out, Dr. Norris, because it's such a Canadian question, but if you have a view, let me know.
Would you see any benefit in the government of the day putting a reference to the Supreme Court? Are there any issues that require engagement at other levels? Is this a constitutional matter, or are we correct in believing, as I believe, that it's up to the Parliament of Canada to decide what the voting system is? If the court refuses to take the reference, then it's a clear sign they don't see an issue. If they do take the reference, then it clarifies things before the system is first engaged. It's an out-of-the-box idea. I wonder if Professor Axworthy or Professor Harrington has a view on that as a cautionary approach.
3 p.m.
Public Policy Chair, Massey College, University of Toronto, As an Individual
You go first.
3 p.m.
Prof. Matthew P. Harrington
I would agree with you. I think this is an area where Parliament ought to assert its sovereignty and not defer to the court.
3 p.m.
Public Policy Chair, Massey College, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes, I feel exactly the same. When I talked about all the major changes from the secret ballot to an independent election commissioner to independent boundaries commissioners, which are crucial aspects of our system, they were all done through Parliament, and so should this be.
3 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I will then assert the supremacy of Parliament and assure you that we will take control of this issue and resolve it in a forthright fashion.
3 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Mr. DeCourcey, you have the floor and you have five minutes.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Dr. Norris, thank you, and thank you, Dr. Harrington
I want to start with Dr. Axworthy.
I appreciated your comments, which remind us to temper some of the hyperbolic rhetoric that floats around this conversation around crises while also keeping us mindful of the need to work towards improvements. I wonder if you can lay out some of the most important improvements that this committee can work together on.
3 p.m.
Public Policy Chair, Massey College, University of Toronto, As an Individual
The democratic agenda is a large one, but it is of particular, direct importance for a committee that will be making recommendations for changes to the electoral system.
Should you recommend a more proportional system or a mixed member system, by which the likelihood of majority governments becomes less, at a minimum—not impossible, but tending toward the representation side as opposed to the effective or efficiency side of government—then it becomes all the more important for the House Commons to work as an institution, to work in a minority or coalition kind of situation. This means that what members do in a legislature is at least as important as how they get there, and a host of suggestions have been made around the uses of committee systems, the role of members' statements, the breaking up of omnibus legislation, asserting programs around prorogation, the kinds of resources that are necessary for the use of the committee systems, the role of caucus research bureaus, and the need for better staff. I mentioned some of the suggestions that we made in our report about the committee system.
In essence, in terms of Parliament itself, my argument to you and to this committee is that as important as a reform agenda around our electoral system is—and of those six pillars, it's the only one that hasn't changed since 1967—just as important as a critical element would be for the House of Commons to take seriously its role as the people's House of Commons. That means a real revitalization of the role of members of Parliament, particularly through the committee systems, and there is a long list of suggestions.
The democratic agenda is large, and I can talk more about civic literacy and the role of party foundations and education, but the next agenda absolutely should be reform of the House of Commons.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
How would you advise us to deliver this in a digestible way when we consult with Canadians, talking about the larger democratic restructuring or renewal at play and maybe the way the different systems will help precipitate changes to democracy?
3:05 p.m.
Public Policy Chair, Massey College, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I would recommend, again, to end where you began, which is not over-hyping any of these systems.
We know from Pippa Norris's work that the kind of system you have is important and has an impact, but it's not necessarily the predominant factor. There are a host of other issues, such as political culture, the quality of the people running, and so on, and I think this is an area that requires some modesty, both in touting its impacts and also touting its defects.
So yes, our system can be improved. Will it be transformative? No.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I'll come back to others in the second round.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
We'll now move onto Mr. Richards, please, for five minutes.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Professor Harrington, I come to you first of all. You had certainly indicated that you think it's vitally important that people be directly and substantially consulted on the question of changing the voting system. You mentioned in your opening remarks, and I think subsequently, a couple of different ways whereby that could occur. You mentioned briefly the idea of referendums, and I think you indicated that you're not generally a fan of referendums, but my sense was that much like other witnesses we've had, you feel this might be an exceptional circumstance, one in which a referendum would be required. I'll let you answer that in a second and confirm that.
You also mentioned the idea of going directly to an election and the government resigning now. I think there are probably a number of members in this room who would probably think that's a bad idea, although I'd personally be okay with it, but for other reasons. In any case, whether they resigned or whether they called the 2019 election on that issue, it sounded to me that you were indicating that would be a way to have this be legitimized. Just to clarify, do you also feel that if that wasn't the case, a referendum would be another way to legitimize it?
3:05 p.m.
Prof. Matthew P. Harrington
Yes. Admittedly I take a rather High Church view of Parliament and its role in the system. I think that the most appropriate way for this matter to be resolved is for this to be the subject of an electoral campaign, which, of course, means that it's likely 2019. I know promises or expectations have been raised, but this is an incredibly complex question, as everyone knows, and I don't think anyone should feel an obligation to rush through this process just to fulfill campaign expectations. If I were in charge for the day, I would suggest that the most appropriate way would be to spend this Parliament resolving this question and place the proposal before the voters in a Westminster-style election and deal with it that way so that a new government takes office with the support of the people for whatever proposal has been developed.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'll just stop you there.
I'm assuming I don't have a lot of time, Mr. Chair?
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I have a follow-up question I'd like to ask. You had an interesting article in the Montreal Gazette back in January, where you indicated that you felt that if the government was tried to proceed without taking it to the people in one form or the other, this would be a time when the Senate should maybe take a step to act in the democratic interests of Canadians to block the government's bill in order to force them to take it to the people in some way.
I just wanted to get your sense. Why do you think that kind of rare action by the Senate would be justified and legitimate if it was necessary?