Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 23rd, 2016

[Dr. Thomas S. Axworthy]

My experience has been that negotiations in private basically are the way to get things done in the most efficient way. It's not that public negotiations can't succeed; they can, but it's one of the complexities or anomalies of our system that cameras and the public face become an aspect of negotiation beyond the substance of the issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor and you have five minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Harrington, I would like to chat with you. Don't be surprised that we're talking about referendums. As a Conservative, I do respect the fact that you have plain confidence in our system and the fact that you are attached to our system. I do respect that. But don't you think there are issues that we can raise and solve by referendum?

[Prof. Matthew P. Harrington]

I think referenda are blunt instruments for making complex policy decisions. I think they are useful for giving Parliament a sense of where people are on a thing. In other words, it's hard for me to imagine what a referendum.... Obviously one can't put a referendum to a large group of people about, here's a single transferable vote system, here's a multi-member system, here's the first past the post system.... That's not the way a referendum could—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I want to open the door wider than that, not just the specific issue of regulatory reform, but wider. Don't you think there is any issue in political life that should be solved by referendum?

[Prof. Matthew P. Harrington]

Again, I would shy away from referenda except in a situation in which one is looking for just a basic understanding of where people might be on a subject, but not with respect to the designing of policy. In this particular case, I am very much convinced that if we are not going to have this go forward for the 2019 election, then there ought to be a referendum. In other words, I look at a referendum as sort of second best to actually saying, here's our proposal, let's go to the country with an election on our proposal. If that's not what's happening, then yes, I agree that the next-best solution is a referendum.

I do not suggest that the House just say, “This is our proposal and we're going to do it without either a referendum or an intervening election.”

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

That's very interesting. I recognize that the doors are a little more open than expected. That's great, but if we have an electoral referendum, the issue of the 2019 election will be on the electoral system. How can we ensure that the people will vote 100% on that issue? I mean, there are plenty of issues in general elections. You said that in 1988 the main issue was the free trade agreement. I do agree with you, but it should have been something else.

In 2012 in the provincial election, the premier set the tone for law and order. Three days later, the tone was set by the opposition party, my party, about the ethics issue, so you can't be sure of the issue of an election. Why do you think that we could have the election on that specific issue in 2019?

[Prof. Matthew P. Harrington]

I think you're correct in suggesting that people vote for all kinds of reasons. Again, when I look at, for example, the European Union referendum in Britain, we don't propose to the public the exact process. It is, “Do you want in or do you want out?”, and we leave Parliament to work that out over time. I suggest that's a second-best solution to the traditional Westminster way.

Referenda are a relatively new phenomenon.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Relatively. But I'm from Quebec, and you teach in Montreal.

[Prof. Matthew P. Harrington]

I'm talking about over the course of a hundred or two hundred years; it's a relatively new phenomenon.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

On that point of view, I do agree.

I have just a one quick question. Just to be sure, do you think that if a province wants to separate, they should call a referendum, or would it be a call of the government or a call of the National Assembly, for example?

[Prof. Matthew P. Harrington]

That's an entirely different problem, because we're talking about something entirely different, which is the dissolution of the confederation or a partial dissolution of the confederation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think the time is pretty much up.

Mr. Aldag will finish off.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

It's always the toughest spot, the very last one of the session.

We talked a bit about understanding these processes and, in the case of a referendum, helping people understand. I ask all three of you for your thoughts on who you would see as being the one who would take the primary role for the education of the public in this kind of situation. Are there obvious voices or leaders? Whom do you leave it to to start a public education campaign on something as riveting as electoral reform?

Maybe, Professor Norris, I will start with you. Have you looked at this idea of education and public information in other jurisdictions and how it is done?

[Prof. Pippa Norris]

You'll obviously want to have a plurality of views, so you don't want to have the authorities, as it were, producing “the” information, but Elections Canada with Marc Mayrand, in my view, would be an appropriate, impartial, independent body that could represent and give out information very effectively. You'd also want the electoral reform societies and each party, because in any deliberation there shouldn't just be one perspective. You want many different voices, and the media should get engaged.

You might also think about some sort of audit process, a democratic audit of Canada as part of this as well, to encourage further discussion beyond the electoral reform issues.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay.

[Dr. Thomas S. Axworthy]

I would just add to that again on implementation issues around education. It's not only who would do it, but also the amount of time necessary for it to be done. It's a huge educative process, and rushed processes are ones that don't get well understood. Therefore, it's a necessity—and that's why we have to look at the outcomes—that you have a very long lead time to begin to thrash out these issues. That's why we began by talking about a democratic audit or a citizen's jury process along with this committee's work. You need time. You need differing voices organized differently to get this complicated issue across.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Professor Harrington, do you have anything to add?

[Prof. Matthew P. Harrington]

No, I think that covers it.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay.

Professor Norris, you had mentioned multiple parties. Would you also foresee things like spending limits being brought into play in the way that we have for elections, or do you make it a complete free-for-fall so that whoever has the deepest pockets has the biggest voice? What kinds of parameters would you need to put around having third parties involved?

[Prof. Pippa Norris]

You would obviously want some sort of level playing field to make sure there's a balance of views and that it's not one sided. That's a complicated issue. We're getting better at regulating party funding on a fair basis with public funding, but when it comes to allocating it for referendums, it is more complicated. Nevertheless, I think the same types of principles apply: if we have a yea and a nay side, then it's fairly straightforward; if we have more sides, then it's more complicated. But public funding is part of the civic education that we've been talking about, and it would be really useful to do.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

About a minute.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Maybe I'll move to something different. I don't know if this is the appropriate time to do it, but in this morning's session I finished my second round of questioning by talking about referenda as well. At that point, Mr. Reid made a statement. I was going to wait for the blues or record of the discussion to come out, but I just want to say that what I heard him say is that the minister, the Prime Minister, and the Liberal Party have said that Canadians are too stupid to understand electoral reform. I really took exception to that. I just want to put on the record that I don't believe this is ever the case, and they would clearly have said that Canadians need to be involved and have a voice in this process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Duly noted.

Are there no more questions for the witnesses?