Evidence of meeting #17 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 broadbent.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's now 12 years ago that I served on a parliamentary committee that dealt with the issue of electoral reform. Ed Broadbent was on that committee at the same time.
It's good to be discussing the same issue with you again after all these years—or perhaps it's bad to be discussing it for all these years, because it suggests an unresolved question—
2:45 p.m.
Chair and Founder, Broadbent Institute
I hope your views have changed since then.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I was actually going to ask you that very question, because my view at the time...and you'll recall this from the supplementary report written by the Conservative Party, which was largely penned by me. We said that no new system of electoral reform should be adopted without a referendum to authorize it. It's a view I still hold. At that time, you indicated on a number of occasions that you had at least a somewhat complementary opinion and felt that a referendum would be a legitimizing tool. I'm wondering if you still feel the same way, or if you feel that it is not necessary to have a referendum today.
Let me start with that.
2:45 p.m.
Chair and Founder, Broadbent Institute
I can see the argument for it, but on balance I think the arguments against it are better, frankly.
Beginning from a constitutional position, it certainly isn't constitutionally required to have a referendum.
Second, I agree with our distinguished academic from Toronto in terms of some of the conditions she laid out. If, for example, more than one party campaigned for it, as was the case for this Parliament, when not only the Liberal Party but also the New Democratic Party and the Green Party all campaigned on the basis of committing themselves to some form of electoral reform, that for me gives solid democratic legitimacy to the project. Parliamentary democracy entails not direct citizen participation but representative participation, so having more than one party is important. I strongly agree that it would be a fundamental mistake for the governing party alone to bring in a system that it alone favoured. That would not be legitimate in a democracy, as has already been suggested by my academic colleague as well.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
If I might say so, Ed, here's the problem. There are a number of problems, I believe, but one problem is this: as you would know very well, the phrasing of that Liberal election promise, “This will be the last election conducted under first past the post”, was taken word for word from an NDP opposition day motion from December 2014. The NDP motion went on to specifically mention proportional representation. It may even have said MMP, but I can't remember now.
2:45 p.m.
A voice
Yes, it did.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
It did. Okay. The NDP voted for it, so I think anybody voting NDP knew they were voting for MMP. The Liberals voted against that motion in 2014. The result is that people voting Liberal, to the extent they had thought this through—and I suspect most people did not know the various voting patterns—would not have said, “I'm voting for MMP.”
There are a multiplicity of potential changes to the system, none of which has been approved by the voters in that election, and that, I think, is a fundamental problem that remains. There's no specific system, but we would have a specific change that might or might not have the approval of voters.
It is not difficult to imagine a system better than first past the post, but it's also not difficult to imagine an electoral system being put before Parliament that would, from the point of view of Canadian voters, be worse than the current system. That is the purpose of a referendum: it prevents that option from occurring.
Do you think that I am wrong in what I say in this regard?
2:50 p.m.
Chair and Founder, Broadbent Institute
I'm saying that however the Liberal Party voted on that motion—frankly, I was not familiar with that—they had a campaign after that, in any case. The man who became prime minister did make a campaign for electoral reform, with many options open, as I recall. He also, again if I recall, used the phrases, “every vote must count” and “make every vote count”. If you do that, there's only one system that does that, and that is a system of PR of some kind. I think there would be legitimacy for the Liberals to say they campaigned on that, as there would be for the Green Party and the NDP.
Let me add further about a deliberative process. I agree with what our academic colleague has said about the importance of the deliberative process of this committee and its important work to give legitimacy.
I want to raise one negative thing about referendums. If we have all the positive conditions of deliberation and campaign commitments by more than one party, then I ask members of the committee to think what might happen if the country went ahead with a referendum.
I lived through, in part, what happened in England on the Brexit vote, and I can tell you that it's a hopelessly divided country right now, very seriously so. What would happen in Canada, whether a referendum question won or lost, if Quebec and Alberta voted one way and the rest of the country voted another way, or if British Columbia and Quebec voted one way and other provinces voted another way, and the campaigns were rather intense and the divisions were rather intense? My own serious view is that this would contribute to national disunity, not unity. Whether the campaign was won or lost, there could be great divisions.
If it were the only option, I say to the honourable member.... I take seriously the argument for a referendum, even though I don't agree, but if all the other conditions of deliberation and campaign promises were met, then I think it is legitimate for the parliamentary system to make a decision on its own.
I would add one final point. The two great political theorists of the late 18th century and early 19th century, one a liberal and one a conservative, Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill, would have both favoured parliamentary action in a case like this.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the witnesses for joining us today and for their very enlightening remarks. My thanks to Mr. Broadbent particularly. I was not very aware of the 1980 federal election. My recollections of it are actually a little vague.
In three provinces, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, if you get almost a quarter of the votes, your representation is minimal. By that I mean two members. In cases like that, it is more difficult to come up with effective public policies that represent the interests of the various regions and their residents.
You are very familiar with different ways of voting and you have travelled to see what is done elsewhere. So you have observed that 80% of OECD countries have adopted proportional methods of voting, in many cases mixed or compensatory methods.
In your opinion, do citizens of those countries fully understand their electoral system and their method of voting? If so, does that encourage them to become more involved in political life, more so that the system we have had here for 149 years?
2:50 p.m.
Chair and Founder, Broadbent Institute
Well, these are subjective opinions, as the honourable member will recognize. It was from both my general experience and from reading about these countries, and more specifically from talking to members of Parliament, especially when I had a position in Socialist International that brought me into contact with members of all parties in European assemblies. At that time I was asking personal questions myself, because I was in favour of change here. Whether they were in the conservative party in Germany, the CDU, or the Social Democrats, I found broad agreement that they were very happy with their system. There was certainly no suggestion that their citizens lacked an understanding. In the case of a straight PR vote, of course, you just vote for your party, and that's it. Otherwise, in a list system, in the case of Germany or Scotland or New Zealand, you have two votes, but they're pretty straightforward. You vote once for your local MP, and your second vote is for your party of preference. I never ran into anyone suggesting that this was too complex for ordinary people to handle. It was quite the contrary: they were quite at ease and accepting of their system.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Broadbent.
Mr. Charbonneau, you tried an attempt to reform the method of voting in Quebec. You saw the obstacles, the difficulties for the voters, and the resistance from some regions or rural municipalities.
In your opinion, what obstacles will we face in this federal parliamentary committee? What solutions do you suggest to us in order to overcome the resistance to change?
2:55 p.m.
Minister for Democratic Reform, Government of Quebec (2002-2003), As an Individual
A few years ago, when we had the parliamentary commission on the draft bill in Quebec, it would have been good if the minister appointed to hold the fort actually had held it. In other words, if someone does not stand up for the change they themselves are proposing, there is going to be a problem.
Mayors from the regions of Quebec and the RCMs told the parliamentary commission that it would be awful, and that their regions would lose power and representation. No one responded to that. But the response is very simple.
Take Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean or the West Island of Montreal as examples. In general, the representation there is somewhat homogeneous, albeit not always. With a compensatory mixed-member proportional system, the representation there would probably be greater.
What effect would that have on representing the region’s interests? It would force members from all parties in a region to form a common front in order to stand up for the interests of that region. If a major economic project was proposed in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, everyone would be working for it, not just the members of the one party in power, the one with a majority of members.
People had their fears, but I personally believe that it would strengthen the power of regional representation, by virtue of the fact that it would create a dynamic of collaboration that does not exist to the same extent at the moment.
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Gentlemen, madam, thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.
In Quebec, the common language is different from the one in other provinces. We have our own culture, our own artists, our own points of reference and our own media. We absorb our information from different networks. I have become even more aware of that since I have been working here. I read The Globe and Mail and the National Post, and I often notice the differences. We do not hold the same debates and we do not share the same priorities or the same values.
A few years ago, the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons, recognized Quebec as a distinct nation. One of my main concerns is whether, with the reform, this will still be respected. That was what federalism was agreed to mean. The task is not to form a legislative union, it is to implement mechanisms to ensure that the Quebec nation is recognized and defended. With a compensatory mixed-member proportional system, my fear is that the Canada-wide list will be drawn up in Toronto, shall we say, and that votes in Quebec will be serving values that are not our own.
I will put the question to Mr. Charbonneau first, but I would also like Mr. Broadbent and Ms. Dawood to answer it.
How can we make sure that the mechanisms will safeguard our nation?
2:55 p.m.
Minister for Democratic Reform, Government of Quebec (2002-2003), As an Individual
First, you have to establish a compensatory method based on regions.
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
2:55 p.m.
Minister for Democratic Reform, Government of Quebec (2002-2003), As an Individual
It would mean the major federated jurisdictions and perhaps a group of federated jurisdictions in some cases. Quebec would be a region, for example. Within Quebec, there would also be sub-regions. There would not be just one regional constituency in Quebec. As proposed for the National Assembly, there could be sub-regions. Against that background, choices that would represent the political reality would be possible.
That said, we must remember that the Quebec nation is not going to be defined by a voting method.
For Quebec, the situation where there are too many Bloc Québécois MNAs in terms of the party’s real power is no more valid than the situation we had back in the day when Quebec had too many members from Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s party, 72, 73, 74 or 75 of them, giving the impression that he had taken power in Quebec and that his approach was the only valid one in Quebec. There is a distortion of the reality in both cases.
Protecting the nation of Quebec will not be done simply by means of a method of voting in the House of Commons, but probably by other mechanisms, including the Parliament of Quebec doing its job.
3 p.m.
Minister for Democratic Reform, Government of Quebec (2002-2003), As an Individual
I see no Canadian list, clearly. Otherwise, we would not be talking about regional compensation but national compensation. You cannot really think in terms of a national list for an area as huge as Canada. That could not be sustainable for long, in my opinion.
3 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Earlier, I asked Mr. Charbonneau and Mr. Broadbent whether a Canada-wide list could be envisaged as a way to protect the rights of minority nations, or whether it should absolutely be done by province. They answered the question. I would now like to hear what Ms. Dawood has to say on the matter.
3:05 p.m.
Prof. Yasmin Dawood
Today I prefer to stay with the process of electoral reform rather than comment on the specific substance of various proposals, but I will say, in answer to your question, that this is one reason that having an in-depth process is really important: it is precisely so that issues such as the one you raised will be fully vetted before any system is chosen or any recommendations are made.
