Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 29th, 2016

[Prof. Yasmin Dawood]

Certainly there are constitutional rules around provincial representation or distribution, and those would have to be respected and would have to be met. Most of the common proposals that are floating around, however, would not violate those distributional principles, provided they were in fact taken to account, which I assume they would be.

The other kinds of constitutional limits include making sure that you provide effective representation and meaningful participation. Those are standards that the Supreme Court has outlined in its case law. Again, I think that most of your standard proposals for reform would in fact meet those constitutional standards as well.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thanks very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. DeCourcey.

Mr. Reid is next.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I return to Dr. Broadbent for my questions.

If you'll forgive my saying so, certainly there is no harm in changing one's mind over the course of the 12 years that have passed since you made your comments and quoted John Stuart Mill.

[Ed Broadbent]

He changed his mind, too, by the way.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Well, that may explain why you quoted him saying two opposite things. I can't see how one can change one's mind about factual statements regarding the opinions of authority figures. Twelve years ago you cited referenda and said this meets with his values; now you say, in this committee, that his values lie elsewhere. While your opinions may have changed, I submit that in fact his record is unchangeable, due to the fact that he's dead, and that seems a bit unfair.

I noticed that back 12 years ago you also indicated—and here I'm quoting from an article you wrote in Policy Options—that what you thought was the best system was a “citizen-created referendum question”, and you based it on the citizens' assembly model in British Columbia. Now we have this idea that somehow broad consultations or a deliberative process are an alternative to getting the people to sign off, whereas with British Columbia that was seen as being a first step in a two-stage process, something that I thought was a good idea and that you did too, back then.

I wanted, actually, to ask you about this point: you said that referenda are divisive, and to make your point, you cited the Brexit referendum. I would just point out to you that if we're trying to make valid analogies here, the analogy would be with the British government making the decision to exit the European Union without bothering to consult the people, because in fact we're talking about the government not having a referendum and deciding to change our electoral system as if the Conservative government in Britain had decided to exit the EU without consulting the people. That would have been illegitimate.

You say that referenda are divisive, and I look back at our three referenda in Canada and see a different story. In 1992, an issue that was on the verge of breaking the country apart—the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and the fallout from it—was resolved via a referendum, in which Quebeckers and a majority in the rest of the country voted against that new proposal. It seems that was preferable to the government's pushing it through just because it had the support of the majority of parties—all the parties, in fact, at the time.

In 1942 we had a plebiscite on conscription. While it revealed a deep division, it let us deal with that division. I think that is preferable to the introduction of conscription without a referendum in 1917 and the riots that this action produced in Quebec City and elsewhere, but especially in Quebec City.

In 1898 we had a referendum on whether the federal government should prohibit alcohol, and that revealed a deep division: Quebec was against it, and the rest of the country was in favour. The result was to let it be dealt with by provincial governments.

Therefore, if there are divisions, surely an advisory referendum, which is the only kind we have in Canada, reveals the problem. Is that not preferable to pushing through an electoral system that may or may not actually have the support of the people, with no way other than polls of demonstrating whether they support it, and pushing it through regardless of whether the polls say they support it just because in the last election a number of the parties indicated that they thought electoral reform—not a specific reform, just electoral reform in general—was a good idea?

[Ed Broadbent]

Well, to use your own words, if it were a matter of “pushing through” an option, I would agree with you, but we've had earlier discussion, including that of our academic colleague from Toronto, who laid out certain conditions of legitimacy that did not entail a referendum and arguments that I support.

My disagreement about a referendum is not black and white. I can see, as I'm sure I said this earlier this afternoon, the arguments for a referendum. They just happen to be arguments that I think are weaker and are not applicable under the present circumstance.

We don't need a referendum to have legitimacy. We brought the vote—we, I mean, historically in Parliament—for women without a referendum. To say the least, that was a major change in the electoral system.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

If you recall, that was brought through so that only certain women could vote. I would argue that this was actually done illegitimately. Later on, in 1918, after an election had been conducted in which only some women who were likely to vote for the government were able to cast ballots, it was updated. I'm always puzzled by the use of that particular example.

[Ed Broadbent]

The point is that a major decision on the issue of gender equality—forget the precise details—was made without a referendum, as was bringing the vote for indigenous Canadians, as was bringing the vote for Japanese Canadians and other groups that had been discriminated against. We, meaning the parliamentary system, have made major decisions without referendums before. As long as the conditions of deliberation, consultation, looking at evidence, and consensus-building are all done by this committee, it's the better route.

I'm not saying those who are arguing for a referendum are totally wrong. I'm just saying that there are two arguments, two different sets of propositions that you can put forward for dealing with this change, and I happen to be rather strongly now on the side of one of those as opposed to the other.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Boulerice is next.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have a quick comment to make before I ask my questions.

I think it would be a good idea to remind everyone that the previous Conservative government amended the Canada Elections Act. It made voting more difficult and less accessible. Canadians abroad also lost their right to vote. In addition, a referendum was never considered.

Mr. Charbonneau, I wanted to tell you that we do take our work very seriously here. The Liberal government has committed to changing the voting system, and we, in the NDP, are strongly in favour of that change. In fact, it would be more fair for Canadians, especially since votes would no longer be lost.

Our work here, in committee, consists in showing leadership and submitting proposals in order to change the system. The Conservative Party defends the status quo, but I believe the parties around the table represent 63% of the electorate. Those people voted for parties that wanted to change the voting system and improve our democracy.

Mr. Broadbent, there are Westminster-type institutions, but there are very few countries in the world that operate based on the “first-takes-all” system, which creates these distortions that are so often talked about. The heart of the Westminster model is clearly the United Kingdom. We have recently seen the devolution of powers in Northern Ireland and the creation of regional Parliaments in Wales and in Scotland. Yet in all those cases, people had access to a mixed proportional system. In Northern Ireland, that was even one of the conditions to the devolution of powers. So those people had to make the effort to sit down and work together.

How do you think we could move in the same direction as our British, Scottish or Welsh cousins?

[Ed Broadbent]

Partly I attempted to address that in my earlier comments. I learned from my experience as an MP the importance of having a single member elected for a certain area. When we deal with what I would call a democratic issue, which leads inevitably to some form of PR, whereby every vote counts equally, then we combine, and I think this is good in any political institution.

If I may say so to my Conservative colleagues, I'm a conservative when it comes to institutional practice. By and large, you don't go around changing things just on a whim, and when you do change things, you build on institutional structures that are there. The structure that I like is having individual MPs; what I don't like is a first-past-the-post system that totally distorts the democratic will. If we can keep the practice of having individual MPs and add to it a system of PR, then I think we'd have the best of all possible worlds.

In this context, in the post-war settlement in Germany, that system in effect was imposed on Germany by the people who won the war—thank God. It has also become very profound in its impact in German society now, and it's a very peaceful, profoundly democratic society. It is one that I think we can learn from. That structure first emerged there, and was then picked up by—not necessarily in this order—New Zealand, Scotland, Wales, and so on.

I think the combination—I'm repeating myself, and I'm going to shut up—of first past the post and PR is exactly what we need. I wish my Conservative colleagues agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have one minute left, Mr. Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Charbonneau, in the 2015 election, based on the number of MPs elected and vote shares, it took on average 37,700 votes to elect each Liberal member, 48,000 for each Conservative member, 78,000 for each NDP member, 82,000 for each Bloc member and 602,000 votes for the Green Party. These figures are from the Broadbent Institute. These distortions are unacceptable. Clearly, voters are not equal in this system. Moreover, the electoral system completely subverted the will of the people three times in Quebec, in 1944, 1966 and 1998.

In your opinion, can we continue under this system? Is it healthy for our democracy?

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

As I said at the outset, it is not healthy for our democracy. That is why René Lévesque wrote in 1972 that this was appalling for democracy. We are now at the crux of the debate on the meaning of representative democracy. This is a test of how interested people are in democratic institutions and of how concerned members are about the value of democracy.

If certain members or parties are not interested in this, it is best that we know this now. This discussion of the kind of democracy we want is crucial. Democracy is not majority rule. Democracy offers the opportunity for everyone to to benefit. If there is no choice, then it is majority vote, as long as that represents the majority of people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Ste-Marie, you have the floor.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

My question is for you, Mr. Charbonneau, given your experience in Quebec with electoral reform, but it is also for Mr. Broadbent and Ms. Dawood.

The committee holds its meetings and hears from witnesses in Ottawa. Members have consultations in their ridings. We will be travelling across Canada in three weeks. We have been asked to table our report in early December. Moreover, the Chief Electoral Officer has said that everything has to be passed by May so that the changes can be made in time for the next election.

Is that workable?

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

That depends on how far you want to go.

What is unworkable is ending up with a reform that has been talked about since 1909, as is the case in Quebec. The best way of not achieving reform is to find all kinds of pretexts to slowdown the process. Once you have finished your work, I think you will have one thing left to do: to demonstrate that you are capable of reaching a compromise.

If each of you digs in your heels, you will merely have shown that compromises are very difficult to reach because the system is confrontational. If a majority of you is able, publicly or even in camera when you are deliberating, to choose a system based on the principles we discussed earlier and certain fundamental democratic values, I think that, surprisingly, you will be able to come to an agreement quickly. I think citizens would be happy and proud of that.

I support an independent Quebec and I would raise my hat to Mr. Trudeau if he were able, he and his troops, to make an alliance with the other parties to bring about real change. We need more than election promises: we need action on those promises and results. That will make people less cynical about politics and their elected officials.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

What do you think, Mr. Broadbent?

[Ed Broadbent]

I've lost the question. I was listening to my learned friend with such attention that I have forgotten what the question was.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Are the tight deadlines realistic?

[Ed Broadbent]

Yes, I think so, and I think the officials have indicated that if the report is in by the end of this calendar year, then there will be time to implement a new system. I respect their expertise, so I think the committee should be comfortable in making a recommendation as long as it gets it in by the end of this calendar year.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

What are your views, Ms. Dawood?

[Prof. Yasmin Dawood]

I think whether or not it's realistic depends in part on what happens in the next few months. If the process can fully vet the options and fully reach as many Canadians as possible, then that's one way of thinking about realistic.

In terms of democratic legitimacy, I think that raises some concerns as to whether the perception will be that this process has been too accelerated in terms of not reaching every person or not considering all the options.

These are hard questions to answer. Perception is in the eye of the beholder, but I think that if there is an artificial timeline, then I would be less in favour of that. I think it's better to get it right and to make sure the process is inclusive and deliberative rather than to race toward some predetermined deadline.