Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 29th, 2016

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

Thank you.

Mr. Charbonneau, you spoke earlier about Germany, which has a 50-50 mixed-member proportional representation system. Are you in favour of that proportion?

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

The proportion recommended for Quebec is 60-40, which is the proportion in the Scottish system. A slim majority would be formed of local members, as is the case in the current system, and the 40% minority would serve to reduce the distortions under the current system. In his report of December 2007, Quebec's chief electoral officer studied the feasibility and appeal of this formula. He concluded that 60-40 was the right proportion, and that it would reduce distortions as much as possible, while helping people transition from the system they are used to. We can't start from scratch.

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

Would you be in favour of Canada adopting the same proportions or do you think a study is needed, similar to the one conducted by Quebec's chief electoral officer?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please answer quickly.

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

That could easily be adapted for Canada. Quebec's chief electoral officer gave his opinion. I think you could also ask the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada for his opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

You have the floor, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will turn to Professor Dawood and pursue these questions of legitimacy.

You mentioned that some of the mechanisms you think would add additional legitimacy include a citizens' assembly or additional studies or a commission.

We talk about timelines and rushing to an artificial deadline to change our electoral system. We've had a lot of stops and starts in pursuit of electoral reform, and I think it has to do with a very narrow window of political interest over the years. You'll get a political party that says “We're ready to look at this”, and often there's less enthusiasm, as Mr. Broadbent just reflected, once they've gained power.

The first time that a parliamentary committee met to look at getting rid of first past the post and replacing it with proportional representation was in 1921. We've had a number of parliamentary committees since then—Mr. Reid and Mr. Broadbent were looking back to 12 years ago—but we've also had citizens' assemblies in Ontario and in B.C., and most recently, the 2004 Law Commission report.

None of these efforts to pursue an investigation into electoral reform has ever recommended that we should keep our current system. Some have come to no conclusion, while most have recommended some form of proportional representation. In your view, does it add anything to the issue of legitimacy that we have some very recent historical efforts within Canada?

[Prof. Yasmin Dawood]

I think it certainly does. It would be important, I think, for the committee to really flesh those prior processes out—the 2004 Law Commission report, or any other kind of report—to back up whatever recommendations the committee makes in whatever report comes out.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Another idea has come to us from some other witnesses, and it's not getting a lot of discussion here around the table, but I raise it now and then because I'm interested, and I'll ask Mr. Broadbent and Monsieur Charbonneau as well.

We know the committee's report goes in to Minister Monsef and that there will be some discussion in cabinet. The plan is to have legislation before us by spring 2017 to meet the deadline that Mr. Mayrand thinks is important. As an extra element of legitimacy, do you think there would be a possibility of having the vote in Parliament require a supermajority, rather than a bare majority of the MPs in the House? Would that add to legitimacy, in your view?

That's to you, Professor Dawood, and then I'll ask Mr. Broadbent.

[Prof. Yasmin Dawood]

I think it would add to the legitimacy, certainly. I don't know that I would make it a mandatory rule. I don't know that I would make it a requirement, but if it were the case that you were able to secure a supermajority or a significant majority, I certainly think that would add to the democratic legitimacy of the vote.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you. I will also ask Mr. Charbonneau and then Mr. Broadbent.

I'll go to Mr. Charbonneau first.

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

I will be brief, Ms. May. The more the majority in Parliament is based on the majority of the population, the greater its legitimacy, I would say.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I have two questions for you, Mr. Broadbent. The first is the same one about what you would make of having more than a bare majority of Parliament vote for some form of proportional representation.

[Ed Broadbent]

As has already been said, I think it would add obviously to the legitimacy, but I don't think it's required. I think what is required is more than one party.

I'd love to hear our Liberal colleagues comment on whether they agree that a measure brought in just by the governing Liberal Party alone would not be legitimate, but that what would be legitimate would be if a motion came in and had the support of a majority in the House of Commons that reflected the votes and the seats they got in the last general election. I think that's sufficient legitimacy—i.e., a straight majority vote in the House of Commons, with more than one party represented.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

The second question I have for you, Mr. Broadbent, is one that's come to us from Twitter.

Laurel Russwurm wonders why you've settled on mixed member proportional if your concern is to make sure you have an MP you know you've voted for. She asks whether the single transferable vote doesn't also provide for that required local representation.

[Ed Broadbent]

It does, but I have a preference, for simplicity's sake, for mixed member. You go in and you cast two votes. You cast a vote for your local member and you cast a vote for the party.

As I was trying to say in my reply to Mr. Reid, most of these issues are not black and white. There are plausible arguments on both sides, as there are in response to the question you just asked.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

I would just like to ...

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sorry, Mr. Charbonneau, there are just five minutes left. You know what it's like chairing a meeting.

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

I know, Mr. Chair, and I respect your authority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

You may also answer this question the next time is it your turn to speak.

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Sahota is next.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Surprisingly, Ms. May took a lot of the questions I was going to ask. Ms. May was talking a bit about gaining more legitimacy depending on what we do this week and in the next three months.

Over the next three months, for about three weeks of that time we're going to be hitting the road, going across Canada and consulting with Canadians. We may be discussing this a bit later today, but what format would you advise when we're consulting with Canadians? Should we just be listening to their opinions? Should we be doing some kind of workshop? Should we be engaging in a certain way with them? Do you have any opinions on that?

[Prof. Yasmin Dawood]

Are you asking me?