Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 29th, 2016

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

I'm going to go to Dr. Broadbent with a question, and then we'll come back, because earlier you hadn't had a chance to speak to my statements exploring values. I would like your thoughts on that if you have anything that you want to share.

In your written brief, you identified a number of issues that you felt a proportional representation system would address, including such things as the under-representation of women or visible minorities and increasing the level participation, and I agree. There are systems that in their design would help with some of that, but it also seems that there would be other means. It could be quota systems for nominations under the current system. There are other fixes that are available.

I'd like your thoughts specifically on whether proportional representation is the only way to address some of these issues you've identified. If you have a comment or two on that, and if you have anything on values and the values we should be looking at, then I'd appreciate hearing from you on those.

[Ed Broadbent]

Well, I don't want to bore the committee with a repetition of what I've already said or what is in the brief about the values that are outlined in our own brief and by Professor Dawood. I agree with these as underlying values that should be respected. I also agree with the comment that you can't cherry-pick out of them and say that this one is absolutely essential or that one is. It's a combination, a mix, and you're not going to get them all at the same time. That is simply what I would say.

If you will permit me—and I know this is turning the tables, and I can understand if you prefer not to answer—one of the points that has been made is that whatever is done in terms of bringing in a new system, the governing party should not act alone on it.

Would you agree with that?

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

Well, I think that the structure that has been given to this committee, whereby we listen to whatever message we hear from Canadians and from our colleagues and we don't have a majority at the table, since this committee has been structured in such a way that we don't, is a very—

[Ed Broadbent]

Excuse me, but the government can still, whatever this committee recommends—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

In fairness—

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

I can't speak for the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

In fairness, the questions shouldn't come from the witnesses, but I allowed—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ed Broadbent]

It's an informal discussion in Parliament, Mr. Chairman. They don't have to answer the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, it's a formal hearing of a special committee, Mr. Broadbent. Out of great respect I allowed the question, but I think we'll give the floor back to Mr. Aldag.

[Ed Broadbent]

But you're not going to allow the answer.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Professor Dawood, in the previous round of questions, you commented on this idea of inclusion. I guess I'm sitting here wondering what's enough. We have a time frame that we're working towards. You indicated that maybe we shouldn't be sticking with this arbitrary deadline, yet to meet the deadlines or the time frames that we're working toward, we need to keep things moving.

We are doing a number of hearings. Every member of Parliament has been invited to do town halls, recognizing that they're not flawless in their delivery, and every Canadian has been asked to provide input, if they want to, through online consultations. The website is open, so every Canadian has the opportunity right now.

From a process perspective, what else is needed? Are we on a legitimate path here? It seems as though we're doing a lot. From your perspective, what else is needed?

[Prof. Yasmin Dawood]

I think it would depend on the deliberations of this committee.

If at the end of your deliberations you reach a consensus—let's say that everyone agrees to a particular proposal and everyone has signed on, and you have in fact reached as many witnesses and as many Canadians as possible—that might, as you say, be enough.

If, however, you don't reach a consensus on the committee, then it might make sense—this is just throwing out an idea—to say that there are, for example, two options that need to be further looked into and that you recommend that we narrow it down to these two and then set up some sort of commission that will look more deeply into the two options and then make a recommendation. Then you would extend the process slightly, if there isn't consensus.

If it's the case that you have most of the political parties on the special committee in agreement, I think it would be a good sign. If you have in the legislative arena the majority of the popular vote onside, again I think that would be enough.

There's not, then, one answer. It really depends upon what this committee comes to decide in the next few months and the number of parties that are in agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen is next.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm just getting through some Twitter feed. It was asked not so much as a question from someone watching the committee as a seeking of comment on an essay that I'm now reading as well, called “Our Benign Dictatorship”, which was penned by Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Harper some years ago.

I'll read you just one quote, and perhaps we can get a comment from that:

Although we like to think of ourselves as living in a mature democracy, we live, instead, in something little better than a benign dictatorship, not under a strict one-party rule, but under a one-party-plus system beset by the factionalism, regionalism and cronyism that accompany any such system.

That was Mr. Harper in the mid- to late-nineties, before the system worked for him and he maybe didn't feel that way. There was also a suggestion on Twitter that every time my Conservative colleagues say “referendum”, people should drink, and I think that's a bad idea for everybody involved.

The question I put to you is this. Not only was that a moment in time for our most recent prime minister, who felt that way about our system leading to what he called a benign dictatorship. It seems to require three things that we need right now: the courage to see this reform through from the current government; the principle not to rig the new system in their favour; and the humility and the responsibility from all of us—and I hear this from Mr. Charbonneau—to seek compromise and to find something, as Professor Dawood has said, that would greatly enrich the legitimacy of what this committee comes to.

Has anything I've said, or even the quote from Mr. Harper and Mr. Flanagan, struck you as wrong?

I'll start with Mr. Broadbent and then head to Monsieur Charbonneau.

[Ed Broadbent]

Let me pick up on the dictatorial aspect of it.

There have been, in academic literature on what has been going on since World War II, observations about the parliamentary system increasing centralization into the office of the prime minister, not just in our system in Canada but in the U.K. and elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

Our system does lend itself to that, especially with first past the post and the kind of belligerent politics, frankly, that the Westminster model sets up, with the government on one side and the opposition on the other, as opposed to the concave kinds of structure that other democratic systems have, whereby you may sit together side by side instead of in opposition.

The point I'm getting at is that on the point made by Mr. Harper, I'm inclined to agree with its poetic exaggeration of dictatorship. We have many other principles—the Charter of Rights, and so on—but in terms of exercising political will, we do have that: the Prime Minister, in our system, has excessive power.

One advantage of electoral reform of the kind that most people who have appeared before this committee have advocated—which I have advocated, which Mr. Charbonneau has advocated—is that we'll get to a more consensual form of politics, and the Prime Minister, frankly, won't have the same direct power. He or she will likely have to deal in a consensus-building way with at least one other party in order to govern.

In that same article, if it's the one by Mr. Harper and Mr. Flanagan that I remember reading, they advocated a form of PR. They were coming down on the side of PR because it mitigates the centralizing power of a prime minister, as well as for other reasons, and I think that is desirable.

I'll add what I said before. I praised the present Prime Minister for this initiative, and I hope he sees the implications of really following through with the kind of consensual form of government that could emerge from a recommendation by this committee that would reduce the over-centralizing power that goes to our Prime Minister in the present system.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Would you comment, Mr. Charbonneau?

[Jean-Pierre Charbonneau]

In my opinion, one of the issues of the reform you are discussing is the change in political culture. If you can change that to get away from the excessive confrontation and blind partisanship that we have now, everyone would thank you for it and would benefit from that shift.

The British parliamentary system emerged in response to the monarch's abuse of power, which constituted absolute rule over the country for centuries. The monarch became a kind of figurehead and ceded his powers to the prime minister, which he no longer appointed because the prime minister was from then on the leader of the party that obtained the most seats in the House. So a political system developed that was still a monarchy, but it was an elective monarchy.

Is it not an abuse of power for people who do not even have the legitimacy of having been elected by the whole population to govern with a minority of popular support while using mechanisms such as closure to abruptly end debate and push through bills?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

You have the floor, Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Ms. Dawood, the legitimacy of the process has often been raised during the various discussions. As Mr. Charbonneau said, as soon as another political party associates with the government, by adding up the vote share won by the other parties, that would be more than 50% of the votes. That would give the process some legitimacy.

There is a shortcut in this reasoning though. The idea is that everyone who voted for the two parties, assuming it is two parties, deliberately voted for that specific aspect among a range of proposals. I do not think that someone who marks an x on a ballot necessarily supports every one of a party's proposals.

On the one hand, a referendum could be held to give everyone the chance to express their views on the committee's proposal. The other option of limiting it to a coalition of two or three parties would provide a some legitimacy. Do you think one option is better than the other?

[Prof. Yasmin Dawood]

If I understand the question, you're asking whether a referendum is required. Is that the question?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

No. What would you prefer: a referendum, which would provide greater legitimacy by asking everyone to express their views, or the option of adding up the votes earned by two political parties, assuming that those who voted for these parties were in favour of that aspect of their respective platforms?

[Prof. Yasmin Dawood]

I don't think that legitimacy comes down to an option like that. It's the entire process that matters.

If you have a process that has a referendum, then that would be one way of thinking about legitimacy, but as I said in my remarks, it's not required for legitimacy. My concern around a referendum is that it's not politically neutral, because it tends to favour the status quo, as we've seen in the provincial efforts at electoral reform.

There are a number of reasons that referendums tend usually to fail in that way. Given that there is a tendency toward the status quo, I do not think that a referendum is a requirement. It's usually favoured by people who like the status quo and by political parties that prefer to see the first-past-the-post system remain.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

If the referendum was lost, would that necessarily mean that the people who had voted had made the wrong choice? If the population makes a different choice from what members recommend, would maintaining the status quo necessarily be a bad outcome?

It seems to me that if voters ...