I don't have enough information to say yes or no.
Evidence of meeting #25 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 good.
Evidence of meeting #25 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 good.
3:55 p.m.
National Representative, Unifor
I don't have enough information to say yes or no.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
According to the comments you made earlier with a lot of intensity, you in your organization have learned over time that each service counts, that everyone must make themselves heard. I think that your words were the same as those you used a few minutes previously. You even finished by saying that it seemed obvious to you.
Since we know that political parties are organizations with their own interests, is it really up to them to make the final decision on such an important issue? You work for a union. When the time comes to vote for a strike or for better working conditions, for example, do you really consult all your members to ask for their opinion? When all is said and done, wouldn't you be in favour of citizens being able to express themselves?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Schwartz, I would like to go into that matter more deeply. I am not really convinced that politicians of all stripes will be able to reach consensus on this. I often hear people say that it is part of Justin Trudeau's election platform. However, all the polls show that only 3% of the people are interested in it.
Over the summer, I asked an intern to go through all the national debates held during the election campaign, which lasted 78 days and which we all considered to be very long. There was no significant debate between party leaders on electoral reform. It may have been mentioned; it may have slipped into a conversation.
At present, it seems that, because it is one of a list of a hundred or so proposals, it would be legitimate for a prime minister elected by a voting system that he wants to change, that he considers illegitimate, to basically decide to make the change in Parliament.
I would like to hear your comments about that.
3:55 p.m.
Prof. Bryan Schwartz
First, I find it ironic that anyone would say that they don't like the first-past-the-post system. It produces an artificial majority, and the Liberal government won under the first-past-the-post system, and therefore it's legitimate without a national consensus to change the voting system. I see a logical contradiction there and I have a lot of problems with it.
Second, what is this? People who have not focused their minds on it, who have not seen the concrete proposals will have an amorphous opinion. People change their minds if and when a specific proposal comes forward, and they deserve to have that. You have to have the proposal and the debate. It's in the book. The Lortie commission found, depending on how you ask the question, that people either like first past the post or they don't. There's no such thing as Canadian public opinion that's settled and crystalized on this until there's a specific proposal and until there's a referendum.
Again, take a look at what happened in the Quebec round, at what happened in the United Kingdom with constitutional change. I think the modern morality of consent is whether there are large “C” constitutional changes to the formal text of the Constitution, or whether they are effectively constitutional changes changing the voting system we've used for a century or more. Then, the morality of consent, the expectation, I think, of democratically minded Canadians is that Canadians will get a voice, and Canadians will get not just a public opinion poll voice, but they will actually get a vote that counts.
People want to make a vote that counts; that's the whole theme of this. Well, then, people should have a vote that counts on whether you change the system.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you to all three presenters.
Mr. Gibson, just to clarify your position on the referendum, is that a personal position or is that a stated policy position with Unifor?
3:55 p.m.
Coordinator, Political Action Membership Mobilization, Unifor
The policy within Unifor is that we're not interested in a referendum, and it's my personal preference as well. It's not time for a referendum. We can start a model. We can pick a model from the committee's recommendation and we can try it out, and then we can go from there.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Okay, thank you.
I just wanted to clarify that. I asked the CLC representative the same question last night and they were less committal about a position on that.
I want to clarify, as well.... Professor Schwartz, I noted your comment that it is not a good idea—this might not be verbatim—to explain electoral reform as a way of doing away with disagreement in our political system. I'm reminded of testimony levelled towards us earlier on that essentially reminded us that different systems place the conflict and the tension at different places along the political spectrum, along the line of functioning of the government.
Can you talk about how you see potentially different systems still allowing for vigorous disagreement and conflict and why that could be important within our political culture?
4 p.m.
Prof. Bryan Schwartz
Yes. Of course, there's a continuum: how much is consensus; how much is the ability of a government to take strong and decisive steps and pursue a program over the course of four years? Everybody, whether it's a question of how you elect them or how they behave once they're there, is at some point on the continuum, and none of this stuff is either/or.
First past the post was producing problems in terms of a permanent artificial majority in places. That really bothered me. There was not sufficient room for disagreement, because one 40% faction of society, whether Conservatives in Alberta or Liberals across Canada, was permanently in office. I thought that was discouraging people from getting involved, discouraging them from thinking they could make any difference, and so on.
First past the post has done a lot better in the last 15 years or so. Is that a coincidence, or is it because of these adaptations? I'm inclined right now, without a definitive opinion, to think that it's because of adaptations.
You want to be very careful about pursuing an alternative voting system that installs a permanent coalition of either the right of centre or left of centre. I think that's very unhealthy.
With respect to that, don't just think of parties, but think in terms of ideologies and teams as well as parties. If it's liberal, liberal-ish, and liberal-plus, or conservative, conservative-ish, and conservative-plus, the same team is constantly getting elected: the same people, the same approximate ideology. I think that's unhealthy.
I think dialectic is good. People should be able to debate. Open-minded people sometimes change their minds. People should be able to test out different ideas and live with the consequences and give somebody else a turn.
That's a value judgment. Some people might say it's more important to have stability, more important to have certainty, more important to have consistency. Personally, it's a political judgment of mine, I think that politics always benefits from foment, benefits from the dialectic, benefits from different people having a turn and taking responsibility for it.
Within that context, one book I wrote was Revitalizing Manitoba. If anybody thinks I'm a fan of the status quo, I've written 12 books to the contrary, including Revitalizing Manitoba, which is a fundamental critique of how our society operates. Pluralism is one of my most.... I put a very high value on it. Many ideas have some validity; almost none of them are completely right.
I enjoy a good argument. I think society benefits from a good argument and a sense that not only can you argue, but that once in a while you get your turn, you implement your program and see how that works, and we're the better for it, even if I don't agree with it.
I've seen some governments that did some things I very fundamentally agreed with. I think, for example, of Bob Rae's government in Ontario, which got in on the first-past-the-post system. You know what? In the long run, it was healthy that this particular ideology had a turn, that they got to test it out. Somebody who wasn't convinced it worked was Bob Rae, but unless the NDP had a turn in government, people like Bob Rae wouldn't have found that out. I think the NDP folks in Ontario deserved a chance to have their stripe have a turn and see how it worked out, as does everybody.
People who think in terms of change and forming a consensus also think in terms of whether you want to install some permanent coalition rather than some permanent party, which I think is a very bad idea. Instead of thinking that consensus is good, think: well, groupthink isn't good; smugness isn't good; constantly preserving the status quo isn't good; not being challenged in your ideas isn't good. There is room and there should be lots of room in our political system for change.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the three witnesses.
My question goes to Mr. Gibson. You said at the start that we have the opportunity to change our voting system and the opportunity will not come around again for a number of years. In my opinion, how the opportunity started and what brought it about matters little, what is important is that we have it now and we must seize it. You also said that your organization has taken a position in favour of proportional representation.
I would like to hear what led to your taking that position and the various arguments that your members put forward.
4:05 p.m.
Coordinator, Political Action Membership Mobilization, Unifor
Most of our conversations revolve around inequality in the vote. They revolve around 39% of the population forming a majority government over and over again. Proportional representation makes sense. If you're going to get 35% of a vote, then you should have 35% of those seats. I hate to say that it's as simple as that, but that's basically what our conversations always revolve around.
Gina, chime in if you'd like.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I am not sufficiently familiar with your organization to know what led you to take such a position. How do you consult your members and how did you arrive at that position?
4:05 p.m.
Coordinator, Political Action Membership Mobilization, Unifor
As I said in my report, we had our national convention in August of this past year where we unanimously adopted a proportional representation model to go forward with. We have various political action papers as well where we talk about proportional representation and the need to change the current electoral system.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
We hear that it is a subject that does not get a lot of people excited. However, when I raised the matter in my constituency, right in the middle of the summer, I was pleasantly surprised to see the interest it raised and the desire people had to express their opinions. Since you took your position, has a renewed interest been reflected by members of other organizations in your community?
4:05 p.m.
Coordinator, Political Action Membership Mobilization, Unifor
Absolutely, yes. The level of engagement has increased significantly, yes.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
So what does it all mean? I feel that, after changing the voting system, our challenge will be to educate. We will have to come up with different ways to make people aware of the change. In your experience, what would be some of the ways to educate people?
4:05 p.m.
Coordinator, Political Action Membership Mobilization, Unifor
Keep it as simple as possible to understand. From my understanding, and there are three different models, there are variations of each model that each country has adopted as its own. Keep it simple. For the presenter this morning, I think his model was fantastic. It's the first I've ever heard of it. For the most part he had me, but when he got into the whole mathematics, then I was gone—
4:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Coordinator, Political Action Membership Mobilization, Unifor
He clearly put a lot of work into something that...and the key is just to keep it simple. We're looking for something that we can take back, and not only to our members, because we care just as much about the community as we do about our members. We want to be able to take something back and have simple conversations: this is what a proposed model is; this is how it's going to work, and these are the pros and maybe some cons of this model. At least we'd be able to have a simple, easy conversation.
