Did the poll focus on the proportional representation system?
Evidence of meeting #28 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 elected.
Evidence of meeting #28 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 elected.
7:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Did the poll focus on the proportional representation system?
7:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Research Chair on Democracy and Parliamentary Institutions, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
The poll did not go into detail. What it sought to measure was the interest electors had in some form of proportionality. They did not ask about the preferred system. On this, may I refer you to some research which also took place only in Quebec during the 2012 election. This inquiry, entitled Vote au pluriel, was carried out by Marc-André Bodet. In the course of that research, there were simulations of the electorate in real time during the election, with different voting systems. The results obtained were very, very different.
For instance, in 2012, with the preferential vote, the Coalition Avenir Québec would have formed the government.
7:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That is very interesting.
You mentioned that each voting system has its strengths and its weaknesses. It is important that the members of the committee be aware of electors' values and know what they consider to be most important.
I am going to ask both witnesses to tell us what constitutes the most important values of a true democracy in Canada, in their opinion?
7:05 p.m.
Attorney, CMKZ LLP, former Commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada, As an Individual
At the Law Commission of Canada, we made a recommendation, but we had neither the funds nor the mandate to move it forward. Of course if you have to produce a report and make recommendations, you have to be able to defend your point of view. The simplest idea is to say that something is not working, that electors' votes do not really seem to count and that it can be shocking when a party obtains 20% of the vote and gets 10% of the seats, while another one obtains 40% of the vote and has 60% of the seats. That is one of the strongest arguments.
The second one is that reform can allow you to correct inequalities, that is to say that it could allow more women to be elected to Parliament, and more members of minority groups; it could increase participation and cause more people to recognize themselves in the system, rather than having to demonstrate in the streets, outside of the system.
The third and final objective is to elect a strong government. That is what the electors want. If we are at war with another country, they want a government that will be able to step up and react. If we need to build roads, the government will be able to do so. Often, people are afraid of that factor, because they tell themselves this: “I like it when we have a majority government, I can sit back and let the government act and I don't have to worry”. You will have to work with that perception that a majority government is better.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Did you want to add something on that, Mr. Montigny?
7:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Research Chair on Democracy and Parliamentary Institutions, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
Yes, very quickly.
In my presentation, I did not talk a lot about the importance of representation. In its various rulings, the Supreme Court does grant importance to the principle of representation, in particular to fairness when it comes to the size of ridings.
The other factor concerns effectiveness. In your questions or consultation criteria, you set certain objectives, effectiveness being one. You can look at effectiveness in two ways. Is it effective to adopt a law rapidly, or rather to adopt it when it reaches legislative maturity that has been achieved through compromise and discussion among the various parties? That question needs to be addressed.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Colas, I'm going to start with you. I don't know if you can answer this, but I'm wondering if you could comment on the funding source and cost for the work that was done by the Law Commission.
We've seen the work. It's been referenced a lot. If I understood correctly, you said that there could have been more work done, but there just seemed to be some sort of decision made to end the work.
I'm wondering where that decision was made. Where did the money come from? How much had been spent? How much more would be needed to continue? Is it an annual allotment? Could you provide any insight on the kind of funding and funding source?
7:10 p.m.
Attorney, CMKZ LLP, former Commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada, As an Individual
There are two elements in answer to your question.
First, we had a yearly budget of $3 million.
7:10 p.m.
Attorney, CMKZ LLP, former Commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada, As an Individual
The Government of Canada.
7:10 p.m.
Attorney, CMKZ LLP, former Commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada, As an Individual
No. The Law Commission was created by a law of Parliament. The MPs voted in favour of its creation back before 2000, with the former Liberal government.
Then there was some sort of commission that was created by the subsequent government. There was some sort of consultation, and the government said it wanted to get rid of the Law Commission for all sorts of reasons. That's when the Treasury Board decided to cut the budget. That's how our activities ended abruptly, without any vote from MPs.
Second, our role is independent. We produce reports and give them to the Minister of Justice, and then the Minister of Justice responds to us, takes the work, and does something with it.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I find that very interesting. That's a piece of information I didn't have or understand.
Do you feel that there's a role for that kind of ongoing...? If there were to be money, it sounds like there's added value to having that kind of ongoing—
7:10 p.m.
Attorney, CMKZ LLP, former Commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada, As an Individual
It is a common law tradition. The U.K., Alberta, Ontario, New Zealand, and Australia all have this tradition of having a law commission or a law reform commission.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Someone raised the issue of legitimacy previously. Do you feel that having that kind of process would add legitimacy to the ongoing discussion related to electoral reform, so that we're not doing this just from time to time, and so that there would be a lens on the world as it evolves? Would that lend legitimacy to what we're trying to do now?
7:10 p.m.
Attorney, CMKZ LLP, former Commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada, As an Individual
After we produced this report, we worked on other issues, such as globalization and law reform. These were very important topics, but our funding was cut.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay.
My colleague had been talking to you, professor, about legitimacy. I just wanted to know if you had any further thoughts on our process, and what else you would like to see or feel could be added. I had the sense you might have had more to add.
7:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Research Chair on Democracy and Parliamentary Institutions, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
I was in Brussels for a conference last week, where I talked about your process.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
7:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Research Chair on Democracy and Parliamentary Institutions, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
It was good. Actually, having your committee travelling around the country while MPs are meeting with their constituents at the same time is kind of a new process.
We'll see what you deliver. That's the big question.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
It might be just the time of the day or where I'm at mentally, but I cannot recall.... The thought of a referendum does come up from time to time in our discussions. Do you have any comment on a referendum and the legitimacy of the process?
7:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Research Chair on Democracy and Parliamentary Institutions, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
There's no obligation to hold a referendum; it's a policy matter. It's up to MPs to decide whether they would like to hold a referendum or not. It's part of the political debate. I don't see the fact that there were referendums in some provinces before on that matter as an obligation for the federal Parliament to have a referendum.
7:15 p.m.
Attorney, CMKZ LLP, former Commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada, As an Individual
I share Mr. Montigny's advice, and this is what we indicated in the report. There's no need for a referendum.
Anyway, it's suicidal to have a referendum. If you don't want it to succeed, just hold a referendum.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal