I was afraid that you would forget that.
Evidence of meeting #33 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 first.
Evidence of meeting #33 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 first.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
2:45 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, As an Individual
No, absolutely not. My only point was that there are instances where there haven't been referendums.
With the Law Commission's report we said a referendum should be considered. That's a choice, and legitimacy is a concern.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the speakers and the people in the audience.
Professor Wood, yesterday Professor de Rooij from SFU spoke to us about how proponents of proportional representation systems generally say they are looking for greater representation of views in Parliament. We've also heard it plenty of times in the different testimonies. However, perhaps they are actually saying that they are looking for a greater expression of their public policy view within the policy agenda of government, and that the two sometimes don't deliver. Greater representation of voices in Parliament doesn't always deliver a greater representation of the voters' public policy view. We've heard people deliver similar testimony, and we've heard people deliver an opposite testimony.
With your experience in your study with the Law Commission, do you have any view on how a greater representation of a diversity of political views in the House does or does not necessarily generate a greater expression of the public policy view of the voters who elected those representatives?
2:45 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, As an Individual
We did not deal with that to a great extent. We did note that the current system punishes parties that have dispersed national support. The Green Party would be a case in point. It's very hard in that despite having a large segment of the proportion of the vote, you get one or zero seats.
That would be an example of how the fact that the current system is not kind at all to parties unless they are regionally concentrated might affect the diversity of views. There would be other examples as well, but that's the one we focused upon.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
But on the issue of whether it delivers the public policy that people are looking for, making the direct correlation is a bit iffy?
2:45 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, As an Individual
There's some suggestion, or I've heard it said, that where you have a system of first past the post, which may work badly, or where you have two dominant parties shifting back and forth in power, you would have the problem of controversial parties put in, a change in power, and those policies taken out. There's some thought that this is inefficient, with a possible cycle of build it up and rip it down, build it up and rip it down. If there was something that didn't promote the majority putting forward their agenda, and that had more of a consensus where you needed it, a consensus of the other party, that effect might be more muted.
2:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I have nothing to add.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Okay.
I want to revisit this whole idea of legitimacy in the process. I'm not a legal scholar. My background is largely in communications, so I recognize that the perception of what we're doing, leading to legitimacy or not, is very important in the view of Canadians. Is the idea of finding consensus in this committee an important element of building legitimacy in this process, in your mind?
2:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta, As an Individual
That's an interesting question.
Well, it depends on what you mean by consensus. If you mean everyone agreeing, you might never get there. What's really healthy in a democracy, of course, is a lot of debate and discussion. If you could all come to some agreement based on whatever, not every single person might agree, but I think that would certainly lend legitimacy.
At the end of the day, your report will be a report of the committee, whether you all agree or not. That is what will go back to the House. Am I correct in that?
2:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta, As an Individual
It would seem to me, however, that the discussions you have here will inform how this whole issue of electoral reform will be approached in the House and therein beyond, because you're a microcosm of the House.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
One of the suspicions I have—maybe it's not such a suspicion anymore, as it's been iterated quite clearly today—is that to achieve legitimacy, the question of a referendum might necessarily need to be a part of a consensus report coming from this committee.
In your mind, would it positively inform the conversation in the House if we could come to some set of recommendations that presented an alternative to the current system but also with a view that a referendum might be legitimate and Parliament could figure out a way to put together a process where a well-resourced referendum would help inform Canadians and provide them with the best opportunity to ultimately decide on an alternative electoral system for Canada?
Maybe I've just been travelling too long, and have been into this too deeply over the last three months, but....
2:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta, As an Individual
You come here at the end of your time.
2:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta, As an Individual
It may be a reality you face, but if you can explore other options....
The question was put, what do you need for political legitimacy? You need the Canadian electorate to really believe and trust that this system will actually work. That's all you need. It's not a legal question, it's really a political question.
So I'm not sure you have to go to a referendum, but you'd have to explore other options. I wasn't very good at giving you any other suggestions, either.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Thank you.
I'm curious, Professor Wood. Did I hear you correctly about the first nations and the Métis and that it needs to...? You haven't spent a whole lot of time on what that would look like?
2:50 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, As an Individual
[Inaudible—Editor]
2:50 p.m.
NDP
