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.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I have not thought carefully about it. My inclination is to say there is no harm to doing so, but there is no necessity.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Professor Nash, I was struck by your using the term “moral” in your testimony, a moral dimension to holding a referendum. We've talked about constitutional issues, legal necessities, lack of legal necessities, and political necessity, but, in going through my memory bank, I think you're the first witness to suggest that it's a moral question.
I wonder if you want to expand on that at all or if you feel you've said what needs to be said.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Yes, I think I said what I meant to say. I think quite simply any referendum system that involves minority rights is suspect.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
If there were a referendum.... Again this was something that was suggested earlier by Sean Graham and not from any previous witnesses. He said it's objectionable to put up to a vote a system that by definition is unfair, but if you were to put to a referendum a series of choices among fair voting systems, that would be less objectionable.
Do you think that would be less objectionable? Do you agree that's one way that one could parse the situation?
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
If they are all systems that give people fair voting, then I would be perfectly happy to see a buffet where the country could pick which one they wanted.
As an Individual
I wouldn't do it simply because I've been at a couple of group sessions where they are talking about proportional representation and changing it, and the level of understanding in the general population is extremely low. I think if you try to get people to pick between three different systems, they would just pick the one they heard of last. I don't think you would get an intelligent vote.
We have elected representatives. We're a representative democracy. We've elected you to do this, to make this decision.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you, and I'd like to thank our two panellists for being here this evening. To members of the audience, thank you for being here. I know there are some people who were here earlier today, and thank you for staying.
I'm going to premise my question with a little sidebar because we hear a lot of comments in the open mike session—and I appreciate people having honest and frank conversations with us—but whenever some of us are asking questions, there's this big assumption that, “oh that's where they are going with it“.
I want to make sure everyone understands that I'm speaking on my behalf, and that I'm asking questions—the good, the bad, and the ugly—about everything. That's my job. I don't have a preference because that's not my job. My job is to listen to Canadians. My job is to listen to what's out there. My job is to be able to understand the good, the bad, and the ugly so when I do make that decision on behalf of Canadians, I can do it with an educated decision.
I'm going to ask a question that I am sure is going to go on Twitter saying that all of a sudden I have a master plan. There's no master plan. I just want to make sure I'm understanding things.
Elizabeth, you can get ready to type.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
She mentioned a better and fairer system for voters. We've heard some testimony about the legitimacy of this committee. We've heard people say that we have to change the current system because it gives a false majority and that right now government has all the power, but they don't have the voice of the people. Then, in the same breath, they say to us, “but you have the mandate to change it“. It's a contradiction. They are saying that we're changing the system that gave us a false majority, but that we have the power to change it.
I'm a little confused. If we are changing the system because we have this magical power, which we're using for evil, then how can you tell me I have the authorization to change? I just want to throw that out there. What are your thoughts about the legitimacy of this committee?
As you see, we've given up the majority. We are all working together. We're asking question after question. Can you give me your thoughts on what you think the legitimacy of this committee is in terms of making decisions regarding our electoral system?
As an Individual
I'm happy to do that. I think there's no question that you are a legitimate committee. Our system up until this point in time has been first past the post. We have a majority government. You can agree with the system to get there or not, but that's what we have.
This committee was constituted in a unique manner, and I thank you for doing that. I think you are completely legitimate. I think you need to move forward and make your recommendation.
If you all agree, that's wonderful. If you don't all agree, I think you still need to make a majority in a minority recommendation.
Those are my thoughts.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I have watched this committee working a lot. I think it's totally legitimate. Furthermore, it's not just legitimate, but I think it's doing a very good job and being very fair, and that includes all the members. They are open-minded, and that's all I can say.
There are things being said by people who I would not expect to say them, which indicates their full understanding of the dimension of the committee. That's all you can ask of it.
You are not the final arbiters of this thing. You will give an opinion, but the House of Commons will be the ultimate arbiter. Presumably it could be one that's forced by the majority government, but that's not necessarily the case.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I think what we're seeing tonight, especially today and in the past 10 days, is democracy at its best. You have in front of you 13 MPs from five different parties, sharing not exactly the same opinion but sharing the same goal: serving our people. That's what democracy is all about. That's what our system is all about. This is why I thank the chair again. He let me express myself, just for a few seconds during the last session. Everyone here, what you are seeing tonight is exactly what we're doing in the House of Commons, except for question period. I do recognize that. I can also tell you I love question period, but that's not the point.
Let's talk about democracy. You share the principle of democracy, as we all share it, but let's talk about a referendum. Isn't it the best way to know exactly where people stand?
I do recognize the fact that, yes, this is a complex issue and we shall take all the time necessary. I'm sure you have remarked by my accent that I'm from Quebec, and we had the experience of a very touchy, difficult decision to make: get out or stay in Canada. Technically, constitutionally speaking, the PQ government could have called its independence just by a majority vote in the National Assembly. Thanks to René Lévesque, he said that this will shall be expressed by the people, by a referendum.
What we're talking about today, maybe we cannot share the same point of view, but as far as I'm concerned, the electoral system is the most precious institution in any democracy, because all the rest belongs to the way we elect our representatives. The Prime Minister, the cabinet, budget, external affairs, defence policy, everything belongs to the way we elect our people, so this is, as far as I'm concerned, a most important institution. Will this change that without asking people the question? I want to hear your thoughts on that.
As an Individual
I still wouldn't have a referendum. I think there are rights issues in here, in the Charter of Rights. We're moving slowly, as a country, toward effective representation. We're not there yet.
In moving toward effective representation, I think we should take a huge step that way, but I don't think that's a referendum question. Besides, we elect the MPs. They have the authority to do the job. If the people don't like the job they did, they will say it at the polls.
I am not for a referendum because of the education and the human rights side.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I really don't like the idea of a referendum, and I've told you why. It's a question of minority rights. On the other hand, if there are enough members on this committee who wish to see a referendum, they should certainly express that view.
I think that probably it should only be an advisory referendum, not of the kind that would change the law. I also think that, if this committee were to recommend any kind of referendum or any kind of referendum were accepted by the government, it should be a referendum, which, if lost in changing the electoral system, should result in the immediate reconvening of this or a similar committee to consider the question again.
I do not believe that proportional representation should be blockable by a majority of the country. They can vote against the government that brought it in if they object.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I'll say just a quick word.
I want to inform you that the minister said here that she is not linked to any decision made by this committee. At the end of the day, if we don't have a referendum, there is only one person who will decide, and that is the Prime Minister, because he controls the executive and he controls the legislature with his majority.
We prefer to let the people decide, instead of giving the right to only one voice to decide the future of the electoral system of this country.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
The government, if it brings in a system that is unfair, will have to face the population, and I think one should look very carefully at the situation. In B.C., when they went to the alternative vote, both of the parties in favour of that were booted at the next election. I think that would happen if anything evil were done by the government.
