Mr. Reid.
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.
September 29th, 2016 / 7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to respond to the argument that having a referendum on an issue that involves rights is somehow a terrible anti-rights position to take. As a historian, I would submit that this argument is ahistorical and inaccurate.
I'm also a former resident of Australia, a country very similar to Canada in many ways, a country that is, however, characterized by the fact that it can't amend its constitution without a referendum. It has had a number of referenda on rights issues, and we have a chance to see how enlightened the politicians are versus the people, when one of these things occurs.
In the early 1950s, the Menzies government in Australia sought to take away the right of people to join the Communist Party, to ban communism. The courts, quite reasonably, ruled that unconstitutional. The Menzies government then tried to seek, via a referendum, a mandate to take away the rights of communists, and the people rejected it. The people were more enlightened and were stronger defenders of rights than was the government.
Similarly, in the 1960s the Australians had to amend their constitution in order to give voting rights to aboriginals. The majority in favour of extending voting rights to aboriginals was 90.77%, the highest majority they've had on any of the referenda in the nation's history. Australians fervently adopted the expansion of democracy when given a chance to do so in a referendum.
We've heard a trope. Neither of the two witnesses here have said it, but people in the audience have done so. They did so last night, and they did so the night before in Victoria. If we'd had the ability to have a referendum on women's votes in Canada, women would not have been granted the vote in 1917. A referendum would have effectively prevented women from being granted the right to vote in 1917.
I thought I might just read to you from the Wikipedia article about the Wartime Elections Act—Elizabeth, you might enjoy this—the act that granted the vote to women. Here's what it says:
The Wartime Elections Act was a bill passed on September 20, 1917 by the Conservative government of Robert Borden during the Conscription Crisis of 1917.... The act gave the vote to the wives, widows, mothers, and sisters of soldiers serving overseas—
But not other women.
—They were the first women ever to be able to vote in Canadian federal elections, and were also a group that was strongly in favour of conscription. The act also disenfranchised “enemy-alien” citizens naturalized after March 31, 1902, unless they had relatives serving in the armed forces.
The purpose of this law was to rig the election. Would that have passed a referendum? No, it would not. The people are better protectors of democratic rights via referendum than are the politicians, who are self-serving to a fault when given a chance to change their electoral system.
Mr. Blain, you asserted...or actually, maybe you, Professor Nash, that if governments try to manipulate the electoral system, the voters can punish them. That is much harder to do after the rules of the game have been changed. I thought I was going to beat you in hockey, but it turns out you decided we're playing soccer now.
In Canada, in Manitoba, in the early 1920s the government of the day changed the electoral system to STP in urban areas and alternative vote in rural areas as a way of freezing out the labourites, who were rising at the time. The same thing was done in Alberta. Those governments were not punished for that. They benefited from that. Then when that system started to work against the governments in the 1950s in both provinces, they switched to first past the post. They weren't punished for that either, and it benefited them.
In 1918 in Australia, in order to prevent the Labor Party from rising, the National and Liberal parties, realizing that they could benefit from each other's second preferences, adopted the alternative or preferential voting system. Were they punished? No. They kept Labor out of power, a system that I say still benefits them to this day vis-à-vis Labor. Now, in B.C., in 1951, the government miscalculated. So one time out of five, the government is actually punished for abusing democracy, for rigging the rules to benefit itself.
I see that as a very poor record. I submit to you that the people are the best guardians of rights. History demonstrates it. Politicians are the worst people; we are interested parties.
I hope we come to a consensus on this committee. The consensus could be in favour of multi-member proportional or STV or one of a number of other possibilities, including the very interesting one we heard earlier today from Mr. Graham, but it has to be on a referendum to confirm that the people of Canada think it's a good idea, that they get to vote on it beforehand. It is not reasonable to say to people, “We are going to take a system and pass it for your benefit. You get no say on whether it's good until it's already done.”
What happens if you vote against it after the fact, after we've had an election, and we finally get our referendum and it turns out people didn't like it? I hear the arguments, in Ontario it was voted down, in P.E.I. it was voted down, people are not well-enough informed. Well, I submit that if you can't convince the people to change something, you have no right to say, “Therefore, I get to impose it on them. It's their fault that I could not convince them of that.” That is so undemocratic. And to do it in the service of changing an electoral system that is supposed to be more enlightened, that is quite unacceptable, I submit to you.
I know I've used up all my time in a rant instead of with questions, but I really wanted to get that off my chest for the benefit of everybody.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
There were some interesting historical ideas that were presented, but I hope you understand there's no time for a question.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you, and thank you to the presenters.
I'm a little confused. When my colleague asked about a minority rights issue, I tend to a little bit start to agree with what my colleague across the aisle was saying. Scott, it's probably the first time I've said that on electoral reform.
I mean no disrespect, but on this issue of a referendum I don't see how... I understand the concept that you can't ask the majority to decide on a minority right, and that's why we have the wonderful Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it's essential that we have that document protect minority rights in this country. I think it does a really fantastic job in doing so. But right now, as we're going across the country from conference room to conference room, we're not seeing minorities come out to take part in this discussion, regardless of whether maybe it's our fault. Perhaps this committee is not doing a good enough job at reaching out to them and trying to figure out what system they would like to see implemented.
We did make a stop in some first nations communities, but it still hasn't been enough. We haven't had a proper representative portion of that community coming out to say what they want. So how do we make a decision to say what is best for minorities, that this electoral system is what the minorities or what women in Canada—you name it—want, without almost asking them at this point now?
What better method can we use to reach them?
7:40 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
How do you get more people out, more minorities out? Well, I'm a minority. I have only voted for two MPs, twice, and I had my candidate win. I have a minority view of the world, and I actually resent the fact that my view doesn't get properly expressed.
7:40 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I'm a minority, and all minorities should be coming out—
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
In terms of the issues you believe in and in terms of maybe the party you support, so small parties are considered. Is that who you're defining as a minority, or—
7:40 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Well, I'm a minority, because majorities win power and my party doesn't. That's very simple, that's all I'm talking about.
I would like to see a parliament in which I would be represented to the degree that fellow travellers in my views of the country... and I think there is a real chance that with two parties in this country, which have benefited very much by first past the post, an attempt to change that via a referendum would, in fact, fail. However, I think you people should be open to the possibility of doing it that way. The only thing I would say is that if the attempt fails, we have to go at it again because it's still unfair.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
In terms of those who support smaller parties, I think that view has been well represented before this committee, which is a good thing. We've had a lot of people coming out and supporting the point of view that they voted for a party that's never been elected, or a candidate who's never been elected.
I can't close a session without asking you what you meant about Sikh fans uprooting this country one day.
7:40 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
No, I didn't say that.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Would that be under the first past the post system or under MMP? What system would this be?
7:40 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I think I said you may end up getting a whole bunch of Sikhs.
7:40 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
They're an individual group of people who could conceivably decide that they're going to form a party of their own.
7:40 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Under a new system. I think they have a perfect right to do so if they want to.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Would that be a good thing in your opinion or a bad thing? I don't understand what you're saying.
7:40 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Everybody who has a legitimate view of the world has the right to have that expressed in Parliament in proportion to the degree that they do.
I would hope very much that we would stay ecumenical since, really, it would be unfortunate.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Yes, but do you think a new system could create parties based on religious views?
7:40 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I hope not, but if a religious group could get enough votes then they deserve to be represented. I don't see anything wrong with it. I would certainly put in provisions that they had to have a reason—
7:45 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Yes, but there is, in the scheme that I'm talking about, a certain restriction on the size of voting group that you would have to have in order to get an MP elected. Very minor religions wouldn't be able to do that. I don't ask for nationwide proportionality. I ask for it within smaller areas that are self-limiting in terms of the lowest number of votes that you could have to get a person—