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.
3:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I think that it's a substantive equality issue, personally, and I think it's a very good idea. I think you have to sometimes just take the road. You have to take affirmative steps in that direction if you want to effect change. You just can't wait for things to percolate up. That's just a personal opinion.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Yes, we've had some suggestions that we should have gender-balanced ridings, I guess. You know, one riding runs all-female candidates, one runs all-male candidates, and that should be put in place, and that's maybe one way of getting that gender balance. There have been other unique ideas, but that's kind of what I was looking for, if there were any unique ideas.
3:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta, As an Individual
When you see what the Liberals have done with requiring a certain percentage of cabinet ministers to be female, that has made a difference. It takes positive, proactive action.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Yesterday we had a professor come by from UBC, Professor Kam. He referred to a situation of dissatisfaction in Japan on the closed list system, in which people are frustrated with certain candidates. I know that in your recommendations you haven't eliminated double candidacy. A person could run in a constituency seat and could be on a list as well. Even if they lose, they can still get in through the list, if their party puts them high enough.
Would Canada see that as an appealing system? He was saying there is some frustration in Japan over—what have you—corrupt politicians who get in no matter what and, therefore, don't have accountability. No matter what the people do, they just can't get them out.
3:10 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, As an Individual
The most recent report from New Zealand looked at dual candidacy and whether that happens. The report found that it doesn't. In fact, when candidates lose their constituency and end up on the list, it's almost an endgame. You find that they don't end up on the list that much longer; they tend to retire. What it found in terms of the list candidates is that if they lose their constituency seat but get a list seat, chances are they're going to be leaving by the next election.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
That ends our round of questioning.
I just have a couple of questions I would like to indulge in.
By the way, I'm neutral and agnostic on all this, but I haven't stopped being a thinking being.
In terms of the issue of what Mr. Mayrand said, I'm a little confused. I'm trying to clarify that. Yesterday a CBC article said, “Mayrand stopped short of endorsing a referendum on electoral reform...”. I didn't hear his comments. It goes on to say, “...but conceded that is one way to find consensus.”
I don't know what the answer is to that.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
First of all, it wasn't yesterday; it was the day before yesterday. It was in his report on the 42nd general election. He issued a report, and in it he said that one way of dealing with this, the way he thought was the best, was to adopt the New Zealand approach. In New Zealand, they say they won't change their electoral...either one or the other. I think that's what was actually said.
3:10 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
With the greatest of trepidation, I wonder if I can ask one question of the witnesses about this 75% threshold. I think that under our Constitution it says that House of Commons votes are 50% plus one. I'm wondering if that idea transported from New Zealand actually offends the Constitution, but I may not be allowed to ask that question of the expert we have before us. It might be our last chance.
3:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I honestly don't want to weigh in on that as a so-called constitutional expert.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
I have a couple of other questions, if I may, or comments, really.
Somebody mentioned that if we change the electoral system, we might have to engage the provinces through the amending formula.
Do you feel that certain systems that are being considered would be seen as inherently good for the provinces, in terms of giving them more power, which would make it less likely for them to disagree with the change? It's a question that hasn't come up in all our hearings. Anyway, it's just food for thought.
The other comment I'd like to make is regarding the idea that a proportional system somehow changes the mood and makes everybody more consensus oriented. I lived through three minority governments as a sitting member, which is essentially what you'd have with proportional representation. It wasn't always pretty; I can tell you that. It was as rough as it gets. We live in a North American political culture where politics is almost like a boxing match south of the border. I'm wondering whether that affects our whole perception of politics and how we do politics. That's one question. I don't expect a definitive answer.
The other comment I'd like to make is that a while ago, I watched the very first televised question period—in 1979, I think it was.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It was a majority Liberal government under first past the post, and it was an exchange. The first question came from Mr. Clark to Mr. Trudeau, and it was one of the most inspiring and respectful exchanges I've ever seen. This was in the first past the post system and essentially at the cusp of televison coverage of politics. Sometimes I wonder if television has made politics more combative, regardless of the system, and even more so in the North American political culture where competition is sometimes stark.
Those are just thoughts. I find, throughout these hearings, that we often abstract from the political culture in which we operate.
3:15 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I agree that under the first past the post system minority governments can be rough and tumble. I suggest the reason is that both the opposition and the governing party have a carrot dangling in front of them, and that's to win the next election and win it by a majority. That incentive is not as strong where the prospect of gaining the majority is not as great, so that aspect might be different now. As well, I don't think anyone expects that the lion will lie down with the lamb and it'll all be a beautiful world. It's a matter of degree in taking it down a notch.
3:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I just wanted to add to your comment about the televised aspect that politics has changed a lot. I think it's more than just television.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Of course.
I think it's a contributing factor in some ways.
Thank you for an interesting—
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Chair, I just want to record two things that we have to learn about that.
First of all, in the first question period on TV, the questions were not 30 seconds long like we have today.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
The second point is that it was the first question period. Like the first, we are the very best all the time.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, who knows what the second was like.
It was inspiring all the same. I urge you to have a look at it on YouTube.
Thank you so much for your testimony and the discussion that you stimulated today.
Thank you.
3:15 p.m.
NDP
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think we're going to enter into some future business.
You're free, of course, to leave the table.
