I wasn't here at that point in time but—
Evidence of meeting #39 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 women.
Evidence of meeting #39 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 women.
2:45 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
I wasn't here at that point in time but—
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I guess not, but you could have taken a long bus ride.
2:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
2:45 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
I think it would have been a very interesting situation. It's hard to have voices when you don't have seats in the legislative assemblies.
I think one of the real challenges that we face, and it was mentioned, is the fact that Atlantic Canada supported all Liberals—they sent all Liberals to Ottawa—but that means that there are no voices sitting around the caucus table for the Conservatives or the NDP.
One of the points I wanted to make earlier in the day is that the diversity of voices at different tables is really important. It's not just about numeric representation—having x number of women or x number of minorities or whatever—it's about having people with different experiences sharing and exchanging their ideas and asking questions that are not likely to be asked by people who all have the same sort of background and experience.
That's why we have regional representation. That's why it's important to have people coming from all different parts of the country making these decisions, in the same way it's equally important to have people coming from all different walks of life.
So, for me, it's not just about having more women or more minorities; it's about having diversity within the various caucuses, diversity around the tables.
How do you get that? You do when you have a more diverse representative body.
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I agree. Our caucus is made up of 44 MPs, 18 of whom are women, and it does make a very real difference.
I'll just carry on with what Ms. May was talking about, our current system.
This was my first election. I'm a rookie member of Parliament. When you're competing for a seat, there's absolutely no incentive to be co-operative with another party. You are going all-out for that one seat, and, yes, there's the two-sword-length difference.
I'd like just some quick thoughts from you on how, if we were to change to a more proportional system, that might encourage some collaboration. Would you see that making a real difference in how our politics are played out and in maybe making question period a little calmer?
2:50 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
The one thing that comes from a proportional representation system is that you're less likely to have majority governments, and that's its major criticism.
Single-member plurality systems create majority governments, and most people will say, “Oh, majority governments are good governments.” But we've had minority governments, frequently, that have been good governments and have managed quite effectively. Sometimes those minority governments actually work better because they have to work with the other parties. They have to get others onside to support their legislation.
I think that in a system that is less likely to produce majorities and more likely to produce parties that don't quite get 50% and have to, then, work with other parties, you're less likely to attack them and be really negative to them because the next day after the election you may want to make a pact with them and work with them and get their support.
Electoral systems have all kinds of unintended consequences and can be very positive or very negative. You just have to be aware of all the options that are there.
October 7th, 2016 / 2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Good afternoon. Thank you for being with us.
It's a pleasure to be in New Brunswick. The last time I was here was with my wife, 23 years ago, for our honeymoon. We spent a week visiting this magnificent province. My wife got me to try lobster for the first time on that trip. I have three children, and two or three months ago, my eldest stopped being afraid of the creature and started eating it. Of course that means less for us since we now have to share it. In short, it's delightful to be here again. I've promised myself that I'm going to bring my family back for a visit so I can show my children your wonderful corner of the country.
Ms. Everitt, I'd like to tell you that your analysis of the situation as it relates to women, or at least your interpretation of it, is the best I've seen so far. You noted that, regardless of the electoral system, it is, above all, the tools we put in place that will help increase the number of women in politics. I fully agree with you.
We've heard from a number of experts that the electoral system has no real impact on the number of elected representatives who are women and that the first priority should be to put tools in place to bring that number up. For example, in a list-based system, we could require parties to nominate more female candidates. But we could also do that within the current system. If I have a bit more time, we can perhaps come back to that. You could comment further, but since I wholeheartedly agree with everything you're saying, asking you more questions just to have you repeat what you've already said would be pointless.
I was, however, taken aback several times when Ms. Ouellette was speaking. Allow me to explain. People often assume that my party, the Conservative Party, is calling for a referendum because it wants to keep the status quo. To my mind, that's completely untrue. I think people have the wrong impression. I will agree that, within the party, as within other parties, there are people who are in favour of keeping the status quo. In fact, the main reason is that they are worried about local representation. I'm in the camp that tends to favour the current system until I am presented with evidence that another system could preserve, and obviously not weaken, local representation. I am adamant about that. Unfortunately, political parties all have an interest in one model over another. And, in that sense, I think the public should have a say on such a fundamental issue.
We've already seen the Prime Minister come out in favour of a preferential system. Yet, 95% of experts have told us that such a system wouldn't necessarily be appropriate.
The smaller parties are in favour of a proportional system, and the more traditional parties prefer sticking with the status quo. Given how fundamentally important the choice of an electoral system is, I believe it's up to Canadians to decide.
I have a background in education. I'm a former teacher and school principal, both at the elementary and high-school levels. When I hear someone use the term “anti-democratic”, or say that a referendum should focus on less complex issues, that it puts democracy at significant risk, or that it is practically impossible to educate the public on these issues, a proverb comes to mind. It's one we would often use when talking to teachers and other members of the school system who wanted to see changes made swiftly: if you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.
On Monday, Professor Rémy Trudel told the committee that a referendum was perhaps the most powerful educational tool available, because, even if just 50% of Canadians voted across the country, that would still be 15 million people, versus the 3% of the public who actually care about the issue.
I was almost upset, and I would have liked the opportunity to address Ms. Ouellette directly. It may not necessarily reflect what everyone thinks or wants, but can it really be called anti-democratic? Would it really be so detrimental to ask Canadians what they thought of the electoral system?
Some are convinced that the chances of losing the referendum are greater than the chances of winning it. But many people come to the hearings and say they want this change. Yesterday, I did a survey on my Facebook page, and I have more than 15,000 friends. This could be used against our party, but I'll tell you that 60% of the people who commented told me they wanted to see our electoral system changed, and 80% of them said they wanted a proportional system chosen. What's more, 80% of all those who commented said they wanted to have a referendum.
Those people, who responded to a survey on a Conservative MP's Facebook page, are very smart, in my opinion. They said they wanted a change because they didn't think our system was perfect. A proportional system seemed to them to be a better option, but they'd like to know more. The experts have told us that the public seems to view the proportional system as the best option, at first glance, even though it may not be ideal in all respects. Regardless, 80% of people said they wanted a referendum.
I'd like to hear your view on that. I realize I covered a lot.
2:55 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
The key thing with referendums is that they do provide very important opportunities for voters to learn, to educate, to find more information about things, and to participate in a system in terms of the choices that are made.
I am torn about whether we should be using them or not. We elect our representatives to make these decisions, often on our behalf, and I've never been a strong proponent of participatory democracy. I think it's easy for voters to be swayed in one direction or another by their public leaders, or by particular groups, or to become misinformed and catch on to some small component of a discussion in the referendum.
I'm pretty sure I'm not answering your question.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Yes, but I'd just like to answer Ms. Everitt.
Ms. Everitt, you have no reason to be uncomfortable. I think you partly answered the question. We can discuss it further. That said, thank you for your comments.
2:55 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
Okay.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you.
Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations. I'd also like to thank the members of the public here today. It's always a pleasure to be here.
I am delighted to be back in Freddy Beach. I have a soft spot for Fredericton. As a military mom with a son currently serving at CFB Gagetown, it's a real pleasure for me to be back here. I'm delighted to be here with your member of Parliament, my colleague, Matt DeCourcey, who is watching over my son to make sure he doesn't get in any trouble. Thank you to my friends in Fredericton for keeping an eye on our brave men and women serving at CFB Gagetown.
Across Canada, people have been telling us this committee's work is one of the most important things we're going to do while we're in Parliament. I'm delighted to be one of the two women from the Liberal Party on the committee, and with Elizabeth May, we're delighted to bring that voice to the table. You can be guaranteed that all of us are looking at increasing the representation of women, visible minorities, and our indigenous population in the House of Commons.
Yesterday, I asked a question to one of our witnesses and it was suggested I ask you this because you are the expert. We're looking to find out the reasons women decide not to seek the nomination. I'm not sure if there's any research out there. Do we know who has ever been asked or contemplated running and then decided not to? I'm not sure any research exists that can identify some of those factors or barriers to the decision to seek the nomination. Do you have any information on that?
3 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
I would point you to some work that is currently being done by a colleague of mine, Angela Wagner. She is a post-doctoral student at McGill University and she may have been in touch with some, but maybe not, because I think she is actually not looking at the people who have been elected, but specifically at those who have chosen not to run.
What has been done suggests that the real barrier for women in politics is the nomination. Women are less likely to put themselves forward, to self-select to becoming a candidate and say, yes, this is something I want to do. Men are more likely to put themselves forward and that, I think, is a socialized cultural norm that is still within our society.
When women are approached by a nomination committee that is going out to seek candidates who might be interested in running for the nomination, they are likely to consider it, sometimes taking a little bit longer than the men to consider it but they are likely to consider it.
When you have nominating search committees that are more heterogenous, more diverse—more women, more minorities, people from different class backgrounds, and different employment fields—they then have a more diverse group of networks and can identify individuals who might not usually be top of mind as potential candidates but would still be very good candidates.
The argument has been made that part of it is that self-selection in. Men are more likely to self-select in than women, and that—
3 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I'm going to stop you just because I have another question for you and I'm running out of time, but you've made the exact point I'm looking for. Thank you.
It looks like Ruby and I are the anomalies in that we didn't wait for someone to come to us—
3 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
Not everyone, but it's more the norm.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
The current average age of members of Parliament is 51 years old.
On the flip side, how do we recruit the next generation, Generation Y, to run for office?
I'm just going to throw it out there. In terms of recruiting the younger generation to work in the workforce, we know that they're motivated by different things. They're motivated more by a work-life balance, they're motivated not by money but by having that flexibility, and so on. When you have a job that requires you, if you happen to live in B.C., to have 12 hours of travel back and forth, you're going to be away from your family and your friends for long periods of time, and you're going to be living under a microscope, how do we motivate and recruit that next generation? Because we're having the problem with women, we're having that with minorities, but we're going to have that same problem with our younger generation.
3 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
I think the real challenge is that the younger generation is not as actively engaged in party politics as previous generations. Many point to the fact that they're involved in other types of activities, other types of groups and organizations, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're involved in parties, which is where you often recruit your candidates from.
The real thing that parties need to do is get more young people involved in their parties and then you'll have a larger pool of potential young candidates. That is the big roadblock to getting more younger people elected to politics. Because if they don't see the relevance of the decisions that are being made in politics to their own lives they're less likely to want to get engaged.
I see that among my students and they don't understand why decisions that are made in Ottawa or Fredericton are relevant to them, and that is a real challenge.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you.
Before the chair bangs his gavel I just want to say happy Thanksgiving to everyone this weekend.
Thank you.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much, Ms. Romanado.
And thank you, Professor Everitt, for being here. We had a good, lively discussion and there is a lot of food for thought in those deliberations, so thank you for making yourself available.
We're going to break for about 10 minutes and then we'll come back with our next panel.
3:05 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
Can I just say that if anyone has any questions that I wasn't able to answer I'm happy to have that conversation afterwards or via email or other forms of communication.
Thank you for your attention.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll resume now, please.
I welcome our second panel: Mr. J.P. Lewis, associate professor at the Department of History and Politics at the University of New Brunswick Saint John; and Leonid Elbert. Both are appearing as individuals.
I don't know if you were here for the first panel, but just to review, each panellist has five minutes to present. That will be followed by a round of questioning in which each member has five minutes to engage the witnesses.
Without further ado, I will ask Professor Lewis to kick off the second installment of today's meeting.