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.
Co-Chair, As an Individual
It was the number of women candidates. That said, if you decide that it should be tied to the number of women elected, I don't think—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
No, I misunderstood. Sorry.
Thank you, Ms. Ouellette.
Ms. May, it's your turn.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both witnesses. It's been a fascinating session. I apologize for having to be away for a part of it.
Certainly, the work of the commission in New Brunswick, as you know.... We also heard from David McLaughlin.
I wanted to ask you a question Madame Ouellette.
In your view, what happened to the recommendations?
I understand there are elections and there are policy issues.
What advice can you give us so that we can grab the political opportunity that's in front of us?
We know that every time any Canadian group of citizens or member of Parliament has studied our voting system—the 2004 Law Commission, citizens' assemblies in Ontario and in B.C., and of course your own work, among many others—there has never been a group that's studied first past the post and said to keep it. The first parliamentary committee hearings were in 1921. We've had people study what's wrong with first past the post, and yet we still have it.
This opportunity could pass us by again. If you've already answered this while I was away, I apologize. Specifically to you and to Professor Everitt, what do you think we should do as members of Parliament?
Co-Chair, As an Individual
Mr. Nater and Ms. Everitt provided part of the answer to your question.
Democracy is such a fascinating subject. We also tried to generate enthusiasm. To be honest, we were unsuccessful. We still managed to spark greater interest among a core group of the population, but that group remains small. There are now people who are passionate about the subject and convinced of the need to change the electoral system and the relevance of doing so. That said, I don't think the subject will inspire general enthusiasm. If we wait for a grassroots movement in favour of changing the electoral system, we may wait for centuries. It's as clear as that.
At some point, the governments must acknowledge the situation and the general analysis we're conducting. Almost everyone who studies our electoral system will recommend a change. It's inevitable, since the number of votes don't correspond to the number of seats. It's basic. It's undemocratic.
The system has still worked and Canada has performed well, as has each of our provinces.
That said, we can't wait for public enthusiasm. It won't happen. The population has so many other priorities.
For the future of the country, we need a leadership that recognizes the need for change and the risks of leaving the system in place.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
As you say, it's not necessarily a top-of-mind issue, but the room here is filling up with people on an unusually beautiful sunny Friday in October in Fredericton. People are willing to come indoors.
Is it like this every time? It's Matt's riding, so it has to be a great place.
I love Fredericton. Wherever we go across the country, people show up. They are concerned. It is said, “Well, these are the people who happen to be really engaged.” But there are people engaged, who care about this issue, across Canada. I, myself, think we have an obligation as MPs.
I did ask you also, Professor, for your advice to us as members of Parliament, given this mandate.
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
You're dealing with an institution. The electoral system is a political institution, and political institutions are notoriously hard to change. Take a look at our Constitution, our structure of Parliament, our Senate, and all kinds of things that are very hard to change.
If you really want to make change, you do it incrementally because people will accept that. That's not necessarily going to deal with what you want, but it might be the way to get it done. No one is going to get too upset with small, incremental change. It is not going to shake up things too much but it will, I hope, move us in the right direction.
Is that what you should be doing? I don't know. But if you want to get it done, in Canada, that's probably the route to go. It's not very positive.
Green
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
In terms of electing more women, of course, your primary focus was diversity. I know that other colleagues have asked you about the diversity of other groups. In terms of getting more women to run, my sense, having been a woman in politics now for....
I've been a woman all my life, but I have only been in politics for 10 years, and I have to say, I hate it. I love Parliament, but I hate politics. The thing I hate about politics is the incentives that I believe are created by first past the post for increasing hyper-partisan nastiness. Do you see that as being one of the reasons women don't run? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
Yes, I think it is. One of the things I've always looked at is the degree to which politics is a very masculine activity. It's frequently framed in competitive sporting-type analogies. Even in the structure of the House of Commons itself, as we always say in our introductory politics classes, the opposition and the government are two sword-lengths apart from one another. It's all of that. It's built into the structure and nature.
Can it be changed? Yes.
Can it be changed quickly? Probably not.
Will it be changed as more women and others get involved in political life? Yes.
I think you just have to take a look at the change that has taken place in the years that I've been researching politics. It may not feel like a lot, but I bet if you went back to the seventies, you would notice things were quite a bit different.
Liberal
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Great. Thanks to both of our witnesses.
I have to say that having worked with your local member of Parliament, Mr. DeCourcey, for the past year and having heard how fantastic Fredericton is, it's a delight to be here today and to have so many people in the audience joining us.
Madame Ouellette, do you still have time—
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay. Mr. Nater was talking about legitimacy of process and was able to put the question to Professor Everitt. I don't think you had a chance to weigh in.
You spoke about your concerns with a referendum. Before you have to go, I would like to hear if you have additional thoughts related to the legitimacy of this process.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Concerning the process we're undertaking to look at electoral reform, the Conservatives made a very compelling case that Canadians should be able to weigh in through a referendum. There are concerns. You've expressed many of the reasons that shouldn't be.
Outside of a referendum, what other thoughts would you offer if your commission looked at things like legitimacy of process? How do we say this a good thing to do without a referendum?
Feel free to answer in French. We have wonderful interpreters.
Co-Chair, As an Individual
That's a very difficult question. At one time, I was open to referenda in some cases, with a few cautious considerations. However, now I must admit that I find referenda very risky. I don't think it's a tool for change in a case like this. In fact, it's too dangerous.
In my view, the change process must emanate from political leadership, meaning from political parties, Parliament and legislative assemblies. The change may be slower than it would be if we had significant public support, but that support won't come. We must resign ourselves to a change process.
I keep coming back to the objectives. I don't think preferential voting would solve all the problems. Is it a step toward other changes?
If there's no form of proportionality, I think Canada will continue to face significant risks. This concerns me. We need to see whether there's a way to move toward a form of proportionality, which would be mixed, of course, and prudent. I think we should take this route. There will be no public enthusiasm and also there will probably never be consensus among the parties because everyone wants to be in power. As soon as there is proportionality, this tendency is reduced.
I think the only way to do it is through political leadership.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Great, thank you. I appreciate your comments.
Professor Everitt, I want to go back to some of the great insight you provided, things like the incentives and the rebates. You began talking about it with Ms. Sahota's questioning, but on quotas, you indicated it was really not part of what our culture is.
The experience I had with quotas was working in the federal public service for over three decades. About a decade ago it was identified that our federal workforce was simply not representative of Canadians. We had done okay linguistically over the years, but women were still grossly under-represented in non-traditional occupations such as trades. Visible minorities and aboriginal employees were not represented in the composition of the Canadian population. A decision was made and, in somewhat crass terms, the way to drive it down was that senior executives weren't going to get their bonuses unless they reflected the Canadian population within the workforce of the various departments in a very short time frame.
I was at a middle management level, and I struggled with it initially, and I had employees saying we were not getting the best person. I quickly rationalized in my mind that there were great systemic barriers in place in society that were preventing qualified people, truly qualified people and in many cases the best-qualified people, from achieving those jobs. We implemented very aggressive quotas to get our workforce up, and within a matter of a year or two we were representing the Canadian population.
There was push-back within the federal workforce, and there was some pain involved with it, but once people got into the workforce, there were persons with disabilities, women in non-traditional jobs, under-represented ethnic groups, and all of a sudden everybody said, “Wow, you're right. There's a talented pool of Canadians out there that we haven't seen reflected.”
I just want to, not necessarily challenge you, but just see if there is not some way of incorporating as part of our Canadian culture that it is inclusivity for all. Could it actually work in this system where we not only do the carrot but go a bit harder with the stick?
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
Sure. I think it was Mr. Cullen who was talking about some of the other countries that are ahead of us in representation. They are there because of quotas, so quotas work. I'm not saying quotas don't work, and I'm not saying that paying attention to proportions is not important to do. I think, though, that there is likely to be a big reaction if you use the term “quota”. “Targets” is an easier term. People can sort of buy that term. It doesn't mean there is a cut-off, but it's something people will be more willing to accept.
I agree. It floors me that we don't have more women in leadership roles. Given the history of women's involvement in post-secondary education, you'd expect to have people come through who would get into politics with all the different sorts of skills and qualifications that women have these days. Something is keeping them back, and there are systemic barriers there. There are systemic barriers in politics, in universities, and in business. They are there.
What we need to do is maybe not use the term “quota”, and not set clear our total quotas, but put the spotlight on those differences and say there is a problem here. Parties and cabinet designers, prime ministers and leaders, should be focusing on these imbalances and asking themselves if they really have to be there.
Are there not qualified people? There are qualified people around, and it's not like you're not getting the best person for the job. It just means you're looking at a broader range of people.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Professor Everitt, this question was more designed for Madam Ouellette, but I'd still like to hear your perspective on it.
Yesterday in Prince Edward Island we heard testimony from Leonard Russell, who also chaired a commission in Prince Edward Island, and he gave some very interesting testimony. He was talking about the vested interests at play with both the Liberals and the Conservatives and how, once his recommendation for MMP came out and both parties suddenly figured out that this could mean they would lose power, he saw direct evidence of both parties actively campaigning against the MMP system.
In New Brunswick's history, after the 2006 election, the new Liberal government refused to go ahead with a reform or a referendum, and they stated that the need for proportional representation had not yet been demonstrated. Just thinking of a theme of vested interests and a political party being in power because of our current system, why do you think the government made that kind of statement?
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
Do you mean because they got fewer votes than the Conservatives?
I think there is really something to be said for the fact that parties have a vested interest. We do see the most frequent calls for electoral reform coming from those parties that have been, somehow or other, hurt by the first-past-the-post system, whether you have a disproportionate majority and someone's not getting the number of seats, or you have smaller parties that are getting the seat representation that they probably should have with the proportion of votes that they get, or you have a party that could have been the government but the other party, with fewer votes, actually gets more seats.
Those are the instances in which you see the greatest call for electoral reform.
Often, then, when parties get into office, I think they begin to think that, “Well, maybe we can actually use this to our advantage”, and so, it sort of drops off the radar.
It really does take political leadership, I think.
It does take the willingness to engage in these discussions and move forward on it, in a sense that there is a fairness that may come from the change in the electoral system, whether it's changing the preferential balloting component of it or it's making a much more significant change, such as to having a mixed member system or a PR system. You have to have a willingness to take that chance and have the confidence that you as a party will do well under whatever system, because it's only fair.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Have you been a resident in the province for a long time?
Professor of Political Science, Dean of Arts, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
I have for 19 years.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I'm curious. What was it like living in New Brunswick from 1987 to 1991?