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.
Paul Howe
Coming back to these calculations, you're talking about maybe increasing the size by about 20% demographically, in terms of the number of people represented, if you do the two measures I described. What that means in terms of geography, I guess, could be maybe about 20%.
I can't put a number on it any other way other than to say that relative to what we have now, it would be about 20% bigger, which I guess could present challenges for some.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Sure. I guess that's what I'm trying to get at, that these are the things we have to think about. These are serious issues.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Okay. Thank you for that.
For my other question, I hate to do this, but I'm going to. I'm going to sort of pit two witnesses against each other, to some degree, although that's not really my intention.
Mr. Filliter, you talked about a section of, I believe, the Charter of Rights, but it's a section of the Constitution that you cited. It said something along the lines that all votes should carry equal weight. It had me thinking about Mr. Wilson's system where you're weighting the vote of members of Parliament. Would that potentially be unconstitutional as a result of that section?
As an Individual
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my point really is that, generally speaking, all votes should be equal under the Charter of Rights. The one exception to that is section 51A of the original BNA Act, which is the Constitution Act. It requires provinces like P.E.I. to have as many MPs as they have senators, and that throws their weight out of whack.
Apart from that, I think it's really important that all votes should carry equal weight. Some studies that have been done show the number of voters it took to elect a Liberal as being 37,000-odd, with the opposite extreme being Ms. May, with 605,000-plus votes. Obviously the votes are not carrying the same weight when you have that kind of disproportionality.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Well, I think there would be an argument there, because every vote does count for the same amount. It just took more people spread out over more ridings. It's not certain that this would necessarily be.... I mean, there would be an argument to be made there, I think, but there's an argument on the other side of it as well.
In all fairness, though, Mr. Wilson, having asked that question, I should give you the opportunity to respond on that as well. On that point, would it be a concern under the Constitution, or have you sought an opinion on that? Have you any thoughts or have you done any work to try to determine whether that would be in fact constitutional?
As an Individual
I did look into this. The first few constitutional experts I contacted said they had no clue.
Eventually I did get Professor Yasmin Dawood, with the faculty of law at the University of Toronto, and she gave me a more robust answer. I'll read that now: “Much of the operation of Parliament is governed by constitutional conventions and my guess is that the one seat, one vote rule is one such convention. That being said, there are hints in the constitutional text on this rule. The preamble of the Constitution provides that the Constitution is similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom and the division of representation by region is also premised on the one seat, one vote rule. Conventions are not usually justiciable, but the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Senate reference makes it clear that a change to the Constitution architecture may amount to a constitutional amendment, which, depending on the nature and scope of the amendment, could be implemented by Parliament unilaterally, or under the 7/50 formula with substantial provincial consent, or under the unanimity principle, and it is my view that most likely if it is a constitutional amendment, it will be Parliament acting alone.”
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's an interesting thing, because in the Constitution, in the guarantee toward Prince Edward Island, for example, of four seats, it was never imagined that those four seats, those four votes, might ever be worth less. If you pull the four Liberals off of P.E.I. right now, under your weighted voting system, and the Liberals would be overrepresented, certainly in Atlantic Canada, then one would imagine their votes in Parliament would be 0.8% or 0.7% of a vote compared to Ms. May's vote, which would be a 2% or 3%—or 50%; I'm not sure how it would work out. As much as she and some might love that idea, I'm not sure Prince Edward Island necessarily would.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I follow with Matt's....
Actually, first I'll thank you all for being here.
There's an intuitive piece in it. I don't want to dive in, because we don't have a constitutional expert at the table. We have consulted as a committee with people who are constitutional experts about what it is we're trying to do. I feel reassured, as I think many members do, that looking at proportional systems, looking at different voting systems, we are well within the purview of what Parliament can and can't do as long as we don't trip that constitutional wire with the proportion toward Quebec, Prince Edward Island, and some others.
I would like to start with Ms. Duguay.
Thank you for coming.
I think that someone can become a member of any of the parties from the age of 14, whether it's the Liberal Party or any other. Is that in fact the case? I think it's the case with the Green Party.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It is also the case for the Conservatives and for us in the NDP. I don't know what the situation is with the Bloc Québécois.
By being a party member, a person can vote to choose a candidate to run for Parliament and also to vote for a leader. That person has the right to vote for a leader who potentially could become the prime minister, should the opportunity arise.
The Liberal Party's position is a contradiction because they oppose a voting age of 16. However, in our party, in our democratic family, we accept that someone who is 14 can make an adult decision.
President, Fédération des jeunes francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick
I support what you are saying.
If young people have asked us to press for the voting age to be lowered to 16, it is precisely because they are aware that decisions are being made about them without their being allowed to choose those who represent them directly. Starting at 18, a person may vote on their own behalf, without the need for a representative, and therefore decide specifically which candidate is going to represent them.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Prince Edward Island and Scotland have both decided to lower the voting age for referendums. I imagine that it was because, in both cases, the referendum question had consequences for their future.
For issues such as climate change, for example, the decisions made today are clearly going to affect young people more than the elderly.
President, Fédération des jeunes francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick
Exactly.
Like it or not, our population is aging. At least, that is the case in New Brunswick, if I may use it as an example again. In the school situation, for example, decisions are made that affect us directly in the classroom. However, they are decisions on which we do not necessarily have any input. However, they are going to influence our education and not only our future, but the future of generations to come. It is the same with other issues, like climate change.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Howe, there is an interesting thing we hear, an immediate and almost allergic reaction, when any voting system is proposed that contemplates more members of Parliament because, of course, Canadians hate politicians and don't want more of them.
I recall that when the Conservatives passed the motion in the House to add 30 MPs to this last election, they did it with some reluctance but did it in end, which was right, because the population grew certainly in the west, in Toronto, and in some other places. It was necessary. We do it every 10 years, basically. We add MPs to make voting equality a potential, so that one riding in Vancouver doesn't have 180,000 people while another riding in Manitoba has 60,000 or 40,000 or 20,000 people.
I don't remember hearing about it once during the campaign. It was supposed to be this terrible thing, and all the pundits wrote about the awfulness of more politicians: “Isn't this horrendous?” I don't know if any of my colleagues ever heard on the doorstep, “We hate you people because you voted in 30 more people, and there was a vote in Parliament to do it.”
I'm wondering whether we are a bit too timid and shy about the idea that we can achieve voter equality by adding 20 MPs. I don't think Canadians actually know how many MPs are in the House right now. I'd be curious, if we all took a little poll with our families, whether anyone could guess the right number back home, in schools, or in places of work.
Paul Howe
Curiously enough, I was involved in a survey that asked this question. My recollection is that about 2% or 3% of people could come up with the exact number.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
They don't know the number now, but what they do know is that they don't want any more.
Paul Howe
Yes. Many could not even get close to a ballpark figure.
Of course, when people talk about electoral systems and the values people have, they often say, “Oh, I want my local MP. I value my local MP.”
There are some contradictions, perhaps, in people's views on these matters.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, everyone. Thanks to all the witnesses and to the people of New Brunswick who are with us here this evening.
Thank you all for coming out. I really appreciate it.
With four witnesses here, I'm torn about where to direct my questions with the time I have.
I think I will start with you, Professor Howe. You shared a statistic with us about the erosion of civic literacy, as I would put it. You said that in 1984, 10% of respondents in Canada could not name their premier, and I'm not sure what year you said it was 30%.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That was 2015. Of those under 35, 44% could not name their premier.
Is there any academic research that suggests the reasons for this recent drastic decline in awareness of fundamental institutions? I'm 62, and 1984 seems like yesterday, whereas it will feel different to Mademoiselle Duguay. What are the theories as to why this is happening?
Paul Howe
I think we can point to the evolution of news media, such that it's become the case that we now have a tremendous diversity of options to the point where it's very easy to avoid learning about politics or hearing much about it if you don't want to. That proliferation is not just a factor of the Internet age. There are also more options in terms of television that have arisen over time with the emergence of cable and so on.
The media environment has definitely changed in such ways that, as I said, people can make their own choices about what they want to listen to. If they're not interested in the news and politics, they don't have to pay much attention at all.
In the meantime, I think there's also been something of a cultural shift away from the concept of any sense of a civic duty that one might have to stay apprised of what's going on. We often talk about that with respect to voter turnout, that the sense of civic duty to vote has decreased. That certainly is a factor in why some people aren't voting as much.
I think that same idea of civic duty applies as well to the idea of being an informed citizen. That used to be fairly strong and now it's much weaker. We have a much more individualistic culture in which people choose things they're interested in and do their own thing, if you like.
That's been a tough combination: the media environment has changed in a way with the proliferation of choices, and people themselves have changed in that they do the things they wish to do, the things they prefer. Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, I would say, there are some who these days can become incredibly knowledgeable about politics, if they're interested in it, because there's such a huge number of places to learn about politics. A kind of polarization has taken place between those who really know a lot and really follow things and those who have really almost dropped out in many ways.
