Evidence of meeting #45 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 referendum.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay.
Mr. Dias—I won't call you Jerome, ever—I think one of the things you suggested in your initial testimony was the idea of perhaps the stars lining up, or that the occasion for reform is rare. It is, in fact, rare when you have a government come into office with the commitment to change the system that got them into office.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Despite the Prime Minister's musings last week that maybe the heat has gone off this issue, that it's not important anymore because people are happy—and I don't know why one would lead to the other—but with the membership that you represent, is there now an appearance that they're saying, well, as Madam Ambrose said, the bad man is gone so everything's fine, and our interest in changing the way we vote, and the way our votes are counted, is also gone?
6:35 p.m.
National President, Unifor
We had over 2,000 members at a convention in August, so that was after the change of government, and what did we talk about? We talked about proportional representation. It passed unanimously, because the stars are aligned, candidly. Three of the four parties that are sitting here today are in favour of eliminating first past the post, and you can't detract from that.
I'm just going to repeat myself, but the reality is that when parties get elected, whether I agree or disagree with their platform is irrelevant. But if they run on a platform, they should implement it. That's my point. Our members haven't changed our position as a result of that.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
One thing we're looking for, and what we put out to Canadians, is the perspective of a voter, what experience they have going to the polls, what satisfaction they leave with that their vote, as you say, counted for something—nine million didn't count last time—but also what policies come out the other end.
One thing about first past the post is that we get these big policy lurches. I'm wondering, just on the impact of labour law, which you deal with, or economic policy, manufacturing policy, is there any benefit to be seen in having a form of system that doesn't policy-lurch every five to 10 years, going the opposite direction that we were just running in?
6:35 p.m.
National President, Unifor
Well, there's no question, there's been a more dramatic shift in the last year than in the previous 10, one can argue. I will argue that minority governments act differently from majority governments.
The fact is that Canadians deserve to have their voices heard, whether people agree or disagree with the position that was taken on strategic voting. There's inherently something wrong with strategic voting when people go to a ballot box and vote against something, because you have to vote against something in order to have the type of change you want.
People are expecting that when they go to the ballot box, their vote means something. At the end of the day, if one party gets 10%, they get 10% of the seats. Another party gets 20%, they get 20% of the seats. A party that gets less than 40% of the seats, regardless of their political stripe, or regardless if I've supported them or not, should not have a majority government.
I would suggest that if every vote counts, then you end up with a type of government that will speak on behalf of the majority of Canadians, and I think they'll be more satisfied with that.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
October 25th, 2016 / 6:35 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Everyone knows that my party is in favour of changes, but not any changes and not at any cost. My party tends to be in favour of self-determination, both for a people and for voters.
We are here talking about the principle of whether or not to consult the public, allowing them to give their free and informed consent to change the democratic rules. If we discuss the principle from that angle, I think we should be careful not to make assumptions about the voters and their intelligence. Of course, if we do the work within the established timeframe, we see that it's quite absurd. We have held consultations everywhere and it will not happen. However, if we invest the time and resources to get it right by 2019 and if we think of a formula with an additional question on the ballot for the election, I have faith in the people's intelligence to settle the debate.
Mr. Fitch, I imagine you will agree with me. Why make the people settle the debate? Because all the experts who have come to meet with us, be they for or against the change, have told us that each voting system has its advantages and disadvantages. This is not a debate among politicians or among experts. This should not be just for the initiated. This must be a debate that belongs to the people, and it is up to the people to decide and to weigh the disadvantages and advantages that they are willing to accept.
Mr. Fitch, if the people want to keep the current system, I guess you will not be against a referendum in which they can express their opinion. You said that the public should be consulted only if the intent is to make a change. Given that the people's representatives mandated a committee to finally address the issue, we argue that the people must decide on the issue in either case. Realistically, we will not reach a consensus by December 1. As for the voters, they need to be better informed. So let's take the time to do things properly. That was my first point.
Second, the committee has discussed the principle of a change. The majority of people we have met have told us that a proportional system is needed. Being in favour of the principle of proportional representation is one thing, but defining that model is a completely different thing. It's when the model is being developed that the partisan bias may appear. Just think of the new electoral maps that are prepared each year. By the way, if we applied the electoral map of 2012 to the 2011 results, no candidates from my party would have been elected. So the devil is in the details.
If we are able to talk about the principle, I don't understand why we are not able to build on the principle that this debate should belong to the people and be settled by the people through a referendum. I don't understand why, in principle, we are saying that the committee has a duty to decide for the people. That's not my idea of democracy.
Ladies and gentlemen, what do you think about that?
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
6:40 p.m.
Interim leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick
Perhaps I could just jump in, because my name was referenced there.
I wish I had met the professor before the last election, because we had to have a ballot question. Our ballot question was yes or no on the development of shale gas in the province of New Brunswick. In my opinion, the people voted no because we were kicked out and the Gallant administration went in. People, after the fact, once they had more information, said things like, “I didn't have enough information at the time. I was uncertain. I had heard things on social media that I wasn't happy about and it made me uncertain, so I voted no”.
Some people said, “It didn't have anything to do with the referendum. I just hated your guy.” If you asked them what they hated about him, you'd hear, “I don't know. I just didn't like him.” They voted against the person.
Going into that election, we knew that only about 50% of the population was in favour of extracting natural gas in non-conventional ways. If I had known it had to be 70% before we started, then maybe we would have tried to run something a little bit different. At least it made a ballot question, and it made people make those decisions.
People vote for different reasons, and sometimes they vote contra to a position or a person. A lot of times they vote against as much as they vote for. That's where a platform has things like, “Let's do certain reforms and review it”. Some people who voted for you may not have voted for that particular piece in the platform. That's why you need to go back and get the reaffirmation, especially if you're doing something as grandiose as going away from first past the post. You have to go back and check, because that's how you elect your governments. If a government makes a decision that disadvantages other parties, maybe that's when you look at why certain parties are pushing for this, because it will be an advantage to them. That can be misconstrued as rigging the voting system.
That's where you need to have clear and concise information to go back to the people and say, “We're going to change it in this manner. Do you agree with that way to form your next government?”
6:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses.
I'll start with you, Brigadier-General Corbould. Do you have any statistics on what the participation rate was for members of the armed forces in the election, given the difficulties you describe that are certainly well known?
By the way, you should know that Sherry Romanado sticks up for the armed forces every chance she gets. I'm just putting that in; she wants to have more kids in the armed forces because it's more votes for her.
6:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
6:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
No, no, that's not why.
How many members of our armed forces did manage to vote in the election? Is that a figure we know?
6:45 p.m.
BGen Gordon Dave Corbould
Yes, ma'am. Using the special voting stations, it was 29,247. What we don't know is how many individuals used their local polling station based on their statement of ordinary residence. That's an individual choice made by the member.
6:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
I want to turn to Wanda and Wade from CARP. By the way, you do have a very impressive organization on so many issues. You do provide real service to parliamentarians in giving us good data.
In looking at the high proportion of your membership that's familiar with issues of electoral reform, did you have any way of double-checking that in the questions you asked them? Were they self-identified as well informed? Did you test that in any way by asking them specific questions? I think it was Forum Research that told us that of the general population across Canada, only 40% of Canadians know that we currently use first past the post.
6:45 p.m.
Director of Policy, General Counsel of Advocacy, Canadian Association of Retired Persons
In this particular survey, we gave lots of opportunities for comments. We were looking for qualitative response, as well as just ticking off boxes, because we wanted to test that. We also wanted to get something that we may have missed when we brought their views here to you today. What we also did at the outset of our survey was to give a brief description of the different options available. Some of our members said they were informed because of what we gave to them. It was minimal, but there was some information there on the various systems. I think when our members say they're informed, generally they are somewhat informed the way they tell us.
6:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I also represent the riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, which I think has the fifth-highest proportion of seniors within the riding. I have a lot of CARP members, and they're always extremely well informed.
Did you have any other specific sense of why the majority of those who understood the choices for electoral reform trended towards supporting proportional representation? Was there any way to figure out what their reasons were, what values they were attaching to that choice, when they gave you the answers they gave you?
6:45 p.m.
Director of Policy, General Counsel of Advocacy, Canadian Association of Retired Persons
I think it was just to have their vote count. We found in the survey that our members were split on a lot of the key issues. It wasn't very close, but there were some views far to one side and some far to the other, so we had a lot of divergent views. Having their vote matter, I think, was one of the key views that we heard repeatedly on the pro-proportional representation side—and, of course, that the government had campaigned on that, so they were questioning why this was at issue now. We saw that as well.
6:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
With the time I have, I'll turn to Mr. Fitch.
I hope you won't mind, because I don't think you intended, by your turn of phrase that people own democracy, politicians don't own democracy.... I've searched in my mind as to whether I've ever heard anyone refer to democracy as a commodity before. I don't think you intended to offend me, but I was offended.
Aristotle said, “If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.” I think we could distill this in what Abraham Lincoln said, that government should be “of the people, by the people, for the people”. He didn't say “owned by the people”. I see democracy in a much more relational aspect, much more participatory, much more active. Really, the point of democracy is to ensure that the will of the people is effected by those whom they elect.
If you became premier of New Brunswick, would you make every decision by referendum? Which ones would you think you needed a referendum on, and when would you trust that the will of legislature was okay?
6:50 p.m.
Interim leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick
If I offended you, I didn't mean to. The point I was trying to make was that if politicians think they can make a unilateral decision that could determine the outcome of the next election to their favour forever and ever, that's where the people need to have a say. That again is the point at which, if you're leaving a method of voting, a method of creating governments, that has been fundamental and used for many years, you should have affirmation from the people, saying, yes, this is what we wanted, when we understood what that plank in the platform was.
Personally, I'll never be the premier of the Province of New Brunswick, so I won't get it past that, but it is when we come to things as important as how we elect our government that you need to have the people's reaffirmation on it. This is why I would have a referendum.
6:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Oh, good. My clock was too fast.
I would then ask whether, for instance, when the previous government under Stephen Harper decided to change the Elections Canada rules such that the longer the election campaign took, the more money accrued to all parties.... That was a specific benefit to one party, but it was applied equally to all parties. The timing of that election period, being 11 weeks, was part of the Fair Elections Act changes. Those changes weren't taken to the people. When Manitoba, or in the past New Brunswick, had multi-member ridings, those provisions were never taken to a referendum.
We've changed a lot of things about elections acts. We've changed our voting before; we've had the extension of the vote to women, to ethnic minorities, to first nations. We've never held referenda on those. I know the argument can be made, and Mr. Reid makes it well, but there's no constitutional requirement for a referendum, and we have changed our voting system in Canada in the past without resorting to referenda.
Is that the only category of decisions that you think have to go to the people before a legislator makes a decision: when it's a clear parliamentary decision to be made?
