Evidence of meeting #5 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 question.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jean-Pierre Kingsley  Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Well, you're right about that. Actually, when you say to yourself that it hasn't...I have always defended a referendum, and your comment gives me a chance to say something that I think is important.

In British Columbia, you're quite right that 57% voted in favour, so that was the majority. They were prevented by an artificial 60% threshold from getting their way. I disagree with artificially high thresholds, but additionally, the turnout in that referendum was over 60%. This nonsense that somehow people do not participate in referenda on electoral reform is just not true. Over 80% voted in the New Zealand referendum on changing to an MMP system from first past the post.

What I would notice and point out to everybody on this committee is that when a model has a very low percentage supporting it, such as the Ontario model in 2007, which only had about 35%, it also normally has a very low turnout. I think we can safely interpret many of the people who did not vote as saying, “I'm not even going to vote on this, because I'm so uncompelled by this model.” When people find the model compelling, not only do they vote in favour of it, but they also turn out in very large numbers to vote. I think that's a really important distinction to make, which I would like to have made to the minister yesterday.

I have one minute left, and I wanted to ask you this. You talked about avoiding redistribution by grouping a number of existing ridings together. That of course makes a significant degree of sense as a way of speeding things up. I want to ask the same question that my colleague asked Mr. Mayrand earlier. There is one particular community of interest that appears to have a right to have the retention of riding boundaries in a way that potentially can be used in litigation, and that is official language linguistic minorities.

In the case that arose in Acadie—Bathurst, a number of people, including the incumbent member of Parliament, said they found the change in boundaries to be unacceptable. I guess the concern I have is this: is it a danger that we could find an attempt to merge ridings subject to that kind of litigation, thereby slowing down the process?

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Very quickly.

3:25 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The answer is that there's danger legally in practically anything you will do. Some of it will be on constitutional grounds. People will find ways to address it if they're not happy. That is something we will have to live with, and that includes the situation you described.

By the way, that case deserves to be studied much more carefully than we're able to do today.

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson is next.

July 7th, 2016 / 3:25 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to go back to the comments Ms. Romanado made in response to my comments, to the effect that we represent all our constituents.

Yes, that's sort of a given. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if someone who is a known New Democrat phones Mr. Reid—I'll use him because he's the longest-serving member of Parliament on this committee—they'll get fantastic service. That person will be treated no differently from his neighbour. I have no doubt about that. If a known Conservative calls my office, I'd be mortified to find out that they felt they got less than fantastic service.

What I'm talking about is something far more important, and that is the actual division of power. You can't get re-elected if you don't represent everyone. What we're talking about is this: here is power in Canada, and how does it get divvied up?

I was on my feet in I believe the 38th, 39th, and 40th Parliaments, prior to the arrival of Madam May—she knows where I'm going here—to stand up and say that hundreds if not thousands of people voted in my riding and across the country for the Greens. At that time the number was about 500,000 people, yet not one member in the House was from the Green Party.

That matters. While Mr. Reid may do a fantastic job representing that constituent on their vet problem or on their Canada Revenue problem or on their EI problem, he will not be there for them when it comes to standing up and saying, “I want proportional representation.” Conversely, in my riding, that same Conservative voter will get that same service from me on those issues, but when I stand up, I will not be defending first past the post.

We just voted on assisted dying. That was an incredibly divisive issue. You can't vote both ways. At the end of the day, whoever got the seat got to cast that vote, either in favour or opposed. It couldn't be both.

That's why I said that 43% of the population in my riding.... They get, I like to think, good service. I'm in my fifth term, so there are enough of them who think that, or I wouldn't be here, but in terms of reflecting the policies of the parties supported by the constituents who voted against me, that voice is not there. I will support doubling CPP from here to the end of eternity, until we get it. Mr. Reid would not. He feels differently about it.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we're here to question the witness, not to indict Ms. Romanado on her comments.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Yes, I would agree.

Is there a question—

3:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Really? Really? We're talking about democratic reform, about democracy. I have my five minutes, I'm responding to a comment, and somebody is telling me I'm out of order?

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I would like it if you directed it through the chair, maybe.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Sorry, what is your problem now, Chair?

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Could you direct your comments through the chair as opposed to—

3:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Sure. It will be through you, sir, Mr. Chair—

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you. I appreciate it.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

—to Madam Romanado, who I was responding to. Someone may feel that's not the right response, but it's my five minutes, because I'm the one who has the seat.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

No, I understand that.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Fine. I'm done anyway. You spent more time berating me than letting me finish my thought.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I wasn't berating you, Mr. Christopherson.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

I do have a question for our witness—through you, Chair.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

To our witness, you had said earlier, sir, that you weren't aware of any emerging democracies—I've done a fair bit of work internationally too—that have actually chosen first past the post. Can you give us some of the reasons you think they were considering when they didn't go that way? There is a good argument that they would look at Britain and Canada and say, “Hey, it works for them; why wouldn't we go there?”, yet you're right that they're almost all going to some form of a parliamentary system.

Can you give us your thoughts on why they would go that way, in terms of trying to get the best democratic process from the very beginning? When they're designing it, why would they not or why haven't they? What do you think are some of the reasons they might have been considering when they made those decisions, sir?

3:30 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

It's the importance of multi-partyism, to put it bluntly.

You gave an example of 500,000 votes not getting one seat. In my introductory remarks, I said that 700,000 votes only gets one seat. We owe those Canadians an explanation if we're not going to change the system. We owe them that, as we do all the others who are concerned about 39% of the votes getting 50% or 60% of the seats. We need an explanation for those people. This is a democracy.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you. Your time is about up, but there will be other opportunities.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

You're going to force me to go to the end now.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

No, no.