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.
4:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
Ninety-three per cent is what I like when you're deciding something absolutely major, and we got that in this country. If referendums are the way to go, I don't know why we don't aim for that.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Right.
We've heard from the minister that referenda are not inclusive, that certain groups don't come out to vote. In 1992, as compared to the election that you administered that came right after that a year later, was there any difference in terms of which groups participated or did not participate?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's a big question and we have very limited time, but go ahead and give it a shot, please.
July 7th, 2016 / 4:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
That is a matter that was not studied or looked at in detail, sir. It was not studied.
4:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
I will mention, by the way, that the political parties were not co-operating. The ones that favoured the referendum question being “yes” were a team together, but they were not co-operating. That had an impact on the results.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Early on in your opening comments, you gave a bit of advice to us in saying that we should focus on three or four models instead of going after 15. You don't need to deal with this request now, but I am really curious to know if you've come across what you would consider to be three or four top models that would be worth looking at. Not only that, perhaps there are witnesses we could speak to who would be able to speak to the attributes, positive as well as negative, on each one.
I would just leave that with you. If you have time or you have something that you would be able to feed to the committee, it would be helpful as we move forward, given your wealth of experience.
4:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
I read significant pieces of the guide, if not the total document, tabled by the minister with you yesterday. In it there is a good definition, a very good definition, of the various basic models—not the variations upon the themes, but the basic models. I found that to be quite helpful.
In terms of other people to call, we have a whole slew of people in academia in this country who have a wealth of experience to share, with much deeper knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems. I would be happy to share those names. They're already well known to people, but I'd be happy to do that.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
If you have something and you'd be able to do that, it would be helpful for us to get it into the official evidence.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
My next question is one that I posed this morning as well. You touched on this, but I'll give you another chance to speak to it. It's simply that as we move forward, what would you consider to be, as I termed it earlier today, a Canadian attribute for us to consider? I think you had called it a Canadian peculiarity. What would be a key consideration that you would say we would need to look at, in the Canadian context, as we move forward in revising our electoral system?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
In any system we devise, I would consider the need to reconcile the remote and rural areas where the historic linkages with the elected representatives, in my view, have appeared to be different. It could lead us to a very interesting system.
There was another major attribute to which I alluded a little bit earlier, but I would only be repeating what I have already said, so the main one is to reconcile the geography of this country with its system of representation.
The other thing that I consider to be essential is to come up with a system that favours the national aspect of political parties, the coast-to-coast-to-coast aspect that I mentioned, so that we have members of caucus from all across the land and not have significant chunks missing or significant disproportion in representation in caucus.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay. Thanks.
As my final question, I would simply offer you the floor if you have any other final words of advice, thoughts you haven't covered that you'd like to leave us with, or parting thoughts for the day as we move forward.
4:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
My only parting thought is to reiterate one thing: this committee must run the process with the Canadian public. You must beef up how you reach out to Canadians and how Canadians reach out to you. This is the most significant piece of advice I can give you. It is not up to the government to do that; the government is entitled to do what it wants to do, but you are the representatives of the people. You are the ones who must take this responsibility and give it life.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Kingsley, and thank you for being with us today. You have provided us with a lively session in the doldrums of summer.
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We appreciate that you have stimulated debate while sharing your wealth of experience. On behalf of all members of the committee, I believe, thank you for your service to Canada and for the ideas you have brought to the committee today. Thank you very much. You have made a great contribution to the discussion.
4:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
The pleasure was all mine. Thank you very much.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Colleagues, we're going to take about a five-minute break and then continue in camera. I hope it will be very brief. We have a few decisions to make. Actually, we need to ratify some decisions of the steering committee.
Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]