Electoral Reform Committee on July 25th, 2016

Evidence of meeting #6 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 voters.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Electoral Reform

MPs speaking

Also speaking

R. Kenneth Carty Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Brian Tanguay Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual

Nelson Wiseman Director, Canadian Studies Program, and Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

You all, of course, know that this is a different composition of committee. Do you believe that this committee should persist until such time as it can examine the legislation that the government puts forward? Otherwise, it would be referred to some other committee of the House, and we know that those committees are composed of a majority of government members. In your opinion, would it be good from the point of view of the legitimacy of the process to have a committee with this composition look at the legislation, once we have a concrete proposal, or to have an ordinary committee of Parliament?

4:20 p.m.

Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual

Brian Tanguay

One of the great advantages of this committee is precisely how it's currently composed and how the voting rules are going to make votes take place. I would think it would be optimal for the process if it were to continue.

4:20 p.m.

Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

Dr. R. Kenneth Carty

If the committee is successful in moving the debate ahead, then it ought to continue. If it comes to a roadblock and finds that it's not able to recommend, then some other process may be necessary.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Mr. Blaikie, you have about 15 seconds. I don't know whether there's anything you want to say in that time.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

No, that's fine. Thank you.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Your turn, Mr. Deltell.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Tanguay, a few moments ago, you said a coalition government might be better for Canadian democracy because the parties would have to compromise and so forth.

Over the past one hundred years, Canada has seen 28 elections. Only once did the party that garnered the most votes end up in the opposition. It was in 1979. A historical footnote, the government lasted nine months. Conversely, only three governments received more than 50% of the votes.

That means our system has always operated on majority, or basically majority, governments that did not enjoy the absolute majority. And yet, they had 100% of the power, as you said earlier, despite not receiving 100% of the vote or even less than 50%.

Nevertheless, would you say our democracy has fared well over the past century?

4:20 p.m.

Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual

Brian Tanguay

Yes, clearly, our democracy has worked well.

From my experience with the Law Commission of Canada and the Ontario referendum, I would say that our system could be more effective, especially in terms of including representatives and the varying views of the electorate.

There is no doubt that Canada enjoys a successful democracy, but the system does have its problems or flaws, shall we say. Fixing them would simply involve reforming the electoral process to provide for more proportional representation. That is not to say Canada's system isn't working.