Electoral Reform Committee on July 25th, 2016

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

No, that's fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Your turn, Mr. Deltell.

[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?

[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.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Do you think it's worth making such a radical change? You, yourself, said it was important to—

[Brian Tanguay]

I take issue with the word “radical”, which has been used repeatedly here today. Many countries have reformed their voting systems. It's not all that radical. It's merely a matter of adjusting the mechanics to convert the votes into seats. That's all.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

The current system has served us well, after all. Canada enjoys political stability and a solid economy. At the end of the day, things are going well, and that's not me saying so but actually Mr. Wiseman. On March 13, 2008, he told a Senate committee, and I quote:

I think the current system has served us well.... We have political stability, we have a thriving economy....

Would you agree with that?

[Brian Tanguay]

Yes, but the question is who is it working for?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It's working for Canadians, Mr. Tanguay. It's called democracy.

[Brian Tanguay]

It doesn't work for all Canadians. The very interest in electoral reform indicates that the current system isn't working for everyone.

Underlying my recommendations is the notion that a system based on proportional representation could serve a lot more people, particularly young people and those whose opinions don't fall in the middle of the political spectrum, such as those of the Green Party. The House of Commons should have more Green Party representatives.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

My goodness, we know who you're voting for in the next election. I have no problem with that; it's democracy in action.

The change being proposed to the electoral process represents a lot more than just an extra word on the ballot. It's a lot more significant than that. The government is asking us to make a radical change to the way Canadians vote.

[Brian Tanguay]

It's not radical.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Oh no?

[Brian Tanguay]

No.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It's so far from radical, Mr. Tanguay, that the Chief Electoral Officer needs at least two years to prepare.

[Brian Tanguay]

Over the years, it's been done numerous times in Canada, at the provincial level—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

He needs two years to explain to people how the process is going to work, and you don't see that as a radical change?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Forgive me, Mr. Deltell, but you have to give Mr. Tanguay a chance to respond before asking a follow-up question.

Go ahead, Mr. Tanguay.

[Brian Tanguay]

In Canada, voting systems have been changed numerous times in the past, provincially, and it's been done without referendums.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Did those reforms entail changing how members are selected, as is being proposed?

[Brian Tanguay]

Yes. That was the system Nelson Wiseman described.