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.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
When the public was consulted, however, people rejected it.
I'm missing something, here. I don't understand why someone who is such a strong advocate of democracy is opposed to consulting the public on such a significant and radical change to our democratic process. I used the word “radical” just for you.
4:25 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
I've answered that question multiple times.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes.
We will therefore move on to Ms. Romanado, who will have the honour of asking the last question.
Go ahead, Ms. Romanado.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much.
Actually, Professor Tanguay, you didn't have a chance to answer my previous question regarding mandatory voting. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to answer that question. If we were to go that route, what would the Canadian model look like, and would it be a carrot or stick suggestion?
4:25 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Again, this isn't something that I've done a lot of research on, personally, and I would simply reiterate what Professor Carty said. The Australian system has a bit of a stick. I cannot take seriously the proposal to give people tax credits for showing up to vote. I think there should be a modest penalty if they don't show up to vote. Again, I think the Australian system is the one that recommends itself.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
My question is now to the three panellists. In your opinion, what electoral system should be implemented that would reflect the composition of Canadian society today? I believe it was Professor Tanguay who mentioned that we should be promoting demographic representation, and so on and so forth. What model, in the opinion of all three of you, would best make sure that we are reflecting the demographic of Canada today?
4:30 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
It would be some version of the model that was described in the Law Commission of Canada's report. Some form of mixed member proportional would, I think, do the best job. Again, it's not going to be perfect. There are still going to be flaws in the electoral system, but I think it would do a better job than the current one of representing more sections of society, of producing a Parliament that had a greater variety of representatives drawn from a broader range of categories of society. On the whole I think that MMP is the system that recommends itself. It's not perfect, but it would be better.
4:30 p.m.
Director, Canadian Studies Program, and Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
The more I hear about MMP, the less I'm enamoured with it. One of the reasons is that I've been hearing that people's local MP is very important for them. But again, this is why I think the system I'm talking about makes the most sense. If you live in a large metropolitan area, it doesn't matter if the MP represents Davenport or Spadina—Fort York; the issues are similar. However, if you live outside of those cities, it's very vital. If you live in Dauphin, or Salmon Arm, you want to know who the MP is. The trouble, of course, with MMP is that you have two classes of MPs; one is tied down handling passport issues, immigration, vets issues, and the other is a prima donna who can just focus on foreign policy or defence policy.
One other thing is that if you're going to have a referendum, why does it cost $300 million? Why does it take a year and a half or two years? Why does it take that long? Greece called a referendum on June 27, 2015, and had a vote on July 5. You've just made such elaborate and expensive rules around elections and referenda. No one thinks that the Greek vote was undemocratic.
4:30 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I don't know that I believe there is a system that will be better. Every system will be different. It will produce a different-looking House. Some of it comes down to how we think about elections. What are they and what are they for? Partly, they're to produce a representative assembly, but also they're about connecting citizens to governments. Are they a series of individual contests, or are they somehow more diffuse contests, and how do we think about it?
I used to say something like this to my students, “Who should win the Stanley Cup? Should it be the team that wins the most games or the team that scores the most goals over seven games?” They'd say, “The team that wins the most games.” I would say, “What if we just changed it and played seven games? The team that scored the most goals should win.” They would say that wouldn't be right, and I would ask why.
It's because that's how we think about it. We think about Stanley Cup series as winning games, and we now think about elections as winning local contests. You win the most and you win. If we change the system, we're going to change how we think about elections, and what they are. We're going to go away from this most-games metaphor to something else. It won't be the total goals system, because that would be pure list PR on the national level à la Netherlands or Israel, but it would be something in between.
It's about how we think about what we're engaged in here. It's imagining a new way to think about it that you're charged with being involved in.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
As Canadians, it's only right and just that we end on hockey.
4:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I would like to thank the witnesses and say how much we appreciate their appearing before our committee this last week of July.
Thank you for such a lively, pleasant, and frank discussion. I think I speak for all the committee members when I say it was very beneficial.
Thank you very much for a lively discussion. It really fleshed out the issues we have to consider. Again, thank you for being here in the last week of July.
I would just like to remind members that our meeting tomorrow starts at 9:30. It's not here, but at 1 Wellington Street.
Members of the steering committee, we'll be breaking for 15 minutes and will resume in camera.
Thank you again to members and witnesses. We'll see most of you tomorrow.
This meeting is adjourned.