Evidence of meeting #8 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 governments.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Earlier, you quoted Judge LeBel in the Figueroa decision. He said, “Perhaps the most significant manifestation of the importance of political representation of regional interests in Canada is our federalist system.” He went on to quote the Fathers of Confederation, specifically John A. Macdonald, whom you are familiar with, Mr. Dutil. During the Confederation debates, John A. Macdonald said that “any proposition which involved the absorption of the individuality of Lower Canada…would not be received with favor by her people” and that “there was as great a disinclination…to lose their individuality, as separate political organizations”.
Wasn't the outcome of the 1993 election simply the manifestation of the disinclination to lose that individuality as separate political organizations? Would you call that narrow interests?
Professor, Ryerson University, As an Individual
The historical context in 1993 is similar to that in 1917, when Quebec voted almost unanimously for Wilfrid Laurier. In both cases, the outcome reflected people's outrage over an extraordinary political situation.
They are narrow interests in the sense that voters were delivering a scathing condemnation of a situation that obviously required a near-unanimous response, one that would ensure a Quebec-centric voice in Parliament.
With proportional representation, I guarantee you there would be a regional party in every single region of the country. In Ontario, I guarantee you there would be sub-regional parties, including a Toronto-centric party. A Vancouver-centric party would emerge.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to pick up on something for Professor Russell. In testimony here yesterday, Professor Nelson Wiseman, whom I assume you know, said there's really nothing new to learn about this; that we should go back and look at the law reform commission and look at the citizens' assemblies; and that if the government were serious about electoral reform, this committee wouldn't exist; that they would have just announced what they wanted to do and would be doing it.
Since you were an expert in the 2004 law commission report Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada, would you be willing to reflect upon what you think we can learn that's new from 2004 to 2016, or do you agree with Professor Wiseman that we should just go back and look at what other bodies have done?
Prof. Peter Russell
Several things have happened since 2004. I mentioned the citizens' assemblies. I know they weren't all the Canadian citizens, but they were cross-sections. They were extraordinary efforts to involve ordinary Canadians from all walks of life. You should look at their work. You should look at their report. They worked on it hard and thought it through. That's new since the law reform commission.
I think we have further evidence about the effectiveness of governments in countries with PR in dealing with the fiscal crisis. The year 2008 posed a tremendous challenge to the democracies. If governments based on PR with minority parliaments—no party with a majority, according to the old bias—can't do anything, then how do you account for the very effective performance of minority governments and coalitions during the years of fiscal crisis, every bit as good as in countries with false majority governments?
I'd say the same on what I think is the biggest issue of our time: environmental issues and global warming. Again I think the record of countries based on PR is very impressive.
We've mentioned, as Mr. Cullen did, that the participation of women in elected legislatures has built up since 2004. That argument, by the way, was put forward as well as anyone by the founder of Fair Vote Canada, the late Doris Anderson, to explain why it was not a coincidence. It's still in my mind a tremendous bit of work, and it got Fair Vote Canada going.
Professor, Ryerson University, As an Individual
I would only say that there's been an explosion of studies over the last 10 years on voting behaviour. Most of it is showing that there is less and less of an obvious link between voting methods and the turnout rate: the turnout rate has gone up and down independent of the electoral systems that have been chosen.
More and more work has been done over the last 10 years on this. They were looking at other factors. The two factors that do seem to be making a difference, as I said in my opening presentation, are mandatory voting and voting on Sunday.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I think the statistics still show an uptick of at least 6% to 7% in those countries that have PR.
I want to ask you a different question, Professor Dutil. In your article that appeared—I didn't see the thing in the Fraser Institute, but I did see the Toronto Star—you said that our electoral system has forced politicians to compromise.
One of my beefs with first past the post, and particularly under false majorities, is that it does no such thing. I find that what parliamentarians seem to want to do in recent years is find an issue that could be solved and deliberately not solve it.
I'll give you the example of the long-gun registry. The late Jack Layton had a proposal for solving the long-gun registry through compromise. The governing Conservatives under Mr. Harper had no interest in that whatsoever, because they saw in the long-gun registry the classic wedge issue by which they could defeat decent MPs in their ridings, if they made it a single-issue campaign that this MP or that MP hadn't stood up to kill the long-gun registry, instead of fixing it wherein it was flawed.
I wonder if you'd comment on that.
Green
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
—we've hit the five-minute mark, but you have made your point.
Go ahead for 10 seconds, please.
Professor, Ryerson University, As an Individual
There are wedge issues in every jurisdiction, and I really regret that, and it should have been fixed better. I'm certainly not in agreement with the way things happened.
But what is the political solution? Should there have been an anti-gun party in a proportional system, which would hold the balance of power and would have fixed the issue right away? You get into all sorts of scenarios.
Liberal
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much.
Thank you, gentlemen.
We've heard a lot over the last couple of meetings about our current system and the fact that the reality is it doesn't work; that millions of Canadians feel that their vote doesn't count, which adds to voter cynicism, low voter turnout, and so on and so forth. When I myself ran—my first time running—there were seven candidates, and I won with 35% of the vote.
The reality is that 65% of the population of Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne did not vote for me. Now, post-election, I represent all 103,000 of them, regardless whether they voted for me or not.
How in good conscience, however, do we say to the millions of Canadians who feel that their voices don't count under the current system that we should maintain the status quo because we've always done it that way? We've been tasked to make sure that it is equitable, that folks feel when they go to the ballot box that their vote counts. I'd like you to elaborate a little bit on how we can as a committee make sure that those folks who are listening feel that we are in fact going to make sure that their vote counts.
Professor, Ryerson University, As an Individual
I have to be blunt. I think this is a wrong image. Every vote counts—every vote. Everybody's vote was counted. You came out first, and you know full well that it illustrates the point I made at the beginning. You know full well that most people voted against you, which makes you, I would expect, a much better member of Parliament, because you are open to hearing what other people have said to you. It makes you more sensitive to the needs of the population. It makes you more sensitive to their difficulties with government. It makes you more aware of how your office back home can be helpful to them regardless of whether they voted for you.
I think this is what Canadians want. This is a fiction that their votes don't count, or every other system is going to have a system in which their votes don't count. It can be PR: If you're going to raise the level to 15%, you're practically where we are now. If you're going to lower it to 3%, then you're going to run a huge risk of having all sorts of regional and sectoral parties emerging.
I don't think there's something wrong with your getting 35%. It may sound ugly, but at the end of the day you're a good member of Parliament, you're going to do a great job during the four years that you're there, and maybe you'll be defeated and it's going to hurt and I'm really sorry.
I had a former MP who came to my class. I wanted to talk about budgets, and she talked for an hour about how she was heartbroken by the fact that the voters turned her away and did not vote for her party or for her. It wasn't personal. Thank goodness, she's been re-elected to Parliament and she's one of your colleagues, who will remain nameless.
Professor, Ryerson University, As an Individual
It's a hard thing, but Canadians want good, responsive government. They know your name; they know you're the MP; they know that no matter how they voted—because you don't know how they voted—you will serve them, and I'm sure you do and I'm sure all of you do.
That makes for good government. It makes for good governance. I think our system has demonstrated that it can deliver on that. To take a chance on another kind of system in which you have a number of MPs for the local region and nobody really knows who's accountable to what.... People know exactly: if they have a problem with government, you're the one who's accountable and you're the one who's going to have to fix it for them. You'll do the best you can, and if you can't, you can explain why.
I wish you continued good luck.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you.
Professor Russell, do you have any comments?
Prof. Peter Russell
With great respect to Fair Vote Canada, this expression of “every vote counts” I don't think is a good slogan. You've just heard how it can be turned around. Every vote is counted, and in a system of proportional representation, lots of votes in a different sense aren't counted. They're not represented, in part. There have to be thresholds.
So I don't rest my case for a proportional representation system on making every vote count. I don't think it's a good slogan.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You have very little time left, Mrs. Romanado. You have time for a 20-second statement, if you like, but I don't think we have time for an answer.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I just wanted to say, in terms of coalition or minority governments, do you feel that possibly having that collaborative approach would help diminish some cynicism?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think we have to go on to the next questioner. To finish more or less on time—we're going over as it is—is it okay if we just leave that one out there for now?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. You did break some new ground on that “every vote counts” question, I found. It's something we hadn't really talked about.
Mr. Kenney.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First I have a question on process, then on substance.
On process, Professor Dutil, you testified about the process followed by three provincial governments, and in addition the commitment by a former New Brunswick government to hold a referendum. In the cases of British Columbia and Ontario, the process involved citizens' assemblies that studied the issue and then framed a question that was referred to voters, which I think is analogous to the approach taken by New Zealand.
In this case we have eliminated the intermediate step of a citizens' assembly. Now we have politicians discussing how politicians should be elected, and the government is seeking to eliminate the second step, which is a referendum to ensure democratic legitimacy, or political legitimacy, for the outcome.
To both witnesses, don't you think that at the very least we should have one of those two intermediate steps? Don't you think that many Canadians, regardless of their substantive views on electoral reform, would find that politicians deciding...?
I mean, let's face it; in the context, as Professor Russell has testified, of the power of the Prime Minister's Office, the ultimate decision at cabinet will reflect the Prime Minister's preference. Would it not be preferable, at least in terms of democratic legitimacy, to have either a citizens' assembly or a referendum, or both?