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.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Well, I'm sitting beside someone from the Bloc Québécois, so they are indeed here.
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Ryerson University, As an Individual
He's practically no longer there.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Excuse me, Mr. Blaikie, I really enjoy the back and forth, but can we keep it a little more linear?
Go ahead.
Who was speaking? Was it Mr. Dutil?
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Ryerson University, As an Individual
My apologies.
Again, I'm simply pointing to the reality.
In jurisdictions with PR, you're going to naturally have more people emerging to represent particular interests. They're not interested in looking after other people's interests because they're guaranteed a certain percentage of the votes, and they're going to cater to that goal and it will be reinforced.
The great merit of the first past the post system is that that kind of behaviour is not encouraged. You are encouraged to open—
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I'll claim my piece of the linear pie here and say that it may well be true under a pure proportional system, but it's important not to.... I mean, part of what we've been doing is hearing about the various kinds of proportional systems that you can bring in. For instance, a mixed member system would include individual MPs, potentially, in individual ridings.
Now, that's not the case for an STV system, but the idea that by adopting some kind of proportional system at all you would have to abandon the idea that you will have local MPs who are held to that kind of account, and maybe even elected with a plurality within their riding, isn't incompatible with the idea that you would have a system that overall, when you look at the Parliament, would be balanced out so that the views of Canadians are represented adequately and proportionally in their legislature. It's not a one-or-the-other.
So when you say “a proportional system”, part of the work of this committee is figuring out the extent to which you can't make that kind of general claim. I'm sure, given your profession and your area of study, you know that kind of general claim is impossible. I just don't see—
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Ryerson University, As an Individual
I wish you good luck in trying to sell that to the Canadian people.
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Ryerson University, As an Individual
The idea of having two classes of MPs I don't think will jive with our political culture, where you have one class of MPs who will cater to the needs of the constituents and another class of MPs who are always on the list and who are always going to be there. I think Canadians like to have their members of Parliament accountable. When it's time for the party to go, when it's time to defeat the government, Canadians know exactly what lever to pull, and they pull it.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
—you like the idea of using senators, who aren't accountable to anyone.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
—and I'm sure Mr. Deltell will also regale us with a very good exchange.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I'm very happy to be here.
I can assure this committee that the Bloc Québécois is still there. I can assure you of that.
For our part, yes, maybe we have different roots. I'm very proud to show in this House my 1981 member card from the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada when I was 17 years old. I'm very proud of my roots.
I'm very proud to be Conservative, too, as I'm sure you're proud to be NDP, and proud to be Green, and proud to be Bloc Québécois, and proud to be Liberal.
Professor Russell, you said it's your wish that this committee will make a recommendation and the government will follow this recommendation. This is what you said. Well, sorry for you, pal, but this will not be the case, because a few weeks ago, in exactly the same place, in the same room, the minister—she was sitting in your chair—said that she is not attached to the decision of this committee.
4:35 p.m.
Prof. Peter Russell
Oh. I didn't know that.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
At the end of the day, the shot will be called by one guy, the Prime Minister, who controls the cabinet and who controls the majority of the House. Don't you think it will be a necessity to have a referendum to let the people decide instead of the call of one guy?
4:35 p.m.
Prof. Peter Russell
Yes, there's even more necessity to have a referendum in that situation.
I'll have to look into what Minister Monsef said. I will do that and see if it's as crystal clear as you suggest. If it is, I'd be extremely disappointed.
I have to catch a plane to get to a boat. I don't want to be rude, but I think I must make my departure. Please forgive me for leaving before the end.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We understand. We really appreciate your testimony here today.
4:40 p.m.
Prof. Peter Russell
Okay. Thank you very much.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're almost done, and Professor Dutil will answer the remaining questions. Thanks again for coming, Professor Russell.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I'm very pleased I made the statement before Mr. Russell left. I'm very surprised to see the Green leader with him. I'm very surprised.
Mr. Dutil, I'd like to talk to you about the importance of citizen engagement.
The current government would like us to hold town halls to consult the public. Do you think those kinds of meetings are an effective way to take the public pulse, as compared with a referendum, which all Canadians can participate in?
4:40 p.m.
Professor, Ryerson University, As an Individual
The answer is no, because it's not representative. Typically, the people who will attend those meetings are in favour of the change. Those who are satisfied with the current system—the vast majority of people—won't go to the trouble of taking part in that kind of exercise, or at least very few of them will.
For confirmation that the public is truly in favour of change, a referendum has to be held. As I see it, there's no way around it.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
How would you respond to those who argue against a referendum because they might lose?
4:40 p.m.
Professor, Ryerson University, As an Individual
It's up to them to defend their views, their position, against the backdrop of a referendum, and to prove to Canadians that the system they are advocating is better than the one that has been in place for 225 years. It's up to them to convince us, to convince Canadians, and I wish them luck.
The referendum conditions must be fair and must give people the opportunity to make a choice, as was the case in New Zealand, Australia, and Great Britain. People have to be given the opportunity to express their support for the current system. The question must be crystal clear and must give Canadians the option to choose the status quo.
If all of those conditions were met, I think the result would be a healthy referendum and an outcome worthy of respect.