Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak today in the debate on Motion No. M-155, introduced by my NDP colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
I am grateful to him for this motion, since it gives us the opportunity to debate an important question that I will look at from three angles.
First, can democracy be improved? Second, is the electoral process a component of democracy? Third, could proportional representation serve to improve democracy?
Members will have understood the importance of this debate, since it involves thinking about parliament as the favoured place of the democratic expression of a country.
To my first question, “can democracy be improved”, I have no hesitation in answering yes. Our electoral system is of course democratic. However, it is not perfect, since it promotes the hegemony of the majority party. I must quote a 19th century author who wrote “Truth, laws, rights and justice depend on 40 rumps that rise among 22 that remain seated”.
How many governments have been elected and will be again, even though a strong majority of electors do not want them elected? In the present system, the person getting the most votes is the person elected, and the party with the most seats forms the government. Tough luck for the tens of thousands of voters who have no voice in parliament.
Everyone remembers the 1993 federal election, which robbed the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party of party standing in the House of Commons.
To my second question, “is the electoral process a component of democracy”, I answer yes as well, since it enables the public to choose the person best able, in their opinion, to represent them. If they are wrong in their choice, they will try to correct their fire a few years later in another election.
The last question focuses on the value of proportional representation as an instrument likely to improve democracy. To this question, I answer yes, but on certain conditions. But before briefly describing those conditions, I would like to give a few figures.
A UN study listed 174 countries according to their degree of human development. Of the 64 countries said to meet the criteria for superior human development, 34, or just over 50%, have a proportional representation system. The percentage drops to 33.5% for the group of countries considered to have an average level of human development, while in the last group of countries only one in four has proportional representation.
In short, the more developed a country is, the greater the likelihood of proportional representation. In fact, of the 174 countries, 66 elect their parliament proportionally—the less developed a country is, the less this is the case.
However, it might also interest the House to know that, of the 222 political systems listed in 1997 by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, only 64 elected their parliament using a first-past-the-post system.
A hard look at other countries obviously requires that some serious thought be given to this topic, since fewer than 30% of them elect their parliament based on the number of votes.
Is proportional representation a panacea for democracy? What are its advantages and its disadvantages?
In Esprit des lois , Montesquieu wrote “The love of democracy is the love of equality”. A century later, in his Du Contrat Social , Jean-Jacques Rousseau associated the notions of liberty and equality, saying “If we seek to find precisely what comprises the greatest good of all, that which must be the goal of any system of legislation, it will be found that this can be reduced to two principal objects: liberty and equality. Liberty, because any individual dependency takes away an equivalent amount from the strength of the body of the state; equality because liberty cannot exist without it”.
Proportional representation seems to work in favour of a better women's representation in parliament.
It cannot be mere happenstance that, if any country has more than 20% of women MPs, it is one which uses proportional representation. In Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, the proportion of women varies between 33% and 40%, while it is a mere 12% in the United States. The same conclusions apply to the figures for minority groups.
There is one other interesting element. The rate of popular participation is also higher, no doubt because the individual citizen has the assurance that his vote will be worthwhile.
While the single constituency single ballot system, known as first-past-the-post system, promotes government stability, one of the disadvantages of proportional representation is, no doubt, the instability it can generate, with all the political, economic and social consequences that may follow. This disadvantage is not insignificant. It does not take much imagination to see that a parliament with 30 parties sitting in it could, at times, be a bit of a circus.
Another not insignificant aspect is the lessened importance of the elected representative's link to his riding. We all know people who vote for the man, as we say. In my case, they vote for the woman. It is the candidate's personality that, for some voters, makes all the difference.
With a proportional vote, the party's program takes precedence. It is easy for voters to believe that the person elected from their riding will represent their party rather than themselves.
The Bloc Quebecois considers it worthwhile to hold a serious debate on the various types of voting, including proportional representation. One element seems fundamental, however, and that is recognition in the debate of Quebec's uniqueness.
Since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has been a federal party devoted to the interests of Quebec. We are the first case, but who here can say that our situation will always be unique, a sort of artifice without real importance? Everyone knows how interests differ from coast to coast.
The advantage of proportional representation is to give the difference a fair place. Because we rightly consider that our difference as a people warrants respect in the electoral process, I move:
That the motion be amended by adding, after the word “proportional” wherever it appears in the motion, the words “by province”.
In closing, I would express a hope that democracy may end up resembling the portrait Jules Romain painted of it:
A democracy is first a way of life in which people dare to talk to each other of important things, all the important things, in which they feel entitled to speak as adults and not as disguised children.
This comes from his work about men of goodwill, which I claim we all are.