Debates of Feb. 20th, 2001

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Health.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington. Today the opposition motion concerns the issue of striking an all-party committee to look at various models of proportional representation and other parliamentary reforms. It also concludes or hypothesises that it would combat the increasing regionalization in Canadian politics and the declining turnout of Canadians in federal elections.

It is an important motion. I listened to much of the debate today. I listened to the lead speech by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I was confused why the New Democratic Party did not want to have a vote in the House on the motion. It seems strange since one of its strong points is that the matter has not been voted on in the House since the 1920s.

It is a broad motion. It is a broad issue. It raises some interesting points that I think members have spoken about quite a bit.

Proportional representation is probably a concept which is foreign to Canadians generally because it is not simply defined. There are various models, as members have noted in their speeches, such those in Israel, Russia or Germany. However there is one principle that is characteristic to all of them: Should a party that receives 20% of the votes in an election also have 20% of the seats in the parliament as a reflection of that support in the national vote?

In principle Canadians would probably agree that the representation within a parliament should be fairly reflective of their views. However in our parliamentary system votes are not split riding by riding in the same proportion, which raises some interesting questions.

Most members have not talked today about the practicality or the implementation of such a plan and what it would mean to parliament. I tried to think about it a bit. Today we have 301 members of parliament representing each of the 301 constituencies. There are some 30 million people, which means that on average we each represent about 100,000 people.

The role of the parliamentarian is extremely important. Most members would agree that serving the needs of their constituents is probably one of the most important and relevant activities discharged by a member of parliament. It is a difficult job because in most ridings members of parliament do not get elected with much more than 50% of the vote. Many in fact get elected with only 40% of the vote.

We have five official parties. In most provinces there are at least four candidates representing official parties and many other candidates representing other parties that are not as well known. It does mean that we do have representation by members who do not have the majority of votes.

As we go across the country and look at who is first past the post, in the last election the Liberal government elected 172 members of parliament. That represents a majority government. It is interesting to consider that although members of parliament would like to think we are elected substantively on our own merit they are running on behalf of a party with an election platform and with a foundation of policy and a philosophy of party structure that have evolved over long periods of time.

Electors have many reasons for voting for a particular member of parliament representing a party and a platform. I would think that a large majority of them would say that they vote for the party first, maybe for the platform and then for the leader. If they still have some doubts they might look to the candidate. Others are so dedicated to and such great fans of their members of parliament that they would look to them as long as they are pleased with the representation they give and trust that they will use their best judgment in all matters before the House. Some experts have suggested that members of parliament could be worth as much as 10% of the vote in most ridings.

The system of proportional representation is an attack on the accountability of parliamentarians in this place. We are elected to represent constituencies with defined boundaries. We are elected, not so much on what we promise to do but on what we have done. Canadians would find that the common bond of association we have in this place is that we have all been very involved in our communities through charitable work, volunteer service and other levels of representation.

Much of it was done on a voluntary basis, much of it without compensation and much of it because we were involved and love our communities. We wanted to make them better places for our families. Those kinds of things distinguish members of parliament in this place. It is what they have done, not what they promise to do. There is an integrity issue.

Proportional representation basically says that we want to add another class of parliamentarian. Many basically say they want a list of people particular parties would like to have. In the event they have a greater percentage of the vote and get a greater percentage of seats, they would like some of the members on their lists to become members of parliament.

I am not sure how we could pragmatically implement it in Canada. I am not sure which ridings they would represent. I am not sure whether constituents would have a place to go to talk to them. I am not sure whether or not they would be people who could be elected if they actually ran in an election. I am not sure they would reflect the quality of people who Canadians would like to see in their parliament.

It raises some questions. There are some very good people out there, but can we imagine having another class of parliamentarian in this place? One would be elected by the constituents of a riding and the other be slotted in or deemed to be here simply because the party as a whole somehow got a few more votes.

There are many examples of the pitfalls of proportional representation. Let us imagine an area in the country where some group was able to organize itself and to make outlandish promises that very enticing and alluring but knew it would never have to deliver because it would never form a government. Could we consider a party that said it would come in here and eliminate the GST, reduce income taxes by another 20%, give every Canadian $500 a year in heating rebates or take care of our families? The list could go on. A lot of these things would be nice to have but fiscally imprudent.

Is it possible that a group which could lay out a very alluring and enticing platform could in fact get 10% of the vote across Canada? I have a feeling that it is possible.

In fact, what would happen in this bizarre case would be that 10% of the members in this place would not be elected in any riding but would be here simply because of their party, which had an imprudent platform, and then they all of a sudden would be members of parliament in this place. That is what I characterize as the affront to democracy and the affront to members of parliament and the accountability and integrity members bring here.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what would happen, for instance, if you were to have 20 more members of parliament in this place. Would that mean that we would have 20 more seats in here, which I am not sure would be a great platform to run on, or would it mean that existing members of parliament would have to represent 20% more people? There are a lot of implementation problems with such a thing.

I would just suggest to members that these kinds of ideas, although they have been operating in other countries, all have had significant problems. What I do know is that people across Canada, riding by riding, know, respect and care for their member of parliament, because I think all members here legitimately do the best they can to represent the best interests of their constituents.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member does do the best he can for his own constituents and I respect him for that.

However, when we face a situation in which some members, and I use my own example, are elected with pluralities that are far lower than an absolute majority of constituents—in my case 38% of the vote and in the case of one of my colleagues on this side of the House when he was initially elected less than 30% of the vote—it is hard to say that we have a system that is genuinely representative of the well-being of all of the constituents, no matter how hard that member tries to do his or her best on behalf of those constituents.

This leads to curious cases. In one riding I know of, in 1993, a riding moving from the New Democrats to the Reform Party, as it then was, based on a very small shift in votes in what was essentially a four way race, there was not a dramatic ideological shift from left to right among constituents.

There is one way to overcome this that I think might address some of the concerns the hon. gentleman raised and I wonder if he would consider this as a possibility. It is to use the model of the single transferable vote. I do not think that falls outside the suggestions made by the New Democrats. It has been used successfully in a number of jurisdictions. Again, I cite my own experience in Australia watching elections being held on this basis.

When there is a transferable ballot, one member per district, voters have the opportunity to cast their ballot for their preferred choice as candidate and then for a second and third and so on down the list. If they have someone they particularly dislike and think is inappropriate, they can mark that person at the bottom of the list.

The consensus candidate tends to emerge, so that in a very real sense everybody except those who absolutely put that candidate last can say that to some degree he or she is being represented by that member and that member has the obligation to do so. Indeed, if he or she wants to get elected he or she must respect that breadth of wishes. A more consensual candidate tends to get elected.

Would that kind of proposal perhaps accomplish some of the goals that the hon. member has brought up in some of his concerns?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the many models that the NDP is suggesting we consider. There is no question that we do have colleagues in this place who did not get 50% of the vote—some got as low as 30% and maybe even in the low 20% range in some parliaments—but that is part of democracy. I think there are well over 150 official registered parties in Canada and that is part of our democracy.

It may very well mean that we will not have high numbers, but generally speaking I believe that the vast majority of members here have earned sufficient support within their ridings to do a good job. We will never get 100% of the vote and we should not be naive enough to think that is what we should be striving for. What we should be striving for, once elected here, is to do the best job possible and remember that we are part of a party system, that we ran on a platform and that when we are elected to come here we should be supporting what we ran on. We have to do that, because if we cannot support our party's platform then we should resign from our own caucus and sit as independents.

There are some fundamental principles here which members tend to forget sometimes in the heat of debate: that we have been elected for certain reasons and that when we vote, even as a group, it is not because of any reason other than it is what we ran on in front of our constituents.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the same point the member from Ontario just made. The member across the way talked about certain MPs just being slotted in. I would certainly oppose that. It would be like the present Senate where senators are slotted in.

I think we could look at making as democratic as possible the single transferable vote, which is what I certainly favour as a member of the House, or a preferential ballot. We used that, by the way, in Saskatchewan for the NDP leadership vote about a month ago where there were seven candidates. People could mail in a ballot and choose their candidate among one, two, three, four, five, six or seven. A real consensus candidate emerged from the process.

We can use that as well in terms of PR. For example, in Saskatchewan right now we have 14 MPs. We could have seven ridings and have seven people elected riding by riding. We could have the other seven elected from democratically chosen lists and allow the voters to vote in terms of a single transferable ballot. I think that would be real democracy. I wonder if the member across the way would be open to that kind of idea.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech this morning as well. I understand that there are a number of models. However, I think the experience that Canadians have had over history has shown that we have a stable system of parliament. In fact, our first past the post system tends to produce majority governments, which allows governments to implement the platforms they run on in elections. That is a very important part of it.

As well, I noted in the NDP leader's speech this morning that she tends to think this would improve regional representation, but what the member described to me will not increase regional representation, simply because in the case of a party such as his own there are not many spaces open considering the popular support that his party received.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak to this motion today.

I want to begin my comments by saying that our country, Canada, has over time developed a very strong and good electoral system. I think it is fair to say, too, that people across the country have supported it and have cast their ballots accordingly. I think it is democratic in the sense that it underscores the very foundations and values of Canadians, wherever they are in this country.

I also want to point out that it seems to me that other countries have emulated Canada when it comes to our electoral system and that is something worth noting. It is also worth noting that with our electoral system as it is we have a kind of built in flexibility which enables us, then, to do the kinds of things that are necessary, especially in a country as growing and dynamic as Canada. That too is worthy of note.

I find it a little bit ironic that the New Democratic Party has this motion before us today. After all, 91.5% of Canadians voted against it. Under proportional representation it would fall from being the fourth party to the fifth party. It has no members in the territories. It has no members in a number of provinces. It had a chance under a number of provincial governments, quite frankly, to implement proportional representation and it did not choose to do it. Typical New Democrats: always talk a good line but never quite follow through.

I also find it a bit interesting that when it comes to regionalization, New Democrats are going down this path as well. I find it a little hard to take, but after all, they are like that. They like to kind of tinker around and make grandiose, grandstanding kinds of comments, but when it comes time to deliver they cannot quite seem to do it.

By the way, I should add that in the New Democrats' electoral platform there were maybe one or two lines about proportional representation, so yet again there they go. They did not really give it the prominence that they pretend to give it today.

What I want to say is this: we have over time had our critics on our electoral system, but I think it is important to note that at the end of the day it has been a very good system which has benefited Canada. While all the systems fall under the heading of proportional representation in other parts of the world that have it, it seems to me that they vary enormously as a result and there are different approaches used as a result.

Let me just outline a couple of them. First is the preferential ballot, whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference with votes for low-polling candidates being transferred to remaining candidates according to voter preference. Another point is the pure proportional representation system, where the entire country is treated as one constituency and members are selected from party lists based on the percentage of the popular vote received by the parties. Finally, there is another system, a mixed system, whereby some members are chosen on the basis of first past the post contests while others are chosen from party lists.

As we can see, this is a complex issue and a number of alternatives are presented. I might point out that there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

I hear the members of the Alliance heckling me. It is interesting that they would heckle. As we start into electoral reform, remember their referendum question where they were going to have 3% of the voters across Canada triggering a referendum? Can we imagine the ludicrousness of that kind of situation, where 3% could change a motion on major issues? That is how out of touch those members are with what Canada wants and what people see.

What if electoral reform went down the path of asking, for example, whether or not parties should release the names of donors who donated to political leadership campaigns? We did that. Why does that party not do it? Or what about making payments to former MPs? Was it not $50,000 for Jim Hart's seat so the leader of the loyal opposition—yes, loyal, let us think about that for a while—could take his seat? Why do we not examine that under electoral reform? What about checking out and auditing the Gaspé in terms of people on the list? Remember that boondoggle in the Gaspé when those people, those reformed Alliance people opposite—

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the member for Waterloo—Wellington is steering dramatically far from the issue at hand, which is proportional representation. He is talking about all sorts of issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the motion at hand. Frankly I think it is not showing the due respect that the motion deserves.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Harvey)]

I would ask members to limit their comments, as much as possible, to the subject matter of the motion now before the House.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with electoral reform because the motion actually calls for a review, an all party committee to examine various models.

I just wanted to say that the committee, in its wisdom, could broaden into looking at those kinds of issues. This is part of the give and take of debate.

The committee could take a look at whether or not it is legitimate, for example, for a leader to spend $800,000 of taxpayers' money and then have Mr. Britton, a lawyer in the firm of Bennett Jones, turn around and cut a cheque for $70,000. That is real electoral reform. Perhaps the spotlight should turn on the Alliance people.

I note with great interest that the motion deals with regionalization of Canadian politics. What better way to try to regionalize than the member for Okanagan—Shuswap and the member for Wild Rose going to the separatist meetings in Alberta? Boy, there is division for you. There is a chance and an opportunity for people to sew the seeds of regionalism, in this case, western separation.

Did the member who is the leader sanction that? He certainly did not rebuke them and quite frankly I think he should have. He should have rapped their knuckles in the interest, as they point out, of preventing regionalization of Canadian politics.

It seems to me, as is the case with their national counsellor who went to the east and said that all easterners are lazy and always want a handout and other things, that the Alliance Party is trying to have it both ways as usual. It is unbelievable to hear about the kinds of things it is doing.

Let me get back to the point at hand with respect to what we are dealing with.

Listen to them. They can always give it out but they cannot take it, those holier than thou sitting over there. It just goes back to the whole point about the fact that they will talk as they did last week about ethics, morality and all the kinds of things that they claim the moral high ground. They preach with their evangelical zeal and on they go.

However, the leader spent $800,000 of taxpayers' money on a court case that he could have settled for $60,000, and $70,000 was kicked back by way of Mr. Britton of Bennett Jones. It is outrageous.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the rhetorical flights of fancy from the member opposite, I noticed he was actually in his own seat, which is unusual. Normally he would be behind a minister looking for a free camera shot.

Once I heard him refer specifically to this bill and that is unusual for him because normally he is completely irrelevant. I wonder if he could just once keep with the topic at hand and perhaps finish the debate off in style, for a change. It would be unusual for him but I wonder if he could do that.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to continue and speak from this great seat her as the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

The people who are irrelevant are those Alliance people, those people who are hypocrites, those people who, with great duplicity, end up always taking the moral high ground. However, when it is really down and dirty, the Leader of the Opposition is there taking a $70,000 handout from Britton, the man who is part of the law firm of Bennett Jones.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, no wonder this institution is being degraded. There is irrelevancy, there is a motion before the House, the speaker must speak to the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to tell everyone on either side of the House but the time has lapsed and we are now into questions and comments. I am sure the questions will be very relevant.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will assuredly give my friend from Regina—Qu'Appelle time because he is the mover of this motion. I just want to recognize his determined advocacy of electoral reform and a principled advocacy it is.

I had the pleasure of speaking with his former leader, Mr. Broadbent, about this issue and agreed that, in principle, we could join in common cause from left to right across the political spectrum to advance the cause of democracy in the country. I am disappointed but not the least bit surprised, and nor were any of my colleagues opposite, with the kind of partisan rant which just came forward from the member opposite, who has a reputation about his seating patterns, as well as other things. I see the Minister of Finance has almost put that member in a camera angle. It is amazing, he just attracts cabinet ministers.

Does the member care at all about the fact that Canadian electoral turnout has gone down to 60%, the lowest percentage in history? Does he care at all that Canada is now the only complex multiparty democracy in the developed world which still relies on a 15th century voting system designed for medieval England? Does he care at all that 60% of Canadians in the last election voted against his government's program and yet the government holds 100% of the political power?

Does he have the capacity for one moment to transcend partisanship and his government's defence of the status quo to suggest that yes, perhaps this place, the voice of the people, the place where we speak, parliament, should consider an electoral system which allows the plurality and diversity of political views to be properly reflected in this, the people's House?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is so nice to see the member oppose in the Chamber for a change. He has been most invisible recently. I guess he is feeling the heat a little out of that disastrous election campaign his party ran. In fact, he was in my city, Kitchener, when he made that big brouhaha about having two tier health care. It went all downhill from there.

I can say this, I care passionately about Canada. Despite what the presumptive finance critic opposite, who has never met a payroll in his life, would tell us, we on the government side have a very dynamic electoral system in place. We will stand by a system that makes sure that Canadians, wherever they live in this great country of ours, are well served.

We on the government side will continue to present that kind of good peace, order and good government which is the very foundation of this country. Why? It is because of the values Canadians cherish very much. We will ensure those values, unlike the Alliance people who flip and flop and say one thing and do another. They say things with great hypocrisy and duplicity. They are all over the map. Their leader gets $70,000. They are the holier than thou. They just cannot seem to get their act together. It is unfortunate, but Canadians have ruled and they have spoken very loudly.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to compliment the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle who has dedicated much of his career to the topic of electoral reform. At the end of the last parliament he saw fit to bring forward a private member's bill which stimulated a great deal of interest and debate. He is now using our opposition day motion to debate this same important issue of electoral reform in Canada.

Why reform our electoral system? Our system is outdated and needs to be amended. It needs to be put back into a condition where it actually works for Canadians. It has to be a living institution. As our country evolves and grows our system needs change. We have been saddled with an outdated system that is not serving our needs. Low voter turnout, which speaker after speaker has pointed to, is the most graphic illustration of this.

In 1968, 80% of Canadians voted. There are those who argue that during good times people do not bother going to the polls. The economy was fairly buoyant in 1968 as well and 80% of Canadians chose to exercise their franchise and cast a ballot.

In the most recent election about 60% of Canadians voted. Sixty percent of those who were registered voted. Fifty percent of all eligible voters actually voted. This is a horrific record. It is as bad a level of disinterest as in the United States. That is what we see with our partners to the south.

Many people have given up on the idea that the electoral process is some way they can get satisfaction. Many people are completely disillusioned with the electoral process that they do not bother to exercise their right to vote. That is a serious problem. There is something fundamentally wrong with the state of democracy today.

We have heard the full range of debate from the sublime to the ridiculous today. The most poignant thing about the debate that I heard, especially from the government benches, is their complete unwillingness to revisit the issue in any kind of a serious way. It makes us wonder what they are afraid of. Why would they not embrace the idea of being able to reach more Canadians and have more Canadians play an active role in the political system?

One of the most interesting points raised during this debate was made by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle in his argument, and an argument that I accept, that some form of PR would help foster a greater sense of national unity. What could be of more interest to the people in this room than some way to bring the country closer together?

The logic he used was that under PR to win seats in a federal election the political parties would have to run on platforms that would appeal to citizens right across the country. In other words, if my only interest was representing the interests of my home province of Manitoba, I might be able to get elected on that basis by being a booster for the home team. Under PR I would also have to have a platform and a campaign that addressed the issues in various regions. One would think that that in itself would be a good enough reason to seriously visit the idea of introducing proportional representation.

The way things are now, unity is not served because there really are no truly national parties. We take care of our base of strength. The Liberal Party takes very good care of the province of Ontario. The Bloc Quebecois does an admirable job representing the interests of the province of Quebec. The Albertans have their party.

It would seem that if we are serious about threading the country together with some real vision of national unity, one of the elements has to be reforming our electoral system. I believe the PR system is the way we can do that.

The reason many people are not voting today is because they are concerned that their vote is wasted. Under PR every vote weighs equally. Even if one is an NDPer living in downtown Edmonton, a person could cast a ballot for the party of choice knowing it would do some good. It would not be a throwaway vote. That makes some sense in the interest of fairness and in the interest of balance.

If a person is a reformer in Newfoundland, the person could have the confidence that his or her vote would not be meaningless. That is a positive thing. I do not know what the resistance was to this idea from the opposite benches. I find it frustrating that they would not at least seriously entertain the idea.

We are also seeing part of the cynicism about Canadian politics. Low voter turnout stems from the messaging that is going on in federal elections today. There is a growing awareness. The pollsters, the Hill and Knowltons of the world et cetera, will advise political parties that the lowest 15% or 20% income bracket do not really vote. Why would someone bother addressing messages to them?

In other words, the people who actually need representation the most and arguably need the services of strong advocacy in the House of Commons, do not bother to vote at all. Frankly, at the other end of the political spectrum, we all know how the top 15% or 20% of the economic scale vote. There is no point in addressing our messages to them either.

All the messaging goes to the middle class band. It is a homogenizing of the political messaging because those are the people we have to reach. Even there voter turnout is tragically poor.

If we are going to move forward as a country we have to engage more of the population. The most basic way we can do that is by having them take part in the political process, which is obviously a gift in a free society. To not exercise their right to vote is an absolute shame as there are places in the world that do not have those rights and freedoms.

I have nothing but admiration for the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his dedication to this cause. He is doing a great service to all Canadians to try and move this issue forward. If we could have a proper and an honest debate, nobody could guess what the outcome would be. However, the motion does not try to dictate any particular solutions. It only calls for the creation of a committee to review the subject.

Who knows what kind of positive outcomes we could have if we embraced this idea in a fair and honest way and visited it without all the rancour and some of the parry and thrust that we have heard today. That dialogue deviated so far away from the actual issue at hand that it did a disservice to all of those people listening and the people who would benefit very much if Canada adopted something along those lines of PR.

The other frustrating thing is that the people who need the representation the most are now the least likely to vote. Those are the people that we have an obligation to address, to reach out to, to engage and to ask them their opinion. Under this system of PR their opinion would weigh just as much as our opinion.

In closing, we all know that something is fundamentally wrong with the democratic process and the state of democracy in Canada today when only 50% of all eligible voters bother to come to the polls. We could give them a new confidence if we seriously embraced the idea of proportional representation and increased that to an acceptable level of engagement.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House resumed from February 15 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order adopted on Thursday, February 15, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions pertaining to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that the amendment now before the House be deemed defeated on division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The proposition of the chief government whip is that the amendment be defeated on division. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?