Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member who made this proposal that if any significant changes to electoral reform are ever made, a referendum should be allowed.
What it boils down to is letting the people decide. Political parties and the government itself would find themselves in somewhat of a conflict of interest they made changes to the electoral system.
We all know the political party system; clearly, each party is capable at times of rising above party politics. You know full well that if a referendum grants the mandate to significantly reform the electoral system, there is a guarantee that the proposal came from the electorate.
With that in mind, I would like to stress the importance of making far-reaching changes. We are talking about an initiative that was taken in Quebec quite some time ago. This initiative was launched by Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, Minister responsible for the Reform of Democratic Institutions, Minister for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, and Minister responsible for Relations with French-Speaking and Acadian Communities.
Mr. Charbonneau launched a major operation, a significant challenge for the entire electoral system, which will reach a very significant stage this week during the estates general. There will be three days of reflection where more than 1,000 Quebeckers will submit their views on changes they feel should be made to the electoral system.
With regard to the motion before us today, we see that the Government of Quebec already has a well-established democratic initiative under way. We are being told—this is important—that any attempt to reform the electoral system has to be broad right from the start. The campaign will culminate next week during the estates general in Quebec City. The question is what makes a good political system. Do we want a British parliamentary system, an American or French style presidential system, or something else yet again, provided it is consistent with our democratic reality and what citizens want?
We witnessed this, in fact, on the weekend. Large crowds gathered to demonstrate and send a clear message to the government that they are opposed to a war in Iraq. Can these views be heard under our present parliamentary system? This is something we need to think about.
Nevertheless, we cannot address these electoral issues without questioning the relevance of our current political system and the relevance of the electoral system in and of itself, as well as all the other major issues that Quebec has put on the table.
I have already spoken about the British Parliamentary system and the presidential systems, but there is also the whole issue of electoral systems. For example, if the population considers the relevance of a majority system, as is happening in Quebec right now, or a system with some element of proportional representation, there are different forms of PR.
My colleague from the NDP made a comparison, saying that the Bloc Quebecois had elected 44 members to the House with approximately the same number of votes as the NDP, which elected 21 members. This distortion may well represent a reality in Canada, which is that there was one region of the country, Quebec, that was clearly dissatisfied with the system in place and that it expressed this dissatisfaction by voting for the Bloc Quebecois. In that case, this seeming distortion between the results may simply have been a reflection of the will of the population.
I say this, not to aggravate debate on the Quebec issue, but to serve as an example, to say that when considering changes to our the system, we need to assess the relevance of regional proportion, if indeed we feel it is appropriate.
If we give the issue this type of consideration, the member's motion is a good one, because we cannot make these types of changes without, I believe, asking voters themselves, the constituents, because they are the ones who give the mandate.
So, I would invite the federal government to look closely at the democratic process that the Quebec government has followed and which will culminate this week with the estates general.
Since Quebec is on the eve of an election, we could see if all the political parties support the position that is chosen after the estates general. During the next mandate, no matter which government is elected—I am certain it will be a PQ government—this government could use the results of this democratic process and see what relevant changes to make to our system.
In Quebec, during the 1970s, political party financing was reformed. Ottawa has just decided to follow suit. During a speech, the Prime Minister acknowledged René Lévesque's contribution in this area as a major contribution to democracy.
The entire democratic system in Quebec is presently under discussion. The Canadian government would perhaps do well to take a closer look at what is being done in this area.
Quebec has broken new ground in putting other important subjects on the table, such as the role of regions in renewing the democratic system and, specifically, what can be done to satisfactorily include the regions when this kind of action is undertaken.
Quebec is also thinking about first nations and the Quebec nation. How can we ensure that they are sufficiently and adequately represented in the appropriate Parliament?
There is also talk of representative or direct democracy. For example, right now, only the government has the power to trigger a referendum. It would be possible to make holding a referendum on specific subjects mandatory when the approval of the National Assembly is not enough.
The motion presented here today in Canada's federal Parliament aims to further this debate. If, in fact, there is a will to ensure that the system of democratic representation in Canada better reflects reality, I think that this would be the model to follow.
I also want to invite everyone listening, especially Quebeckers, to pay attention to the estates general, because they will probably affect democracy in Quebec for many decades to come.
A number of ideas will be debated at the estates general, including the relevance of holding elections on fixed dates, limiting electoral mandates, and the integrity of the voting process.
During consultation, we asked people if they preferred the current situation or if they would like the voters' list to be improved, if they were in favour of implementing a voter's card, and various other questions. The right to vote at age 16 is another question that was asked.
I have here a list of at least twenty places in Quebec where hearings were held during the lead up to the estates general that will be held this week.
Quebec is an example of how to conduct this type of consultation. The issue of women in politics is also very important. We looked at how to have more women elected because, at the end of the day, parliaments have to represent the public, and women make up a little more than half the population. We have to be able to adopt the same solution in parliaments.
That is the type of weakness found in the current systems, which future changes should address. If we want the public to accept these things, they have to have a say.
I will conclude on this point. Yes, I think that if we ever made significant changes to the Canadian electoral system, these changes should be approved by the public through a referendum.
But before doing this sort of study, we must look at the overall impact on the situations that we want to change, to see whether it is limited to electoral issues or whether there are also other aspects of democracy that must be taken into account.
I invite everyone to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the estates general to be held in Quebec City this week on February 21, 22, and 23 and whose theme is “Citizen Empowerment”, so that Canada, and other countries in the world can enjoy what Quebec may decide to adopt. The better our democratic systems for ensuring that people are represented, the better the decisions, provided that they are more in line with what the public wants.