Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I am pleased to take part in the supply motion debate. The motion posed by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle deserves to be read again. It is:
That this House call upon the government to hold a referendum within one year to determine whether Canadians wish to replace the current electoral system with a system of proportional representation and, if so, to appoint a commission to consult Canadians on the preferred model of proportional representation and the process of implementation, with an implementation date no later than July 1, 2006.
Since the debate today is about elections, I want to take a moment to draw the attention of the House to two related events that occurred yesterday.
The premier of Newfoundland, after doing a dilatory dance of the seven veils all summer, finally called an election in that province. Our national caucus met in St. John's earlier this month. It was clear to all of us that change was in the air. I can tell the House that Danny Williams will make a fine premier of Newfoundland.
Yesterday the people of Prince Edward Island went to the polls and re-elected Premier Pat Binns and his Progressive Conservative colleagues. This is Premier Binns' third consecutive victory, a remarkable and historic achievement indeed.
The real story of the election in Prince Edward Island is that it was conducted in the wake of a devastating hurricane that struck the night before polling. Approximately 44,000 Islanders were without electricity. Trees blocked roadways. Houses and vehicles were damaged and boats were sunk. What did Islanders do on that hurricane election day? They went to the polls. They cast their votes. They voted, like most Canadians. More than 80,000 people voted. The voter turnout was over 83%. All of us should salute the people of Prince Edward Island with 83% voter turnout the morning after that savage storm.
I should also point out that Prince Edward Island still uses door to door enumerators for its elections rather than the flawed system of no enumeration and a permanent list for federal elections. There was an 83% turnout. Federally we are nearing 60% with a permanent list.
Turning to the motion, I congratulate the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his persistence in bringing it to the House. He has fought for years to bring forward a debate on proportional representation.
At a Progressive Conservative Party meeting in Edmonton in August 2002, we debated a report on democratic reform. That report was a concrete achievement for the PC/DR coalition. The position of the Progressive Conservative Party adopted at Edmonton is:
Upon formation of government, a commission will be immediately struck to hold public consultation on the most appropriate electoral system for Canada. The commission will be empowered to make recommendations to Parliament regarding any changes in the electoral system. Parliament, if possible, will implement changes in time for the next election.
We agree with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he says there needs to be a public debate on this issue. As the people of Prince Edward Island showed yesterday, Canadians do take their franchise seriously and we should have a system that allows them full expression of their wishes. We also need a system that will allow for the governance of a very large and complex national society.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle engaged his party on the general use of proportional representation about four years ago. Thus far he has not defined a system, and I think it is fair to say, he has not engaged the wider community in a detailed discussion about systems. He is still at the first step. He wants a debate on an undefined system of proportional representation, but that debate is not now taking place around the kitchen tables in Canada. In fact, where he comes from the debate is about BSE and what the government is doing about it to make sure that the cattle producers stay in business.
Proportional representation has some merits. It also has some negatives. It significantly increases the power of the party elite and those who decide who gets on a list of party nominees. Some feel it favours the status quo and party veterans. Canadians are not talking about the merits of this or that system of proportional representation.
The motion calls on the government to hold a referendum and then to flesh out a system of proportional representation for Canada. Here is where the proposal fails. In order to have a meaningful referendum, the population must be informed and there must be, to use a phrase of a few years ago, clarity in the question. People have to know what they are voting for or against.
The motion calls upon the government to ask Canadians if they want to trash the present system and opt for an undefined system of PR and then the country will embark upon the job of defining a new system. Experience shows that Canadians sometimes find it difficult to agree on things. Is it wise to further erode the existing system, flawed as it may be, without having a decision on a replacement system? The community needs to know what the precise alternative is before they vote in a referendum.
At the same Edmonton policy conference on democratic reform, the PC Party also considered the use of referenda. Let me quote from chapter nine of the report which deals with referenda:
Progressive Conservative MP Patrick Boyer told the House of Commons on 18 June, 1991: “I think it is highly appropriate, from time to time--not on every question, certainly not, but on those issues of transcending national importance--to put the question to people so that they can all become involved in this and get out of themselves and express their feelings on the issue. Ventilation on some of these issues is a very important part of Canada's nature as a democracy.
Another proposal is government sponsored referenda. Only three national referenda have been held in Canadian history, in 1898 on prohibition, in 1942 on conscription, and in 1992 on the Charlottetown accord. While they ought not to be used lightly, it may be thought that the Canadian people could preferably be consulted more frequently than every 50 years or so.
The federal Referendum Act, enacted June 23, 1992 by the Mulroney government in preparation for the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, provides a strong framework. For example, it stipulates that the question must be able to be answered by a yes or no, that a referendum may not be held simultaneous with a federal election, that the Canada Elections Act applies, and that three days of debate will be held on the question in the House of Commons.
The Progressive Conservative Party supports government sponsored referenda in two circumstances.
The first example is in the case of constitutional amendments. Two provinces, Alberta and British Columbia, already require that proposed constitutional amendments be approved in a referendum, and the Charlottetown accord has almost made this an unwritten convention. We would recognize this requirement. Passage in a referendum would require support from voters according to the appropriate constitutional amending formula, i.e., the different requirements for amendments under sections 38, 41 and 43.
The second example is in the case of issues of transcending national importance, to use Patrick Boyer's expression, where the federal government judged that legitimacy for a specific legislative proposal requires direct approval by voters. The government could also seek guidance from Canadians at the outset of a nationally important policy discussion as to whether legislation ought to follow and what form it should take.
As well intended as it may be, the motion calls for a referendum to put an end to the existing electoral system without placing a specific legislative proposal before Canadians. That is the flaw in the member's motion.
We agree that we need to debate possible changes to the system, both here in Parliament and in the community, if the community wants to engage in that debate. It would be folly to force a process debate on Canadians if they do not want one. They have other issues on their minds. Judging by the mail in my office and my conversations with constituents, this is not their number one issue. The number one issue in my riding of Dauphin--Swan River is mad cow, or BSE. Another is the proposed same sex marriage legislation.
But if there is to be change, it is time to hold a referendum only when there is a concrete alternative to place before voters. We do not think it is the time to ask voters to dismantle one system without having something to offer as a replacement.
At the same meeting in Edmonton, which the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle referred to, under chapter 12, this is what we concluded in the Progressive Conservative Party platform when we talked about an electoral system:
The plurality system of elections (commonly known as “first-past-the-post”) has been a feature of many liberal democracies, including Canada. Dysfunctional aspects of plurality systems have led most liberal democracies to adopt other vote counting rules. Even the United Kingdom, the birthplace of many of our institutions and practices, is seriously considering change. Only the United States and Canada seemed to be wedded to the status quo, though in both there are calls for reform and, historically, there have been non-plurality elections.
No electoral system is perfect. For Canada, however, the plurality system has been so problematic that political scientists have produced volumes of critiques.
Simply, plurality elections create distortions between votes received by parties and seats won. Majority governments are created when parties fall far short of 50% of votes cast, indeed, short of 40%. Parties oriented toward certain parts of the country do better in terms of seats than do parties with national appeal, with more or less the same share of the votes. I think the current climate or environment of this House is a good example. Discrepancy between votes and seats exaggerates both the regional strengths and the weaknesses of parties, thus exacerbating regional tensions and conflicts.
Plurality systems from the perspective of voters are also a problem. A voter, instead of casting a genuine vote for the preferred party, will vote strategically in order to defeat another party. Voting should be an affirmation rather than a negation. As I indicated earlier, our preference is that a commission be struck to hold public consultations to find out just exactly what the community of Canadians is looking for.
Even more important than electoral reform is parliamentary reform. We need to look at it. We have heard parliamentary reform discussed in this House for probably over the last 20 years. It appears that very little reform has taken place. There are issues like free votes, confidence votes and party discipline in this House.
Again, at the Edmonton convention in August 2002, the Progressive Conservative Party had a position:
The importance of caucus solidarity in the British/Canadian parliamentary system has to be acknowledged. On it rests the integrity of a party's commitment to implement, in government, the platform on which it sought the support of the electorate. It is the means by which an MP respects his/her commitment to the party platform on which he/she was elected. Equally important in Canada, the party caucus is the indispensable parliamentary forum in which parliamentarians must reconcile different regional, cultural, social and economic perspectives in order to achieve a workable national consensus.
However, the commitment to party solidarity in Canada's House of Commons in modern times has been far beyond what is needed for the effective functioning of our parliamentary democracy. Its enforcement by party leaders and whips has been excessive to the point of demeaning MPs and of bringing the parliamentary process into disrepute.
Our proposal states:
the status, the dignity and the multiple loyalties of an individual MP--to his/her constituents, to his/her convictions, to his/her party, country and Parliament--must be respected. MPs, individually and collectively, can be trusted to decide how to honour each of these responsibilities in a particular instance.
Change in some parliamentary practices is essential. In particular: “Free votes”, especially on amendments to government bills and at the 3rd reading stage of bills, should be the norm rather than the exception.
The policy also states:
To make this possible, the extravagant and unwarranted use by governments of the “confidence” convention, with its threat of dissolution and a new election in the event of losing a vote that is not explicitly designated as “non-confidence”, must be severely curtailed.
Another issue that is very important to the House deals with standing committees of the House of Commons:
Standing Committees of the House of Commons, to whom all legislation is referred for detailed examination, and who can also undertake special policy studies, have become tools of Prime Ministerial patronage and, in a majority government situation, enforcers of the Government Whip's will.
Since the recent changes in parliamentarians' pay packages, the committee chairs and vice-chairs get extra pay, which has the effect of increasing the PM's control over his nominees. With the stroke of a pen, the whip can remove an independent-minded MP from a committee and replace him or her with someone more reliable. Need I say more?
We believe that:
The ability of the House of Commons to hold the government accountable and to exercise its legislative supremacy must be restored. A large measure of autonomy, subject only to the authority of the House as a whole, must be given back to committees. In particular: MPs must be assigned to committees by vote of the House. Once there, they are “permanent”, i.e. to serve until prorogation of that session of Parliament. An MP must co-sign any Whip's notice for his/her removal from a committee.
Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs must be elected by secret ballot of the members of the Committee.
Opposition parties should get a share of the Committee Chairmanships that is roughly equal to the share of seats they occupy in the House. This will be negotiated among House leaders.
Parliamentary secretaries and other MPs in receipt of extra pay (Whips, Caucus Chairs et al) should generally not be eligible for membership on Standing Committees.
Ministers should be required to remain at Committees while witnesses are heard on their bills and amendments are discussed. Ministers must be present through clause-by-clause consideration of their bills.
Let me conclude by saying that on the issue of proportional representation there is no doubt that it is about access to power. In a representative democracy like ours, elections are about power. Winners wield power. Losers and those not engaged in elections can be left behind. Proportional representation describes the voting system used in most democracies in which parties or individuals gain office in direct relation to their support among voters. Without doubt, PR is fairer than our current system, but in our particular case we do not know what system the NDP is advocating.
Of equal importance, proportional representation makes power more accessible by increasing the number of effective votes and the diversity of winners. In our current system, most elected officials, including members of the House, come from single member constituencies where winning is required to gain the most votes in the constituency, up to 50% of the votes or, as we always say, 50% plus one.
Our system results in greater injustice to any person voting with people who are in a permanent minority in the single member constituency, like members of the NDP. Such groups have little power and, as a result, do not have their interests addressed or even taken seriously. They also have little chance to change the majority's view.
I will conclude by saying that because this motion says the referendum must be held within one year, the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting against the motion. As I indicated earlier, the cost of a referendum separate from an election dictates that it should be held at the same time as the next federal election. It is debatable that the population can be informed in time of all the options, benefits and pitfalls of such a system.