Debates of Dec. 8th, 2016

Electoral Reform

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

In the spirit of mutual admiration, Mr. Speaker, I say the same about my experience working with the member and others on electoral reform in the past, including the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the leader of the Green Party as well. We have had many great discussions.

To the member, that is the valid point that we are trying to seek here with representation in the House. That is why we committed to making the previous election the last one held under the first past the post system.

The member may not like a lot of the details about the survey, but the survey is good in that it goes back to what Thomas Axworthy said, which was to explore the values of where we want to go and not get caught up in all the details first. The details will follow, but let—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to work with members from both sides of the House during the work of the special committee. This morning, I find it rather ironic that a Bloc Québécois MP is sharing his time with a government member.

Experts came and told us that changing the voting system would allow us to have a consensus democracy and change the way politics is done in this legislative assembly of the House of Commons. It would allow for a collaborative approach. This morning, ironically, it is the government side that is talking about collaboration and fair play.

Every parliamentarian that is part of the executive branch is a representative of the people first. I want to address those who are not part of the executive: the legislators, the representatives of the people. This House is the repository of what we call parliamentary democracy. I would like those members to express their true convictions.

The Bloc Québécois has said from the start that it is in favour of change, but not just any change. We will not accept a voting system that diminishes the weight of the Quebec nation and relegates it to a geographic entity only. The report respects that. Together with the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Green Party, we came to a consensus. This debate must not be the sole purview of politicians, insiders, and experts. It must belong to the people if it is to be meaningful. It is up to the people to decide.

Obviously, our Liberal colleagues are having a hard time supporting that position, because, before the committee even began sitting, the executive had completely ruled out the possibility of holding a referendum. That puts the Liberal members in an awkward position. The minister is rising in the House to trivialize and discount the idea of a referendum by saying that it is an outdated way of doing things, when in fact it would allow the population to retake control over a debate as important as determining the new rules of a parliamentary democracy. It is no wonder members on the government side are having difficulty distancing themselves from that. That is unfortunate, but it is the reality. What upsets voters the most is the fact that their elected representatives are kowtowing to the executive.

When we consult people, they often criticize this way of doing politics. They want their MP to vote the way their constituents would have them vote.

It is also ironic to see that the House of Commons, which initiated a reform, still has a long way to go to catch up to the Senate, a chamber that is considered to be antiquated. Right now, the Senate is treating its independent members a lot better than this chamber is.

However, the report that was tabled does offer some hope. A consensus was reached on recommendation no. 11 and the discussions surrounding it. It reads:

The Committee recommends that electoral system reform be accompanied by a comprehensive study of the effects on other aspects of Canada’s “governance ecosystem”...

That means that, if we make any changes to the voting system or the Canada Elections Act, we must also look at what effect it might have on political party financing and parliamentary procedure in order to ensure that we do not create two tiers of political parties or parliamentarians. The committee was very clear about the fact that the majority of the testimony given by those who wanted change was in favour of proportional representation.

So how do we deal with this? Committee members were not there for themselves; they were there to hear what people had to say. Every member had his or her own point of view. Initially, the Liberal Party was somewhat in favour of a proportional system; the Conservative Party wanted the status quo; the Green Party and the New Democratic Party preferred mixed-member proportional or single transferable vote, STV; and the Bloc Québécois wanted a proportional system, but not just any proportional system because, as I said earlier, it could affect our status.

The witnesses were not unanimous, but the majority of those who appeared before the committee advocated for a proportional system and a referendum to let the people decide. The idea was that a referendum would have people choose between the status quo and a proportional system. Everyone agreed on that regardless of where they stood and the outcome they wanted. Starting from scratch, the committee concluded that there must be a referendum to ask all Canadians from coast to coast if they prefer the status quo or a proportional system. That was our guiding principle. Those people over there like to talk principles; well, this is the one that guides our majority report.

Let us keep at it, because we need to get to the next phase. What will be the terms? We have been using the current system for 150 years, but what will the new proportional system look like? How big will the ridings be? All these questions will be considered in the second phase of the consultations. We believe this phase of the process should take place during the 2019 election, after a referendum. That makes more sense than a bogus, vacuous survey.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the members from Newfoundland and Labrador who spoke previously mentioned a number of things in terms of a way of movement. I thought his speech was pretty good. Unfortunately, he criticized the notion of flip-flops, despite the fact that he has called ministers the minister of flip-flops in this House.

Sadly, this becomes a problem for the Liberal Party in terms of credibility. The Liberals are the ones who brought this process through an electoral promise. Then it is the fault of the rest of Parliament that we have to follow through with that because they have a majority, and there is actually sincere interest in this country to have some type of electoral reform, and now it is the fault of the opposition.

I ask my colleague, why is it suddenly everybody else's fault, including the general public, who are now looking at the questionnaire out there, by the mere fact that the Prime Minister was the one who brought this forward? Why is now everybody else's fault, except for the Liberals, who are doing this themselves? That is a problem.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the interpretation was the problem. Perhaps it was the hon. member's thinking that was not clear.

I am not saying that it is everybody else's fault. I am just saying that there is a way to respect the consensus that was reached by this committee.

The fact that the Prime Minister made a statement with a deadline that is just hot air is one thing. However, giving a committee a mandate from this House and dismissing its hard work out of hand is unacceptable. The government will have to take the blame if the hon. members across the way, who are legislators just like me, do not call the executive to order.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Montcalm, who represents the Bloc Québécois on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

We worked very hard together, and I am very proud of the work everyone did, including my Conservative, NDP, Liberal, and Bloc friends.

My question is simple. Why does the member think that our committee report is being rejected here, and why are we debating a survey on a website rather than debating the recommendations made by our committee?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was also a great pleasure for me to work with my colleague from the Green Party.

It is abundantly clear that the minister's reaction and therefore that of the executive, and I will choose my words carefully because I do not feel like repeating this whole debate, was to say, “Thank you and goodnight”, and then do their own thing anyway, because they did not agree with the majority consensus. It is appalling, but there it is. This is more likely than a scenario in which unrealistic deadlines were set according to a statement the Prime Minister made during the election campaign, which would be a terrible way to govern.

I will therefore continue to appeal to my colleagues, to all parliamentarians across the aisle, and to all those who care about being an MP, a representative of the people, to call their minister and the executive branch to task, and ensure that we continue and that we quickly move on to the second phase in order to get into this debate. The people are fed up with these broken promises.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I want to start first by thanking the committee for the tremendous hard work it has done. I watched my colleagues spend a good portion of their summer either in meetings in Ottawa or travelling across the country. I know they all performed their work with diligence. To be quite frank, I was very dismayed when I heard the minister be so dismissive about the work they had done. That was shameful. She did apologize, so we do need to move on, but it was an extraordinary thing to say to the members of the committee who had worked so hard during the summer, and also to Canadians across Canada who had participated in the process.

What was very fascinating about the majority report is it actually ended up, in a very unusual way, reflecting what happened in the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo in terms of what the major recommendations were. The riding I represent is a very large riding in the middle of British Columbia. It turned out that there were two independent processes that happened. One was a local group of community members who got together, many of them with affiliations to the NDP, to the Green Party, and to the Liberal Party. I also had a process, independent from them. I was really looking at things perhaps at a hundred-thousand-foot level. I had a number of town halls, mostly in the rural communities. To be quite frank, in the middle of summer it was not very well attended in terms of engagement. They were beautiful summer days, and talking about electoral reform was not as high a priority as perhaps enjoying the very short summers we have.

However, I did reach out, with a mail-out and a telephone survey. I had three questions. I am not someone who designs survey questions, but I think they were logical and made sense. My first question in the telephone survey was, “Are you aware that we're actually talking about the issue of changing how we vote?” Asking about awareness is probably a good start. Out of that, I was actually surprised. Some of the work over the summer had started to penetrate. This went out to 8,000 homes. It was answered by citizens across the riding. Sixty-eight per cent of the respondents actually had an awareness that there was a discussion going on around electoral reform.

The next question I asked was, “Do you believe that we should be changing our system?” Again, it is a pretty simple question, “Are you happy with what we have or do you think we need to change it?” Again, I am not an expert in survey development, but these were intuitive questions. Forty-one per cent thought we should have changes to the system. Fifty-eight per cent said it was fine the way it is. Thirty-two per cent did not have an opinion.

My third question was about a referendum, of which 66% of the people who responded to the survey said they believed there should be a referendum. That is actually pretty similar to a lot of the responses from different groups' surveys across the country.

Independently, at the same time, the citizens' group had had more granular sessions where they had sat down with people who had a real interest in the system. They had conversations with them about if we are going to change the system what the system should look like. This was led by a former Liberal candidate. He was the one leading the charge, and he was very interested in sitting down and talking with the people. What came out of the work they did was interesting. Their recommendation was very strongly for a proportional representation system. The people who had attended were very keen on electoral reform, so the response around the issue of a referendum was perhaps smaller, but certainly I felt I had reached out to many.

What we ended up with in our riding was the two principles that came together in that majority report: a referendum and a proportional system, exactly what happened with the committee in terms of how we need to move forward.

I think the committee and the numerous town halls from across the country gave the government a road map for moving forward with a referendum on proportional system.

It is really kind of surprising that all of a sudden, at the nth hour, the dissenting report by the Liberals says that this is confusing and complex, and that we do not need a referendum. All the other parties are trying, as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley said, to help the Liberals fulfill their promise, and it is the Liberals' dissenting report for a majority committee that sort of put the kibosh on it. It was very interesting.

All of a sudden, the Liberals have postcards being mailed across the country. I would suggest that the step they have put in the process is, first of all, a little dubious and is muddying the water a little. The committee had offered to provide some questions, and if the government was putting out a postcard linking people to a survey, there are a few things the committee would recommend. We have looked at this all summer.

There are some questions we think the government should ask. Further, the survey does not link to the report of the committee, which to me is absolutely stunning. People can go to MyDemocracy.ca, and there is no link to see what the committee said but there are links for other things. It did not incorporate logical questions.

It incorporated perhaps logical questions about age and where to vote, but not around the issues the minister criticized the committee about. She said that the committee did not get to the details and the nuts and bolts. In the same sense, she has sent out a survey that in some ways, quite rightfully, has been widely mocked because she is not asking the basic questions and she criticized the committee for not getting to around a specific model.

The committee gave the minister some very strong directions. It is actually very bizarre that we end up in this position with no link to the work of the committee, and there are questions that sometimes miss the point.

I have other concerns about the survey. I mentioned that it did not link to the work of the committee. I had a friend call me last night. She said that she went on the website, cleared her browsing history and went on it again. She made sure she answered the questions. They were in a different order, but she answered them the same way each time. She came out with a different assessment each time, in terms of what kind of voter she was.

She asked “What is this?” That was her question. She was sending me notes and asking what it was all about. She thought it was just crazy that she was answering the questions in the same way, and was getting different results. That did not really make any sense. This person who has a bit of an interest in this topic just cleared her browsing history and kept on going.

Earlier we heard that the parliamentary secretary thinks it is perfectly all right that people from across the world can answer the survey if they choose to. It is pretty easy to look up a postal code. It is pretty easy to answer the survey. I have real problems with that. I cannot believe in this. I have no confidence in anything that actually comes out of this survey.

The minister indicated that personal information is not required. The personal information being asked is how much one makes and for their email address. Why does the government want the email addresses? I have some concerns. The minister said people could do the survey anyway, but what she did not tell us is that those responses would not count.

I think Parliament has done the work that it can and should do. I have always said, and this is my own personal belief, politicians and political parties not only have a vested interest, they have a conflict of interest, and they had guidance. It needs to go to a referendum.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was on the committee, along with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

We travelled across the country. We held hearings. What I noticed, and I am sure my colleagues would agree, is that many people came to the committee hearings seeking proportional representation. In some cases, it almost seemed unanimous. However, those same people were also against the idea of a referendum.

The majority report, which is really the opposition party report, called for a high level of proportional representation with a referendum.

Does the member think that is testimony to the opposition party's flexibility and ability to compromise with each other? Is that to the opposition party's credit?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say absolutely. I talked about what happened in my riding. The process that I undertook was a referendum. I am acknowledging the legitimacy that there was another group that went into granular levels and those people were very interested in changing the system. They essentially unanimously came out with proportional representation, so it is not incongruous that there is an agreement over how we should move forward and also the vast majority of Canadians and people in my riding believing a referendum, which is not only how they felt we should move forward, but it is what has been done traditionally in the past. I was in British Columbia as we had referendums. We could talk about the issues of thresholds and a referendum, which are not mutually exclusive, so I think it was perfectly right that they did what they did.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

I am wondering if she believes, as I do, that the reason for the new survey and a new consultation is that the government did not get the answers it was expecting from the report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

I know that politicians never answer hypothetical questions. However, had the report provided the results that the minister was expecting and that would satisfy her, does the member believe we would be having another consultation? If so, does she believe that the Liberals would finally have moved forward with the promised reform? In other words, is there a new round of consultations because the results were not what the minister expected?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this has always been a little concern among many in terms of where the Liberals ultimately intended to go with this. That brings me back to my comments about vested interests and conflicts of interest. Certainly we know what the preferred model of the Prime Minister is and obviously the results of the cross-Canada process did not head in the direction of his preferred model. Not only do I believe the Liberals have created a very messy reform system, but I certainly have concerns in terms of what the ultimate motivation is.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion.

The report tabled requires that the public be consulted through a referendum. A lot of work was done, and the member opposite who just spoke did a really great job as the chair of the committee. I believe he heard the same things we did and that we came to the same conclusions in the end.

According to the member, why does the minister not want to consider this report and why did she decide to launch another Internet consultation, which does not even refer to a referendum, proportional representation, or anything else discussed by the experts and Canadians consulted?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this survey process that they have undertaken, about security, privacy issues and what the ultimate goal is. A referendum, which has been done in British Columbia, which has been done in many cases, is the ultimate way to get to an answer in terms of do people want to change our system, yes or no, and what the preference is.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the concurrence debate on the report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

Canadians want us to do our best to ensure that all MPs and all parties in the House are working together. If possible, we should work to find solutions that will satisfy more than one party. Obviously, the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party have very different views on most subjects. However, after a lot of hard work, the opposition parties managed to come up with a common report.

We recognize that Canadians want a referendum so that they can choose between the existing system and a proportional system. It is absolutely vital that we hold a referendum so that the government only act according to the wishes of Canadians.

It is clear that the members on this committee did very good work, that they heard from many different Canadians, and that they did their job. I include in that Liberal members who worked very hard and, at times it seems, whose contribution is not appreciated by their own government. All members of that committee worked hard, had important discussions, and listened to what was before them. Although there was not unanimous agreement among members on the committee, four of the five parties came to this conclusion: that it was a majority of the witnesses who favoured electoral reform who were looking for reform in a particular direction, very clearly, but also that there was a need to consult Canadians in a clear, transparent way through a referendum. I again commend all the members of the committee for their important work.

The government, having seen this detailed process happen, initially tried to delegitimize it, then apologized for that delegitimization but, really, has not actually stepped back from its response, which was to try to undertake a completely different so-called consultation, hoping that if it consults more times and maybe if it jimmies the questions one way or another, it can somehow produce a different result.

However, I would say, aside from the minister's comments, that really is where the profound disrespect is toward this committee and this process. It is in trying to put aside their work through this clearly much less open, much less effective process.

I want to share with the House that, before being elected, I was the VP of an opinion research company, so I have been very much involved in this whole area of opinion research. The first thing we have to recognize is that we may have someone coming in, wanting to do a particular research study, hoping that the results will be one thing or another, but we have to always be very clear that the purpose of research is to get good information. It is to ask the public its opinion, to get a sense of its values, and also to understand what exactly the public wants.

If we try to skew our research in one way or another, there is just no point in doing it, because we would not be able to rely on the results we get. This point, I suppose, should be fairly obvious.

Our lead critic on this, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who has done excellent work on this, asked the parliamentary secretary this morning if this research design and the questions fully reflected the work of independent experts or if it was actually the government taking an initial draft and really setting it up exactly the way it wanted. The parliamentary secretary did not answer the question at all, and we are still wondering what the answer is. It is important that we actually have a proper research design.

Members have, I think, made some good and worthwhile jokes about just how absurd the design of these questions is. They are clearly not designed to ask the obvious specific questions.

In my riding, we had very robust consultations around this issue. I noted, as other members have noted, that it is more difficult to get people out to town hall or round table type meetings during the summer. Therefore, in September, still within the window of the time available for the committee, we did multiple round table type meetings within my constituency.

This is something we do in Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on a regular basis on a wide range of issues. We said we would make sure we did enough round tables so that everyone who was interested in participating could participate, but we wanted to have each individual round table small enough that we could have a free-flowing conversation. Therefore, we had multiple round tables with about 10 people to 12 people, and we did them throughout a particular Saturday. We had great participation from people who I know to be from a wide variety of different political backgrounds: those who have been active with our party, as well as those active with the Liberal, the NDP, and the Green parties, all from within my own constituency. We had very good discussion, and very insightful points were raised, and I provided feedback to the committee.

What was identified throughout was that virtually nobody, with the exception of one gentleman, would speak in favour of the Prime Minister's preferred system, because that is a less proportional system. There were those who defended the status quo and those who advocated for a more proportional system. Clearly, that was the shape of the debate that occurred not just in the round table events I held but also in the wider discussions that were taking place across the country.

I also joined with my colleagues in doing a mail-out survey. This was very important as well. Round table or town hall events are great opportunities for hearing from those who are most active or most invested in particular issues. However, there are other ways of engaging perhaps a more representative sample. That is why many members of our Conservative caucus sent a mailer out to their constituents. The overwhelming feedback on that was that people wanted a referendum. That was the feedback in my constituency, as well as in the various constituencies that were polled by other Conservative members. It is clear that Canadians are looking for a referendum. It is also clear, from the discussions that were happening, that it is a referendum between the current system, which has many advantages, and a proportional system, which has other kinds of potential advantages. Obviously, every electoral system has advantages and disadvantages.

This was the series of consultations that we undertook within our own constituencies, consultations that we were asked to do by the government, but that I do, and we do, on a regular basis, regardless of what the government asks us to do or not do. My constituents will now get another piece of mail from the government, at huge expense, asking them to fill out a survey that will not provide any kind of useful data.

It's baffling in one sense, but on the other hand it is clear that the government's approach is to re-ask questions in different ways because it does not like the feedback it received. We have been through this process. We had four out of five parties in this place endorse a report that emphasizes the importance of a referendum and also explains exactly where the debate is and therefore the kind of referendum we should have.

In listening to this debate, I am amazed how the government members are avoiding the question, by all means necessary. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader made a strong point about how this has to be open to people who are not Canadian citizens so that people who are permanent residents or future Canadian citizens living here could fill out the survey, while missing the fact that there was nothing in the survey they have created to prevent somebody from participating in this survey who neither is a Canadian citizen, nor is a Canadian resident, nor has any interest in becoming either. There is nothing to prevent somebody who lives somewhere far away, who has never been to Canada and has no interest in coming to Canada, from not only filling out the survey once but filling it out multiple times. I was incredulous to find that I could actually fill out the survey twice on the same device.

It is hard to understand where the government is coming from if it really is trying to justify this process as a credible consultation exercise. We need to do so much better.

I again commend the committee for its work. It gave us a clear path forward. The government should listen to the committee rather than try to do it all over again just because it does not like the result.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that all four opposition parties agreed with the two main recommendations; namely, for a referendum and for proportional representation that meets the Gallagher index 5 quotient. I was quite surprised to learn that the Conservative Party was in favour of proportional representation, and I am wondering if the member could tell us where along the road the conversion took place.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. I commend the member for his work on the electoral reform committee, but he is obviously trying to shift the ground here.

The reality is that our party has been very clear from the start about the need for a referendum. Reflecting the conversation that has taken place, the referendum must be on something, and the predominant voices we have heard through this process are those defending the status quo and those defending proportional representation. That is the choice that has emerged in this debate and that Conservatives think needs to be offered, rather than the government trying to go in a completely different direction, advocating a system that is less proportional.

That is the reality of the report and the information that came out of it, so it is important for the government to take on board the substance of it, rather than try to maybe pin new positions on people as a result.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad there is co-operation in the House to bring this motion forward to use the questions from the all-party parliamentary committee with the help of very objective parliamentary staff. Their very even questions feel like a great improvement on the government's online survey about democratic reform, compared to what the Minister of Democratic Institutions is using on the government's online consultation.

Based on the member's previous experience with public opinion polling, I would be interested in his perspective on the kinds of questions the government is now using. For example, one question is:

Ballots should be as simple as possible so that everybody understands how to vote OR ballots should allow everybody to express their preferences in detail? To me, the question assumes that it is impossible to have both, and I cannot imagine anybody saying they want an incomprehensible ballot. This is an example of very misleading and biased questions, to which we are hearing people across the country react badly.

I would like to know if the member agrees that these are bad questions and that we would be better to rely on the more neutral ones that have been tested by the committee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the point my colleague made. These are bad questions, and they are not fair questions. They are clearly not designed to get clear information about people's opinions about specific subjects.

I will take this opportunity to comment on some of the other things that have come up in the debate just in the context of asking people questions. The implication from some members has been that there cannot be an open, clear consultation about questions that are complex. I think Canadians are capable of and interested in thinking about these complex questions. It does not mean that, if we were to ask people we bump into on the street what they think of STV, they will know all the detail on it, but it does mean that people are interested in giving their opinions if they are also given an opportunity, in the context of that, to learn the key information about it. We could very easily ask people clear questions while also providing them with dispassionate, neutral, summative information.

The other point is that there is a distinction to be made between statistical social science research and consultation, insofar as generally with consultation people with opinions are provided the opportunity to come forward and present that information; whereas often with social research, a representative sample may be sought. In government consultation, there will almost never be a representative sample because it is engaging with people who have chosen to participate in that discussion. Therefore, it is important that we ask neutral questions, both to increase the research value and also because that is the right way to consult, to give people the opportunity to give their opinions.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to discuss this topic. I am very familiar with it, as are the other committee members. I will be sharing my time with another committee member, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Like all members of the committee, I am very proud of this report. It is really an excellent piece of work. It moves the ball forward on what is a complex and oftentimes technical issue. It is today's most up-to-date and comprehensive compendium of analysis and insight on electoral reform from a Canadian perspective. It is a wonderful piece of work.

If it is a wonderful piece of work, it is because the committee did a fairly thorough job within obviously some constraints. We had to report by December 1, which gave us about five months to do our work. We heard from 196 witnesses during that time.

The committee held 57 meetings between the beginning of July and the end of November. A total of 567 people participated in the open mic sessions on electoral reform, and the committee heard from 763 witnesses and received 574 briefs in all.

Many MPs chose to consult their constituents. In fact, 174 MPs responded to the call to consult their constituents. Some members did so by holding a town hall meeting, or even several such meetings. Others sent out questionnaires to find out what their constituents thought about the subject.

The committee travelled across Canada, stopping in each of the 10 provinces and three territories.

We visited 18 cities or municipalities, including three cities in Quebec. On Vancouver Island, we met with first nations representatives, and we also held meetings in Victoria. We travelled 31,000 km. All that to say, we did a very thorough job.

I would like to salute the work of the committee members, some of whom have been in and out today, obviously the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who is extremely knowledgeable about the issue of electoral reform. He has a very high level of technical understanding of the issue. I would like to give the House an example.

Witnesses who are experts on electoral reform were piped in from Germany. One of the witnesses, Professor Pukelsheim, developed a system called the Double Pukelsheim, which is some kind of electoral system. The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston had actually heard about that system before the witness even appeared.

Let me read something to highlight how complex the topic of electoral reform can be. We think it is quite easy. We think it is a choice between first past the post and list PR like we find in Israel and Italy, but it is a much more complex subject matter than that. I will read a press release from the Parti Vert'Libéral du canton de Fribourg:

The Vert'Libéral party of the Canton of Fribourg, the PVL, adopted a position with respect to the complementary consultations on the new voting system for the Grand Council. The PVL is pleased to note that the appointed expert, Professor Jacques Dubey, is of the opinion that the bi-proportional system proposed earlier this year, the “double Pukelsheim”, rectifies the problems with Fribourg's voting system identified by the cantonal court.

I read that to highlight how complicated the issue can be, and it was further highlighted in the report by the invocation of the Gallagher Index.

In my life, I have taken mathematics courses. I am no mathematical genius by any stretch, but I took some university-level math courses and nonetheless I even found the Gallagher index formula a bit daunting. Electoral reform is complex issue, but the Special Committee on Electoral Reform embraced the issue in all its complexities and did a marvellous job.

Any electoral reform has to be based on the foundation of citizen values. Why? We heard from committee witnesses that there was no perfect electoral system. In a sense, there is a relativistic element to electoral systems. In other words, the electoral system that suits a particular nation is a function of the democratic values of that nation. Those democratic values are shaped by national identity and experience.

What the minister is seeking to accomplish through her survey questionnaire is something that was not really in the committee's mandate to accomplish. Nor was it within the committee's means. It was preoccupied with the technical aspects of electoral reform. If Canadians look at the report, they will see we detailed a number of systems and variations on each system.

Coming into this exercise, I thought there were majoritarian systems and proportional systems, but there are mixed systems. Within a system, there can be variations that attempt to adapt to the geographic realities of a particular country. We were focused on that. However, ultimately electoral reform has to be based on what Canadians want, and what they want in an electoral system will always be a function of values. That is the point of the minister's exercise through the MyDemocracy.ca questionnaire.

It has been a little disingenuous of some members of the opposition to suggest that the questions in the questionnaire are not relevant. Anyone who knows anything about sampling or creating surveys of the public knows that in order to eliminate bias, some questions must be proxies for the issue we are trying to get at. Otherwise, it is very easy for the individuals answering the questionnaire to essentially answer it in a biased way that they think maybe provides the answers expected of them. Therefore, a lot of these questions are essentially proxies.

Opposition members have also asked why we do not take some of the questions the special committee had in its survey questionnaire, which were fundamentally more complicated and more technical, and cut and paste them onto the minister's questionnaire. That is a bit disingenuous. Anyone who prepares surveys knows that a survey has its own integrity, that it has its own core methodology. We just cannot borrow here, there, and everywhere for political reasons because we will get a mishmash that, at the end of the day, will tell us nothing and will not be particularly useful to our purposes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of my friend, both in and out of the House. It has to be said, and I think this was agreed by all committee members, that he did an admirable job as the chair of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. He handled a very difficult job. We went all over the place, and he was always non-partisan and very fair to the witnesses.

The member mentioned two things about integrity, sort of impugning some sort of political motive in asking Canadians for their direct opinions on something.

I was with a pollster last night and had coffee with a political scientist who works in this field. They asked me what we were doing today. I told them we were trying to add some direct questions. There are some direct questions in the government's survey, such as, “Would you like to lower the voting age?” That is a direct, simple, straightforward question. However, any question that deals with arriving at a system of some kind is not direct. They always have these additions, such as “even if chaos were to follow”, or “even if democracy were to fall apart”, these extreme and false choices. They said that this was a problem with the government's survey. The Liberals have produced a survey that cannot get them good results. Bad questions equal bad data, was what a colleague said, who is highly esteemed in the world of the social sciences.

Was it not political of the government, of the minister to choose to not ask the obvious question?

Canadians want to be consulted, and they are glad to be consulted. They will come into the conversation in good faith. However, if in the midst of that conversation they realize this is a cynical exercise that never asks the question they hope to answer and then spits out results calling them a “navigator”, “protector”, or some value that they do not agree with, then they are more than offended by it.

Therefore, let us not make this political. Let us make it accurate. Let us make it something that all parties agree on, and get an honest and clear answer from Canadians over a question that belongs to them and not to any political party in this place.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to salute the work of the hon. member. He was extremely engaged in the process.

As chair of the committee, I did not approach the hearings with bias. However, I really enjoyed it when witnesses were properly grilled, whatever the point of view of the questioner. I thought it was very important to have a rigorous process, and all members of the committee did that process proud.

I understand the hon. member has political scientist friends, and they may tend to agree with him on some positions. However, it is true that all the questions in the survey were reviewed by an academic advisory panel. These questions were, in a sense, peer reviewed.

Academics are professionals and they have a code of ethics. I prefer not to impugn their motives. I believe this academic advisory panel provided sound and objective advice on the issue when asked its opinions.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to salute the member forLac-Saint-Louis for his outstanding and truly brilliant work as chair of this very sensitive committee whose mandate was difficult to manage at times. He did it with grace and the kind of parliamentarianism that should inspire all members of the House.

Earlier, the member talked about the fact that many of the observers we heard from were not in favour of a referendum. Unfortunately, I must agree with him even though one of the most distinguished men of all, Benoît Pelletier, an esteemed academic and Quebec's former minister responsible for the reform of democratic institutions, was in favour of a referendum.

In the member's opinion, why does the online survey at MyDemocracy.ca not include a very simple question for Canadians about whether they want a referendum or not?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I said that most of the participants wanted a proportional system with no referendum, I was not referring to the experts or the stakeholders at the table; I was referring rather to the people in attendance in the room, some of whom went up to the microphone.

With regard to the specific questions, as I mentioned at the outset, the minister’s questionnaire aims to identify the values Canadians associate with their democracy. While the questions on values are sometimes vague, they are fundamental to anything that may follow, whether an assembly of citizens, a referendum or whatever else. We must start from these general values.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues.

I share the view of my colleagues from Skeena—Bulkley Valley and Louis-Saint-Laurent and all the others who mentioned the incredible work done by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis as committee chair, as well as all of the committee members.

Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, members of the Bloc and I worked together as a family, like a real team. We were willing to work hard in the interest of real democracy in Canada, and not in the interest of our party or to make political gains.

It is clear that electoral reform is a complicated issue, but at its essence it is about making democracy work for Canadians. Our goal in finding our values was to set aside our partisanship and to say, okay, what do voters want? This is the fundamental question, and Canadians participated in droves in this process.

We have had a discussion in Parliament, and I certainly accepted the hon. minister's apology. She knows we worked hard, but to me the essence of it is that we delivered on our mandate and got a very impressive report out on time and on deadline. It was not just the members of the committee who worked hard, but thousands of Canadians. We received unsolicited briefs that showed an enormous amount of effort by hundreds of Canadians who toiled to produce them. We would talk about it among ourselves as members of Parliament, the work in the briefs that were hundreds of pages long, as Canadians attempted to come up with the very best system, a made-in-Canada solution to ensure fair voting.

We also had hundreds of people come to our hearings across Canada, many of whom did not get up in the open-mike sessions but sat through hours of testimony just because they were interested in the subject and showed their support for those who spoke. I do agree with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis that we heard people call overwhelmingly for electoral reform, as our report notes. We heard them call for an end to first past the post and for fair proportional voting.

In my own case, I held many town halls across Canada as leader of the Green Party, but I also sent every single household in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands a special newsletter on electoral reform. I gave as much of the background as I could in explaining why it meant so much to me as a member of Parliament to know that the Speech from the Throne committed to ensuring that every vote would count and that 2015 would be the last election held under first past the post.

I polled the residents of my riding through a direct questionnaire mailed to them, and hundreds of people responded. I would like to share what my constituents said. I have never been able to do this publicly, but 82% of the voters in Saanich—Gulf Islands who responded to my questionnaire said, yes, they supported proportional representation. In response to the question, “Do you believe it can be accomplished without a referendum?”, there was more of a split, with 62% saying yes they definitely wanted a referendum, and others not being sure.

In response to, “What do you think about mandatory voting?”, there was a split, with 40% thinking it was a good idea, and 44% thinking it was not a good idea, and prepared to dive into the details. Of the voters in Saanich—Gulf Islands who responded, 44% said they liked hybrid proportional representation, 16% liked MMP, 17% STV, and 12% wanted to keep first past the post. That is the kind of engaged electorate I am so honoured and privileged to represent here in Parliament.

Not only did citizens come to the MP town halls and to our electoral reform committee meetings, they wanted to participate and wanted to be further engaged, so I was one of those, when called by the media about the MyDemocracy.ca survey, who said, “Well let us give it a chance”, but I want to see it build on the success of the committee's work.

That is why this motion, Motion No. 2 from the electoral reform committee, is so important. I am very gratified to know that finally in the House of Commons we are discussing and debating electoral reform. We are talking about the content of the report. As for the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, I did not get a chance to thank him at the time because his question period was up, but what a great engagement it was by a member who was not on the committee, but who was able to say, “I am interested in mixed member proportional. It looks like a good system”. He stopped short of endorsing it.

We took a big step forward in the Green Party over the weekend. We had a large gathering, a special meeting of members, to address the committee report and to deal with what I came down in favour of, a referendum. I did not think I could find a consensus, but I did. As a result, our party has now changed its opposition to a referendum to being open to one in some circumstances. These would not be the circumstances the Conservative Party wants. It would not favour a referendum that included an option for first past the post before we moved to PR. However, we moved as a party towards a view that we could hold a plebiscite like Prince Edward Island did, with multiple PR choices in advance of the next election, or we could go through two elections and then hold a referendum. This is a significant shift.

We also decided that our preferred voting method is mixed member proportional, another big move, in light of Prince Edward Island's voters choosing mixed member proportional in their plebiscite and the Law Commission report of 2004 picking mixed member proportional. In deference to my colleagues in the NDP, they have favoured mixed member proportional as well.

Let us try to focus on a solution, and encourage the government to live up to the promise to ensure that first past the post is never used again in Canada. Why would we feel so strongly? It is because it is a threat to democracy if a minority of voters can elect majority of the seats. This is the fundamental fairness question.

I want to quote from the report, in which Bernard Colas, a lawyer who worked on the Law Commission report in 2004, put it in very straightforward language:

One basic instinct of a human being is about fairness. If you have young kids, the kids will say it's not fair. The first question you ask Canadians is whether it's fair for someone to be elected with 30% of the vote, or 40%....They will answer “no”. Then you say, “Okay, we're here to make a proposal to correct this system and to improve its fairness.”

That is my big complaint with the MyDemocracy.ca survey. It is interesting as far as it goes, but that is the fundamental question. None of the questions put to voters in MyDemocracy.ca go to the value of fairness. We have a lot of questions on online voting, but without information upfront on why our committee recommended against it at this time. There are a lot of questions about mandatory voting, but nothing about why it is the right thing to do, and we hold the government to account that it was the right thing for the Prime Minister to promise that first past the post would not be used in 2019.

Our committee found that ranked ballots was the only system worse than first past the post. We recommended proportional representation to the government, but not through a pure list system.

We did our job. Please, I urge the government to accept the report of our committee, improve the online questionnaire, and live up to the promise of electoral reform.