House of Commons Hansard #64 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vote.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his incredible knowledge of this issue and his articulate way of expressing the needs of the House, and in fact the needs of all Canadians.

One thing we keep hearing over and over again from the government, and even from NDP colleagues, is that we need to find a way to engage with those who have been unwilling or unable to participate in the past. I am having trouble identifying who that might be. I wonder if my colleague would have any input into what could be behind the idea of trying to engage more with people, who they say are unwilling to or have been unable to participate.

In the last election, there was an incredible increase in people who were able to engage, willing to engage, and wanted to engage. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, when people think an issue is important enough, they vote on it. That was evidenced by the 92% turnout in Quebec in 1995 in the referendum on secession. Clearly, at that point people were highly motivated. They were so motivated that people were trying to vote from their hospital beds. These were people who would normally not make that attempt.

However, in answer to the question about higher levels of participation, it is always a legitimate goal to look at those who, for one reason or another, are left out, such as people who are disabled. There are so many different kinds of disabilities, for instance, visual disabilities and mobility issues. I could take up a lot of time describing them all. They all need to be dealt with. That is the kind of businesslike manner that ought to be carried out by means of looking at the Canada Elections Act.

In all fairness to the government, one of the three items, along with electoral reform, is electronic voting. Mandatory voting is the third one. Electronic voting might prove to be a way of having higher voter participation, which I am sure we will have a chance to find out. However, that is the way to deal with getting more people involved and voting.

This is an important issue. If the government puts forward a good proposal and there is a referendum on it, I would be very surprised indeed if there is not a higher turnout than in the last election. I guarantee that if it puts forward a bad proposal, there will be a really high turnout in this country as it is rejected.

Let me suggest that it is exactly the bad proposal that I worry the government will try to ram through in the absence of a referendum giving the citizens of Canada a safeguard against the misuse of its mandate.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston has written extensively on this topic, and I commend the fact that historically he has always opposed first past the post, the system that the Speech from the Throne commits Parliament to eliminate before the 2019 election.

I will quote from the member's article of 2005, where he wrote, “the perverse results of [first past the post] in Canada are so widely known that they scarcely bear repeating”. Since I have not heard them repeated from the Conservative benches in some time, I wonder if he would mind repeating the perverse impacts of first past the post, so we know what we want to eliminate.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member was consulting my website. I assume that is where she found that article. I thank her for that. I want to encourage her to read this passage as well. It is not from the same article, but from one I wrote in 2001. It says:

And just to be on the safe side, the existing first-past-the-post system would be included as one of the alternatives which voters could select on their preferential ballots. This would ensure that even if the commission had done its job poorly and selected a range of entirely unacceptable options, the worst that could happen would be that Canadians would return to the status quo.

I am no defender of first past the post, and I have made that clear to my caucus. My job is not to defend or advocate any system. It is to advocate the sovereignty of the Canadian people, to say that Canadians are the ones who have the right to decide whether to keep the current system or replace it with a new system.

It is perverse to suggest that we should have a decision-making apparatus in which we say that only the status quo is forbidden, that only the status quo can get rejected, because while it is true that first past the post is not in my estimation the best system out there, there are systems that are far worse.

I have been suggesting all along that the government intends to ram through the very worst of those available options in order to rig the 2019 election. That is a scandal, and it is probably unconstitutional.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, opposition days go by so quickly that I will be sharing my time in order to allow as many members as possible to have a say, especially considering that the topic we are discussing today is of capital importance.

As we all know, politicians have a bad habit of overstating the historic nature of what they are discussing. When I look at my short career in politics, this being my fifth year, during this year alone I have spoken to bills on subjects as important as medical assistance in dying and electoral reform.

It is not an exaggeration to say that we what are talking about right now, the future we are trying to carve out for our country, could be historic. I want to qualify that by saying that I will give the process some time to move forward and see how things unfold. However, I must say that I welcome the government's openness this morning to ensuring that the committee is more collegial.

Before I was an NDP member, in my previous career as a teacher I had many discussions with my students about the electoral system and how Canadians are represented in the House.

We obviously know that in direct democracy, we cannot bring together 34 million Canadians and get them to debate. We therefore chose to elect representatives to debate and propose solutions.

We must ensure that the plurality of the ideas presented today, which is reflected by the plurality of the parties present in the House, no longer echoes the era during which everything was either red or blue and was viewed accordingly.

We need to move as quickly as possible to ensure that our representation in the House starts to reflect Canadians and to ensure that all Canadians who go out to vote are assured that their vote will count and that they will be represented in the House. That is less and less evident, and that probably partially explains voter turnout, which is always questionable. Although turnout increased slightly in the last election, it is far below what we should expect from a democratic society that would strive for the involvement of the vast majority of its citizens.

If, at the end of the process, we want to be able to propose a solution that Canadians feel was the result of a job well done, then Canadians need to be included in that process. That is why I thought my colleague's proposal was so well-thought-out. The committee that he is proposing, which would be made up of five Liberals, three Conservatives, two New Democrats, a member of the Bloc Québécois, and a member of the Green Party, is already a step toward the objective that we are trying to reach because it reflects how Canadians voted in the last election.

We have two choices. The first is to stick with tradition in order to keep the structure of the committee as it has always been, where the governing party has a majority. I was going to say that this tradition has been around for thousands of years, but it has not. The other option is to set up the committee in a way that reflects what we are trying to accomplish with the election reform, in other words, representation where there is a place for the ideas of all Canadians and Quebeckers and where everyone can express their opinion.

I am particularly pleased that the minister recognized the Bloc Québécois's and the Green Party's right to vote on this committee. It did not make any sense to me to work together to reform our electoral system in a way that clearly demonstrates how important each vote is, while preventing two parties that were elected by Canadians from voting. That did not make much sense to me, particularly since the representation proposed in the NDP motion reflects the results of the last election quite well.

Just to give you an idea, since the people listening to us may not remember the figures, let us recall that the Liberal government was elected with 39.5% of the vote. It would be somewhat surprising for the government to grab 60% of the votes in a committee that strives to be part of a change. The Conservatives had 31.9% of the vote, while the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party had 19.7%, 4.7%, and 3.4% respectively of the vote.

The minister has agreed to this representation on the committee, for which, by the way, I thank her. I think this is a step in the right direction, and it lends credibility to the work that must be done.

If we reach the broadest consensus possible, which is clearly what I would like to see, that will significantly change how the Canadian electorate votes. For many years, we have seen a strong trend in voting to defeat a government. People go to the polls and most often vote against a government, instead of voting for a government that they want to see in power. I think that is a sort of perversion of our democratic system.

If, through an electoral reform, we are able to come up with a solution that has consensus and encourages everyone to go to the polls, having decided that they will vote according to their values and convictions, that may well significantly reduce the so-called strategic voting. Basically, that type of voting always reflects the idea of voting to defeat a government, rather than voting to elect a government that reflects our aspirations.

I hope that the work of the committee and all the consultations with experts, the public, and all those interested in this system will help us reach the broadest possible consensus to show that the direction or change to be proposed to all Canadians seems to us to be clearly the most representative.

Unfortunately, I think time is of the essence. To be able to implement a new electoral system, the Chief Electoral Officer told us that he would have to establish a timeline consistent with the scope of the change. My hope therefore is that the work will proceed smoothly, and that it will start as soon as possible, given that we have already lost some eight months.

I therefore welcome the minister’s response this morning as a breath of fresh air, an opening, but I cannot forget that all this could have been done much sooner. We have to get down to serious work starting today in order to put in place a system that will do away with false majorities. This is in fact the fundamental problem with our first past the post system. Governments elected with around 30%, 38%, or 40% of the vote are being brought to power, legitimately, under the rules of the current system. However they are clearly not representative of the people’s will, since 60% of population is expressing a desire to be led by a party other than the one in government. It seems to me that this statistic alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the electoral system we now have does not reflect the desire of the people of Quebec and Canada to have a system where they can be sure that their vote counts.

There are a few different proposals for getting rid of these distortions. I do not think that preferential balloting, which seems to be the route advocated by the Liberal government, is one of those systems. As I often say, from the shock of ideas the light will shine forth. This is something that the new makeup of the committee will probably make possible. I hope that everyone will report to the committee with their ideas and be able to demonstrate them and that there will also be this open-mindedness to the ideas of others, so that together we can find the best system, one in which Quebeckers and Canadians can see themselves reflected.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the main comments from the member.

When I reflect on what has taken place over the last hour and a half, we have seen a significant gain. We can appreciate that there has been a good opportunity for the opposition parties to be working with the government in recognizing that we do need to see a change in the system. I say that, because now the majority is not going to be a Liberal or government majority on the committee. I see that as a positive thing.

Would the member not agree that Canadians as a whole in the last election, based on the multitude of parties that were engaged in the last election, collectively made a commitment that we would be changing the system, that the need for change is there and it is very real, and now with the makeup of the committee that this is a positive step forward?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I admit that even after five years in Parliament, I have preserved my ideals, and it is my hope that we will find the solution together. However that does not mean I wear rose-coloured glasses.

Indeed, many voters have long dreamed of changing the electoral system. However it must be acknowledged that not all of the parties necessarily took a stand on this issue during the election campaign and the parties that did often had differing proposals.

My dearest hope is not that we will arrive at a majority decision on this committee, but that we will succeed in achieving the broadest possible consensus.

Of course, the new makeup of the committee does not allow any one party to hold the majority on its own. However, we will need more than one party plus one vote. We are really looking for the broadest possible consensus, and if the committee does not have this credibility, it will be difficult for it to produce a proposal that the public will find credible.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières for his presentation. I have a fondness for archaisms.

Of course, to the people of Quebec, Trois-Rivières is Maurice Duplessis country, and as we know, Maurice Duplessis had a very particular understanding of democracy.

That being said, what is in question here is essential and directly affects our most precious institutions, namely the election of the MPs who form the government, Parliament, and the House of Commons. This type of change cannot be made by politicians agreeing with and talking to each other. Even if a consensus is reached, it will still be discussion among politicians.

We have to go straight to the people, as legislatures have done in three provinces. British Columbia has done it twice, Prince Edward Island once, and Ontario has done it as well. Canadian legislatures that have tried to make changes on an issue as sensitive as the one before us have consulted the people by referendum.

Does the hon. member for Trois-Rivières agree that for any potential change of this nature, the referendum route should be taken?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and for his allusion to Maurice Duplessis, whose offices were just beside the current location of my own.

To respond to his question more seriously, one cannot be from Quebec and be allergic to referendums, for our history is dotted with them.

However, to speak of a referendum at this time would be to put the cart before the horse. There are different ways of consulting the population.

Obviously, I hope that the House has authority over the matter, since we are the representatives of that population. However, there are also ways to set up a citizens’ committee that would be charged with doing parallel work on this reform and could also consult experts and its respective populations.

There are various ways, and if one day we should take the referendum route, which is not allowed by the Constitution at present, I must point out, we will also be able to consider what the subject of the referendum should be.

Should the referendum be on a proposal? If we actually attained this much-coveted broad consensus, could we not introduce this electoral reform and then organize a referendum a few elections on so that we have had the experience and can talk about the subject in full knowledge of the facts?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the motion that has been slightly amended by the government. It seems to have the support of at least four parties in the House. I hope that as many members as possible can be rallied around this proposal, so that the committee charged with studying and proposing a change to the voting system has the support of all members of the House. Then we will really be able to get down to work.

However, I was hoping that we could begin the substantive work earlier, or in the next few weeks. Instead of debating the composition of the committee, I hope that from this point forward, we will focus on the substantive issue, which is determining the voting system that best reflects the opinion of Canadians and the results of the election.

When we were elected on October 19, 2015, we all received a mandate to change the way voting is done. The party that was elected to government and obtained the most seats in the House had promised that the 2015 election would be the last one under the first past the post system. Several other parties also spoke about this issue during the last election campaign and made a commitment to change the voting system to make it more acceptable to Canadians.

The people of Sherbrooke told me that the current voting system does not assign sufficient importance to each vote. This is a message that all members probably received in talking to Canadians. This important issue often comes up in our discussions on Canadian politics. With first past the post, voters sometimes find that their vote does not have enough value, that it does not have significant weight. The other systems give more importance to the vote and hence to the opinion of voters.

Many systems could be evaluated and proposed by the committee. In my view, one thing is clear: our mandate is to consider all the possible options and propose a change to our system of voting.

To make such a change, it is self-evident that the parliamentary committee must represent as faithfully as possible the opinion expressed by Canadians in the last general election. Everyone must be able to express themselves in committee. I am very pleased that the motion by my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley on the composition of the committee has received the support of the government, which agrees that this committee should be innovative. A committee looking into so important an issue has to be innovative. It must be different from other parliamentary committees and follow different rules.

I am happy that this motion has received the government’s support, because if we want to change the way we vote, all the parties running in elections must be able to express their opinion on the next voting system.

It is also important that a committee be formed so that, at least, the broadest possible consensus is achieved and no party in the House has all the power to decide unilaterally on the next voting system.

I say this with some hope of seeing some kind of consensus achieved. I also say it with moderate optimism as to the outcome of the committee.

The members are beginning to get used to the work of parliamentary business. As in all parliamentary committees, we can study, make recommendations, and sometimes even reach unanimous consent on things we then recommend. The committee drafts a report that the chair then tables here in the House. After that, ultimate power lies with the Government of Canada and the cabinet, the executive branch.

It is all very nice to reach a consensus, and I have seen that in other committees, to report to the House, and to make a number of recommendations. Then the government will accept one or two of the committee’s recommendations and not the others. It is possible. That is why I continue to be cautiously optimistic about the outcome of all this. As my Conservative colleague mentioned just now, at the end of this process, the fact remains that the Canada Elections Act is amended by legislative means. It will be up to the cabinet and the government to propose this amendment to the Canada Elections Act to introduce the new voting system that is chosen.

That I why, today, I wanted to talk about cautious optimism and especially about hope. I hope that if a recommendation adopted by a majority of the parliamentary committee is submitted to the government, it will listen and follow that recommendation. I am therefore appealing to the government, while remaining moderately optimistic. If the parliamentary committee does produce some ideas, I hope that the government will pay very close attention, and that it will act appropriately on that recommendation for changing the voting system.

It is quite clear that the distribution of seats in the House is problematic. A government can govern in the house with 55% of the seats after receiving 39% of the vote in the general election. Everyone recognizes this obvious problem. It is also recognized in a number of other jurisdictions in the world, where they are trying to have as little distortion as possible between the distribution of seats in legislative assemblies and the voting pattern in a general election. It is therefore extremely important for the committee to study all the options. Of course, some of them are much more effective than others for avoiding distortion and hence for representing as accurately as possible the votes cast in an election and the distribution of seats in the House of Commons. There are certainly more effective systems in this respect. I hope that all the options will be considered, and that the end result will make the House as representative as possible of the votes cast in an election.

Obviously, we want the proportion to be as close as possible to the actual percentage, so that if a party receives 39%, 40%, or 45% of the votes, it will receive 39%, 40%, or 45% of the seats in the House of Commons. I therefore hope that this committee will reach a conclusion that will make our voting system as representative as possible of the votes cast, and that the composition of the House will reflect the votes cast in the election.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the motion that I really appreciate is:

....that the Committee be directed to issue an invitation to each Member of Parliament to conduct a town hall in their respective constituencies and provide the Committee with a written report of the input from their constituents to be filed with the Clerk of the Committee no later than November 1, 2016.

Now, with the exception of the change in date that has been proposed, I think that is a fantastic aspect of the motion. I would think that all members would get behind that. Whether a member chooses to do it or not, that is completely up to that particular member. I am having my public meeting on July 6 at the Maples Community Centre. I encourage members of Parliament to go out and hold those public meetings.

We need to get over the issue of the process, and start talking more and more about the substance, as the minister talked about, and to have that conversation with our constituents. Now we have a reporting mechanism that I believe gives it that much more importance to have the meetings.

I wonder if the member might want to highlight the importance of members of Parliament being able to go out and possibly have those public meetings, or find other ways in which they can communicate with their constituents and report back to the committee.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, which was about encouraging our colleagues to hold public consultations in their constituencies, as mentioned in our motion.

There was simply a change of date in the amendment to our motion, which was moved and carried. That gives me the opportunity to encourage all of my colleagues in the House to make every effort to organize a town hall with a view to gathering their constituents' opinions. We have an important opportunity with this motion, which gives the members of the House a mandate to submit a report to the parliamentary committee, which will be taken into account in the discussions.

Hence, we have a unique opportunity as members to submit the comments that we receive from our constituents directly to the parliamentary committee, which will then be responsible for compiling and reading all the comments and possibly formulating a proposal. From all the discussions I have had with my constituents, a consensus has already emerged around the proportional system. It will be important for the committee to hear all the comments, and that may certainly further inform the debates and discussions in the parliamentary committee.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I hear about the mandatory nature in which we will be holding these town halls for a very specific question, I can anticipate that it is going to be, I hope, highly attended across our 338 districts.

As the member is probably aware, finding the appropriate space to accommodate 67% or 70% of our constituents to come in and give their views in one single town meeting could possibly be very expensive.

I wonder if the member has a view to whether or not this should be coming out members' budgets, or is it appropriate to send to the bill government with respect to having this town halls.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think the primary role of an elected representative and a member is to consult his or her constituents.

Since that is a member’s primary role, why not do so using his or her own budget? As all members are well aware, we have the opportunity to send written materials directly to the mailboxes of our constituents. If the opportunity is there, the invitation is sent out; we always hope that as many people as possible will take part in these consultations, but at the very least, the invitation will have been sent out. Every citizen in the 338 constituencies will, I hope, get an invitation, will have the opportunity to show up and participate in this type of consultation by expressing their opinions, which will then be passed on to the parliamentary committee. I therefore encourage all members to send out invitations and provide the necessary space to accommodate everyone who wants to take part in a consultation.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Before we resume the debate, I would like to remind members that there is a process to be followed. It is inappropriate to speak with a colleague at the other end of the House. If members have something to say to their colleagues on the other side, they can walk across the House and whisper. That would be more polite to the person speaking.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, speaking of decorum, could you enforce it?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

We are doing our best.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is quorum.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer Québec

Liberal

Greg Fergus LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House of Commons, a powerful symbol of our democratic processes, to talk about the opposition motion on appointing a special committee on electoral reform made up of representatives from all parties.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

As you know, our government pledged to ensure that every vote counts. We said that the 2015 federal election would be the last to employ a first past the post system.

The question is, what kind of electoral system will be in place for the next federal election? As you know, the opposition motion, like the government motion on this subject, calls for the creation of a parliamentary committee made up of representatives from all parties to study various reforms, such as preferential ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

During the study of these changes, the government would like the committee to be guided by the following principles: restore the effectiveness and legitimacy of the voting system, encourage greater engagement and participation in the democratic process, support accessibility and inclusiveness for all eligible voters, safeguard the integrity of our voting system, and take into consideration the accountability of local representation.

I would like to focus my comments today on that last principle, the importance of preserving the accountability of local representation. In our country, we have always valued and maintained a geographic connection and accountability between voters and their elected members.

This principle reflects the value that Canadians place on their ability to directly elect their representatives to Parliament. In a 2015 Abacus Data poll, respondents were asked to rank the top five goals of a voting system; 46% indicated that the top goal of a voting system should be to allow people to directly elect the members who represent their community.

It should be noted how much Canadians value their ability to directly elect their representatives to Parliament. Local representatives understand and know the local conditions and how to advance local needs. They are prepared to discuss and resolve local concerns.

We all understand the value of Canada 's diversity. It is our strength and our future. Canada's geographic diversity, its people of diverse backgrounds, and its diverse interests contribute to its wealth from coast to coast to coast. However, this diversity can also pose a challenge to us all.

We need to ensure that the perspectives and interests of a remote northern community, for instance, which may include indigenous populations, natural resources, or climate change, are represented here in Ottawa just as much as the interests of a 905 suburb, which may include carbon emissions, transportation corridors, and multiculturalism.

Our democratic institutions must take into account the interests and perspectives of all Canadians, no matter where they live. Local representatives can use their knowledge and understanding of local conditions to take local needs into account and advocate for them.

Members are willing to listen to their constituents' perspectives, discuss the things that matter most to them, and try to address their concerns, whether that means helping them get a visa or passport or resolving issues regarding immigration, employment insurance, retirement, or income tax.

Consider the example of the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents, particularly band members in Attawapiskat, to understand the complex local needs and pool the resources to meet those needs.

Another example is the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is well aware of her constituents' concerns and works incredibly hard to make sure that her constituents are engaged and well informed in order to focus her efforts on their behalf. Those are just two of 338 examples.

The flip side of representation is, of course, accountability. It is extremely important that our elected representatives be accountable to their constituents in terms of how they represent their interests.

Without local representation, it is not hard to imagine how frustrated our constituents would be if they were not able to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with how they have been represented locally.

Obviously, the fact that voters can judge their representatives' performance is a strong incentive for members to represent constituents' needs and concerns as best they can. Members should be held accountable for the speed, quality, and effectiveness of the way they deal with issues that are important to their constituents.

Local representation is important, since it strengthens accountability between Canadians and Parliament and it ensures that our country's vast and diverse geography is taken into account in our legislature. Local representation enables members to speak on behalf of their constituents on issues raised in the House, and it ensures that the perspectives of urban and rural communities, from coast to coast, whether they are prosperous or struggling, are considered in Ottawa.

Furthermore, local representation enables Canadians to hold their representatives accountable as to how well or how poorly they represent their constituents.

There are many voting systems that support this principle in order to maintain the accountability of local representation. Majority and proportional systems can all be designed in a way that complies with this principle. I am sure that the committee will consider this factor when it studies various reforms.

The government was elected on a platform designed to “[give] Canadians a voice in Ottawa”.

We recognize that if we want Parliament to run smoothly, members must be free to carry out the mandate they were given by their constituents to represent their communities and hold the government accountable. The government must always serve Canadians and find solutions to problems.

Canadians truly value the principle that the accountability of local representation should be maintained. The committee made up of representatives of all parties should be guided by this principle when it is assessing the possible voting systems for the next federal election.

In conclusion, I support the motion to create a special committee on electoral reform made up of representatives from all the parties in the House of Commons, with the amendments proposed by the Minister of Democratic Institutions.

I look forward to talking to all Canadians about the future of their voting system.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, the composition of the committee being proposed is definitely an issue to which I want to speak. I have a concern with the Bloc Québécois being given a vote on the committee. It is a party that is bent on the destruction of our country as opposed to improving our democracy. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am a Quebecker. I passed my entire life in Quebec. I believe in my country and I believe in my province. I have had the great privilege, as all of us have had, of being elected by my fellow citizens to represent their concerns here, so has the hon. member from Sarnia, and so have the hon. members from the Bloc Québécois. They represent equally and democratically their electors from their ridings who have made a choice from many parties to choose their representation. They have every right and legitimacy to be here, to take their seats in the House, and debate democratically the issues of concern to them. To me, it is a fundamental right.

I am very pleased the government has seen its way to support the opposition motion to allow the members of the Bloc and the Green Party to take their seats at the committee. It is a welcome move, it is legitimate, and it is a move all members should support.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, there was an interesting comment raised by my friend, and I think I understand her concern or perspective.

I remember the former Conservative prime minister actually echoing very much what my Liberal colleague just said when asked if the Bloc even have seats in the House of Commons. This was from a debate a few years ago. The former Conservative prime minister, who is no fan of the sovereignist cause I would argue, said that the legitimacy of our election required that we honour the representation of however Canadians from coast to coast to coast chose to elect their members.

What we are attempting to do is not necessarily setting any major precedents with the motion we have before us. We had discussed the motion a great deal, including the committee construction and how we would bring in 1.4 million Canadians who voted for parties that were not of official party status. A lot of Canadians do not know this, but unless a party has 12 members, it does not achieve party status and therefore has no right to sit on committee. However, when discussing this particular debate around how we vote and how our democracy functions, it seems to me novel and different than how we talk about a transportation bill or the other issues that come before Parliament. We had to be novel as well in the way we constructed the committee, not just in having them witness what was going on but to have the views that they represent and also the nearly 1.5 million people represented by a tangible vote.

Therefore, I understand the consternation. I do not doubt it. There are many who think certain parties should never be permitted to sit in our House of Commons. However, I would ask my friend this. Where does that path lead us if only certain parties with certain views are allowed to stand and seek a seat in the House of Commons? What would that eventually lead to for a democracy as rich and robust as Canada's?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley who has a lot more experience than I do in the House and as a parliamentarian. He spoke quite eloquently.

It would be a very sorry development for the wealth and diversity of our country if we were to start regulating who could or could not have the legitimate right to represent their electors, if their electors so desired to be represented by that person by expressing their vote in that manner. It is a challenge for all of us.

In 1993, I was very much a politically active, much younger man. I certainly was disappointed that my province had elected not only a majority but a pretty large majority of members from the Bloc Québécois. As a federalist and someone who believed in Canada, I found that very hard. That being said, they were elected legitimately, honestly, and according to all the rules. They represented their constituencies with great honour and distinction. It is a strength of our system when we allow for that diversity of views to take a legitimate right.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour today to join this crucial debate on our democracy.

Today, we are witnessing a truly important event: the Liberal government has agreed to the NDP's proposal to create a committee in which the Liberals will not have the majority of the votes. That is truly extraordinary.

This parliamentary committee will have to study various ways of reforming the federal voting system and submit its recommendations by December 1. That is very important work, and I, for one, cannot wait to start.

I have been listening and watching our debates in this place since the hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions first put forward a version of this motion. For a while, it began to remind me of the 1969 peace talks in Paris to end the war in Vietnam, where the talks could not begin until they finished arguing over whether the table would be square or round. Although the issues are of very large significance to us as parliamentarians to ensure the committee will have legitimacy, I can imagine that those Canadians who are watching this are wondering when we are going to get on with the work of getting rid of a perverse voting system and stop discussing how many members and what rights we all have.

For myself, as the only member of Parliament here on behalf of the Green Party of Canada, I am, of course, here as a Green Party of Canada member of Parliament. I am not here as an independent, which is recognized, but as my hon. friend for Skeena—Bulkley Valley just pointed out, those of us in parties with fewer than 12 members are not considered, in the House process, as “recognized parties”. Therefore, it is a bit confusing. I am a recognized member of the Green Party in this place, but I am not a member of a recognized party.

It is not unheard of, and as a matter of fact it is quite common, for members of smaller parties to be admitted to committees. There was a time when the NDP went down to nine seats, and in that circumstance, many members of the New Democratic Party served as full members of various committees in this place. There have been independents who have also served as full members of committees.

I have been willing to serve, because the work of getting electoral reform is far more important than any other aspect of the committee. However, I knew this was actually a departure from tradition, and far from being an exception to allow the Bloc and the Greens a seat on the committee. In these circumstances of a commitment to an all-party committee, it really is important that it be all parties.

I believe it is a significant step forward for this committee. It is something for which I am deeply grateful to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, her parliamentary secretary, and to the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for making the case that it makes sense that all members of the committee have full voting rights and full participatory rights, and I intend to exercise mine fully with the goal of serving the public good.

I know, given the partisanship in this place, it may be hard for people to believe, but I do think I am the most non-partisan leader of a federal political party. I absolutely commit to having an open mind to the various forms of voting that we will study on this committee. It is critical that we have a committee that inspires the confidence of Canadians by starting out in a non-partisan fashion with all parties willing to support the process. I hope our colleagues in the Conservative Party will support this motion.

We now know the Liberals will support the motion. It is the NDP's motion, and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley accepted, quite graciously, the amendment put forward by the minister. Certainly, the Green Party supports the motion, and I hope my friends from the Bloc also support the motion. Therefore, it would be important for this committee to start out the way we intend to go, and for the Conservatives to set aside whatever qualms they may have.

I want to emphasis, particularly for my friends in the Conservative Party, that it is quite extraordinary for a governing party with a majority of votes to voluntarily relinquish that majority. I do not think that should go without mention.

We have a committee of 12 people, and this is the formula as put forward by the New Democratic Party. It puts this committee forward on the basis of what this Parliament would look like had we had fair voting in the last election. It is an essential point of principle. If we did not have the first past the post voting system, with its infamous reputation for perverse results and false majorities, such as the false majority of the previous Conservative majority at 39% of the vote, or the false majority of our current Liberal government with 39% of the vote, Parliament would not have the configuration it now has.

This is really historic and suggests that we could go forward in a spirit of non-partisanship. The governing majority party has voluntarily relinquished its majority on the committee so that it is five Liberals, three Conservatives, two New Democrats, one Bloc Québécois member, and one Green Party member. That is a very good start.

Now we have a lot of work to do. I think our first job, as parliamentarians who passionately believe that we must ensure that the Liberal election promise, now enshrined in the Speech from the Throne, is actually achieved, is to ensure that 2015 was the last election held under first past the post.

Even as we go forward to study those methods of voting in the systems around the world that are far more democratic, far more inclusive, and that build consensus and have changed the way parliaments have functioned to achieve better results around the world, it is important to keep explaining why first past the post and any other majoritarian voting system, which includes ranked or preferential ballots, fall short of meeting the basic understanding that every Canadian has of what real democracy is. Surely, all Canadians have a right to know that their vote will count.

It is the perversity of the first past the post voting system that says that as soon as we have achieved 32% of the vote in some ridings, and in theory 25% of the vote, we win. We have been a multi-party democracy in this Parliament since around 1920. There has never been a time when we could say that there were fewer than three, four, or five parties. We have been a multi-party democracy with a two-party voting system for almost a century. That is a century too long.

What happens when we achieve 25%, 30% of the vote and are the winner in that riding, it is winner takes all. Therefore, 70% of the votes just do not count. This contributes to voters feeling that if they live in a so-called safe Liberal riding but are Conservatives or live in a safe Conservative riding but are New Democrats, there is really no point in voting because their vote just will not count. Everyone knows the sayings, “You could run a goat in a red sweater in that riding, it wouldn't matter, they'll win. You could run a dog in a blue sweater in that riding.” Taking it away from animal rights at this point and going back to people, the reality of this is that it contributes to lower voter turnout.

Therefore, not as a matter of opinion but as matter of empirical research, looking at democracies all around the world, we know that there is a significantly higher voter turnout when people realize their votes count. The effectiveness of a vote is not in question if voters are under mixed member proportional, single transferrable vote, or any one of a number of hybrids of those systems.

First past the post is the only voting system available to us, as well as ranked ballots, where a minority of the public can elect a majority of the seats. This is particularly dangerous in a Westminster parliamentary system, such as Canada's. It is actually more dangerous in Canada than in most Westminster parliamentary democracies, potentially more than any Westminster parliamentary democracy, as it allows extraordinary powers to be vested in the Office of the Prime Minister, more so than in the U.K. or Australia where their parliamentary caucus can replace the prime minister between elections. For some reason in Canada we have sort of aped the U.S. system of convention so that only members of the party can select the leader. As a result of this, in a majority parliament in Canada, a prime minister can fully control the executive and legislative branches and essentially become an elected dictator.

In a system like ours, it is essential that voting be fair and proportional.