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

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments I want to get back to is something I have heard before in the House, that 60% of Canadians voted for parties that wanted to do this. I think it is important to recognize that the NDP have 38 pages of promises in its policies, and the Liberals had more than 20. Therefore, I would say that it is not really accurate to assume that people voted specifically for those promises.

From a fact and evidence point of view, we would have to take into account that in many of the other referendums that have happened in this area, people have not voted to abandon the first past the post system. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to respond to the notion that people do not vote for the policies that the parties put forward. The reality is that in an election campaign, parties posit what changes they are going to make. The changes specifically with respect to the electoral system were made very clearly, certainly by our party and by others, that the last election would be the last run on a first past the post system.

I reflect on the types of ways that changes were made to our electoral system previously. For example, in the so-called Fair Elections Act, we saw broad and sweeping changes made without any sort of consultation, without engaging other parties, without engaging Canadians, which is what we have to move away from.

Today, the spirit of co-operation in working with other parties, of being able to find that commonality, is exactly what Canadians are seeking.

I hear from my constituents that they have the expectation that I will keep the promises I make to them. This was certainly a significant one in the last election.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat passing strange when I hear Conservatives saying that Canadians voted for a party on this but not that. It is the idea that what a party, any of us, puts into its election platform should not become a mandate if we are fortunate enough to win an election or become members of Parliament.

My belief is that politics is a relatively simple matter. One runs on a set of promises and if fortunate enough to get elected, one then seeks to enact those promises. Therefore, with more than 60% to 64% of members of Parliament who ran on the promise to change our voting system, to then suggest that there is not a mandate in Parliament to change our voting system is more than highly selective; it almost borders on cynical.

However, I have a question for my friend.

One of the concerns that has been raised is about the full participation of all members who sit on the committee. Certainly the member from the Bloc will be there and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Participation is good, but one of the things our motion would do is allow them to vote. Commenting and asking questions are good and are things we all do as members of Parliament when we sit on committees. However, the real truth of the matter, the real test of the matter, is whether when a proposal comes up to do this or that, a member of Parliament sitting on a committee can actually vote.

This is something we hope the government is open to, because to simply include members without the notion of their being able to cast a vote seems a lesser position for any member of Parliament who takes a seat on that committee.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax, ON

Mr. Speaker, maybe it would be helpful if we could get from the Conservatives a list of promises that they feel constituents were listening to when we made them, and a list when they were not. We can then know which ones we will be criticized for keeping and which ones we should not keep that we made. It is a little confusing.

However, on the issue that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised, absolutely, there is an imperative need to hear from all parties in the House and to ensure that they are given a proper voice in this process.

The minister will be speaking after me and she has some comments on this. However, I think the spirit of what the member said of ensuring that all parties have a voice and are heard at the table is an important one, and I thank him for the motion he proposed today.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Peterborough—Kawartha Ontario

Liberal

Maryam Monsef LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. parliamentary secretary. I am pleased to rise on debate in the House on the opposition motion put forward by my hon. NDP colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I have been speaking in the House on this traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples for some time now about the importance of listening to Canadians and working across party lines to find solutions to the challenges that we face. Despite the skepticism expressed by some, I do believe that it is possible to be both partisan and to find common ground. I do believe that respectful co-operation is possible.

It is in this vein that I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague on the motion. I believe it can allow us to move beyond a discussion about process and begin a debate on the substance of electoral reform. The motion before the House contains the key elements of the motion the government previously placed on the Order Paper. It confirms that the most appropriate way to consult Canadians is through the establishment of a special all-party committee with representation from all parties in the House. As elected representatives, it is our responsibility to give a voice to our constituents in general and more specifically to those who have been unwilling or unable to participate in the past.

The NDP motion is also consistent with a number of the fundamental components of the motion I placed on the Order Paper on May 10. There are consistencies in terms of mandates, the nature and the scope of national consultations, an engaging of the entire House, which means all members regardless of political stripes, and an emphasis on inclusivity, especially to under-represented groups, by reaching out across our diverse society. I welcome so much common ground on these issues.

The NDP motion, however, suggests that the membership of the committee deviate from the Standing Orders in two fundamental ways. First, it seeks to provide a vote on the committee for both unrecognized parties in the House, the Green and the Bloc. It has always been the government's intention that both parties be included in this national consultation and this was outlined in our motion on May 10. I believe that members of these parties have a great deal to contribute to the debate and I have been persuaded that an additional way to demonstrate our commitment to inclusivity is to break with tradition and have both the Bloc and the Green as full voting members. Such an approach means that the government will not have a majority on the committee and hopefully this will assure members that the government comes to this process with an open mind.

Second, the NDP motion seeks to shift the committee from having a majority of government members to having a majority of opposition members. Some may argue that replacing a government majority with an opposition majority puts us no further ahead. The fact is that such an argument misses the point. The issue is that every member, regardless of party, must combine their partisan perspective with meeting the important need that Canadians have to improve the electoral process.

As I have said many times, we need to do politics differently. Who has the committee majority has never been my key priority; ensuring that Canadians have the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the electoral reform process is. The proposal before us will take us beyond a debate on process and begin a discussion of the substance of electoral reform. In that spirit, the government will support the motion's provisions for the party distribution on the committee.

There are two items, however, that are missing from the motion which I believe must be included.

The first is the set of principles outlined in the motion I placed on the Order Paper on May 10. I believe our discussion of electoral reform must be guided by fundamental principles and they need to be part of shaping the final proposal.

The second is the importance of dealing with the issue of ensuring that the proposal put forward is seen to be legitimate by Canadians. This is consistent with my view that the government will not proceed without the broad support of Canadians. In that respect, the mandate of the committee needs to include recommending to the government the best method of ensuring that any proposal has the full or broad support of Canadians.

With all of this being said, I would like to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) adding after the words “online voting”, the following:

“, and to assess the extent to which the options identified could advance the following principles for electoral reform:

1) Effectiveness and legitimacy: that the proposed measure would increase public confidence among Canadians that their democratic will, as expressed by their votes, will be fairly translated and that the proposed measure reduces distortion and strengthens the link between voter intention and the election of representatives;

2) Engagement: that the proposed measure would encourage voting and participation in the democratic process, foster greater civility and collaboration in politics, enhance social cohesion and offer opportunities for inclusion of under-represented groups in the political process;

3) Accessibility and inclusiveness: that the proposed measure would avoid undue complexity in the voting process, while respecting the other principles, and that it would support access by all eligible voters regardless of physical or social condition;

4) Integrity: that the proposed measure can be implemented while safeguarding public trust in the election process, by ensuring reliable and verifiable results obtained through an effective and objective process that is secure and preserves vote secrecy for individual Canadians;

5) Local representation: that the proposed measure would ensure accountability and recognize the value that Canadians attach to community, to Members of Parliament understanding local conditions and advancing local needs at the national level, and to having access to Members of Parliament to facilitate resolution of their concerns and participation in the democratic process;”

(b) replacing the words “November 1, 2016” with the words “October 14, 2016”;

(c) adding after the words “engagement tools” the following:

“that the Committee be directed to study and advise on additional methods for obtaining the views of Canadians;” and

(d) replacing the words “, notwithstanding Standing Order 106(3), all candidates for the position of Chair or Vice-Chair from the Official Opposition“ with the words “all candidates for the position of Chair or Vice-Chair”.

I urge all members to support this amendment and I look forward to the debate in the House moving forward.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley if he consents to this amendment being moved.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I not only consent to the motion being moved, but welcome it very much and thank the minister for her hard work on this file.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank the Minister of Democratic Institutions for her work, and my friend from Ajax, the parliamentary secretary for his engagement and close contact on this.

In is my fundamental belief that this is how Parliament ought to work, where there are proposed ideas, there are opposition ideas that then merge with what the government has suggested, and perhaps, from time to time, is an improvement over the original proposal.

I would also like to recognize the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who first came to me and suggested making up the committee based upon the views of Canadians in the past election, an intuitive and fair way to go about the process of changing our electoral system. First, it would be valid, because it would not be the views of any parliamentarian or any party, but the views of Canadians that constructed our committee. Second, it would allow the process itself to be fair, and then hopefully the results to be fair as well. I thank him very much for his innovation. We should always look to new members of Parliament for their views on things.

Specifically for the minister, I very much appreciate her comments about not having to talk about the process of getting to the process, so we can actually get to the substance of the matter about our electoral system that lies at the very heart of our democracy, the heart of this institution, and the heart of our country. The conversation we can have is about how to best and most fairly represent Canadians in their hopes for the future.

We have heard some comments and concerns from my Conservative colleagues. We have also heard some comments from my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, and my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands in the Green Party. It is my sincere hope that we can arrive at a consensus here today, and that we can achieve some sort of step in the right direction.

Such an indication and sign to Canadians would be one that would be quite hopeful. The debate to this point has been about the process. It has been somewhat, and naturally, antagonistic, which is okay. That is what politics is sometimes.

However, what is her hope at arriving at such a similar consensus, so that the very first step this committee takes, this historic opportunity we take, starts on the right foot, starts in a way that the partisanship is lessened, that the collaboration and collegiality is enhanced, and that Canadians can have a renewed faith that what comes out of this process will be something representing their hopes and views for the future as well?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Maryam Monsef Liberal Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work. We were elected by Canadians to listen to their needs and to co-operate in this place. This is how we govern. He is right. Up until now the conversation of process has taken away from the substance of electoral reform. It is time for us to combine our partisan interests with the needs of Canadians and work together to ensure their ideas, their aspirations, and their needs are reflected in the reforms we eventually introduce in this place.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question and I expect a brief answer. Is the minister open to a referendum, yes or no?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Maryam Monsef Liberal Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Mr. Speaker, today is about beginning the process of bringing the parliamentary committee together and having it review the options available. The next step will be to review the proposal, based on what we have heard from Canadians while the committee has been doing its work. The third step will be finding the appropriate way to engage Canadians' buy-in for the process. That aspect is now included in the motion so the committee may determine the best way to gauge the support of Canadians.

I look forward to working with the party opposite to ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity to be part of this important dialogue.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take very long, because there are a lot of questions. However, I want to thank the hon. minister and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley from the bottom of my heart for putting Canada above partisanship and working so hard to craft a committee that can earn the legitimacy and trust of Canadians.

I look forward to working on that committee. Assuming we can get this motion through as quickly as possible, could the minister indicate when, in her mind, we can begin work as a committee?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Maryam Monsef Liberal Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe the contribution of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to the committee will be invaluable, as will all members of the committee.

The hope is that today we engage in a constructive and respectful dialogue about this motion and that we take the opportunity to think constructively, contribute meaningfully, and vote on the motion. We are hoping for unanimous consent on this.

As for when the committee can begin its work, as soon as the respective parties have put forward names for the members they wish to see on the committee, the committee can begin the exciting and important work of reaching out to Canadians and hearing their ideas about what electoral reform the House could introduce.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will not be splitting my time. There is so much wrong with what is going on today that I will need the full 20 minutes.

First, will there be unanimous consent? Absolutely not. There was not unanimous consultation. The minister, who makes a fine line about the need to work together, did not work together with us. She made a deal unilaterally with the New Democratic Party. Maybe it was not unilateral; I do not know. Perhaps the Bloc and NDP were in on it. I have no idea, because the Conservative Party was not involved. So, it is “Let us all work together on a deal that we worked out behind their back”. In all honesty, that kind of disrespect is not the way to begin a discussion.

As well, this motion, as it was originally worded and as it is changed, is fundamentally flawed. I do not blame my colleague from the New Democratic Party for that. I blame the government for that, and I will explain what is wrong with the motion as I go through my comments.

The first thing to say here is that the mandate of the committee is in practice identical to what it was under the original government Motion No. 5. Its timeline is varied only slightly, and it is one of three consultation processes—a very important fact.

There are three consultation processes. One is this committee. The second one is town hall meetings, which are to take place in some unspecified way, produce results that will be collated in some unspecified way, and dealt with by the government in some unspecified way. Finally, there will be a third consultation process, not yet announced by the minister, although she announced that she would be announcing it way back in the middle of last month. The government will then take all this information and will do with it as it sees fit. The minister has not moved an inch from her position that once this committee is finished acting, the cabinet will exercise its monopoly over making a decision.

All right, the purpose of this committee was and is to put in place a part of the Liberal election promise, which I will quote, although I scarcely need to as the Prime Minister quotes it every single day in the House of Commons. The election promise stated, “We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system”. It goes on to state:

We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform.

The problem with this promise is that it was a promise that the Prime Minister was not entitled to make. No one summarizes these things better than Rex Murphy. He said the following:

[The Prime Minster's] dramatic declaration before the election that it would be the last under first past the post was not a pledge he was then or now entitled to make.... But changing how Canadians vote is not within the competence of a candidate or a prime minister.

Rex Murphy goes on to say:

The power of the citizens' vote is the DNA of our democracy. It is not then in the Liberals' power...to alter the mechanism, play any parliamentary games to choose a [new] system without consulting the voters in a referendum with clear language on what they, the voters, prefer. No referendum, no change.

Because this is not a legislative committee—we are not dealing with a piece of legislation—the real purpose of this committee is to fritter away time. I came to the conclusion in mid-May, following the minister's announcement, that its sole purpose was to fritter away time so as to preclude other options. Let me read what I wrote in an op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen on May 18. I said:

Naturally, the structure of the committee was widely panned. But the real problem has nothing to do with whether or not [the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands] gets a vote on committee.

By now it is clear that the purpose of the committee is not to find conclusions, but rather, to run out the clock. The longer the Liberals delay, the narrower the range of options for electoral reform.

First to vanish will be the ability to move to any system that involves riding redistribution. This will remove from the table the electoral systems that were proposed to voters in Prince Edward Island in 2005, in British Columbia in 2005, and in Ontario in 2007. Only the single-member, preferential ballot system, which [the Prime Minister] has indicated to be his favourite all along, will be left as an alternative to the status quo.

Then, with a bit more time, the option of holding a referendum on [the Prime Minister's] preferred option will also disappear.

Nothing that I said on May 18 is changed by the current proposal. I am very much regretful that my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party did not see that he is falling into this Liberal trap.

If we go back to the minister's May 10 press conference, we see she is very explicit. Whatever the recommendations are from this committee, they will be sent to cabinet and cabinet will decide. I did not write it down, but I believe the direct quote is that the cabinet will decide. Therefore, the decision will be made not by this committee, not by Canadians at town hall meetings, not by this mystery process that the minister has not announced yet, and not by any combination of things. It will be made by Liberals in a room where only Liberals are present and where no minutes of those meetings are available. They will be made available in the year 2046, after the 30-year cabinet secrecy rule falls away. Therefore, a secret group, a non-inclusive group, will be making a decision, and of course it will be in that group's partisan interest. It will have total discretion in this regard.

Since last December, I have been maintaining that the fix is in. Nothing here changes that. Nothing takes away from the ability of the Liberal government to create a version of what occurred in Australia in 1918. It is a wonderful country. I used to live there.

I want to read this to the House. It is from a paper I wrote in 2005, in which I warned of the dangers of pursuing this kind of legislated change or parliamentary-based change to an electoral system without having a referendum as a safeguard.

Here is what I wrote:

Australia provides the best example of how this can happen. Here is how the Australian Electoral Commission describes that country’s shift from FPTP to AV for elections to its lower House:

“AV” is the preferential system that the Prime Minister prefers.

I will now quote directly from the Australian Electoral Commission.

It states:

The Commonwealth Electoral Act was comprehensively rewritten in 1918...and the new Act among other things introduced alternative (“preferential”) voting for the House of Representatives;

That is Australia's equivalent to the House of Commons.

It continues:

...this was in response to the rise of the Country Party in the aftermath of the First World War, and the consequent prospect of loss of seats to Labor through a split in the non-Labor vote.

I will return to my paper, which states:

In short, a governing party with a majority mandate realized that a clearly-defined change to the electoral system would suit its own partisan interests, and therefore it enacted that change.

I will now depart from my text and add that it won the Liberals the next election.

Returning to my text, it states:

Australia repeated this process when it introduced STV to its Senate in 1948. This time, it was Labor that was in power but facing imminent defeat. Recognizing that the existing electoral system would exaggerate its decline in popular support, and not believing that it could win the coming election, the Labor government enacted changes to the electoral system that it concluded would help to “consolidate its parliamentary power base in the Senate”.

In the last part of my quote, I am quoting from a paper on how Australia wound up with its current electoral system in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The argument being presented as to why this is okay in the absence of a safeguard like a referendum, which was initiated by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley and has now been accepted by the government, at least for the purpose of this committee, is that we have legitimacy if we have the support of at least one other party. Those are words that I think my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley will live to regret.

That one other party, in the end, I think is unlikely to be his party. I predict that it will be the Green Party, that the Liberals will cut a deal with the Green Party member. That still will not give them a majority of votes on this committee, but who cares who has a majority of votes in this committee? Its purpose is just to rag the puck for six months before the decision gets made by cabinet. That is what will happen. To say it is a travesty of democracy is an understatement. Let me make the point that the support of one other party is insufficient to legitimize a profound change, an epoch-making change, a de facto constitutional change to the way a country operates.

In 2008 we had an election that the Conservatives won. The Liberal Party, New Democrats, and the Bloc Québécois got together to form a coalition government, and we got to watch how the people of Canada reacted to that. In the end they backed off—and they could have defeated the government—because of the massive public opposition to changing our government without an election, a de facto constitutional change from the Westminster system to the kind of system we see in some countries that have proportional representation, like Israel, for example, where governments change regularly without there being an intervening election.

Canadians did not want that kind of change. I am not sure how we could have a referendum on that kind of change, but maybe if we had done that, had a referendum, people would have said it was legitimate, but that never happened. They simply tried to impose it on Canadians, and Canadians did not want it, and there was the support not of one other party but of two other parties.

The fact is that having the support of some of the parties, even having support of all of the parties is insufficient. There have been cases where everybody, all the parties, agree to something and it is still voted down in a referendum, or at least where no party is in opposition and it still gets voted down in a referendum, indicating that the people are not on side.

The only answers we ever hear from the government on this issue is that the people are wrong, the people are too stupid, the people are too ill-informed, the right people are not turning out at elections, and referendums are not inclusive enough. This has been the minister's answer all along: referendums are not inclusive. Apparently she just chooses to ignore, for example, the referendum in 1995 in which a high turnout, a 92% turnout, is what saved this country. The reason this country still exists is because of a high turnout in a referendum, but she does not care about that. She cares about the inclusiveness of a decision being made in a cabinet room where only Liberals are present and only Liberal partisan interests will be considered. That is what she cares about.

Returning to the issues. Given that this issue is effectively all about how to rig the next election so Liberals can win, I want to explain exactly how this will work—

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

What about the Fair Elections Act? Did the member ever hear of that?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

An hon. member

It was the highest voter turnout.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I just want to remind both sides that I am getting on in years and my hearing is not what it used to be, so the distraction is making it hard for the Speaker to hear the hon. member and his speech. If you do not mind, whisper among yourselves if you can, and do not scream across the hall.

The hon. member.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, preferential ballot and single member districts is the system that the Prime Minister has preferred from before the last election. He has, I think I can accurately say, dissed every other system. He condemned MMP as being too confrontational. He has condemned first past the post repeatedly. I am not sure, though I have not looked to see, if he has dissed STV in the same way. Anyway, he has talked about the wonders of single member preferential balloting, and well he should.

Éric Grenier, a young pollster in this country who publishes some very interesting stuff, produced a report indicating that in the last election the ranked ballot system would have given the Liberals 224 seats. To be clear, the complaint about the current system is that with 39% of the vote, the Liberals had 54% of the seats. Under a ranked ballot, in a similar number of districts, if we assumed that the second preferences of voters, as stated by another pollster, Nik Nanos, are accurate, the Liberals would have translated 39% of the vote into 73% of the seats.

However, let me be clear about this. That is not the reason that the Liberals want this. They want this because they anticipate, and well they might given the way they are managing the economy, that they will not win 39% of the vote in the next election. They anticipate that they will win less. The question is how they translate 35% of the vote into a majority of seats. It would be done by a means of preferential ballot. It only works for the Liberals because they are the party at the centre and they attract second preferences from other parties. They would design a system so that with 35% of the vote, it could still win a majority. If this system goes in and they get 35% of the vote, they will win a majority. Better yet, because the votes are not being counted as percentages anymore, that will all be hidden.

Seeing that we are giving ideas to the Liberals, who claim they have no opinions of their own on this subject—it is disingenuous, but they claim it—let me suggest a further thought. Let me point to the Manning conference a couple of months ago. There are different kinds of preferential systems. There is what is known as optional preferential. That is where voters can mark as many numbers as they want on the ballot. If there are six candidates running for, say Speaker of the House of Commons, to use a preferential system that exists and that I in fact designed, voters can rank one, two, three, and then just stop. That ballot is alive as long as one of the preferences is still on the ballot.

Another system is called mandatory preferential. This one is even better from the Liberal point of view. This one says that if voters do not mark off every single choice, the ballot is considered what is called informal or invalid. If we have that system, anyone who fails to fill out every choice, even the ones they do not like, has their first preference tossed in the garbage.

This is thanks to Nik Nanos, another pollster, who on election day asked voters who their first, second, third, and fourth choices were, or if they had no second choice. He found that 16% of Liberals had no second choice; 10% of New Democrats had no second choice; 13% of Greens had no second choice; for the Bloc, 15% had no second choice; and 46% of Conservatives had no second choice.

Now, we can engage in a massive advertising campaign trying to explain that people have to vote for everyone. However, if even 10% of those people did not get the message and we spread that 10% across the parties, the effect would be that many Conservative candidates who win a majority of first preferences with more than half the vote will still lose. That is a very realistic scenario, and I do not think it is unrealistic to assume that only 10% would fail to get the memo.

If the Liberals are looking for ways to steal the next election, optional preferential does the trick. If they are looking for ways to steal every election, then I would seriously recommend to them the mandatory preferential that I just described.

Turning to a referendum, what is the reason for having a referendum? I want to make this quite clear, and one can check my writings on this subject to see that I have not been a defender of first past the post. I have been a defender of democracy, of a referendum for deciding this issue.

Let me now read from a paper that I wrote in 2001 on this subject. I said, in advocating a referendum, “just to be on the safe side, the existing first-past-the-post system [should] be included as one of the alternatives which voters could select on a preferential ballot”. I was actually saying that we should have a preferential referendum in which one chooses between all of the different options.

This would ensure that even if the designers of the system had done their job poorly and selected a range of entirely unacceptable options, the worst that would happen would be that Canadians would return to the status quo.

This is not the worst option available under this system. The worst option is that the governing party steals the next election, just as the Australian government did in 1918. That was an outrage. It did not destroy Australia as a country, but it reduced its stature as a democracy. That is the danger that we are facing here.

Do I think that the Liberals are going to try to steal every future election, as one reporter asked me? I think they just care about the next election, frankly, but they are trying to steal the next election.

Anyone who thinks that it is constitutional to design a system that would have the exclusive purpose, the primary purpose, or even a partial purpose, of disenfranchising Canadians, because that is the point—it is not about which party will benefit—is very naive. It is about which voters will be effectively disenfranchised through the choice of a system which has predictable results. Anyone who thinks we can do that and not violate section 3 of the charter, the part of the charter that says we all have the right to elect members of Parliament, is very naive indeed.

I hope that the government has thought through the constitutional implications of the road it has been going down since it adopted this idea a year ago next week in its election platform. The government is moving to very dangerous, very unconstitutional, very undemocratic ground, and it will discover that the Canadian people will not stand for it. It will not matter whether it will have the support of one other party and it is accomplished.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I am pleased to ask him a question on referendums, since that is the focus of the discussion he is trying to have here on electoral reform.

Under the Referendum Act, the legislation that allows the Government of Canada to hold referendums, the government can hold a referendum to make a change to the Constitution of Canada.

Does the hon. member believe that a referendum on the electoral system would meet the requirements of the Referendum Act, which clearly specifies that referendum questions have to relate to the Constitution of Canada? Does the hon. member think that the government even has the authority to hold a referendum to change the electoral system?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, under the current wording of the Referendum Act, the government would not be able to hold a referendum on this question. In other words, it would be appropriate for the government to update the Referendum Act, which needs updating for other reasons too. For example, there is no financial constraints on how much can be spent on either side in a referendum. It would have to be changed. I have been recommending that for some length of time, so I am glad my colleague raised that point. The Referendum Act needs to be updated. According to the Chief Electoral Officer, we need to have six months in order to ramp up for an actual referendum. Both of these things should be on the government's agenda right now.

The minister left, and it is a shame, because I wanted to ask her a question, but perhaps—

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member has been here long enough, and he knows that we do not refer to whether members are present or not.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely forgot that because I was so incensed. I take the Speaker's point that I was quite wrong to make that point.

Let me make this point. There is some sort of vague language in the new mandate of the committee, which sort of implies but does not imply that it could say a referendum is one way of doing it, or it could say a referendum is not on the plate because Canadians do not want it. I would have liked to ask the minister that question.

If the government is implying that referendums are potentially a way of dealing with this, which the minister has said in the past, then it needs to update the Referendum Act, or else it reveals that what the minister has been saying has been disingenuous from the start.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have to preface my comments by saying that after 18 years in public service as a mayor and as a regional councillor, I have always taken full responsibility for, and I have an appreciation for, listening, learning, and reacting accordingly to the residents I represent. That is our job. To make decisions based on a referendum does not allow us to do our job. It is imperative that we stand up, that we listen, that we learn, and we act accordingly.

We can govern by referendum with any decision we attempt to make, but does the member not think that instead of governing by referendum, it would be more appropriate, simply put, to do our job, to listen to the people we represent, and communicate their concerns and thoughts on any issue, including this one, to the House and set policy for the future of this great nation of ours?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral ReformBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canada held a referendum in 1898 on prohibition. We held one in 1942 on conscription. We held one in 1992 on the Charlottetown accord. I am suggesting that we hold one in 2016 or 2017 on electoral reform. If the member thinks that four referendums over the course of more than a century is too much, then he and I just disagree.

I will add that 73% of Canadians, according to a poll taken a couple of weeks ago, also disagree with him. They believe that this question should go to a referendum.

To finish this thought, Canadians currently believe that there are certain issues that are of a de facto constitutional nature, that they change the way our country operates and affect our fundamental rights, such as the right to vote. It is clear, as a consequence of the Charlottetown accord vote, and the referendums that have occurred in Quebec on separation from Canada, that there has developed a culture in Canada, a widespread belief—it is part of our political culture now to believe this—that on constitutional or de facto constitutional issues, a referendum is the only way of conferring legitimacy upon the changes that are made.

Therefore, I would respectfully disagree with my hon. colleague.