PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 26, 1998

• 1109

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Our main business today is consideration of the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 36th election, pursuant to the Canada Elections Act, R.S.C., c. E-2, subsection 195(1), and in accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), examination of the Canadian electoral system.

That's our principal item. In a moment I'll greet our guests, but we could do a couple of things of a routine nature.

First of all, you'll notice that under other business there's been a change in the chair of our Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. Would someone care to move the motion that is before us?

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): So moved.

The Chairman: It is that Carolyn Parrish be appointed chair of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business to replace Yvon Charbonneau.

Those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

• 1110

The Chairman: Today is our first meeting on the Canada Elections Act. You will notice that our next meeting is when we come back after the break, on March 10, when we will continue with other witnesses from the House of Commons. The next meeting is on our schedule as tentative, but I assume we're going to have it on the Wednesday evening.

Colleagues, this is very important. I know it's difficult for some of our members to get there in the evening, but it is proposed that we have our round table discussion on electoral law that evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Our witnesses at that round table will be the representatives of the parliamentary political parties, so I hope you all have the evening of March 11 very carefully marked.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): For the meeting of March 11?

The Chairman: Yes, March 11.

[English]

We will consult with the parties from which we have yet to hear.

Keeping to that schedule for the first week back, at our regular meeting time on March 12, I would suggest we meet with Peter Milliken, the member for Kingston and the Islands. At the moment he is the only survivor in the House of Commons of the special committee on electoral reform, the Lortie commission. It produced the report of the royal commission on electoral reform and party financing. It was established in 1992 and it met through until April 1993. He is the only member who has personal experience with that committee and its work, so my suggestion is that on March 12, at our regular time slot of 11 a.m., the committee meet with Peter Milliken.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Have you decided on the time? March 11 may perhaps be difficult for me.

The Chairman: Yes, between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Would 7:30 p.m. be possible?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.): So that we can put the children to bed.

[English]

The Chairman: As you know, we asked members of Parliament for their views on electoral law in order to bring their personal experience to bear on our inquiry. Today we have Dick Proctor, MP for Palliser, George Proud, MP for Hillsborough, Lorne Nystrom, MP for Qu'Appelle, and Suzanne Tremblay, députée pour Rimouski—Mitis.

We welcome you all here. We've been thinking in terms of presentations of two or three minutes each, followed by a question and answer session.

It would be simpler for me if we could begin with Dick Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This isn't my personal experience from the most recent campaign. I'm here on behalf of a constituent of mine who felt that she was defamed as a result of political advertising. I want to take you through what happened as quickly as I can.

It all started in December 1996 when Lori Foster of Regina was invited to appear on the year-end CBC television program with Prime Minister Chrétien. She signed a waiver at that time that her image might be used in subsequent news broadcasts.

In May, during the election campaign of 1997, Ms. Foster was astonished to discover that the Reform Party had included a likeness of her in one of its television ads. The ad also included a voiced-over segment that paraphrased her question to the Prime Minister from the previous December.

She complained to the party in question, asked by what authority they had used her likeness in a political advertisement, and demanded that the ad be pulled. She was told by an advertising agency, I think in London, Ontario—it matters not; it was the agency she had been directed to by the party—that first, they had tried to seek her permission but had been unable to reach her. This apparently was not true. Second, she was told the ad was running only in western Canada. This also was untrue because she had friends and acquaintances calling her from various parts of the country saying they'd just seen her picture on television. Third and finally, she was told by the ad agency for the Reform Party that the ad was running for only three days and would be pulled on E minus six. In fact the ad ran until the very end—E minus two.

• 1115

Not surprisingly, Ms. Foster was extremely upset by both the invasion of her privacy and the duplicity involved. In a written communication with me she said:

By using my likeness and identifying me by name and city, the implication was that I was a supporter of the Reform Party. I do not want what happened to me to happen to others.

She subsequently contacted Elections Canada and was told that Elections Canada has no authority over the content of ads used by any of the political parties. If this is factual—and I assume it is—then Ms. Foster believes, and I wholeheartedly agree, that the Elections Act should be amended to prevent this abuse from occurring again. To that end, I recommend to this committee that we seek a change in the Elections Act to the effect that in future political parties shall refrain from using the name or likeness of any individual in their advertising or promotion without having first obtained the written consent of that individual.

That is my submission to you this morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your attention.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Lorne Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to raise an issue that is fairly new in Parliament but very old in terms of the world, and that's the idea of proportional representation. I have submitted a private member's bill to study the issue and I want to encourage your committee to take a look at it this morning, Mr. Chair.

The last time it was looked at was in a bill by Jean-Luc Pepin back in 1979. Then we had the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee during the constitutional days that recommended changing the existing Senate and electing a Senate totally by PR. All three parties of the House at the time agreed that was the way to go. So that was a little bit of history in terms of proportional representation.

I suggest this for four basic reasons. One is that Canadian voters feel a great deal of alienation from politicians and the political system. It's pervasive and it's all across the country. One reason is that federal elections results are not reflected in terms of the composition of the House. There are tremendous distortions. I can give you figures from the Library of Parliament going back to 1867. You'll find, Mr. Chair, that in the 80 years since 1917 we've only had two elections where a majority of the Canadian people voted for one political party. It was Mackenzie King in 1940 and John Diefenbaker in 1958. Brian Mulroney came very close in 1984 with 49.7% of the vote.

In the 80 years since 1917 there were only two elections where a party received the majority of votes in the country. So the composition of the House doesn't reflect the vote of the people across the country. That works for and against all political parties. It's not a partisan thing. If we had a semblance of PR it would work against the NDP federally in Saskatchewan most of the time. We had 31% of the vote last time and we have five MPs. If we had straight PR we'd probably have four MPs.

Look at the distortions in this House. We have a majority government with 38% of the vote. The NDP and the Bloc each have 11% of the vote, but we have 21 members and the Bloc has 44 members. Reform and the Tories had roughly 19% of the votes, but there are 20 Tories and 60 Reform members. Reform are tremendously unrepresented in Ontario. They got 900,000 votes in Ontario and not a single Reform MP.

I think it leads to divisiveness in the country as well. I think it would help national unity if we had a semblance of PR. It would force three or four of the parties to be national parties. You'd have Liberals in western Canada, where Liberals historically are under-represented. You'd have New Democrats in Quebec. You'd have Reformers in Ontario. You'd have Reformers in the Atlantic provinces and the like. So those are some of the reasons we should look at it as a system.

Finally, there are many different forms of PR. I'm not advocating any particular form at this time. I would oppose a pure PR system as in Israel, where every single member is elected from lists. My private member's bill just says we should take a look at various forms of PR that we can mix into our present system, and that the PR system should be a totally transparent and democratic system, so parties don't sit in back rooms and draw up a list, as they do in some countries.

• 1120

The German system is the one I would recommend as the model we look at, where it's half our system—first past the posts—and half by PR, but the House reflects the composition of the vote. I think that's the way we should go.

The concluding point, Mr. Chair, is that the whole world is moving in this direction. Even the mother Parliament in Britain is bringing in a measure of PR in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament; New Zealand switched to PR a few years ago; Australia brought PR into their Senate; and the Russians have PR. So I would recommend this to the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you, Lorne.

Suzanne Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Chairman, the report submitted to you was the result of very wide-ranging consultations with people involved in the election campaign in my riding, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois of course.

Views were expressed about a number of the recommendations by the Chief Electoral Officer, and I would like to draw your attention to a few of them, particularly as regards the review of electoral boundaries. As regards the others, you can read them for yourself.

I don't think that has at all the same meaning in urban areas as in ours. For example, in my former riding of Rimouski— Témiscouata, I had 38 municipalities. In the riding I inherited, I have 37 municipalities. I lost 20 in Témiscouata, but I inherited 19 in Mitis. There is really very little time for the organizations to set up.

I think therefore that if electoral boundaries were to be reviewed too often, that would do a great deal of harm to regions such as ours, where you're talking about very large geographical areas with quite low population density. Constituency boundaries are being increasingly extended in order to produce an average number of voters. We want to know whether we should be looking again at this average and seeking rather to determine a rural average and an urban average. Seventy-five thousand voters in the Gaspé is not the same thing as 75,000 voter in the centre of Montreal. I therefore wonder whether it might be appropriate to establish different averages and not review electoral boundaries too often, because that could cause a problem.

I believe we should also reconsider how the official agent is treated. He or she plays a very important role. I would remind you that when the election campaign began we trained those agents, gave them all the material and information they needed, so that finally in mid-July they could be sent new software and asked to submit their report using a new format and another document.

The election campaign had been over for a month and a half, and they were sent a new document and asked to do things differently.

We consider that those people have a very important responsibility. Therefore, they should be better treated by Elections Canada and be given at the very beginning what they need to draw up their election return.

We would like to make a number of recommendations which go to the very heart of our democratic system. The more that is done, the less the public can input the electoral process because so many mechanisms are established to try and manipulate public opinion.

There are far too many polls. We want there to be a ban on polls one week before voting day and 72 hours after, so as to stop any analyst, journalist, commentator or editorialist from commenting on any poll. As a result, voters would be able to free their minds from all this propaganda with which they are being bombarded.

We also asked that candidates and parties have the same advertising rights as corporations, and that constituted groups not have the right to advertise during elections, and that advertising be allowed only by parties and individuals.

The Chairman: Thank you, Suzanne.

• 1125

[English]

George Proud.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for inviting me.

When I wrote out my submission and sent it in, I didn't realize I'd be called to come before you. As you know, I've already submitted that written submission, and I'd like to concentrate on the recommendations I made.

For the last federal election, the number of seats in the House of Commons rose by six. In fact the number of seats has risen considerably since the creation of Confederation. If this trend continues, Canadians will have more members of Parliament than I believe is necessary.

If you compare us to other countries, the United Kingdom has close to 700 members, the United States has 400 members of Congress for approximately 250 million people, and we have 301 members for about 30 million. I ask the question, do we need to have more people? Do we need to continue to do this?

In the last Parliament a private member's bill was introduced to cap the seats. If we capped the number of seats in the House to the current number and provide each one of those members of Parliament with sufficient resources to properly serve their constituents, we would have a very effective Parliament.

Of course that raises another question. The regional distribution of population will not stay constant, and we must have provisions for redistribution. Each province should be guaranteed a minimum number of seats. Perhaps this could be set in some way by dealing with the distribution of the seats in the last Parliament.

As well, each province should be guaranteed at least as many seats as it has senators. For example, New Brunswick has 10 seats and it also has 10 senators. There are similar situations throughout the country. However, if the Senate is reformed—and it likely will be—this provision will need to be modified.

The last recommendation I want to make is on the terms. The timing of federal elections currently, as we know, is at the call of the Prime Minister. Even though the mandate is five years, very often we go before that, and there are always going to be times we'll have to go before that. If a government is defeated on a non-confidence motion, that's going to happen; that's for sure.

But this can be changed. In the United Kingdom, for instance, they go the five-year term. I believe we should go the five-year term or a fixed term, with a variation probably of six months.

That is my brief submission to you, Mr. Chairman and committee. I believe these are things that should be seriously looked at.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, George.

Thank you all, by the way, for your interest in this process.

For your information and for the record, we of course have copies of the briefs you presented, and they are available here today at the meeting. Also for your information, at each of our meetings there's a representative of the Chief Electoral Officer. We've invited him to be here in order that he can follow these proceedings.

I have Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral and then Chuck Strahl.

[Translation]

Madeleine.

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Proctor, I agree with your recommendations, but as you may know, there have been cases in Quebec of photographers and members of the press being prosecuted for having used a photograph of an individual without his or her authorization. There is, of course, the difference with our Civil Code.

I believe that this provision should be included in the Elections Act so as to protect privacy. We already have to deal with all sorts of associations organized voluntarily, and it seems to me that individuals should not have to be faced with that kind of situation. I therefore consider it to be a good suggestion.

[English]

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you very much. I did not know that in the province of Quebec....

I know in my own election campaign, and I'm sure in others, when we were using photographs in literature, it was recommended to us that we get waivers from people whose pictures we were using in the ads, saying it was with their permission. It seems to me it would not be that insurmountably difficult for a political party to do exactly the same thing before they run television ads. Basically that's what Ms. Foster is saying.

I wonder, Mr. Chair, if I could just take this opportunity to say I misspoke myself in my presentation. I did not intend to mislead anybody. I said that Ms. Foster had signed a release at the time of the TV interview, or question to the Prime Minister. She in fact did not sign a release, but it was understood that they might use the clip in various newscasts or rebroadcasts, which they did. She understood that, but technically she didn't sign a release.

• 1130

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madeleine.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Ça va.

The Chairman: Okay. Next are Chuck Strahl, Carolyn Parrish, and Mac Harb.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you. I'm not sure how you want to do this, Mr. Chairman. Do you want to do it by person or will we just open it up?

The Chairman: Yes, please, open it up.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a couple of questions. One is for Mr. Proctor.

I understand the problem. I knew nothing about it until I saw your letter, but I certainly remember the ad. My concern about your proposal is how or when do you restrict the ability of anyone to replay a news broadcast.

I can think of another case, when Mr. Chrétien had his incident during the flag day ceremonies and wrestled with the protester. If I wanted to say I think flag day is a bad thing and a waste of time...in fact, the last time we had a real incident here...and I just replay the CBC or whatever the newscast is that shows an incident that perhaps shows a politician in a bad light...and it could be any of us, because we're all capable of that.

Suppose at a political rally someone stands up at a mike and says he thinks Mr. Manning is the devil incarnate and somebody from another political party says he's going to use the ad.

Can you restrict it when it's part of a news broadcast? This wasn't just Ms. Foster's unfortunate problem. It wasn't just that she was on the news; it became a news story long before the Reform Party ever used it. It was rebroadcast, as you mentioned, for weeks. So when does a news story become public domain and when does a news story become the property of the person involved in the story? I really don't know how you restrict that, and I'm interested in knowing.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Perhaps for something like that a waiver should be signed. The political parties would then have a name and an address, and if they wanted to use the image on television or whatever, they would approach the individual in advance. You're looking at it from a political point of view, but what about, in this case, Ms. Foster's individual rights? She feels very aggravated about this.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm just trying to figure out how this would work. What about somebody running for Parliament, not being successful, and three years later having his or her picture used? Anybody who has been in the newscasts...it becomes part of the public domain, and I'm not sure how you can restrict it.

I sympathize with Ms. Foster, but I'm not sure how you can do it. That story becomes part of the public domain. I'm not sure how you can do that. Once it's there, how can you say we'll pretend it didn't happen? It had been shown a thousand times before the Reform Party picked it up.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I realize that. I'm bringing it to you because it's a concern for this individual and I identify with that—

The Chairman: May I go to John Solomon, colleagues, specifically to this?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Chuck, what we're talking about here is a politically partisan act. We're not talking about rebroadcasting a news report. My sense is that this person had her rights infringed upon: she was adopted by a political party in a political ad during a partisan campaign. I think, Chuck, that's the difference. Rebroadcasting a statement is totally different from—

The Chairman: Okay, John, I can put you on the list.

George Proud.

Mr. George Proud: I want to follow up on what Chuck was saying. We all holler and talk about the right to free speech. Once you get into free speech...you're making a statement in public, whether it's the lady you're talking about or whomever, and as far as I'm concerned that's part of the public process. I understand some other political party took it and used it. As for the argument about its being rebroadcast or whatever the case may be, there's not much you can do about it because you were willing at that particular time to get into the debate. It's like everything else. Once you buy the field you buy the stones.

• 1135

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish, Mac Harb, Stéphane Bergeron.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I love the way they talk in P.E.I.

First of all, I'd like the chairman to note that—and I brought this up before this meeting on electoral law, and I think it was brought up with this group here—I'd like to see that riding boundary bill we did at the beginning of the last term brought back, because I think it addresses many of George's concerns.

I'd like to pursue with George that I like the idea of limits. I'd like to keep the House at 301. I don't want to see it go any further. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind seeing it reduced.

What comes into that are large rural ridings and the expense of setting up a couple of offices. What also comes up is expenses during elections.

I'm wondering, George, whether you could briefly address that. I'd like to see the limits. I'd like to address the rural concerns. I'd like to address the concerns I had when I had 362,000 people.

I think you're going to get a more American system of bigger populations in each riding. You're going to have to have a bigger office budget, and you're going to have to have a bigger electoral budget.

I happen to think it'll save money in the long run, but do you have any comments on that?

Mr. George Proud: For those areas you would have to provide to the individual members of Parliament the necessary funds, the necessary staff, and the ability to do it. I think it can be done just as efficiently and just as well by that individual, although the member will be representing more people, but the member is certainly going to have to have the resources and the resources will have to be made available before anything like it can take place. You can't do it on what you have now. That's for sure.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay.

We'd have to separate good service from politicking. With fax machines, phones, and everything else, large rural areas can have access to the MP just as easily as compact city ones. So we're going to have to separate those two ideas: election expenses and riding expenses.

Mr. George Proud: That's right. Yes.

The Chairman: Mac Harb, Stéphane Bergeron, and then John Solomon.

Mr. Mac Harb: We are a country of immigrants and migrants at the same time, perhaps more than any other western country in the world.

Mr. Proud, how would you compensate for the shift in population from one province to the next? For example, under the Constitution, even if there are eight people left in P.E.I., we'll have to nominate four people to the Senate and four people to the House of Commons.

It's the same thing in other situations. Say there's migration to the province of Quebec from Atlantic Canada or western Canada. You have a population in Quebec such that, for example, 35% of the people now live in Quebec.

How do you compensate for the shift in migration?

Mr. George Proud: You have to guarantee a minimum number of seats for the province that's losing the population. They have to have a minimum. The Americans have one, at the very least one. That's so every state will have one Congressperson. We would have to guarantee a minimum number of seats for the province that's losing the population.

I don't think you're going to see it happen very drastically. You're going to see populations grow in areas, I believe, from immigration rather than decrease because of a great out-migration. You'll see a certain amount of it. It always has happened in Atlantic Canada. It's been a part of our lifestyle. Since the beginning of Canada we've migrated west or south, whatever the case may be, and that's going to continue.

To overcome that you have to guarantee the province a minimum number of seats.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): My question is for Mr. Nystrom.

Many people have spoken about the probably undeniable benefits of proportional representation. The German model is often cited as ideal in certain respects and an argument for changing our present first-past-the-post system and adding to it a proportional dimension.

I would like to ask you the following question. In your view, with a joint system combining both the first-past-the-post component and proportionality, is there not a danger of creating two types of members of Parliament, with on the one hand members with ridings who have to deal with the everyday problems of their constituents, and on the other hand members without a fixed constituency and therefore not required to deal with the problems constituents may have with employment insurance or the Department of Revenue?

• 1140

Should this question not be dealt with differently? Should those members not be treated differently in terms of salary, number of employees and office facilities outside the House of Commons? What is your view on that? In theory, it is certainly a very interesting suggestion, but I wonder whether we may be creating two types of members.

[English]

The Chairman: Lorne Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: That was a very good question. I'd like to refer you to a paper I've done on the system here, which addresses some of those issues.

Germany is probably the closest model to what I think might be appropriate for our country. They are a federal state and we're a federal state. There are not two classes of MPs. They both have the responsibility to do the case work and the responsibility to their constituents. Their constituents are in a certain region.

For example, let's suppose we had PR and it was half done by the first-past-the-post system, which we have now, and half done by PR. In Saskatchewan, where we have seven seats, there might be seven done by PR and seven done by the first-past-the-post system. Saskatchewan would be treated as an electoral district and you'd have seven elected by PR in the province of Saskatchewan.

If John Solomon were one of those MPs, he'd still be responsible for looking after unemployment insurance cases and immigration cases, just as he is now as a member elected through the single member riding system. The salaries would be the same and the benefits would be the same. You would treat them the same. That's what happens in most of the countries around the world that have PR.

Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying here is that we may have to have a unique Canadian system, but the whole world is moving towards PR because under PR there is no such thing as a wasted vote. Every vote counts and it's reflected in the House of Commons. It counts not just on election night, but it also counts right through the four-year or five-year term, because the composition of the House reflects that vote. It's the most democratic system you can possibly devise.

I don't pretend to have all the answers in terms of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. That's why I think we need a parliamentary study on whether or not we should go that route. If we go that route, what are the two or three models most appropriate to the country?

The Chairman: Let's have John Solomon and then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. John Solomon: I have a question to put to George Proud and Lorne Nystrom.

Mr. Proud, you recommend not a fixed date but a regular date for elections. How would you see the regular dates in the context of a minority government or a government being defeated on a vote? How would that work in your recommendation?

Mr. George Proud: As I said in my submission, one of the problems you would run into is in a minority government. A government could be defeated on a non-confidence vote then. You would have to have an election. You would have to have an election in most cases if the government was defeated. If the Governor General asked the opposition to form the government, perhaps they'd decide they'd rather go to an election.

Those are things you're going to run into. Hopefully, you could get into a situation where there wouldn't be as many confidence votes. It would be up to the party that defeated the government whether they should go to the polls or whether they should carry on if they were asked to form a government. Those are a whole lot of details you would have to go into once they decided they'd go to these six terms.

Mr. John Solomon: My second set of questions was for Lorne Nystrom. First of all, how would the Senate fit into the PR system, if at all, and therefore what changes would there be incorporated, if any?

Secondly, with respect to the transition period, Lorne, could you describe how a transition might occur from first-past-the-post to a particular PR system—the timing and how it might work?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: First of all, there are many different forms of PR. Senate reform has to take place. You can abolish it; you can elect it; you can have a triple-E Senate or whatever.

What the Australians did was to abolish their appointed Senate and they now have a Senate elected totally by PR. That's an option we can have in this country. We could leave the House of Commons as it is and we could have a Senate elected totally by proportional representation.

That's what the three parties recommended in 1992, supported unanimously by the then governing Conservatives, the Liberal Party, and the New Democratic Party. That went to the premiers and the premiers turned it down. So this is one option; that is something we could do.

We could keep a bicameral system by having an elected Senate, or we could have a unicameral system; we could just have a House of Commons. That's another issue. That's a big debate in the country, but that's one option of doing it.

• 1145

In terms of the transition, if we went to PR and the Senate only, then the transition would be fairly clear cut. We'd just elect the Senate and we'd do it by PR.

If we did it in the House of Commons, we can look at a model such as New Zealand where they did it about five or six years ago.

Mr. Strahl knows a fair amount about the New Zealand system, and the transition wasn't that difficult to handle. Again, that's why we need a parliamentary study to look at the issue.

The Chairman: Let's have Marlene Catterall, then John Herron. Afterwards, I'm going to go to the second round, and I have two names.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): My first question is to Lorne.

The problem I always have with proportional representation is that I'm quite committed to the direct link between the electorate and their elected representatives. In looking at a proportional system or a combined proportional system, what would be the relative importance of that direct link between the member and the electorate, versus the direct link between the member and the political party?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: In terms of the direct link, if we go the German way, then half the seats are as is—single-member ridings—and the other half are by PR.

There are a number of ways that establish the direct link. You could use a single transferable ballot, where you take a lot of the power away from the political parties, where you could vote directly for different parties on the same ballot.

In Germany, for example, about 15% of the people split their ticket. They might think Chuck Strahl is an excellent guy, but they like the federal Liberal Party, and they can vote that way.

So you have that direct link with the constituents, Marlene, by having a single transferable ballot. That's one way of doing it.

Also, the selection of people on the PR side has to be totally and absolutely democratic and transparent.

I do not like the idea of political parties sitting down in the back rooms and saying that these seven are on the list and those aren't. You would have to have a very open selection process, and again, we can do that. We're becoming more open and more transparent on how we select candidates now. So I think those things can be accomplished.

The problem now is that we have minorities governing majorities. It just happens to be the Liberal Party now, but if you look at the provinces, it depends who's in power. That's not a very democratic way to go, and we could have a much more responsible, accountable, democratic way by looking at various forms of PR. The German model is only one of them.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Let me ask you about accountability. One advantage of our system is that the government gets elected on a specific platform, and because of the way our electoral system works, it can be held accountable for its commitments to the electorate. How would that work in a proportional representation system?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: We'd have an awful lot more minority parliaments in all likelihood, but again, that's reflecting what the Canadian people vote for.

Since 1917, as I said, we've only had two cases where we've actually had a majority of people vote for one party: Mackenzie King in 1940 and John Diefenbaker in 1958. Mulroney came very close. He had many more than 200 seats, but he had 49.7% of the vote.

So we actually have the composition in the House that reflects what people want. That is the best way of achieving accountability, because Parliament then reflects what the people are saying, and we're then collectively all accountable. There's nothing that says a minority government has to be a bad government.

Some of the best governments we've had historically in this country, Marlene, have been minority Houses. The same thing has happened in Europe. They tend to be very stable, they tend to be accountable, and then the people get what they want.

The only country that doesn't have very stable governments is Italy, but there are other reasons for that, with the strength of the Communist Party in particular.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Suzanne Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would just like to make one comment. I think the question asked by the lady is an interesting one. I believe that if we had that type of government, they would have to actually implement their platform. The Liberals were elected in 1993 on a particular platform. The platform they actually implemented was that of the Conservatives. They didn't do at all what they said they would do. In a proportionally based government, if they wished to stay in power, the Liberals would have had to do what they told the people they would. In my view, that is preferable.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Ms. Tremblay recommended that you have to be registered as a voter in order to contribute to the funding of political parties, and I would like to ask her what is the justification for that. There are many people resident in Canada who cannot vote, but who contribute to the country through their taxes, work and voluntary activities. They would like to know why they could not contribute to political life.

• 1150

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: This requires a comprehensive reform of the funding of political parties. If we were to require that you be a voter before you can contribute financially to a political party, either the legislation concerning the funding of political parties would have to be rewritten, or new legislation adopted prohibiting corporations from giving any money at all to political parties. Only those people on the voters' list could give money to political parties. That is basically how the legislation in Quebec works, where it is stipulated that you have to be qualified to vote if you want to contribute to the funding of political parties.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But I want to know why.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Because it rules out corporations. It gives the government free reign. It is not bound. If, for example, every bank gave $250,000 to the Conservatives or the Liberal Party, it would be easy to collect $1.5 million. So companies like Bombardier would no longer be allowed to give money to political parties. Only voters would be allowed to do so, with a limit that could be $5,000 or $10,000. Of course there would have to be a reform of funding of political parties.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It also eliminates newcomers to Canada who are not yet citizens, but who nonetheless are working, paying taxes, and contributing to the community through their work.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: They're not voting, so—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Why should they not be able to get involved in the political process regardless?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is not just a question of funding. They could be just volunteers because they are not voters. If you donate money to a political party, it is because you support that political party and you want it to win the election.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

John Herron, Ray Pagtakhan, and then the second round.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I want to follow up on something that was raised a few minutes ago by Mr. Nystrom with respect to PR. I did some quick math—this isn't done on an electoral basis—but Reform would have about 60, the Conservatives would have 60, the NDP and Bloc would have about 30 each, and the Liberals would have 120. That was just off the cuff.

Given that we've only had two circumstances where a true majority voted for one party, we would always be facing minorities and coalition governments and that sort of thing. Do you have any insight on the transition in countries that went from the first-past-the-post system to this kind of PR system? Was it awkward? Did governments fall right away when they were getting used to building coalitions?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: My recollection is that the transition was not as awkward as it may seem to us. We are a federal state and we're more complicated than most. That's why the German system might be one we want to take a look at. But you're right, we've had 24 elections—Dick just did the calculations—since 1917 and only two majorities. So what we have is a parliament that never reflects, except for a couple of cases, the actual choice of the electorate.

I don't think the transition would be that difficult. As I said, there are many forms of PR. We could do it in the Senate, although that's a different story altogether. But my preference would be to do it in the House of Commons, and I don't think the transition would be that difficult.

In terms of accountability, I think the most accountable problem I've been in was 1972-1974, where we had a minority Trudeau government and we happened to hold the balance of power at that time. The government was very sensitive and keen to reflect public opinion. In fact they were so keen they came back and won a big majority, basically at our expense. So I think a minority parliament or coalition government is more reflective and more accountable to public opinion because it has to be. There's just no choice. But when you have a majority you don't have to be accountable; you just have to figure out, during the last year, how to get re-elected.

So I think this system is more democratic.

The Chairman: John Herron.

Mr. John Herron: On that point, I think voters have become more issue-oriented over the last decade, as opposed to voting along party lines or for who they like. Now it's, what's the platform, what's the difference for the country. For example, the 1988 election can perhaps be summarized in two words: free trade. In terms of going through that sort of an election, with a single issue, where the majority of the country said they thought it might be a good thing...it turned out that it was a good thing for the most part.

• 1155

That single-issue aspect would be very hard to implement under a PR system, wouldn't it?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I think Canadians are a very good example of that. Again, I present this not as a partisan but because I think it's good for democracy. In 1988 we had a single-issue campaign and we had a majority Brian Mulroney government. He got elected with 42.7% of the vote. That particular trade deal was strongly opposed by the Liberal Party with John Turner as leader, and by our party with Ed Broadbent as leader. We had 20.3% of vote and the Liberals had 31.8%, so a majority of Canadians voted for parties that took a stand against that particular free trade deal. Yet we had an election majority government that supported it and it became law. Did that reflect what the Canadian people wanted? If you look at the results of the election, I'd say no.

I think that is another argument for why we should look at PR.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan and then John Richardson. Then I'll go to the second round, which is Chuck Strahl, Stéphane Bergeron, and Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Lorne, on that last point, are we trying to question the educational ability of voters to discern?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: No, I'm suggesting that we need a change of electoral system that will reflect the wishes of the people in the composition of the House of Commons. Simply that. The House of Commons mirrors what the people want in terms of how they cast their ballots. A good example of that was in 1988 when the majority of Canadians voted—if you accept the single-issue argument—for two parties that stood against that particular trade deal with the United States, yet we got a majority government that supported the trade deal and it went through. So it didn't reflect what the people wanted, if you use the single-issue argument.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In your submission you said the system would guarantee regional representation while reducing national electoral effectiveness of the strictly regional parties. Is that not contradictory?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: No. If you had PR I think you would have more national parties, Mr. Pagtakhan. You'd force political parties to think nationally. Right now we have a very regionalized parliament. We've had a lot of regionalism in the history of Canada. For example, we have usually had more people voting NDP in Quebec than in Saskatchewan, but we have never elected Quebec members—except one in a by-election—because our vote is too evenly disbursed in a big province.

If you had a system of PR, however, there would always be NDP members from Quebec. There would be more Liberals from western Canada. There would be a lot of Reformers in Ontario and fewer Reformers from the west. It would force the four parties we have in the House of Commons right now to be more national and pan-Canadian in terms of how we think about things. I think that would bind Canadians together and promote national unity.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mrs. Tremblay, on the need for nomination confirmation to be obligatory, would you not presuppose that a candidate is a candidate of a political party? What if a candidate is not a candidate of a political party? Who will confirm the person?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You have candidates who are independent.

[Translation]

You have independent candidates.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It should not preclude that.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay.

I agree with Marlene Catterall that only qualified electors should be able to fund political parties. This is a restrictive recommendation.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That is not what I think. If you want to get involved in political party funding, you have to be qualified. If you want, you can volunteer for the political party, you can work for it. But when it comes to donating your money, that is another matter altogether. I think that someone who's not a qualified voter is someone who is not yet a Canadian citizen and who therefore does not have the right to vote. I do not think his or her money should be used for an activity for which they have no skill.

That seems obvious to me. In addition, the aim is really to ensure that corporations, groups or unions do not donate money to political parties and to ensure that only individuals fund political parties.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

The Chairman: John Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you.

I like the concept of proportional representation, but given the mood of the Canadian electorate—this has nothing to do with the proportional concept of it but the regularity of the elections.... A couple of times in town hall meetings on this concept I have found they didn't want to have elections every two or three years. They feel they send us there for a set term, we've all been elected, so make it work. That's the kind of grassroots opinion shoved back in your face at that. And they have good reason to do that.

• 1200

Lorne, if we could come up with a term of four or five years or whatever, it would probably be a saleable process. Change is never easy to sell, as you're finding out, but if it can meet the needs of the people we're serving, I think it can be sold.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I agree with you 100%. I believe we should have fixed election dates, although with a few exceptions. Many countries do. The Swedes have elections every three years. They have a system of PR, and many other countries do too. If you look around the world, the only place that's been unstable in terms of multiple elections would be Italy.

I don't think that's because of the PR system in Italy; it's because the second largest party in Italy since the war has been the Communist Party and I think that's created a great deal of instability in that country. So it's because of political reasons, not because of electoral, structural or institutional reasons.

But if you look around at the rest of the world that uses PR, most of those countries are very stable and don't have elections every few years. Politicians learn to work together and to build alliances, and if they don't the people punish them.

I think we can accommodate all of that under a PR system. I agree with you fully.

The Chairman: We will go to the second round.

Colleagues and witnesses, let's keep it moving because time is going on.

We have Chuck Strahl, Stéphane Bergeron, and Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

All of you have brought up so many good issues that we should have a session with every one of you. I think a special thank you is in order for each of you for taking the time as MPs to actually submit something. Hats off to you.

I have a couple of comments and a question as well. One concerns George's suggestion that the number of seats be frozen. For those of us in the faster growing areas of the country who don't see any meaningful Senate reform, we see freezing things as the worst of both worlds.

In British Columbia we have one MP representing 115,000 people, while in P.E.I. one MP represents 34,000. That would be fine if the Senate was reformed so that we could have some kind of balance on another level, but right now we've got the worst of both.

We have only six senators from B.C.—not that senators are anything to brag about, but you get only six of them—and unless that system is changed.... Freezing it in its current form just makes a bad system permanent. So there is not a lot of support for this idea out west.

Lorne has stirred the pot here. Our submission from the party's side is in favour of forming an all-party committee specifically on this subject. This is a great subject. I think it has great potential and I think it would take some of the cynicism out of Canadian politics if we had some way of having a kind of mixed PR system. I think you will need to have a half-and-half system of some sort.

I have a couple of comments for you. First, to enhance your chances of this, I would encourage you to keep some of the partisan rhetoric out of your own document. It's no use describing the Reform Party in here with “its associated parochial and divisive western regionalism” that we're so famous for. I don't think it's true, and when you're talking about parliamentary reform, that's not a good way to get a lot of cooperation.

That said, I want to cooperate—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Will you cooperate with the chair?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I will cooperate by asking my one question after all of that.

In New Zealand, another example that you mentioned, they moved to this—and this question has been asked several times—in two steps. They made it step by step. First they asked whether people were interested in some form of it. Then they had an actual referendum where they said these are the three or four choices, pick the form you think would be best, and then we're going with that. It seems to have been well accepted. The transition was very smooth.

Are you in favour of a referendum to decide that issue, of allowing people to decide which type of PR they would go for?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes. I tabled a private member's bill that includes a referendum. There are two ways of doing it. New Zealand had two referenda. They had one asking people if they wanted to go in that direction. The people answered yes, so they had an electoral commission—I forget the technical name for it—look at different models for the country, and then the people chose whichever model they wanted.

• 1205

I suggest we have a referendum with the next federal election to see whether or not people want to go in this particular direction. There are different ways we can do it, but a referendum is necessary on any major constitutional change. I've taken that position for years. And this is certainly a very major constitutional change.

I take your reprimand seriously.

The Chairman: George Proud, same topic.

Mr. George Proud: As to your comment about your seats being frozen, what I'm suggesting is that the number of seats be frozen in the House, but in growth areas, the seats would have to increase, going from one place to the other. That's how it would happen. But there would be a minimum guarantee to the provinces.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I am somewhat confused by Mr. Proud's answer, but we will probably have the opportunity to discuss it again.

I would like to go back to Mr. Nystrom's presentation. Having had the opportunity to discuss things with German parliamentarians, I think I can safely say that there are indeed two categories of members of Parliament, two types of members when you have a system that is both first-past-the-post and proportional.

Let us say the regional member of Parliament—in other words, the one who covers the entire province, such as Quebec, sets up his office in Quebec City, the capital, and that I keep my riding office in Boucherville, in my riding. Someone from Contrecoeur, in my riding, who has a problem with employment insurance will naturally, or more readily, contact his member of Parliament in Boucherville rather than the member in Quebec City. So there are definitely distortions that will occur with regard to the value or the inherent nature of each type of member. Again, I would like to stress that there are certainly advantages to this formula, but we also have to consider how we will manage these distortions.

Another possible distortion pertains to the signals we will get from regions. You yourself admitted that the purpose was to make the process more Canada-wide. This will inevitably cause some distortion in the messages sent by the regions. The message might be far more ambiguous.

As for the Senate, I will not hide the fact that that goes well beyond our mandate, because in that case, there would have to be a constitutional reform and it is not up to me, as a sovereignist member of Parliament to reform Canada. Once Quebec becomes sovereign, it will be up to Canadians to decide what kind of government they want.

I would like to make a comment. If we want to take the German model, let's take it right to the end. If we want to reform the Senate, let's consider having a regional chamber similar to the Bundesrat in Germany. The regions and provinces determine what their representation is to be in the Bundesrat and send their delegates to the Bundesrat so that any central government bill that affects the regions can be blocked by the Bundesrat. That is not the case right now in Canada. If the Senate is to become what it should have always been, that is a chamber representing the regions, let us try to find a system other than the one we have now. It is not a question of voting for members, of making the system equal, equitable or effective that will necessarily solve the basic problem, which is the very nature of the institution and what it should have been since the time Canada was created.

The Chairman: Lorne Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: If I remember correctly, Mr. René Lévesque of the Parti Québécois favoured proportional representation.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm not saying that I'm against it.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, I know, and I think that your party agrees on the principle. We too agree on the principle. One other party may agree on the principle. That is why we need a parliamentary study to find a Canadian solution for our system, which is unique throughout the world.

I also said that the German system was perhaps closest to our own, because Germany is a federal state. But there are many other systems. I already mentioned Australia, with just the Senate. That would be another possibility. But I do believe that we need a parliamentary study to look at the principle and determine whether everyone agrees on this principle and also to study the systems used in other countries.

The Chairman: Yes, that's it. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral followed by the Chairman.

• 1210

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Two of our colleagues mentioned having an election on a specific date. I would like them to say what the advantages of having the election on a set date would be. And if they do not agree with this, I would also like to hear their comments.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think that one of the major advantages of having the election on a specific date is that the people would know when and where the election is going to be. As well, the parties would be able to get organized for that specific date. In terms of legislation, we have four or five years to pass the bills that are supposed to implement the commitments that were made to the people. This way, we would be sure that we had work to do in the House because we would not have to wait for the election like the last time.

Those who were here during the last Parliament all experienced this. After January, nothing interesting was going on. Everyone was saying that an election was coming, but no one knew exactly when. The prime minister was the only one who knew when he was going to call an election.

This gives the ruling party an advantage, because it sets the date for the election. It chooses the date when it's ready, but that is not necessarily the case for the other parties. This reform would allow all the parties to be ready, and the people would not be taken hostage so to speak. Indeed, if things go well, I will take advantage of it and get re-elected for another four years.

Such a change would also mean considerable savings, because we would have fewer elections than we currently do. It would also make sure that no government calls an election too often so as not to be defeated on a motion or a bill. It would force the government to be more careful, to build far more coalitions and listen to what the other parties want.

Last time, during the 35th Parliament, we told the government that its reform of the employment insurance system made no sense, but since they had a very large majority, they did what they wanted to do, and some of their members had to pay the price. In the Maritimes, for example, some people did not come back to sit in this 36th Parliament because they had to pay for a bad policy that the government implemented. This government had decided to call an election to make sure it would have a majority so that the prime minister would still be there in the year 2000.

So those are all the advantages I see in setting specific dates for elections.

[English]

Mr. George Proud: Could I just say something?

The Chairman: George.

Mr. George Proud: I believe it would give more stability. The people of Canada don't want elections every three years. They don't know when they are. If you set a term, as Suzanne said, it gives the members of Parliament a chance—they know they have a timeframe to work through and they can get as much of their ideas through as is possible—but it also tells the people of Canada that the year 2002 is going to be an election year.

The other thing it does is with minority situations, the people-in-waiting are not so anxious to put forward non-confidence votes to defeat the government, because they know if they go out to the people, they may not be as popular as they thought they were. So it creates a stability, I believe.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: One of the rationales indicated in the need for a change is to better the system and presumably to eliminate some of the public cynicism. What do we know from surveys? In the States, where there is a fixed system, do you know of any data that say they would like to move to a parliamentary system?

Two, in Germany, do we have any poll data to say that in fact the level of political cynicism is as great as if not greater than in Canada? In other words, we are basing it on intuition. Do we have data to support that intuition?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm not sure. I assume we have. I haven't seen the polling data on that.

One thing of interest, though, is we've noticed the turnout in this country for elections is falling rapidly, Rey, very rapidly, and not just federally but provincially. In the last federal election I was astounded by the few people who turned out to vote, I think largely because of the cynicism people have.

Some data might be very useful in terms of surveys, but what we have to do is look at what system in principle is best for Canada. What's the most democratic? What is reflective of what the people want? I think people want their vote to count.

• 1215

Most Canadians feel their vote is wasted. If they vote in my riding for a Liberal, they feel it's a wasted vote. If they vote in your riding for a New Democrat or a Reform, they feel it's a wasted vote. Under a system of PR there is no such thing as a wasted vote. Every vote counts. Every vote is reflected in the House of Commons. That may hurt us sometimes, you sometimes, Reform sometimes, but it's better for the country. We should do in principle what is the best thing.

The Chairman: George Proud.

Mr. George Proud: I would like to follow up on what you were saying about what data were available, for instance, on fixed dates in this thing. The only data I have are what my constituents tell me. They get very fed up with these elections. We were dumped on the last time. This election was three years and eight months into our mandate. They were very upset about that.

We had a province in Canada some years ago that was in for a five-year mandate and every three years they went to the electorate. It's not very popular, I can tell you that, and those are the data I have on it.

The Chairman: I wondered, Lorne, if I could ask you a couple of questions. It seems to me the election is about electing people, which is what you focus on, and it's also about developing a platform. Take 1988 and ignoring the actual issue concerned; 40% of the people supported a very particular platform, and they would have a substantial number of the seats in the House. In fact, surely, they would find themselves in a position of being in government, controlling the mechanisms of government, but without being able to implement the platform they were put in on. So they earned the 40% of the votes because they had this platform, but they found themselves in a situation in which they could not implement the platform.

I know you've carefully given us the German examples. We are in a federation and it's a federation in which arguably the provinces, the states, have more power than anywhere else. It seems to me that the other voices are heard in our system through the provincial elections. So it's not just one shot. The people vote in a federal election, and in your argument the federal election is skewed. Quite soon you start seeing the response. You can see it in this at the present time.

You mentioned Ontario and the change that might occur for the Reform Party. I would suggest that the people in Ontario voted for the Reform Party at the provincial level and it's in government now. The balancing actually went on. The NDP is the same, if I might say so.

Do you want to comment on both of those?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have enough trouble answering for my own party; I'm not going to answer for another one.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: The first point you raised is very interesting. As I said, the Conservative Party had about 40% of the vote in 1988. In fact, they had 42.7% of the vote, the Liberals had 32%, and we had 20.3%.

There are two things here. First of all, it would have been a minority Parliament if Mulroney was still the Prime Minister. To have a working majority in Parliament he may have had to jettison that particular plank to form a majority.

The Chairman: My point is that this is why he had the 40% in the first place.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: He may have had to jettison. If he didn't jettison, there may have been a coalition of two other parties that reflected what the people of this country want. That's probably what would have happened.

There are cases in the world where the largest party doesn't necessarily govern under PR. There are many examples of that. When you have a new Parliament you'd have to have a coming together of the parties to work out an effective government—who governs and who does not govern. That's one of the great things about PR. We wouldn't have had that particular government in all likelihood.

The last point, Mr. Chair, is that under PR people don't necessarily vote the way they vote now. It may change the voting patterns. People may think in Newfoundland that it's a wasted vote to vote NDP or Reform. Under PR it may not be a waste of a vote. In some parts of the west it's a wasted vote to vote Liberal, some people think. Under PR, then, why would it be a wasted vote? You can vote the way your conscience tells you to go. So I think those arguments make PR even more attractive.

The Chairman: What about my other point about the compensation? One of the reasons you have a federal system is the compensations are already there.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: We have two orders of government in this country. I strongly believe in the division of powers, and one should not compensate the other. We have to look after the federal order of government, the federal Parliament and our institutions here federally, and let the provinces look after themselves.

The Chairman: Can we have Suzanne Tremblay and then Carolyn Parrish?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think that striking a committee to examine that issue is an interesting idea.

• 1220

But it's much more complicated than you might think. Perhaps the parties would have to present their platforms in four or five key points. We think that's the main element. The voters could also respond to a series of questions. For example, one could quite easily vote for someone from the NDP but at the same time be in favour of free trade.

So this would tell the government that only 40% of the population voted for one particular party, but that 60% of them were in favour of free trade. So even if there were members of Parliament from other political parties, the government would know that most of the population was in favour of that particular idea.

Perhaps we should be looking at having more intelligent elections, where you could chose the best candidate as your member of Parliament, but also, voters could provide key information, such as their wish for strong social programs, their support for free trade, their support for funding of culture, Senate reform or Quebec sovereignty.

[English]

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Madame just made my point.

I find the more I listen to Lorne, it's like the sirens; he keeps pulling me in. I'm unable to resist much longer.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It was purely a political attraction.

I've always been leaning to the left on issues like this. I think it's worth pursuing, and I think the more you talk the more you make sense.

Madame made a good point that you'd want to study how many people vote party, how they automatically vote Liberal because their parents vote Liberal and that's the way it is.

A voice: That's a good idea.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And because it's a good idea.

How many would vote on an issue like free trade? I don't know how you'd separate that out, but at least you'd give the people that choice. I support you on this. I think if it comes to private members, you'll probably get an enthusiastic response.

The Chairman: Colleagues, on your behalf I'd like to thank Dick Proctor, the MP for Palliser, George Proud, MP for Hillsborough, Lorne Nystrom, MP for Qu'Appelle,

[Translation]

and Suzanne Tremblay, member of Parliament for Rimouski—Mitis.

[English]

We are most grateful to you all for your interest in the electoral process.

Colleagues, in the week we come back, the Tuesday meeting is a hearing like this, Wednesday evening is our round table, and the Thursday meeting is the meeting with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Thank you very much.