Frederick Desbartzch Monk, MP - Jacques Cartier (riding in Montreal), moved:
That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to investigate the different systems of proportional representation adopted or suggested elsewhere, as an improvement upon our present method of election, with power to extend said inquiry to all the various forms of the proportional representation, laws proposed or in force; and with power to send for persons and papers, and to report from time to time.
He said:
This is a motion which was presented to the House last year and was adopted in the form in which it was now renewed. There was something in the beginning of the motion presented last year that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) desired to be changed. There was a modification made in the motion, and I present it now in the form in which it was finally carried by the House last year.
The motion last year was adopted, I think, at a late date in the month of March and very soon after the motion had been adopted before the committee was named, or the motion could be acted upon, it became evident that the session was going to be considerably abridged for various reasons. In consequence of that, after having conferred with my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) it was determined to take no action upon the motion of last session, it being considered that there would be no time for the committee to sit and take evidence before prorogation.
There were at that time additional reasons for deferring the inquiry.
There had been a movement in England for the constitution of a commission of inquiry into the question of electoral reform generally and particularly into this question of proportional representation and pending the report of that commission, it was thought advisable that we should not proceed with our inquiry.
Since that date a royal commission of eight members has been named in England with Lord Richard Cavendish as chairman. That commission has concluded the taking of evidence and I have no doubt that within a month the final report of that commission will be in the hands of the public in England. Through the courtesy of the members of the commission I have been furnished with advance sheets of the evidence so that that evidence, will be available for our own committee.
At the same time an investigation was in progress in France, having for its object specifically proportional representation. That commission has since made its report, and if I am not mistaken, it is being considered at this moment by the legislature of France. Recent papers publish reports of the debates upon the report of the commission ,which is very full, and there is a very remarkable speech by Mr. Paul Deschennels, one of the members of the commission.
Thus, our committee will now have the advantage of having before them the results of these two very important investigations.
After the explanations which I gave towards the close of the last session, it will not be necessary for me to again set out the merits of this question. Several members of the House at that time took some interest in the question, and I shall not take up the time of the House by traversing the same ground again.
Since the adoption of this motion at the last session, there have been a great many discussions on this subject, which has become a very burning question in England, France and other countries, particularly in the United States, and all that has been written upon the subject will be available for this committee.
I have also ascertained that there are witnesses in this country who are experts in the matter of proportional representation and would be able to give evidence of local interest and of a local character showing how the system might advantageously be applied in this country. There are men who have studied the question in all the provinces and who will be easily available to. give evidence before that committee as to the utility of proportional representation in our own country. The subject has great actual interest and invites attention, and I feel that we should take it up so as to gather all necessary information on it.
Proportional representation, as the House knows, has been adopted in New Zealand, Tasmania and Australia, and it is embodied as a principle in the new constitution of the South African confederation, and will probably have in practice a greater expansion than it is designed to have by the constitutional enactment recently adopted in the imperial parliament.
It is very necessary for us to be equipped with that information and to have before us all the evidence which would enable the House to take up the question as a practical question. We are all aware of the abuses that exist in connection with the present electoral system, the "one member, one constituency" system, with the plural majority only. We have adopted many laws since I have been in parliament to correct these abuses, but, so far as I am aware, the legislation designed for that purpose has not been at all productive of the results that we anticipated.
I submit to the House that the real remedy lies in a radical change of our electoral system, which would root out the cause of the evils, which as long as the cause remains, will continue to exist in this country. I therefore submit this proposal with confidence to the House.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).
Mr. Speaker, if I understand aright, the action of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) this session is more diligent than his action of last year. I understand that the reason for not proceeding with this committee last session, although it had been granted, was partly because he wanted to have the benefit of the information which was being collected in Great Britain.
That information has not yet been collected, the report of the commission to which the subject has been entrusted has not yet been made or received.
Mr. MONK -- Only the evidence
Sir WILFRID LAURIER --
Only the evidence.
And although we have not yet received the report of the English commission, my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) now suggests that we should adopt the motion.
I have no objection to that, although we may have to wait for some time if we are to have the benefit of British experience before the committee.
As to this, I have nothing to say -- we assented to the motion last year and we are prepared to assent to it this year also.
It so happened last year that when my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) brought his motion, I could not be in the House. I had looked into the question for my own information and had come to the conclusion in my own mind that there was some merit in the system of proportional representation which he suggests. I have not the figures which I had collected last year, but if I remember them aright, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, if at the last election we had had the system of proportional representation, there would be more Grits in this House than there are to-day.
Of the total vote cast in Ontario outside of the city of Toronto in 1908, there was a majority of Liberal electors, and yet the result was to give a majority of representation in the province outside of the city of Toronto to the Conservative party of some five members.
The Conservative majority from Ontario in this House is now about ten. Five are elected by Toronto, the other five being from different parts of the province, and yet, if I remember aright, there was a large majority of Liberal votes over Conservative votes in the province outside of Toronto. Thus the result was to give to my friends on the other side of the House - on the wrong side of the House - a majority of five.
In Toronto we could not carry one single seat, Toronto is a very fine city - I have the greatest admiration for the city itself and for the people of Toronto. The people of Toronto are a fine people, they are educated and progressive in a great many ways, but I regret to say that in political matters they seem to be hopelessly blind. It is perhaps more their misfortune than their fault and I sympathize with them. And, although the majority of the people of Toronto are on the wrong side of politics, I am glad to say there is quite a proportion of Grits in that city, but they cannot succeed in electing a single member to this House.
Probably it is in view of this that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) takes such a warm interest in the question, and I would be inclined to agree with him that such a condition of affairs as exists in Toronto should cease.
Now, the question of proportional representation is not new in this country, and it is not new in Ontario. Some twenty years ago the government of Sir Oliver Mowat passed a Bill which embodied this principle, and as a consequence Mr. Joseph Tait, a gentleman well known to my hon. friends on the other side of the House, was elected as a Liberal member for the Ontario legislature, but although one would think such laudable legislation would have the support of gentlemen opposite, that law was repealed and there is no longer a Liberal member from Toronto in the Ontario legislature any more than there is in this parliament.
From what little attention I have been able to give to the subject of proportional representation, I think that while it may be satisfactory in countries with the governmental systems of Switzerland and the United States, it may not altogether be adapted to nations under the British system of parliamentary and responsible government.
However, I am not prepared to discuss that question now; I like to approach it with an open mind, and we have no objection to the committee being granted.
Mr. R.L. BORDEN (Halifax) --
I have given a little attention to the subject and while no doubt the result of proportional representation is fairer in one way, yet, it may possibly lead to a difficulty in carrying on government by party where the popular vote is pretty nearly equally divided. For example, if the system had prevailed in Canada previous to the last general election the Prime Minister would to-day find himself sustained by a majority in this House of about three members instead of 47 or 48.
No doubt the same consideration [DOT] would apply to the conditions before 1896, when the Conservative government was in power with a substantial majority, although the popular vote was pretty equally divided.
I have no doubt that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has considered that difficulty.
The government of the country must be carried on by one party or the other, and where the popular vote is nearly equally divided, the system of proportional representation might lead to difficulty.
Now, I wondered a little why the Prime Minister did not tell us of some of the results in the province of Quebec under our present system of representation. We have eleven members on this side from that province. Their quality is so excellent that I am bound to say that in that respect the Conservative vote of 130,000 in Quebec is very ably represented. But, if these 130,000 Conservative voters in Quebec had proportional representation, instead of having eleven Conservatives in this House, we would have 28 or 30.
Of course, if that illustration had occurred to my right hon. friend, he would have mentioned it. I sympathize with the right hon. gentleman with regard to Toronto; I think he himself has told us that while the people of that city are on all occasions prepared to cheer for him, they are not prepared to vote for him, and I am inclined to think that condition will continue in the future, notwithstanding that he did lay out the electoral divisions in Toronto in the firm hope that he would elect three supporters; an aspiration of his which has not been satisfied and as to which I tender him my sincere sympathy.
However, the subject of proportional representation is well worthy of consideration by this House and I do not doubt that in its consideration we will receive a great deal of assistance from the report and evidence on the subject which are shortly to be presented to the Imperial House
Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (MP - Peel) --
I would direct the attention of the House to the fact, - and especially I would direct the attention of the Prime Minister to it - that one of the Conservative members from Toronto in the Ontario legislature had a majority greater than the combined majorities of all the Reformers who were elected to that legislature at the last election.
Mr. F.D. MONK --
When I spoke in the House on this subject last year, I presented a statement compiled by an expert mathematician - a statement which was endorsed by other experts - showing how many members, under a system of proportional representation should be assigned to each province on each side of the House. I will be frank enough to say that although I sent my right hon. friend a copy of my speech on that subject, I doubt if he did me the honour of reading it.
As regards the situation in Toronto, there is no doubt that proportional representation would remedy the very unfortunate state of affairs there from the point of view of the Prime Minister. I believe there are in Toronto a few Grits, but since I have been in parliament, I have never seen them represented here.
Whereas under a system of proportional representation, some relief would be given, and might possibly have the advantage of having one representative in this House.
The chief advantage of proportional representation is that it provides representation for a minority who, under the single-member constituency system, are never represented in this House. Some have never been [represented] since Confederation and have naturally lost all interest in public affairs. The question raised by my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, is one of great importance and which has been considered by all those who have carefully studied it.
Under the system, which is being promoted by the English proportional representation league [Proportional Representation Society [U.K.)], there might be some danger of the contingency referred to by my hon. friend. That league promotes the idea that every man should have one vote.
[STV] In a constituency where there are several members to be elected, he has but one vote and gives that to one candidate, but he indicates on the ballot what are his second, third and fourth preferences. There is no party under that system. You have a certain number of candidates, and the elector has but one vote with the preference I have indicated.
On the Continent, however, they have the list system. In Finland, where they have proportional representation, they have the list system, also in Belgium, New Zealand [NZ never got P.R. before 1991] and Tasmania (STV actually used STV], and where you have the list system, you also have the party system, and there is no danger of that happening which my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, apprehended a moment ago. The moment you introduce election lists, you have parties, and when you have parties, you have almost the certainty that there will be a sufficient majority for one party to enable it to govern.
As a matter of fact, proportional representation has existed in Belgium, Finland and other countries for several years, and its results have been most satisfactory. These countries would never dream of reverting to the old system which they consider obsolete and manifestly unjust. The difficulty pointed out by my hon. friend has not so far been felt in any of these countries. In each there has always been a sufficiently strong majority to enable government to be carried on without difficulty.
My right hon. friend Sir Wilfrid Laurier has said that the system has been tried in this country. In that he is wrong. There was a time when they had in Toronto a system different from the present, but which was not at all proportional representation. In fact, it was a denial of it.
There were three members for Toronto, and each elector had two votes. That what was called a limited vote which, like the cumulative vote - another system of that kind - was absolutely in contravention of what is known as proportional representation.
The name is unfortunately very long, but in France and Belgium they have a much shorter name. [I wish he had noted the French name. I can't find any French term shorter than the English "proportional representation."]
The main object of proportional representation is to provide that the people shall be faithfully represented in parliament, but under the present system such faithful representation is not obtained. Under the present system, parliament is not at all a mirror of the wishes of the people.
I am extremely gratified that my right hon. friend has seen fit to accept this motion, but when he says that there is some merit in this great movement, characteristic of modern times, to reform the electoral system all over the world, he greatly depreciates its value. This is not merely a movement in which there is some merit.
All writers everywhere are agreed that the present system has fallen short of what was expected. When a deputation in England waited on Mr. Asquith and asked for this commission, the prime minister replied that a point on which everybody was agreed was that the present system is unjust and arbitrary and a remedy must absolutely be found.
Under those circumstances, we ought to try and take our place among the advancing nations which seek improvement
==========
then the debate moved on to another private member's bill on the table. This one, also moved by Monk, was on the appointment of a commission to investigate the best method of classification and segregation of prisoners.
============================
from
also see
Edmonton Bulletin Nov. 18, 1909 p. 1
==================================
コメント