Electoral Reform Committee on July 27th, 2016

[Prof. Henry Milner]

If you're able to do that, it would certainly be the best solution, even though it might not make everyone happy. To my mind, it would be much better to propose something concrete, if that's possible. That would keep things moving along. All the details wouldn't need to be ironed out, just the broad strokes and some of the core elements. I imagine some decision-makers will want to keep the current system. The discussion would keep moving forward, and Canadians would really have their say.

I imagine that would make things easier for journalists, in terms of writing articles or presenting the issues at stake to TV viewers. That would benefit Canadians. I think it's important to help those who are going to debate the merits of the issue by giving them as much clear and concrete information as possible. I encourage you to go that route.

[André Blais]

The website of P.E.I.'s chief electoral officer is a great example. It presents the five options, along with a brief, informative and concise description of each of the five proposals being considered. That would be a good starting point.

[Alex Himelfarb]

I agree with what both my colleagues have said. Ideally, you have a process that's open, credible, and engaged enough that you don't need a referendum—which would be my goal—and that you actually end up with a proposal. However difficult that is, it would represent at least some degree of consensus, because I expect that reaching unanimity is difficult.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

[Inaudible--Editor]...possible for this committee to come up with the nuts and bolts, at least, of a basic proposal for change.

From a process point of view, do you think it's legitimate, then, just to have cabinet come down with its own ideas: “You guys didn't come up with a proposal, so here's cabinet's proposal, and this is what we're going ahead with”?

If those are the alternative branches of the process tree, if you will, are they anywhere near equal in terms of having a legitimate outcome?

[Alex Himelfarb]

If there is no committee consensus, then I think you have a credibility challenge, and then I would find some mechanism to deal with that credibility challenge before I made a final decision.

[Prof. André Blais]

Well, why not amend the P.E.I. approach—five options, a plebiscite, preferential voting, and there was a decision at the end made by citizens in a referendum?

[Alex Himelfarb]

If I might, Mr. Chairman, it goes back to what I said: not necessarily a referendum, but a referendum if necessary.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

I must say that is where I disagree with André. P.E.I. has far fewer people than the City of Ottawa. If the City of Ottawa were going to change its electoral system, I could imagine that kind of discussion, whereby several options would be put on the table and so on. Even then, I think most people would not get caught up in it.

I don't think, for Canada as a whole, that the idea of coming up with four or five different systems in which the differences are quite technical and asking Canadians to choose.... I think you're just going to lose most people. I don't see the value of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Deltell.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to pick up on the question Mr. Blais asked us earlier, but in a bit of a roundabout way. I'm glad to give my answer.

Before that, though, I want to come back to the discussion I started with Mr. Milner earlier.

Mr. Milner, we were saying that, under a proportional system, some MPs would be directly elected by voters and others would be elected differently but still have a seat in the House. That would result in a two-tier system, one with two speeds or two grades, if you will.

Where is the legitimacy in having two classes of MPs in the House?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Our former colleague, Louis Massicotte, who is now at Université Laval, worked with Quebec's committee. He's well-versed in Germany's system, having visited a number of times. He consulted with members of Germany's parliament and found that the system worked very well.

The responsibilities are divvied up. Voters can seek out the member for their own constituency or one of the list candidates from the party they support. Candidates prefer to be elected in a constituency, but if they aren't, they can be elected by being on the list. What they do, then, is try to make themselves known to people by working for them, so that, if one of the constituencies has an opening the next time around, they can run.

Mr. Massicotte didn't find any contradictory elements or problems with having the two types of MPs.

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

Thank you, Mr. Milner.

Professor Massicotte focused on Germany, where the same system has been in place for some 70 years. That means Germans have enjoyed that democratic tradition for some 70 years. Clearly, prior to that, the situation was anything but democratic. But that's not really the case in Canada.

We'll have a chance to come back to that.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Any change requires some adjustment, but there's no reason to think we wouldn't be able to adjust.

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

I know, but with all due respect, I would point out that neither you nor Mr. Massicotte has ever been elected as a representative for a riding, worked on a daily basis directly with the people in that riding, or served as a liaison between the municipal authority and the federal government. A duly elected member for a riding, someone who serves as a direct liaison between their constituents, their institutions, and the federal government, has a lot more authority than a member elected in a region from some list. My experience speaks for itself.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

When a municipality is henceforth considered a region, it's possible to represent a constituency that is part of that municipality, but not the entire municipality. If you're part of a team of elected representatives, I think the municipality would be much better served.

Of course, there are always trade-offs. But I can't see any reason why a compensatory system would hinder representation.

We could continue that discussion.

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

No, you expressed your view, and I gave you the time to do so. The practitioner in me expressed his view as well. I feel I have some moral authority in this area given that I was duly elected four times by voters. So I know what it means to work directly with the people.

Often, I have people from other ridings coming to see me, or I refer them to colleagues because they have certain things in common. Fundamentally, we, the 338 members of the House of Commons, are the representatives of our ridings and, above all, the people in those ridings.

Mr. Blais, you said earlier that you would like all the parties to support a referendum and to come to an agreement if it led to change. In fact, you mentioned my party by name, the Conservative Party.

Mr. Blais, I can assure you and all Canadians following us right now of one thing. If, by chance, a referendum is held—something we strongly support—and the outcome is in favour of change, we will accept it. Our democracy does not work on a sliding scale. We can't be in favour of a decision and hold a referendum or, like some, claim it's not worth holding a referendum because the proposal won't be accepted. That's what I call democracy on a sliding scale.

In a democracy, we must consult the people and trust the will of the people. Who are we to say we won't bother holding a referendum because the public won't be on our side? That's a rather high-handed attitude.

In the short time we have left, Mr. Blais, I'd like you to speak to us about alternative, or preferential, voting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We don't really have the time to get into a topic so—

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

Are you for or against it?

[André Blais]

It depends on what you're comparing it with. I think voters would be better off with preferential voting than the current system because it gives them the opportunity to articulate more than one preference. It would also mean that elected candidates had the support of the majority of voters, so the advantages are twofold.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Very good. Thank you.

Ms. Romanado, it's now over to you.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I've been accused sometimes of being very direct, so I'll apologize in advance.

We've been listening to testimony now over the course of the last few weeks, and I think we can all agree that there is no perfect electoral system. We all have heard this multiple times.

We have been given a mandate with specific guiding principles, including effectiveness and legitimacy, engagement, accessibility and inclusiveness, integrity, and local representation. These are the guiding principles that this committee has been tasked with. We've been tasked to identify tactics that will address all of these guiding principles, as well as an alternative voting system. I don't think an alternative voting system will address all of these issues. In a perfect world, it would. It does not.

We've heard today that there may be a 3% increase in turnout should we move to a PR system. We've heard that it would not significantly change voter satisfaction. We've heard pros and cons for various voting systems, and today we heard a lot about the positive aspects of PR.

I'd like to flip it on its head and ask if you could give us some of the challenges, some of the negative aspects, of PR, given these guiding principles, which I believe were sent to you. If you could elaborate a little on these, it would be helpful.

We're trying to identify what won't work for Canada, and I'd like to hear both sides of that story.

Thank you.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

I'm the one—well, I shouldn't say I'm the one, but Alex as well—who said that we have a system that's better than the other systems. No system is perfect, but given the realities, I think we do have a proposal that would be better, and if we applied it to Canadians conditions, we could do something very interesting.

Let me just make the following argument. In other words, just look at the world as it is. Try to find working parliamentary systems outside of Canada that are a pure single member plurality systems. You practically won't find any. Britain, where we got all of our institutions from, and Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the City of London, all have systems of proportional representation.

Canada really is the country that has made the least definite efforts to bring its electoral system up to date.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Professor Milner, I'm going to stop you because I have a very limited amount of time.

I know that the first past the post system has its negatives. What negative aspects of PR would happen if we were to adopt this here in Canada?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Let me just finish what I had to say.

We have experience from some countries and could say that in some, you have coalitions that tend to be repeated, with the same parties tending to be in government. You have grand coalitions, which some people think is a good idea, like in Finland where the parties generally work together. In Germany, it often happens. You could say, well, that's unfortunate because we really need a strong opposition and so on.

There are a whole number of things we can look at in countries with proportional representation and ask whether these things are what we want. My answer would be that if we don't want them, we can probably build into the system certain ways of their not likely happening.

I want to add one other point, since this is going to be my last chance. Looking to the experts who were consulted on this, some 169 electoral experts in different countries—I have the numbers in front of me—basically 75% to 80% of them prefer a proportional system, and of that number, more than half prefer MMP. These are the experts.

Now you may say that we're biased and so on, but that is the factor to keep in mind. Countries, given the choice, have taken proportional systems, and experts, given the choice, have preferred proportional systems, and within that have preferred MMP.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Himelfarb, quickly.