Electoral Reform Committee on July 27th, 2016

[Prof. Henry Milner]

I would agree with that, and I guess I should have added this. I think that in the cases where there has been change toward more proportional systems, we've seen an increase in them.

I should have checked my New Zealand statistics, for example, because that's a country that is similar to Canada. It's much smaller, but otherwise the country was proposing going from single member districts to a proportional system. As far as I know, the proportion of women who have been elected—and maybe André has more data—I think has gone up. It's maybe not gone up as fast and as high as people—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Perhaps.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

I think it's gone up significantly.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Well, we can only do better, as I think Canada ranks 62nd in the world.

In the other winner-take-all models—France, U.K., the United States—the United States is quite poor, but we all sit around the sixties or high fifties. When you look through the list of the top 20 to 25 countries in the world, all of them, with one or two exceptions, use proportional systems.

One witness argued that it was just coincidence and there is no causality, no connection between proportional systems and electing women. From an empirical scientific basis, I find that argument extraordinarily weak.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Look, whenever you have lists, you do better.

If we use an MMP system, where lists would be only 35% to 40%, you won't do as well as you do in Sweden where you basically have regional list systems topped up nationally, which basically means you get 45% women.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It depends on how much you value proportionality and representation.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Yes, on how much you value proportionality, but there is no question that proportional systems elect more women.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I want to talk about outcomes for the voters because, we want to see what kind of policies come out of this as well. We don't have this example in Canada of a proportionally run election because we haven't had them, yet some of our greatest policy outcomes for Canadians have come from minority parliaments. That is somewhat equivalent, in that under proportional systems—which all the evidence says we're much more likely to get, as you and others said, Mr. Himelfarb—or more minority, coalition, or those types of governments, that power is shared.

Is this not something that should be highlighted for the committee in terms of outcomes, in terms of what voters can expect, which is this form of government? These governments, at least in our past, have produced things like medicare, the flag, bilingualism, and other things that we value.

Is this a fair connection to make, Mr. Himelfarb, or am I stretching it?

[Alex Himelfarb]

It's interesting that comparative research on the substantive outcomes of electoral reforms do show that not only are policies more progressive as a result, in the sense of pursuing collective advance, and being more in the public interest, because, in fact, you have to find common ground with other parties so that the public interest prevails, but they're also more enduring.

It's interesting, just as a sidelight, that despite concerns to the contrary, countries with more proportionality also have more sound fiscal situations.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Sound—

[Alex Himelfarb]

Fiscal situations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Alex Himelfarb]

There are a lot of substantial benefits.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

We'll go to Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Milner, earlier I talked about Quebec's geopolitical situation, being very familiar with it. I said that the devil was in the details and that agreement on the need for a compensatory mixed member proportional voting system simply wasn't enough to settle the issue.

Asking questions about the process strikes me as fundamentally necessary. I'm glad to see that, unlike some of the witnesses we've heard from, Mr. Blais believes a referendum has to be held.

When our mandate got under way, those in favour of a referendum were painted as people who wanted to stand in the way of change, but I think that was a mistake.

The process matters. In Quebec, we had a draft bill, a very concrete proposal. We travelled all over the province, and that gave us an opportunity to see the real problems in every region of the province. It didn't lead to a transformation because the government of the day wasn't interested in letting the public decide the issue.

Some witnesses claim that people aren't familiar with the issue, that it doesn't interest them. Therefore, they argue that, as agents of a representative democracy, we have all the legitimacy needed to push ahead. The executive branch says last fall's federal election was the last to be conducted under the current voting system. The minister says that the system has to change but that holding a referendum is out of the question. In a nutshell, we are off to a bad start when it comes to doing things the right way.

We have just a few weeks to consult the entire population of a country as vast as Canada. Wouldn't it be much less reckless and more realistic to, instead, come up with a draft legislative proposal, open it up to consultation, and then ask Canadians to decide in a referendum during the next election? That would prevent this current exercise from ending in failure, would it not?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

I managed to avoid that question the last time it was asked. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be as lucky this time.

Some countries have changed their voting system without holding a referendum. France did it twice. To my mind, this has less to do with what I think and much more to do with what the public expects.

If a compensatory model were proposed with the underlying principle that voters in a given region would have their own member, personally, I would find that acceptable. If the public decided a referendum was needed for such a change to have public legitimacy, I would support that as well. I wouldn't say, from the outset, that a referendum was, by definition, necessary. If a logical proposal based on the principle of individual representation were put forward, I think it would be legitimate to go ahead without a referendum.

[André Blais]

Obviously, I'm more than happy to disagree with my tennis partner over here.

It's my belief that a referendum is necessary. But, if a referendum were held, I would want to see a commitment by all the parties to accept the outcome. If a change were made, if the Conservatives won the next election, all the parties would have to accept the change.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 15 seconds left.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Fine.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

It's now over to Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I want to pursue something that we haven't gotten to so far today. It's in your testimony, Professor Milner, and it's related to one of the aspects of MMP that Professor Tanguay mentioned when he spoke to us a couple of days ago. He said there were two features of MMP from the Ontario Citizens' Assembly that attracted negative commentary. One we've already talked about a lot, the question of lists controlled by political parties.

The other had to do with expanding the size of the legislature to accommodate the MPs in redistributing for proportionality. In your paper, you suggest that unless we add MPs—and this is your only reference to this question—the size of the average single-member district will increase by roughly 40%.

Are we to infer from that that you think we shouldn't look at increasing the size of the House of Commons to adopt MMP? Do you have a sense of whether it would be acceptable to add to the number of MPs in the House?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

I don't have a problem with that, but I suspect many Canadians would. If we said the cost of changing the electoral system would be having more politicians it would too easily lend itself to a caricature. I think this is too important an issue to invite that kind of situation. I would say that it would be best to propose a mechanism that would allow the House to stay fundamentally the same, with maybe a few more seats but not significant growth. Remember, it is growing already. As our population grows, so do the number of seats. I don't think it would be acceptable to expand too much.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I understand that concern. I was opposed to adding 30 new MPs, and I voted against the legislation. We didn't have a referendum on adding 30 new MPs, but I imagine that, if we had a referendum on adding 30 new MPs, it would have been shot down. Many citizens might object strongly to having the budget go up.

Professor Blais, one quick thing: when do your students decide? Don't keep us on the edge of our seats. Our report is due on December 1.

[Prof. André Blais]

It will be just after that.