Electoral Reform Committee on July 27th, 2016

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yes.

[Prof. André Blais]

—which I understand is perhaps the preferred option of some people in Ottawa.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

We haven't really discussed it at all; it's been rather put aside. I want to explore what the pros or cons to it really are, so that we have it as a part of our dialogue here.

[Prof. André Blais]

In fact, there are two questions: AV versus first past the post, and then AV versus PR. The question of whether it is proportional.... It's not a proportional system, so I'll just address the first question, which is AV versus first past the post.

It's a single-member district, so it's very similar. The differences are not big. The only difference is, of course, that you rank-order your preferences, and a candidate has to receive a majority of support in their first vote or second vote or third vote. The major difference is that a party or candidate that is the second choice of many people gets more support and is more likely to win.

There have been some simulations. Basically, the system is not too different from first past the post, but a party that is the second choice of many would get more seats. That would be the biggest difference. It's up to you to decide which is the party that is the second choice in a given context, and then you'll see which party is most likely to be favoured at a given point in time.

That's the main difference. It's more legitimate, in the sense that every candidate who is elected gets at least 50% of the vote. In my view, that's more legitimate. It is still not proportional and so on in many different aspects, but it is, in my view, more acceptable.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Do you know what happened in the U.K.? Oftentimes we talk about the way many western countries are moving towards a proportional representation system, but the U.K.—the Westminster system that we're modelled after—has not chosen to do that yet.

What happened with their commission and the recommendations that were made? Why did they adopt them or why not?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

You're talking about Britain, are you ?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yes.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Well, Britain was a case in which, first of all, what they proposed was a kind of mixed bag. It was not proportional but was a bit more proportional than the existing system.

The other problem was that the two main parties were against it. The Liberal Democrats had to try to defend it. It was a sort of agreement to please the Liberal Democrats, but basically the major parties opposed it. There was no real discussion, because it was essentially one-sided. It wasn't a particularly clear system to begin with, because it was based on compromise. The turnout was very low. Nobody was surprised at the result.

One thing about places that didn't do this well, I think, is that we can learn from them. We can learn how to discuss this, how to come up with a proposal that best fits our need and is not just some kind of partisan compromise, and we can get Canadians involved. I think we're on the right track.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Kenney.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'm going to defer to Mr. Deltell.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Deltell, you may go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank my colleague Mr. Kenney.

Welcome to your Parliament, gentlemen.

The good thing about this week's exercise is that it gives us the opportunity to hear a range of views. We get to hear everyone's opinion. The views expressed by the bevy of distinguished witnesses here this morning all seem to converge, which is fascinating. It also speaks to the democratic nature of the debate going on here.

You all had very positive things to say about the proportional system, which would help prevent some of the discrepancies that can occur in some regions, and that makes sense.

Now I'd like you to comment on the role MPs play vis-à-vis their constituents.

I have been active in politics for eight years. I was directly elected in a single riding four times. I'd like to thank the people in the provincial riding of Chauveau and those in the federal riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent, for that matter. I can say from experience that a relationship develops between an elected representative and their constituents, perhaps not quite a fondness but, rather, a trust.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think all would agree. We represent all of our constituents, even those who didn't vote for us. In fact, that may be even truer for those who didn't vote for us, so that they have a better understanding of our plans the next time around.

I'll never forget the first constituent I met in December 2008, in my constituency office on Racine Street. I'll call him Mr. Smith. He told me he hadn't voted for me—what a great way to start off my career. I told him he wasn't the only one but that we were going to work together, and that's what we did.

That's the beauty of the direct representation our current system offers. I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it. But no system is perfect. No matter what, a representative who is directly elected in a riding represents all the constituents in that riding. Weekends and evenings, we meet people at social and charitable events, and we support them. Regardless of political stripe, we have a close relationship with the people in our riding.

In 2012, the provincial electoral boundaries changed, and I lost two towns in my riding, Shannon and Valcartier, which had not voted for me, by the way. I was extremely saddened, not because I was losing people who hadn't supported me, but because, like it or not, I had formed an attachment to the people after four years. Those discussions—those interactions—play a role in how we think about policy, even though we are bound by party lines and have to stand up for the platforms we were elected on.

I'd like to know where all three of you stand on this.

In a proportional system, when the list is long, how can the elected member maintain that same closeness with their constituents? Let's flip the question. How can a constituent have that same close relationship with their elected representative, when that representative is swallowed up by the whole, as opposed to that constituent having voted directly for a single candidate in a riding?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

To answer that, I'd have to take a close look at the various experiences in that regard.

The compensatory model I favour offers a major benefit: between 60% and two-thirds of candidates would come directly from the ridings, just like you. What makes that model appealing is that those candidates would have greater legitimacy in terms of representing the entire population in their riding than under the current system. Why? Under the current system, the people who vote for you, for example, have to be Conservatives; otherwise they would be voting for a party they don't support. So the people who vote for you, and not those who work with you, are Conservatives.

In a compensatory system, all the constituents could vote for you if they felt you were the best person for the job, because it wouldn't influence the regional outcome, which would be proportional. In that case, you would go to Ottawa not simply as the person representing the Conservatives in your region, but as someone with the support of many constituents who voted for you despite choosing another party in the second vote. That would be perfectly legitimate because that's how the system would work.

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

Under the system you're proposing, then, two-thirds of MPs would be elected directly, and the other third would be elected on a compensatory basis. That's really what you call second-class MPs.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

No. I talked about first-class MPs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Perhaps you can discuss that during Mr. Deltell's next turn.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Very well.

We can discuss the third of list-based MPs later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Great.

It is now Mr. Aldag's turn.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thanks for the excellent information you've given us so far today.

None of you has touched on two areas we've been asked to look at, one being mandatory voting. If anyone has thoughts on that, maybe we will start with that if you have comments on it.

[Alex Himelfarb]

I don't think it would mean the end of civilization, but I'm not generally in favour of it. I would prefer a system that makes it valuable to vote rather than compulsory to vote. The notion of making people vote who don't want to could lead to unanticipated consequences. Some studies have shown what's called, for some reason, the “donkey effect”, where people just tick off the top choice. The accident of where you sit on a ballot matters. I would rather make voting attractive than compulsory.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

My research currently is about political knowledge, but my last book was about what I call civic literacy. Australia, where you have compulsory voting, showed that there was some relationship between that and more informed voters. In other words, since you're required to vote, you go out and get more information.

So far, as far as I know, the research hasn't found that. Therefore, I'm not particularly in favour of simply getting more people to vote without at the same time getting people more informed about politics. If our turnout went way down and we ended up with a possibility of less than 50% turning out, I would look for more radical solutions such as compulsory voting. Fortunately, I think we have other alternatives at this point.

[Prof. André Blais]

I also lean towards non-mandatory voting, but I'm more ambivalent. I'm intrigued by mandatory voting. I'm doing a study with a colleague in Brazil where it's voluntary to vote from 16 to 18, compulsory from 18 to 70, and then voluntary again after 70. I find this very interesting.

I think there are good reasons to tell people they have a duty to vote. There's a good book, Full Participation by Sarah Birch, about the virtues of mandatory voting. I'm still on the side that believes we should just try to make it as attractive as possible. I would be in favour of Elections Canada's mounting campaigns to try to convince people to vote, but I'm still a liberal.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

The other thing I'd like to hear about is online voting.

[Prof. Henry Milner]

This is not an area I've looked at, so I can't talk about research. I'm uncomfortable with it because maybe I'm just an old fogey, but I think too much is happening online for people and not enough is happening in their communities. As long as we can find ways of getting people to actually vote with their neighbours, I would prefer that. I haven't been persuaded that online helps us much.

[Alex Himelfarb]

In the spirit of old fogeys, I too quite like the idea of elections as a collective experience. I think that's hugely valuable. On the other hand, I would prefer electronic voting—if it increased access and participation—to mandatory voting. To the extent that it might actually increase the voting of young Canadians, I find it somewhat attractive despite my basic fogeyness.