Evidence of meeting #11 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.
A video is available from Parliament.
Research Director, Canada's Changing Federal Community, Institute for Research on Public Policy
—instead of this very rigid back and forth, as if we were in a court, as expert witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
This is the model we've been using throughout, and it's the typical model that committees use on the Hill. There will be opportunities. Ms. May will have another round, so we'll be able to address the issues.
Right now we'll have to go to Mr. Aldag.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thank you.
In case you're not aware, many of us have been following feedback coming in on Twitter, just as an opportunity for Canadians.
Professor LeDuc, there has been a bit of interest in the list PR system that you put forward, so I have some questions and comments I'd like to get your thoughts on. In no particular order, here is some of the feedback that's come in. Why do you feel this is appropriate? This seems to work well in Denmark, but would it apply in Canada?
Another comment is that this seems to be the system used in Spain, and yet six months after their first election—they've had two elections, I think—there's still no government. So what are the strengths or shortcomings of the system, and how would that work in Canada?
The other one was whether you are talking about an open or a closed list.
There are a bunch of things there, and you may want to tackle any of those in the limited time we have.
Prof. Larry LeDuc
Yes, in making the case for list PR, I tried to make the case in terms of principles and not in terms of any particular country. Because it is the most widely used electoral system in the world today, we know a lot about it. There is plenty of empirical evidence in different countries, different societies.
We don't just have to look at Denmark. Now, Denmark has one of the highest voting turnouts in the world, so if you are looking at turnout, you could say that Denmark has been pretty successful with it, but we don't have to look at just Denmark or Spain or any other country.
What I tend to like about list PR is not only that there is a mountain of evidence for it, drawn from different places, but that it is a very flexible and adaptable system. In other words, you can construct a Canadian model of list PR that might be quite unlike the exact model used in any other country, but it would be designed for the Canadian environment. I don't try to do that in a 2,500-word brief, but I could do it.
I taught a course at U of T a few years ago on electoral systems. This was a graduate course, and I had three really bright graduate students. I had them each design an electoral system for Ontario. One was list PR, one was STV, and one was MMP. They worked at that for the semester and wrote a nice paper on it. I'd be glad to send any of you the paper, if you're interested. It was titled, “Three Options for Electoral Reform in Ontario”.
The point was not that we were adopting the Swedish system or the Spanish system. The point was that we can take the principles based on the evidence from a number of different places, and not just one country, and apply them to a Canadian environment and get the kind of representation in Canada that we think we should have, and the kind of responsiveness to voters that we think a parliamentary system should provide on an ongoing basis, and not just on election day.
Hugo Cyr
If I may step in, you express a fear that government formation can last for some time. That's exactly why I suggested the investiture vote that has been adopted in Wales and Scotland, because they set a time limit for that vote to occur.
It really creates the incentives for parties to come together and come up with an agreement out in the public. Because it is a vote and people can enter into the House and give speeches and explain why they're going to support this or that coalition or this or that party to form the government, it makes things transparent for everyone. You have a set time limit so you're not afraid of waiting for extra months, and the people understand that it's the House that actually gives confidence to the government, and not the government that has to give confidence to the House, which is quite something.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay.
Well, within that minute I will say that, on the point about the work that your students had done—and if anybody has any additional information—you are allowed and invited, in fact, to send that information to us through the clerk's office.
With that I'll move on to the next person.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, welcome to Canada's Parliament.
Mr. Seidle, we can understand that it would be far more interesting for everyone to talk directly to each other, but there you have it, there are too many of us and we have to meet with dozens and dozens of experts. We have to proceed in an orderly manner.
Mr. Chair, I have to commend you on the way you are chairing this meeting. You are doing a really good job in rather difficult circumstances.
Mr. Seidle, rest assured that you will have all the time you need to express your views to the leader of the Green Party.
The quality of our discussions here today is evident. Once again, we have excellent people here, namely three university professors. I will remind you that the committee would greatly benefit from listening to a great academic.
who has a lot of things to say about a new way of doing electoral reform, the Honourable Stéphane Dion. I wish everybody would understand that everybody would win if Monsieur Dion could be a witness at this committee.
Earlier, my Bloc Québécois colleague, Mr. Thériault, referred to an event that happened about ten years ago in provincial politics. I agree in part with what he said. Indeed, sometimes people vote for an election platform and the elected party ends up not implementing it. A number of very recent examples come to mind, but I will not address that today, because this is neither time nor the place. I will have the opportunity to do so at another time.
I will, however, mention a specific detail. The event that Mr. Thériault described earlier did not occur in 2007 but in 2008. I remember it very well, because I was a candidate at the time.
Let's now turn to the issues.
Mr. Cyr, earlier you mentioned four changes that could be implemented, including the nomination of the Prime Minister by Parliament, the vote on constructive non-confidence motions and the requirement for the agreement of two-thirds of MPs to dissolve the House. From what I understand, that does not directly pertain to the electoral system.
Can the changes you are proposing to give even more power to MPs be made in the current first-past-the-post system?
Prof. Hugo Cyr
These changes could be made in the current system. A series of witnesses spoke specifically about the electoral system. As I teach my students, the electoral system is not considered purely in the abstract and cannot be taken on its own. It is part of a much larger ecosystem that includes the process of forming the government and the relationship between the executive and the legislature.
Given my area of expertise, my particular contribution deals with the consequences and how to stabilize the situation, should the electoral system we end up choosing lead to minority or majority governments more often than before. I have kept to my field of expertise.
Your colleague asked you whether a referendum is a constitutional requirement. According to constitutional law and in light of the secession reference, I highly doubt it. This reference states that policy initiatives or constitutional amendments are the government's purview, and that the government is not bound by a referendum decision.
Is there a constitutional convention requiring a referendum? I doubt it, since there are three components to a constitutional convention: a practice, a purpose, and the actors' recognition that they are bound by this practice.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Precisely. The third factor involves an acceptance by the actors that they are bound to the practice. That could not be any clearer. The people who are bound by the practice of the electoral vote are the voters themselves. Therefore they are directly affected by this change. The conclusion is that they must be consulted through a referendum.
Prof. Hugo Cyr
I raised that point to emphasize that there is no requirement under constitutional law. It is not a requirement in terms of a constitutional convention, but my expertise does not pertain to what is politically expedient, fair, or appropriate under the circumstances. That is where my expertise ends. It's your job to figure it out.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Deltell.
Thank you, Mr. Cyr.
We now turn to Ms. Romanado.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to all the witnesses for joining us and making their presentations.
I want to get a little bit into a comment that we don't know what the problem is. I'm just going to throw it out there.
There's a reason this committee was struck: Canadians feel that their vote doesn't count. I'm just going to clarify this, because yesterday a witness told me, yes, votes are counted. That's not what I'm saying. Their voice doesn't count. What they were intending to do at the polls is not reflective of who actually represents them. That's the problem.
There are other issues that we're facing. We're facing issues of low voter turnout. We had an increase in the past election, which we're delighted about, but we still have that issue to address. Now, electoral reform doesn't just talk about the actual voting system, but other issues as well, as you have highlighted. You said there are other problems that we need to address, and that's what we're looking at. Would mandatory voting be an issue? Would online voting be an issue, and so on and so forth?
My question relates what Professor Seidle said. You mentioned in your documentation that regardless of the voting system, the system chosen doesn't seem to address the under-representation of women and/or visible minorities, indigenous people, in office. I appreciate your saying this because we have received other testimony that there is a correlation between the voting system selected and the number of people in these under-represented groups actually sitting in Parliament. So I want to thank you for that.
We've heard about list PR. We've heard about the current first past the post system. What I do want to know is what voting system, in your opinion, would address the problem that I just asked about, that Canadians are not feeling that their vote counts?
Would all three of you give me your opinion which system you feel would address that specific problem?
Thank you.
Research Director, Canada's Changing Federal Community, Institute for Research on Public Policy
The question of whether your voice doesn't count or counts is broader than the translation of the results of the election into seats in the House of Commons. You also need to look at the whole question of governance. One of the advantages of a proportional or a mixed system, particularly in the Canadian context, is that we would be in a perpetual minority government. Now, whether we could learn to live in a culture of coalition governments is an open question.
Our history shows that we might, under most systems of PR, often end up with Liberal and minority coalition possibilities. As for whether or not they could work it out in that way, we had an example in 1972 and 1974, where without a coalition, but with agreements between the Liberal and the NDP parties, some important things were done, including limiting expenses in elections.
However, the issue is broader than just whether 40% of the vote ends up as 40% of the seats in the House of Commons. I think any system should bring us fairly close to that. We shouldn't have huge discrepancies. For example, in 1980 the Liberals had about 22% of the vote in western Canada, and they elected two MPs. That's not a good result, and at that time there was a lot of discussion.
There is another thing we need to remember, and that was why I put the statistics on the table. When we're talking about representation in 2016 in Canada, we need to be attentive to the representation of groups within society: to gender, ethno-cultural groups and visible minorities, and indigenous peoples. I didn't say that there was no relation between systems and these groups. I said that you can find counter-examples. In our present system, the result for aboriginal people and for visible minorities is not a bad result, and that should be taken into account. That's because of what parties do, and because of their candidate nominations and the increasing numbers over time. It doesn't have anything to do with the system as such, because it's been stable.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're out of time, unfortunately. I know it goes quickly.
Mr. Blaikie.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I want to talk a little bit more about process. We've heard—I think my colleague here was saying it earlier—the question, what's the rush? I agree that a deadline shouldn't make for bad process. At the same time, I think we've heard from a number of witnesses that Canada actually has been talking about electoral reform for a very long time. As professors, I'm sure you'll appreciate the power of a deadline to get things done and will know that either you or your students, without a deadline, may.... You know: there's always one more book to read or one more chapter to write, and having some sense of urgency can help get something done—in this case, something that many people have been talking about for a long time.
Even if it's not always foremost on the mind of voters, I think there has been a long-standing sense that somehow our elections are not always producing fair results when it comes to the Parliament. Maybe people don't have a well-defined conception of how to produce fairer results or what tweaking would be necessary or how exactly it works out, but I think there is a sense—and some elections produce that more than others—that we don't have a system that is always conducive towards a particularly fair representation of where voters are at.
I would like to see action on this. We heard one of our witnesses before say that there's been a lot of talk and not a lot of action. It's something that I would like to see action on. I feel that this committee has an important role to play not only in going out and talking to Canadians, although that is important, and not just talking to experts, but in getting something done.
Can you share some thoughts with us on what you think needs to come out of this committee in order to have something that Canadians can see as a legitimate outcome for this stage of the process and that can actually launch us into further action rather than further talk? Do you have some thoughts about what we can do as a committee to precipitate change?
Prof. Larry LeDuc
Yes. I'll mention two things that come to mind that I think could be done. They may not be realistic, but we could at least talk about them.
One is based on what I said earlier about Japan. If this committee could serve as a vehicle for developing any consensus proposal whereby all of you had a proposed reform that you could sign off on and present as an all-party recommendation to the people of Canada, I think you could put it to a referendum and have a reasonable chance of bringing it across.
Now, the campaign would also have to be structured in such a way that people could understand it, had enough information about it, and had proper fora in which to debate and discuss it. But I could envision a process like that.
I don't know your committee well enough to know whether that is even conceivable, but if you could produce a report with a recommendation and say this is what we believe should be done and we all agree, I think it would be very powerful.
The second model that I like is based on the Ontario experience. I thought the citizens' assembly was a brilliant idea—borrowed from British Columbia, so I should give credit there. The citizens' assembly was a relatively new idea at the time that both British Columbia and Ontario adopted it. I thought it worked brilliantly, but then they didn't carry it through.
It got closer in British Columbia than in Ontario. In Ontario, the government basically changed its mind and undercut the assembly at the final stage. It didn't fund the education campaign properly; it allowed the assembly to be demonized in the press; it didn't provide any spending arrangements.
But I could imagine a process like the Ontario process that was extended, or maybe more like an improved B.C. process, and if you were to recommend something like that and then give that body enough time to work and to develop its proposal, which might then later be put to the people, I think this is a model that would have a reasonable chance of succeeding.
How much time it would take, I'm not sure. I doubt that you could do it between now and December.
There are two fundamental principles, which are quite different. The first one is cross-party consensus, and probably a parliament is a better milieu in which to build that consensus, or a forum like this.
The other is the argument that politicians shouldn't be trusted to tinker with institutions and that therefore you need to set up some kind of extraordinary body, such as a citizens' assembly or a convention that operates at arm's length from the political process as it normally takes place day to day.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Good afternoon, everyone. I'm here today as a replacement member.
What I am hearing here today is very interesting to me. I have to honestly say that this is one of the rare times that I agree with a Bloc Québécois member. I completely agree on the referendum issue. I also fully agree that this potential change in the way we vote is a very important issue and that we must take the time needed to study it and determine how to proceed.
As legislators, we often have to act hastily, but this issue should not be rushed. I think we need a comprehensive vision.
I would like to ask Mr. Seidle a question.
Considering that this a very important subject for all of us, I would like you to tell us more about the need to hold a referendum on changing our electoral system.
In January, you wrote an article in Policy Options. I would like to quote two excerpts. I'm quoting loosely—I'm not necessarily very skilled at this—but you wrote that such a fundamental change to how we elect the country’s most important legislative institution should require majority support through a national vote. In addition, you wrote that the desirability, or not, of holding a referendum on a proposed new electoral system should be assessed on the basis of the principle of democratic consent, not on attempts to guess the eventual result based on a partial number of cases.
Could you elaborate on these two statements? I would like to share your perspective on this issue.
Research Director, Canada's Changing Federal Community, Institute for Research on Public Policy
I don't really have much to add to what I wrote. I stand by my words. I haven't changed my mind since I wrote that article.
We held a referendum on constitutional reform in 1992. It might be argued that this was much more ambitious than the reform of the electoral system. It is true. Three provinces held a referendum. Why? The reasons had to do with democracy and participation. The results were not favourable to the people who wanted reform. The results in British Columbia were quite respectable, and it is unfortunate, in a way, that the government set the bar at 60%.
I would like to get back to the previous question, namely what this committee should do to move this process forward.
According to your terms of reference, you are not being asked to reach a consensus, to recommend one single option. I do not quite agree with my colleague. Based on what I know about the positions of the parties, I would say in fact that the objective of establishing a consensus, one model and mechanisms, is not very feasible. I do not want to appear cynical, but I have to be realistic.
You can still submit a report with the three options you find most promising. The government could then develop an initiative focusing on public education and debate to help Canadians learn more about the process. All this, however, would be predicated on the condition that the government abandon the idea of holding the next election under a new system.
Mr. Mayrand said that he would need two years to implement a new system. If we add a referendum and then calculate the time left before the next election, we can see that it does not work. It would be possible to develop a process that would provide for more debates and a referendum to be held at the next election. This would not increase costs.
Research Director, Canada's Changing Federal Community, Institute for Research on Public Policy
It's an option you can look into.