Electoral Reform Committee on July 28th, 2016

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

Based on what you've been talking to us about today, I've started to map out two sections, outputs and mechanics, from a citizen's perspective.

We will be going on the road—we like to call it “The Road Show”—and when we're talking to Canadians, we want to come up with a framework of questions from a voter's perspective. I've separated them into outputs and the mechanics, thinking about choice. I've referred to all of the five principles in our mandate letter. Should we be asking them how much they currently know about the electoral system, and whether they want to know more?

I'm throwing this out there because I don't know if Canadians really want to look under the hood. Now you're making me wonder. Do they really want this, or are they just happy to have the status quo?

[Prof. Dennis Pilon]

The difficulty with that question is that people don't know what they don't know. What you get is a very “classed” response. Middle-class people often don't know anything more than poorer working-class people, but they have a stronger sense of entitlement. They think that you should want to listen to their uninformed opinions.

Poor people and working-class people tend to shy away from situations where their ignorance will be exposed. They self-select themselves out. When we look at the voter turnout problem, that is a big part of the equation. It's not an undifferentiated group that aren't showing up. They are very “classed” in their level of privilege. They realize they don't really know what's going on and they don't feel informed, and still less do they feel privileged, so they don't come. That's going to be one of your challenges in trying to gauge them.

I would recommend asking them some factual questions. That is where you will find out. Some of them will tell you they know everything, but when you ask them some factual questions, you'll find out what they really know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Flumian, I come back to you here again. I think in relation to our previous conversation, you had offered to give a written response to why the other systems don't maybe match those top five goals of a voting system.

[Maryantonett Flumian]

I could give you a response on the degree to which they might match so that you can make the deliberation of where you want to go.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Because you had indicated they don't match, I would ask if you could explain why you feel they wouldn't match.

[Maryantonett Flumian]

I would be happy to do so. I'll do it for you in writing.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I wanted to come to another topic from another article that you wrote for iPolitics, and I think you've commented on it a little bit in your comments today as well. You certainly talked about the idea that you believe that somehow referenda don't lend themselves to deciding complex decisions.

In the iPolitics article you specifically wrote, and this is a quote: “The harder it is to reduce an issue to a single value judgment, the less apt a candidate it is for a referendum.”

I'm wondering if you would agree with me that an election in fact is a type of referendum. It's a referendum on who should govern the country. Would you say that's a fair statement?

[Maryantonett Flumian]

I don't think there's a relationship. That's because of the nature of the complexity and the issues, and the multi-parties, and all of the issues that are associated with actually casting your franchise, so I'm not going to go there.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay, that's fine, because I would agree with that statement. Elections are not a vote on a single question but a vote on multiple and complex questions, much as you were indicating a referendum would be.

I guess what I want to sort of ask in relation to that.... I guess I find it hard, based on that logic, to see....

The question would be this. You're saying that the issues at play in an election are broad and multi-faceted and complex, which is sort of the same argument that you're making about a referendum. If elections are valid even though they're based on complex and multi-faceted issues, I guess I'm trying to understand why referenda are not then valid based on the same...?

[Maryantonett Flumian]

I think I've made that clear, but I think the system works something like the following, Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Richards.

We elect individuals who compose Parliament and we ask them the most complex questions for deliberation on our behalf. Your job is then to go out and ask all those constituents, to come back and check with all of your other colleagues in the party system that you belong to, and then in Parliament more broadly, and to then recommend to Canadians the best solution. That's the way our system works.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I would say that the next step would then be to give Canadians the ultimate and final say on whether what we've come up with is something they believe is valid and acceptable to them, and I certainly—

[Maryantonett Flumian]

In my judgment, you are a great proxy for that, as are the legislative and executive arms of government, and should the three of you be doing something wacko, the courts will be there to observe the view, and Canadians too.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I appreciate your viewpoint, and I certainly have more faith in the voters than that.

The other question I would ask—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 30 seconds.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Very quickly, then, I'll ask you this, Ms. Flumian, since there isn't time for the others. Do you not see some kind of inherent conflict of interest in a process whereby politicians are deciding how politicians should be elected or re-elected?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Give a brief response, please.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Rose, it looks like you might have a comment on that as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We don't have time. We're already up to the four minutes, so please answer briefly, Ms. Flumian.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I just saw Mr. Rose shaking his head “yes”.

[Maryantonett Flumian]

I would say we place a fundamental trust in our elected officials that they will rise above that and make the best call for all Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for that succinct—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Rose indicated he wanted to make a point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 10 seconds, Mr. Rose.

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

The line I use for that question is that it's like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. You're absolutely right in saying there's a huge conflict of interest, and that's why I don't think politicians should be making that decision. In a perfect world, citizens would be making that decision.