Evidence of meeting #12 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 voters.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Dennis Pilon  Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, York University, As an Individual
Jonathan Rose  Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
Maryantonett Flumian  President, Institute on Governance

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Perhaps this could enter into another answer. Our time is up.

We'll go to Mr. Deltell now.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I welcome the witnesses to their provincial Parliament, or rather the federal Parliament. I apologize, it's an old habit of six years.

Ms. Flumian, I will start with you. I have been listening to you for a while and find your comments very interesting, of course. I understand from what you said that you truly value the work we do here. That's great and we appreciate it, but ultimately, the decision is not ours to make.

About a month ago, in this very room, at this table, on that chair by your side, the minister responsible came to testify. She was specifically asked whether her government would be bound to follow the committee's recommendation, if there happens to be one. As you know, this committee will be travelling across Canada to hear from experts and citizens like you.

This is a serious effort undertaken by all political parties in the House and normally it would lead to a recommendation. However, the minister told us that she would not be bound by it.

What does that mean, Ms. Flumian? Ultimately one person will make the decision, and that is the Prime Minister. He controls the executive, that is, the cabinet. He also controls the majority in the House. Therefore, it's not the entire population who will decide on our new electoral system, but rather one single person: the Prime Minister.

What are your thoughts on that?

11:20 a.m.

President, Institute on Governance

Maryantonett Flumian

I think that your work is fundamentally important here. I think the greater amount of hard work in the public domain that will lead to discussions that may or may not result in unanimity will condition the discussion and the conditions that are made going forward. I think there's no escaping that. The only way you can escape that is if you shirk your responsibilities and place the consultation and the duty for the crucial questions on this issue elsewhere.

I think that's how you legitimize the role of parliamentarians and the role of Parliament. This is how you link the role of Parliament to the role of government. I think part of the bargain that's actually broken here, which is why we're having these conversations, is that historically parties have run on their party platforms, convincing their base and convincing a large enough number of Canadians to form government. Once they pivoted into government—because pivot is the word of the day these days—they then understood that they were here to represent all Canadians. They stayed in government as long as they understood that. The moment they forgot that, out they went.

Now we've gone through a period of time where Canadians have expressed great dissatisfaction at the way we were governed. That's the fundamental question here, and what are you going to do to affect that?

I think you have the primary role to play on this issue, in having that conversation with the minister and with her colleagues in cabinet, who are your colleagues in Parliament, and the function is supposed to be that Parliament is supreme in our system.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

I really appreciate that you value our work. We will be meeting with a lot of Canadians, but the minister said that she was not at all bound by the work of this committee. In the end, only one person will make the decision, and that is the Prime Minister.

What do you think would be the best way to ensure the legitimacy of the process, other than through a referendum?

11:20 a.m.

President, Institute on Governance

Maryantonett Flumian

I'm glad someone asked me about a referendum.

The best way to ensure legitimacy is for you to home in on recommendations that will demonstrate how the narrow focus of your question improves the broader governance question. Put that to the Canadians you're consulting with and discussing these matters with, make that open and transparent—which, of course, by virtue of these committee meetings it is—and that will draw everybody in the country to conclusions about where this should be heading. If it takes more than one round of these committee meetings over the course of a life of any Parliament, so be it. That is the hard work of governing.

On the issue of referenda, if I have a moment...or will I pick it up in another question?

July 28th, 2016 / 11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

You have about 45 seconds, so go ahead.

11:25 a.m.

President, Institute on Governance

Maryantonett Flumian

I don't know if I have 45 seconds, but here I go.

It's a very blunt instrument that leads to binary choices on very complicated matters when we haven't even figured out what the questions are yet in a governance ecosystem.

When I look around the room, I look at the age of this committee and at my own age. I am the generation, as you are the generation, of people who are the recipients of national referenda and referenda recovery in a world where our national referenda have tended to be extremely divisive, not leading to goodwill and greater understanding on the importance of the issue. This is why it's so important that all of you, as parliamentarians, take this role seriously in what you're going to be doing. There's nothing more important.

I have to say that for our whole governance ecosystem, as a former public servant—that's how I spent 30 years of my life—we have spent an entire time reflecting on the outcome of those referenda. However, here's the good news: we have evolved our models of government. In 1981, when I started working in the Department of Finance, it was a very different model of government than it is today. We have made it a far more decentralized system in every aspect of what we do.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you so much.

11:25 a.m.

President, Institute on Governance

Maryantonett Flumian

That's been your job. Thank you for it.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Ms. Sahota is next.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Thank you.

I'm so delighted to have all of you here today. It's been a very enlightening panel. You guys have been very diverse in your views, which is nice to see.

We've been hearing a lot about what voters really know. What I'm hearing is that they don't know the system.

Mr. Rose, you were saying what they do know is what they value. From your experience with Ontario citizens' assemblies, you said that simplicity was one of the things that they highly valued.

Ms. Flumian, you said that the most important value is the connection between a parliamentarian and his or her constituency. We were talking a little about perspective. Is it our perspective? Is it the voters' perspective on what system we need to move forward with?

What I do know and what this committee knows is we need to make progress. You stated a little earlier, Mr. Pilon, that we haven't always had constituency offices. This is a new phenomenon, and now all of a sudden we're so caught up on that being important. Let me tell you, I do door-knocking. I do talk to constituents who walk into my office. I think that is part of the progress we have made in Canada. That is how we progress. I think it's been for the better, not for the worse.

My question to you is on that connection between constituents. I have constituents who don't just come from that Canadian perspective but who have immigrated from all over the world. They come from different systems and different perspectives. The one thing they pretty much unanimously tell me is they love Canada because they cannot connect with their member of Parliament in any other country the way they can here.

Not just for me do I value that connection with them, but for them. That's what I hear day after day. At the door during the election, I heard, “You're here now. What makes us think you'll be here later?” That connection and that availability are so important to them.

Whatever progress we make, would you say that's something we cannot risk losing at this point, now that we've made that progress?

11:25 a.m.

Prof. Dennis Pilon

Anything that connects voters to the political system in a cohesive way is a good thing, and I support it.

I realize I'm fighting an uphill battle perhaps with my audience in attempting to suggest that we just temper your enthusiasm for your local representative role. I've overstated the case, only because of course I think it's overstated generally in the other direction. In no way am I trying to suggest that I want a system where there is no connection. There should be a connection. In fact, I don't agree with my colleague's comment that PR would represent a trade-off on the local representation front.

As you heard from our Irish experts, the Irish have very strong opinions about the connection they should have, and local members who do not do their service are rapidly punished by their electorate. The beauty of the Irish system is that voters can punish a local representative who is slacking off and not doing the local job without sacrificing the support that they want to give to their party. That is a very sophisticated way to balance out these different interests. That's what I'm asking you to consider as you move forward: we can have our cake and eat it too on the local representation and effective representation for parties. I say that because I really do think the parties are so crucial.

When we take away parties, what happens? We have local representation. Voter turnout plummets, because without parties, voters find it very difficult to participate. What happens when you leave your party and you run as an independent? You lose, because that party label is a crucial part of the way that people participate in politics.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am in no way discrediting the hard work you're doing on the doorstep or the appreciation felt by that small group of people who come to see you. That is really meaningful to them, absolutely, but I say that we can have that and that the claims we hear about PR systems somehow wrecking it are false and unsubstantiated.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Do you have any comments, Mr. Rose?

11:30 a.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

I began by saying that the key word in this discussion was “contingency”. I would say that in response to your question.

Local representation is important. As was just described, the Irish case is a great example of local representation. Because the geographical constituencies are reasonably small, they sacrifice proportionality. Most experts would suggest that in order to have true proportionality, you need about five representatives per district. If you have fewer than that, you give up some proportionality. In Ireland they clearly say, “We like the fact that there's local representation and we're willing to give up some of the proportionality.” That's what I was referring to when I meant trade-offs.

When the Ontario citizens' assembly members mocked up an STV model for Ontario, they realized quickly that if they wanted proportionality, which is something they desired, either the ridings would have to be enormous or the legislature would have to be increased significantly. Those trade-offs were the things they played with. I'm not suggesting that's the domain of this conversation. I said to myself I didn't want to get into the mechanics here today, but in answer to your question, that's the way it sits.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Okay. Thank you.

We'll start the second round with Mr. Aldag.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Ms. Flumian, you were talking about referenda. Had you finished your thoughts on that? I wanted to make sure you had time to—

11:30 a.m.

President, Institute on Governance

Maryantonett Flumian

I think you got the gist of my message.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

I did, but in case there was anything further—

11:30 a.m.

President, Institute on Governance

Maryantonett Flumian

I could go on, but it's wasting time.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Okay, perfect.

There's something I'd like to put to all three of you. We've seen attempts at electoral reform at the provincial level. We've talked about that. We've heard that citizen engagement was done in great ways in Ontario and B.C., yet it failed.

As we embark on this, you've given us some thoughts, but could each of you share with us your thoughts on what we need to do differently to come to a different result in the end than what we saw happen in the provinces?

Ms. Flumian, maybe you want to start on this one.

11:30 a.m.

President, Institute on Governance

Maryantonett Flumian

Thank you. It would be a pleasure.

This my fundamental message: whatever recommendations your deliberations take you to, rest them on our entire governance ecosystem. People want some change. People want evolution. Our system has to evolve in order to maintain that primordial connection directly with citizens, which I think is fundamental to our democratic system of governance, but understand the whole system.

In Ontario, when the work of the constituent assembly was done, the government essentially took a pass. That may have had an impact on the results of that reform. That's why I'm saying to look at the entire ecosystem and understand the role of all these folks, because you were challenging the status quo at all levels. You're not simply challenging your relationship or whose perception it is, citizen perception or parliamentary perception—quite frankly, those should overlap as often as possible—but look at the entire system in which you're going to nest your recommendations.

There is no magic bullet. The answer is not first past the post or proportional representation or some combination, because fundamental to all of this is reforming and evolving your roles as well. Whatever system we have, you're getting elected by some mechanism to help govern Canada.

In today's day and age, the more connection you have, whether it's through constituent assemblies, whether it's through other mechanisms.... The value of a constituent assembly is highly deliberative. The problem with the constituent assembly is that it is deliberative for the people who are in the room; the rest of us think they've drunk the Kool-Aid. They didn't go through the same process and they don't understand it.

I put much more value on your deliberative discussions—because that's what you're here to do every day—than I put on the value of others externally to it, especially when I'm a public administration expert myself, a governance expert myself.

The answer is to connect as much as possible, but connect on the questions that are going to matter, and nest the questions you're going to be asking Canadians in the aspects of the system, of which voting is only one dimension.

As I said earlier, the reason there's a malaise in the country is that there is a strong view that there was a big disconnection between those who governed us and the way we're governed and what we tried to say to those who are governing us, and that is Parliament. It's the government, and Parliament definitely is not composed of some amorphous...it's all of you individually and the roles you play.

What is the importance of the not-for-profit sector? Where does it find its voice? Does it find its voice through...? Those are fundamental questions that the way we exercise the vote are supposed to address. Therefore, nest your recommendations, your deliberations, within that broader governance ecosystem. If you change one, you'll change another.

I was a public administrator for 30 years. If we change minority government models—which I'm not arguing we shouldn't—and if the cabinet is composed of multiple types of parties, it changes the role of public service. Good. Good on us. Let's explore what that means. Let's not get into unintended consequences that are bigger than what we're trying to correct by not understanding the implications of this aspect of your questions and the implications they have on the broader democratic governance system.

Thank you.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

You have half a minute.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Okay. Does either of the others want to...?

11:35 a.m.

Prof. Dennis Pilon

Again, I think what you're going to see in your consultations is partisan types and a lot of advocacy groups, and they're going to reflect back some of the opinions that are already here in this room. In that sense, it's a bit of an echo chamber. However, some stragglers might come in who aren't committed, and for them I think you really have to get at what's at stake.

Okay, you like the local presentation. That's great, but there are these other things, and you have to recognize that having it will affect the other things you also say you want. It can't just be a freebie.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Understood.

Mr. Reid is next, please.