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

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Got it. Okay, thanks.

Go ahead, Mr. DeCourcey.

Noon

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Thanks, Ms. Flumian, for that eloquent lesson in how elections provide us with a representative democracy in which we deliberate and pronounce on complex decisions in a way that I think leads all Canadians to understand the value of that system. I note as well, in reading your bio, that this view is based on decades of diverse experience at some of the highest levels of governance in the country.

I want to get back to the idea of values. Ken Carty spoke to us on Monday about the values that citizens reflected, I believe in the assembly in B.C., about fair representation, more preference in balloting, and the link between the elected and the electors, the issue of local representation in political culture.

We've talked about hoping that increasing voter turnout can help strengthen ideas around fair representation. Also, I think it could strengthen the link between elected and elector.

Dr. Pilon, you mentioned that inevitably PR will increase voter turnout. All the witness testimony we've received so far had led us to believe that there is at best an ambiguous link, and that was the word—

Noon

Prof. Dennis Pilon

I think what I said was that it would change voter turnout.

You're right that no voting system is going to change the problem of voter turnout, because the key thing to increase voter turnout is to increase direct contact between the political class and the individual. We know from studying voter turnout that if you have someone who is not already committed to vote, the key predictor of their turning out to vote is some sort of personal contact.

The old enumeration system was very good for putting people on the road and knocking on doors and alerting people that an election was coming. What I said about proportional systems was that there's evidence they will change voter turnout. In New Zealand, for instance, they discovered that the composition of the electorate changed, even though the rate didn't. People who were only motivated by “the ship is sinking; we could lose by one vote” weren't as motivated under PR, but those who felt under-represented—the less privileged voters, those who had traditionally been left out of our political system and by extension their political system—were more likely to turn out under PR.

From the point of view of equity—and I think this committee is very interested in that—there is evidence that a PR system would move significantly towards addressing some of those equity concerns about who is influencing what happens in our Parliament.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Thank you for the clarification. Maybe we can consider the electoral system as one of a number of elements that could potentially help enhance voter turnout, thus strengthening the link between elected and elector within a larger ecosystem. Are we characterizing it properly?

Maybe we could have your views, Dr. Rose and Ms. Flumian.

12:05 p.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

I think absolutely. I think you've put it really well in saying that the electoral system is only one component of a larger thing. If you're looking for the electoral system to be a panacea for all your political woes, you ain't gonna find it.

12:05 p.m.

President, Institute on Governance

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am happy.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Mr. DeCourcey.

Go ahead, Ms. Benson.

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK

Thank you.

To follow up on the point brought up, I would like all three of you to quickly comment, because I have another question.

When you have an ecosystem, you can start somewhere, and I guess what I feel from this last election is that people have asked us to start somewhere. We are starting on the electoral system. You can sit around and talk about all the different pieces of the puzzle, and then people will just throw up their arms and say, well....

I'm just throwing that out for a comment. You have to start somewhere, so is this a good place to start?

How about that: a very simple question.

Mr. Pilon, Mr. Rose—

12:05 p.m.

Prof. Dennis Pilon

I think you know my answer: yes.

Yes, it's absolutely the place to start, because the place to start is to rebuild the trust with the electorate, and one of the ways we do that is by registering their preferences accurately. By registering their preferences accurately, you will rebuild that trust. People will feel heard.

To me, a democratic process is a two-part thing. It starts with representation. Get people to the table. Let's not leave people out; let's get everybody to the table; let's hear the different views. Then we have to make decisions. Okay; then the majority rules.

There's lots of evidence to show that when people are missing from the table, so are their issues. To me it's crucial that we start with the voting system and that we get better at bringing people into the room so that we can hear what they have to say. We won't necessarily do everything they want, but they will be heard, and they have a much greater chance of influencing the events if they're here.

12:05 p.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

Quickly, I agree that it's a great place to start, but it doesn't tell you where you want to go, and that to me is the more important question.

12:05 p.m.

President, Institute on Governance

Maryantonett Flumian

I have to agree fundamentally with that as well. It is an ecosystem. I'm not suggesting that you throw up your arms because it's complicated, because we know what its component pieces are.

Do we need some kind of change? Yes. Canadians are telling us that they want change. I would start with the changes to the administration of how we manage voting now. I signalled that strongly in my comments. Are we exploring every aspect around the e-dimension? Are we reaching out through educational components to marginalized groups? Are we making sure that we're doing as much as we can to squeeze all of the juice out of that lemon?

Then what you recommend as further changes is going to be important. However, I would be careful. When you recommend those changes, remind people that they're nested in a broader system and that they're not a panacea for all the other things that have to change: the role of parliamentarians, the importance we place on the role of individual members who come to Parliament, the role of the executive and how respectful it is of Parliament, and all of those issues.

That's all I would say.

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK

I would like to pose my next question to the three of you.

This question came up during the election. Many people in my riding talked about the fact that all politicians just want to get re-elected and therefore the issues they deal with are four-year issues. In my riding, people said they wanted to talk about homelessness. They wanted me to work with other people and they wanted to get to a solution.

I would ask you to reflect on the value of a different system, a different way of governing, so that if we affected the voter system, those kinds of issues could actually be addressed and we'd get to solutions.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We have about 10 seconds each, so please be concise.

12:10 p.m.

Prof. Dennis Pilon

It's rooted in the frustration that people have that parties get elected and then they don't do the things they promised. Part of that is the accountability issue: that people have difficulty making Party Right accountable to Party Left, or vice versa.

Again, I think a move to a proportional system would allow for a different kind of accountability to occur.

12:10 p.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

I think what you're talking about is stability, and again it depends on what you mean by stability. Policy lurches that occur in a first-past-the-post system would not occur, or are less likely to occur, in PR systems. PR systems, if they are more centrist and govern for a longer period of time, are more likely to have that same kind of longer-term stability.

12:10 p.m.

President, Institute on Governance

Maryantonett Flumian

I would say that the issue is about behaviours, in addition to everything else we've talked about.

No complex issue, whether it's homelessness or any of the others you can point to, can be fixed by one minister, one ministry, one department, one anything. They're complex issues by their nature. It takes a collaborative approach to how we work together. That is the heart of how our Parliament should work when it works at its best. That's why we have minority governments working in exceptional ways, because the premium is on behaviour that requires us to work together.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

12:10 p.m.

President, Institute on Governance

Maryantonett Flumian

Whatever voting system does that, fill your boots.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Mr. Deltell, over to you.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What we are talking about today is the heart of our democracy and one of the most important things we have to decide, because the way we elect people is the heart of everything. All of the rest belongs to the choices that we make to elect our members. Everything—budget, taxes, policies, international affairs, defence—belongs to those who have been elected. It is the heart of our country.

This is the heart of our democracy. As far as I'm concerned, the method we use to elect people is the most important institution. It is more important than the Governor General and the Prime Minister and anything else. This is why it's very touchy. When we talk about institutions, we must be sure of what we're doing when we make any move.

We think that the best way to be sure we are making the right choice is to ask the people what they think. I'm not the only one who thinks like that. Let me quote a famous senior minister of the Liberal cabinet, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, former Liberal leader, academic for 20 years, well recognized from coast to coast, who said:

Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.

It was not a Conservative who said that. It was a senior Liberal cabinet minister, the backbone of the government, who said that. I disagree with him on many issues, but I do respect the fact that he's an intellectual, an academic, well recognized, a Ph.D. On that issue, I can assure you that he's in the right place. In politics in a democracy, we are always in the right place when we ask people what they think about what is best for the future.

We all recognize, too, Mr. Chair, that our present electoral system is not perfect.

It certainly isn't, and woe to anyone who thinks otherwise. There is no perfect system. That is why you must be very sure of what you are doing if you want to change anything. Keep in mind that it took 11 years for New Zealand to complete its process.

Mr. Pilon, we do not agree on the referendum. You are quite right to think as you do. You're not the only one with this view. The same applies to us, as we are not alone in wanting a referendum. People from all walks of life do, including sovereignists in the Bloc Québecois, renowned great federalists like Stéphane Dion, and us, Conservatives. We believe that, if we have to change the electoral system, which is the most important institution in our democracy, we must do it by consulting Canadians.

Mr. Pilon, you do not think so. Do you think we should not hold a referendum? On what authority could you claim to know what is good for people if you don't ask them?

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

You have 45 seconds to answer, Mr. Pilon.

12:10 p.m.

Prof. Dennis Pilon

As I've suggested, the higher normative principle that votes should count is what authorizes me to make the claim I do. The fact is that votes should be equal. That is a fundamental democratic idea.

We use the voting system we do not because it was authorized by the people. Elections precede the democratic era by many centuries. Our challenge is how we change the original political institutions to embody the democratic values Canadians have. In 1867, we were not a democracy, right? Very few people could vote. There was open voting. There was violence at the polls. There followed a very long process of attempting to impose some democratic values on our political system.

I have to say, with all respect to Stéphane Dion, who is a brilliant man, that he's wrong about the precedent. We've had 10 voting system reforms that were successful and that were passed by simple majorities of their legislatures. Almost no voting systems in western countries have been introduced by referendum. This is a very recent phenomenon.

More to the point, the normative rationale behind the referendums was not any kind of belief or embrace that the people should be the authors of this; it was cynical political posturing by parties that were trying to avoid their commitments. That is as true in New Zealand as it was in Italy as it was in the three provinces that had referendums here, so—

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We'll go to Ms. Sahota now to end the round.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Thank you.

I just want to go back to something that was touched on in the last question round about involving and engaging more young Canadians, marginalized Canadians, and new Canadians.

We heard some interesting testimony yesterday about perhaps lowering the voting age to get young Canadians at the age when they're probably more likely to come out to the polls because they live with their families or they're not in a time in their lives when they're away and maybe not thinking about elections.

What are your thoughts on that? I thought it was a very interesting idea.