Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 22nd, 2016

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

I don't think it would go against the charter because what the charter does recognize is the right to vote, and as long as the right to vote is respected, I think the charter is respected. Then it becomes more a question of what kinds of values do we as Canadians want to cherish or to promote. Is it in our political culture to impose a duty on citizens to participate in the democratic process? I think that our culture is more one in which we want to invite people, we want to make things more accommodating for people. Imposing duties, I don't think, is very much in our culture. At least it's not something that we at the time as a government had considered.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about 30 seconds.

We'll go to Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting hearing about young people, because I have to imagine that if it helps having more women represented in politics, it certainly would have the same effect for young people.

Moreover, it's would probably be interesting, Chair, if I may, to imagine the impact on young students as well. They're on university campuses, perhaps far from home, and in a proportional system they might actually be able to vote more for a party as opposed to a local representative given the interests they have. I certainly saw that in my time at McGill when I was politically involved on campus. But that's not my question; it's just a point I wanted to make.

My question, Professor Lijphart, is for you. A lot of hay is made about the instability that proportional representation could bring. I don't think that's quite true, especially when you look at the German example, which I think is a good one, and perhaps a more apropos one to bring up compared to some of the other ones we hear.

My question is about policy-making, which is the poor forgotten stepchild in this discussion. I think that a lot of Canadians feel that we're already in a perpetual election cycle, with 24-hour media, social media, and so forth. Therefore, I don't think we're necessarily getting the biggest bang for our buck. Instead of calling it “instability”, would you agree with me when I say that proportional representation, rather than making the government unstable, might actually just force a certain party to work a little bit harder to get some better policy ideas and more broadly reached policy goals?

[Prof. Arend Lijphart]

The way you have expressed it is also the way I would answer it. I agree completely with you.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thanks very much. I appreciate that.

Mr. Pelletier, I would like to come back to an issue that is often discussed and that was raised on a number of occasions today: the two classes of members and local representation. So let’s turn to the question you did not have a chance to answer earlier.

Many people vote for a party or for a prime minister whereas others like the work that their member of Parliament does.

Do you think that mixed-member proportional representation would provide the best of both worlds to those citizens who, in my opinion, form the majority? When we go door to door, we often hear people say that we are doing a great job, but that they might prefer another leader or party. They could have the best of all that with mixed-member proportional representation. We would have a system that truly represents the values of Canadians.

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

Yes.

Ultimately, the mixed-member proportional representation makes it possible to achieve two great objectives. The first is to reduce the discrepancy between the votes cast for, and the number of seats obtained by, a political party. The second is, if you will, to encourage smaller parties and diversity to emerge within an elected house.

That said, the first-past-the-post system has not served Canada badly throughout its history. We must not forget that Canada is the country that it is today largely because of its political institutions. The first-past-the-post system has likely contributed to the emergence of rather centrist parties. This has fostered the emergence of a strong centre, rather than the rise of divisions or factions in Canada. So it is not a bad system either.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

If I may, I would say that things have also changed. I mentioned this earlier. The news cycle is 24 hours a day and social networks are everywhere. This changes the perception of citizens who can follow the party leaders, the parties and the local work of their members of Parliament.

My question has to do with how to reconcile these two needs. Canadians want a prime minister who looks after not only local interests but also national or federal interests. We also have local members to look after local issues. Do you think it is possible to meet those two needs that, in my view, are still relatively new considering Canada’s age?

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

I think the experience of countries that adopted the mixed-member proportional method of voting is telling. The two classes of members have learned to live in harmony. They have found a way to work together. I suspect that the same thing would happen in Canada.

Furthermore, the issue of political stability that you raised a moment ago is very interesting because political stability must be actually defined. In our current system, some complain that the prime minister has too much power. The fact that he would have to hold discussions before bringing forward some of his policies might not be a bad thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Merci.

We'll go to Mr. Richards.

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

Mr. Pelletier, in response to a question from one of the government representatives across the way, you made the comment in regard to electoral reform that if Canadians aren't ready, then they'll let you know. I think what I'd like to do is to follow up on that, because it's a point we've made quite clearly here as the official opposition, that it's important that Canadians have a say. Canadians need to determine whether they want to change their system, and if so, how. They need to have that say. We believe that firmly. It sounded to me that in your comments you were saying that you're favourable to the idea of a referendum. Would you agree that it's important that Canadians have a say? We think a referendum is obviously the best way to do that.

I wanted to get some sense from you if this is something that's absolutely critical. Must the government have the consent of the people to make this change, and if it doesn't have that consent, can it proceed?

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

Legally speaking, the government could proceed through Parliament.

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

Of course.

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

There might be a qualified vote in Parliament with two thirds of MPs, for example, instead of a referendum. Let me tell you this, if the reform is “substantial”—and I used that word earlier—then there is a question of legitimacy related to the fact the population expresses its opinion on what the government proposes. The idea that a referendum is volatile, with all due respect, is not an argument in my view, because everything that is democratic is volatile. If we want to emphasize more democracy, then we have to deal with these volatile situations.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I want to ask about your perspective from having been a provincial legislator. When we're looking at changes like this, and we're looking at systems in different countries, Canada is a country with few good, direct comparisons. We're a large country, we're sparsely populated, and we have a great diversity amongst our different regions and amongst our different provinces. Any system that was looked at would have to be looked at through the lens of that Canadian reality, which is different from any other country.

One of things that's important in Canada is being able to make sure we have the different perspectives of the different regions and the different provinces as a part of anything that's done. I want to get your sense as a former provincial legislator, how important do you feel it is for the federal government to be consulting with provinces before introducing and passing any kind of reform in this regard?

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

To be frank, this is not something I would insist on, because the reform we're talking about would be at the federal level. In my view, there is no necessity to have the provinces on board, since it's at the federal level.

I usually insist very much on federal and provincial co-operation, so I cannot be suspected of anything on this question. To be frank, this is something that is going to exist at the federal level and in the federal order of government.

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

Okay, fair enough. I appreciate that.

Obviously your perspective is that it's important for it to be legitimate, and it's important that the Canadian people have a say. The provinces, although it's maybe different from what your usual viewpoint, are maybe not as important on this one.

I also want to follow up on a comment you made. At the end of someone's time slot, you had a chance to comment on something but not to finish your remarks, so I'll give you that opportunity now. It was essentially about one of the ways these top-ups can be done, that someone who has finished second in a riding where they have the highest number of second place votes could be one of those top-ups. You said that was absolutely not acceptable. I want to give you a chance to elaborate on why that might be.

I know that on my part, I think I would be concerned—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're already at five minutes, so we're back to the same problem we had when Mr. Pelletier was asked to elaborate before, but I'll be flexible if you'd like to take 25 to 30 seconds.

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

Thank you.

What was not acceptable to some people was the idea that someone would be a candidate in the riding and at the same time would be at the top of a list. When that person was defeated in the riding, it was the result of a democratic expression of the population that “We don't want that person” or that “We prefer another person.” The idea that the person could be an MP or an MNA through a list was not something that pleased parliamentarians, in particular, first, and some parts of the population second.

If I may, when I added the point that the person who was chosen from the list could become a minister, and theoretically could be the Prime Minister, that certainly did not please a lot of people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's interesting.

We'll close now with Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

You were talking about town halls a little while ago as a good consultation method. I had my town hall on electoral reform yesterday, and I was thinking back to the comments that were made. There were some who had come prepared with an idea already in mind, because they had really looked into it. There were others who came out just to hear what this was all about. From those who didn't know much about the different systems that we're talking about, such as MMP and STV, it was a difficult concept to grasp right off the bat. For some newer Canadians, of whom I have quite a lot in my riding, they mentioned that simplicity is something that they were looking for in an electoral system.

With MMP or these systems where you have large districts and multiple members being elected, how long do the lists of candidates get? I imagine that parties are running multiple candidates in these districts, since they are able to get five, six, seven seats in these districts. How long do the lists possibly get up to?

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

I don't have the answer to your question. It all depends on how big the electoral district is.

What I may say, though, about the town halls that we talked about earlier is that it's very important to have people debating the issue and participating in it. The voice of a government, like the Canadian government, on any issue, is so strong. I would say that the government has to deal with this issue very frankly, very openly, and then we will see what the reaction of the public will be. The voice of the Canadian government is, as you know, extremely strong all across the country. It is also strong on this issue, and it will be.... So there is a necessity for participation in this. I'm sure it's something that no one will oppose. The government has to deal extremely frankly with this issue and to tell the population about the advantages and the disadvantages of any system that it would propose.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Well, you've been through the process, so we're definitely working on doing that ourselves as well.

Mr. Lijphart, do you have an idea of how long these ballot lists, or number of candidates on them, can get?

[Prof. Arend Lijphart]

When you're talking about STV, the most important reason that STV is used mainly in relatively small districts is not to have too long lists of candidates that may be confusing to the voter. Of course, for the voters it's still not terribly complicated, because as long as they find at least one candidate they like among all of the candidates, they can vote for that person. They can also have a second preference, third preference, and so on. But in any case, when you have a five-member district, for instance, it's likely that several parties will nominate several candidates, so I don't think the list would have more than, say, 10 or 15 candidates. With MMP, there are not likely very many candidates in a single-member district, so that's not a problem. Then for the party-list candidates, it's the parties that present lists, and you vote for a party rather than individual candidates, and I think that's still not all that complicated.

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

Do I have any more time left?