Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 22nd, 2016

[Prof. Arend Lijphart]

—they can obviously vote a blank ballot or make their ballot invalid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Prof. Arend Lijphart]

People can be told they have to come out and vote, but they don't have to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll have to go to Mr. DeCourcey now to start the second round.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to something we talked about earlier.

If we change our electoral system, we are possibly, definitely, changing the political culture. I would like to explore that a little more deeply.

Professor Pelletier, in your opinion, how should that reality be presented to Canadians during our trip to the regions of the country and to the various meetings we are going to have with them? Should we ask them which system they would like or should we present all the systems to them and ask them to choose the one they prefer? Should we ask them about the values they would like to see reflected in the electoral system or in the system of governance?

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

I feel that the main question should deal with the values that people want to embrace. The choice of those values can then lead to different voting methods that might perhaps interest them. This committee must be very open, but, in my opinion, the government itself will have to opt for one system in particular. What was probably lacking in British Columbia and Ontario is the fact that—

the government was not behind the proposal. If a government is behind something, and tries to explain something, it may convince more people to go ahead with such a reform.

In my opinion, the values are important. In the situation we are dealing with, there must be a very honest explanation of the different systems, given that each of them has its strengths and its weaknesses.

At the same time, in my opinion, the government will have a choice to make. One minister will probably be taking the lead in this. Having one minister carrying the ball and a government standing up for one point of view is quite a strength in our democratic system, in my opinion.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

After asking Canadians what value they want to see reflected in this system and in their style of governance, and after choosing a system that best tries to reflect those values, there will still be challenges to overcome when putting into effect the system and educating Canadians about that system. You mentioned some of the constitutional considerations involved. What might be the two or three challenges you think we should most be prepared to work on to overcome, and to educate Canadians about, as we examine and deliver an alternative system?

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

I can tell you that, in Quebec's case, the size of the electoral constituencies was a factor that came into play for many people. In fact, the idea of increasing the size of the already existing constituencies displeased a lot of people who feared that they would have less direct and less frequent contact with their MNAs. The positive side of all that is that it demonstrated the attachment that Quebeckers had to their MNAs. That was an extremely important factor.

In addition, when you are talking about a mixed-member proportional voting system, there is a choice to be made. Will it be compensated for regionally or nationally? That has to be clearly explained to people. People also have to know that having two classes of members is something that exists in other countries and that the members there have found ways in which to work together in harmony. I was talking about that to my own colleagues.

I was saying to one of my colleagues, for example, an MNA, a member of Quebec's National Assembly,

there would be the dual candidacy.

Does that mean the person I would defeat in the riding would become an MNA through the list? I guess.

It's not acceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That is interesting.

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

If I defeat someone, the electorate has spoken. I don't want the idea that person becomes an MNA—or an MP in your case—through another way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We now go back to Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Professor Pelletier, your comments are really interesting. I am going to come back to you in a few moments, but I would now like to ask Professor Lijphart a question.

Professor, you said earlier that we in Canada will be inspired by the New Zealand experience, because we are from the same process. We were born under the British government, under the Commonwealth, and they have made a change. However, we should also recognize that in New Zealand it took them more than 10 years before they moved to a new system: it took three elections, 18 months of a crown commission, and three referenda. Don't you think we should be inspired by the experience of New Zealand in terms of the process, and not only the result?

[Prof. Arend Lijphart]

I think the New Zealand experience is an extremely interesting one. In the case of New Zealand, it happened in spite of the opposition of the two main parties that had been the beneficiary of the previous FPTP system. In some ways you can say that in New Zealand it happened by accident. In fact, the two major parties tried to scuttle the change to PR, and it only happened because there was a strong popular movement that demanded a referendum. Reluctantly the governing party allowed that referendum, but it still tried to structure it in such a way that the outcome might be the defeat of PR. As you said, there were three referendums, one on which of the alternative methods should be chosen. The winner of that was placed against the FPTP system.

I think the reason it took such a long time in New Zealand was that the political establishment was against it. I think a better way to do this is for the representatives of the people in parliaments, as in your House of Commons, to discuss it and not have to push it through against the wishes of the major traditional players.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It's interesting what you're saying, professor. You're saying that it's not the political elite who have the last word, but the population. Is that the way we should follow?

[Prof. Arend Lijphart]

In the case of New Zealand, the political elite tried to stop the change that I considered desirable. I'm hoping that in Canada the political elite are more broad-minded, will allow serious discussion, and will conclude that PR is the better option.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

The best way to know what the people want is to have a referendum, isn't it?

[Prof. Arend Lijphart]

As I understand it, in the case of Canada, in the last election a change in the electoral system was part of the campaign. I think the party that favoured it won a majority. I think Mr. Trudeau, of course—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Oh, yes, sure, sir. This here is the program of the government party that I am showing you. Of its 97 pages, there are only three sentences on that issue. Don't you think that is important?

[Prof. Arend Lijphart]

Oh, I cannot—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I think so, don't you?

[Prof. Arend Lijphart]

—it's too important, but thank you.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Pelletier, we only have a few moments left.

I want to come back to the experience in New Zealand. That country needed 11 years, two referendums, and then a third to confirm everything. It took three elections. As Professor Lijphart so rightly said, the political elite did not want anything to do with it, but the people had the final word. That took more than 10 years.

The current Chief Electoral Officer and his predecessor have told us here that we will need a minimum of two years to put in place any change at all. Do you feel that it is reasonable and realistic to want to bring about a major electoral change by the next election, given that, in the months that remain, we will have to make a decision, hold a public debate on it and announce the change?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You only have 15 seconds.

[Prof. Benoît Pelletier]

I don’t know, Mr. Deltell. I can’t tell you whether the proposal is realistic or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We now come back to Mr. Boulerice.