Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 22nd, 2016

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

That is why I say it is very difficult. It is opening the door to better representation of what citizens want from their MP, from the government, and from the prime minister. So there are three variables. How many people say they support a certain party but do not like the leader, or prefer someone else from another party? What do you do about that? There is no perfect system.

[Prof. Nathalie Des Rosiers]

We tried to answer questions raised during the consultations and to address the desire for something a bit more sophisticated. It was presented with that in mind.

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

I think Mr. Dufour has something to add. I don't want to rush him.

[Christian Dufour]

Considering the way citizens are and what society has become in 2016, I think they have very high and fundamentally contradictory expectations. I don't think there is a system that can fulfill all those expectations. There are frustrations with the system, but I don't think adopting even a moderate proportional representation system would solve voter disillusionment. It goes deeper than that.

Your committee has a huge job. You have to come up with a reform plan. It is not easy because it is technical and you have to weigh the pros and the cons. I wish you good luck. I would like to be convinced, but there is still a burden of proof. The burden of proof must be established. I will say it again, and I know you don't want to hear this, but the experts are all opposed to the current voting system and I find that unfair.

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

Mr. Jansen, by leaving it up to the politicians, to us, to decide how to change the system, do you not fear that our partisan interests will override the interests of the general public?

Like it or not, choosing a voting system puts us in a conflict of interest.

[Prof. Harold Jansen]

Absolutely. And I don't say that to cast aspersions on any of you, but your motives, even if you support something for principled reasons but it happens to be in the interests of your party—

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

Can we use a referendum to call the shot?

[Prof. Harold Jansen]

My issue with a referendum, again, is people not having done the homework on voting on this. The model that I like—and I that know Professor Carty was here and talked about it—is a citizens' assembly. I like the idea of having an educational process where citizens learn and make the trade-offs.

A referendum is like a survey—

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

We need time for that we need time—a lot of time.

[Prof. Harold Jansen]

I absolutely agree with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, but we have to move on to Mr. Boulerice now.

Mr. Boulerice, you have five minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will say first of all that I agree with two things that Mr. Dufour said. I will then have a question for Mr. Jansen.

Perhaps that surprises you a bit.

[Christian Dufour]

Yes, a bit.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I completely agree with you on mandatory voting. I think people are free to stay home. People can even sleep in if they want to. In my opinion, our role is not to force anyone to vote.

I also agree that we are talking about two visions. They are both legitimate, but completely different. One view is that an election serves to choose a strong and stable government, even if it results in a false majority. The other view is that an election serves to reflect the will of the people in their diversity and plurality, even if it forces the parties to talk and agree among themselves. These are two visions based on two different value scales.

Mr. Jansen, we can consider the percentage of votes and the percentage of seats that a party has won, but we can also look at the average number of votes it took to elect each MP representing each party. To elect each Liberal MP in the last election, it took an average of just over 37,000 votes. To elect each Conservative MP, it took 48,000. It took 78,000 votes to elect each NDP MP, and 602,000 votes to elect a Green Party MP.

You mentioned Manitoba and Alberta and the use of this voting system. If alternative voting is not a solution to ensure diversity of voices, what should we do to eliminate such distortions, which results in citizens' votes not being equal or being wasted in some cases?

[Prof. Harold Jansen]

The only solution for that is some form of proportional representation, STV, a mixed-member, a list system. You can't divide a single member seat up proportionally between parties; that's the fundamental issue. The only way of dealing with that is compensatory seats through a mixed-member system, or multi-member districts where you elect more than one person.

I will note there was this really oddball article that suggested proportional tenure, so that if where the Liberals, say, got 40% of the vote, they'd hold the seat for 40% of the term.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Prof. Harold Jansen]

It never went anywhere, but—

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I'm not sure about that one.

[Prof. Harold Jansen]

I'm not recommending that, but that's somebody really thinking outside the box. But no, that fundamental issue of, basically, wasted votes, only a proportional system can fix that.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

We heard this morning from Professor Lijphart, who made some interesting remarks. There are many experiences that show the impact of proportional voting on the behaviour of voters and of parties alike. This has been observed in Germany for decades, but the most recent example is New Zealand. Professor Lijphart noted that there has been a change in political culture since the first election, during which elements of proportional representation were introduced. Rather than imposing its views, a party tends to look for partners.

People on the street often say they want political parties to work together to find solutions. In their opinion, that can sometimes result in better public policy, precisely because everyone participates in the discussion.

What do you think of that?

[Prof. Harold Jansen]

Professor Lijphart published a very influential paper in which he looked at policy outcomes. He found basically no difference. They get at things differently, but it's not as if the economy performs better. So the strong majority government doesn't necessarily give you better public policy. G. Bingham Powell wrote a book in which he actually found that countries that elected representatives under PR tended to hew to what the median voter wanted. The median voter has a special place in democratic theory. With the median voter, where half of the voters are on one side and half the voters on the other, that position should win any majority vote. He found that the policies put out by PR governments tended to hew better to that than any other system. I will note, though, that he did find that there was one exception under first past the post systems, and that was Canada, actually did surprisingly well under first past the post. But that, I would argue, has to do with the sad situation we have, in which the Liberal Party has tended to be dominant historically and has been in the centre. That's a weird, freaky Canadian thing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much. Sorry, I missed that last part.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Prof. Harold Jansen]

The Liberal Party, a weird, freaky Canadian thing—