Evidence of meeting #14 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 political.
A video is available from Parliament.
Political scientist, Analyst and Writer, As an Individual
I was saying that Mr. Milner said that it will prevent the regional sweeps that helped the Bloc Québécois and the Reform Party, as we do not have a functional Senate to express Canada's regional diversity. We must never forget that. The Senate does not play its role. It plays another role.
In other words, we are leaping into the unknown, and we have to be careful.
Liberal
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you once again for joining us today. On behalf of the NDP, I am glad to have your participation in this important study.
Of course, for the New Democrats, the case of the first-past-the-post system—which I refer to as “first takes it all”—is pretty well established. We are familiar with its ability to create distortions.
Mr. Deltell doesn't seem to be overly angry that we had an election where the party that finished second in terms of the popular vote won the most seats.
Mr. Pelletier, who is here this afternoon, told us that this has happened three times in Quebec. It's not only a distortion of democracy; it's a reversal of the popular will. We are governed by a system where these distortions are occurring repeatedly.
In the latest election, some ridings in Quebec had three-way and four-way races, and candidates were elected with less than 30% of the votes. This means that, for the people of the riding, 70% of the votes may as well have been tossed in the recycling bin. Those people are not represented in the House of Commons, in their Parliament.
We also saw some pretty terrible distortions during the election in the United Kingdom, last year. In Scotland, the Scottish National Party won 50% of the votes but 95% of the seats. Mr. Dufour may like regional sweeps, but if I were a labourite or a conservative in Scotland, I would be a bit angry about that.
Ms. Des Rosiers, in your study in 2004, you suggested a mixed proportional voting system, which is used in a number of countries. It leads to effective, responsible and relatively stable governments. It is used in the Scandinavian countries and in Germany. You had a preference for the Scottish system over the one in place in New Zealand or in Germany. Can you tell us what you felt were the virtues of each system?
Dean, Faculty of Law, Civil Law, Ottawa University, As an Individual
The Scottish system, which was the most recent one at the time, seemed to be more flexible, as it allowed voters to choose from what is referred to as a Jenkins list. They could choose between a party list and an open list, instead of choosing between a closed list and an open one. That seemed like an attractive approach to us.
We were always a bit worried during our analysis. That was 12 years ago, but I still worry about having a system where no compromises can be made. So we were definitely listening in order to find the most relevant way to resolve problems.
For instance, we had to make recommendations that would be consistent with Canadian law. We were very worried that there would be no limit to eliminating certain things, since the Supreme Court's decision seemed to indicate that it was not appropriate. That was another element of our thought process.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
That is relevant, as the Scottish model shows that, even in the Westminster tradition, changes can be made toward a moderate proportional voting system. I don't think anyone here would want our system to become extreme.
It's interesting that you say we should not take a recommendation at random and that everything forms a whole with interrelated effects. Of course, there is a lot of uncertainly, but there are also many international examples of how this has been done for decades.
At last year's Canadian election, we saw that the largest percentage of women in history were elected to the House of Commons. I say, well done. However, the women accounted for only 26% of MPs. At the current rate, based on the 2011 and 2015 elections, we will achieve gender parity in Parliament when my baby girl gets her old age pension.
What would you like to do to increase the role of women in Parliament more quickly?
Dean, Faculty of Law, Civil Law, Ottawa University, As an Individual
Determining whether the system is to blame or the matter is more complicated is always controversial. Clearly, the answer is that the issue is more complicated than it seems.
Objectively, we came to the conclusion that women seemed to face systemic barriers in terms of access to elected positions. Any human rights analysis would indicate that Canadians, according to survey value indexes, believe that equality between men and women in Canada is better than anywhere else in the world, but we are unable to achieve parity in Parliament.
The first indication was that the problem must be systemic.
Liberal
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I will use this opportunity to speak to Ms. Des Rosiers.
Parity between men and women is important, and we need quality female politicians. We also have a hard time recruiting women. That is an existing situation. It's more difficult in federal politics than in municipal and provincial politics.
That said, you mentioned that there are legitimacy issues with the current voting system, which is outdated. Legitimacy establishes legality. An illegitimate law is a bad law.
So why adopt this position that a referendum must be held, but not necessarily a referendum?
Dean, Faculty of Law, Civil Law, Ottawa University, As an Individual
When it comes to principles, when must we stop demanding a referendum? That is why we put the issue in this context. In other words, there must be an ideological reason to make a distinction.
Let's take, for example, the amendments to the Citizenship Act. One may think that they are of high symbolic importance for Canadians, but does that mean they should be put to a referendum? That was more of a legal analysis. A referendum was certainly not ruled out. We held numerous discussions on the issue at the time. If I remember correctly, the report's points of contention and the issue of open lists were definitely discussed.
I would like to conclude with gender equality. Our report stated that what was being done was clearly insufficient. We recommend that all parties be required to explain in Parliament what they are and aren't doing to recruit women. When it comes to that, we absolutely agree that it's not enough to change the voting system, but it's something to consider.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, when changes are made to the election laws, parliamentary tradition requires that an advisory committee be struck and be chaired by the chief electoral officer. The committee would operate by consensus. When a party breaks that tradition, it must expect the favour to be returned in a negative sense if it loses power. That is why the committee is consensus-based. In Quebec, prior to 1999, voters were not required to identify themselves. The court recognized that there were identity theft systems in place in 1995 and 1998, and that goes back the the majority Mr. Boulerice was talking about.
So if there is talk about changing the democratic rules of a society and there is a desire for plurality, for Canadians to embrace democracy, for people to be able to assess the advantages and disadvantages if no system is perfect, why is that being taken away from them? Some experts and individuals who belong to the elites say that it's very complicated and that, since there is a mandate of representative democracy, we should go ahead with this and the others will follow. I feel that it would be akin to Plato's the Republic. Philosophers would be in power. I am a philosopher, but that's not what democracy is.
Dean, Faculty of Law, Civil Law, Ottawa University, As an Individual
The idea was that the issue could be studied. It has to be possible to make distinctions. That was the point of the report.
Political scientist, Analyst and Writer, As an Individual
Personally, I think that raises very different visions of politics, life, and society. Clearly, our current voting system is not perfect. That said, in Quebec, a few unfortunate cases were mentioned in which the party with the most votes was not the one that won the election. I think that could happen in Quebec again because the work relating to electoral districts was not done properly.
For our system to work, it must be possible to regularly review electoral boundaries and to adjust them to the population. We cannot simply say, however, that the current system is no good and that's it. That is a great exaggeration. A referendum would allow Canadians to choose. We know what the current system is. Through the committees' work and expert testimony, we have identified one or two systems. So we must not offer five systems because people have other things on their minds than these issues. There must be a debate on the subject.
After the Brexit vote, referendums are not popular. I would point out though that, in New Zealand, a country that is repeatedly mentioned, referendums have been a fundamental part of the process. They have had four referendums.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
As we talk about women's engagement, I know that the women parliamentarians around this table also noted that Professor Des Rosiers, you're only the third woman witness we've heard from—and the first was the minister. Maryantonett Flumian was also very strong.
I know that gender studies isn't your area. Law reform is your area and the study of law, but I struggle with looking at the strong correlations that we've seen—and Professor Lijphart just showed them to us again. Consensus-based proportional representation systems have higher levels of participation by women in parliaments around the world. I want to ask you if you've ever considered whether increased participation by women is more than a result of parties putting more women on lists, but the result of a change in culture that happens when we don't have winner-take-all wedge issues in trying to get the other guy, that when we change to a consensus system it will attract more women because it's less vicious.
Is that something we've ever seen work done on? Is that intuitive or of value?
Dean, Faculty of Law, Civil Law, Ottawa University, As an Individual
When we were doing this report, we had several conferences on women's issues and “how come women aren't elected", and the range of issues that were identified included the nature of politics, the lack of access to finances, and having to displace a guy in the nomination. The NMP, or the idea of the list, was a way of reaching out to people in a different way and expanding
the political class.
It was a way of expanding the number of people who would access political life, get experience, get visibility, and so on. That's the first part.
The second part—and I agree, because that was one of the comments I received that you'll see in my paper—is that the 19th century vision of strong leadership is to say, “Get it done, get elected, get it done”, as opposed to consensus building. There was a sense in which the nature...and I'm not sure that it's only gender studies that note this. I'm just saying that there is a way in which the vision of what good governance means in the 21st century may not be the same as it was in the 19th century in a colonial power that said, “Okay, we're here to get things done.” You may want to say it's better to delay a little and speak to more people before you move forward.
The other aspect of the 19th century vision that's embedded in first past the post is the idea that your identity is solely based on where you are. You only have one identity, and you vote in that riding. I am solely defined as an elector from Ottawa East, as opposed to the ability that's created in an MMP system where you can express yourself in two ways, both as to who is the best person to represent Ottawa East, but also with which party I want. That seemed to reflect the more complex way in which people defined identities. People move more than they moved in the 19th century and have a broader range of issues, and so on.
I'm talking about the way in which people explained it to us. In the consultation, when people were playing with this, why were they expressing a preference for that system?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
In the time I have left I also want to ask Professor Jansen about the period when Alberta experimented with two mixed systems. Looking back at this, you find that the United Farmers of Alberta brought in, with no referendum apparently, a system in 1926 that lasted until 1955. Do you think this was connected to the Irish adoption of a single transferrable vote in 1921? This seems to be a fertile period for people looking at STV.
Professor of Political Science, University of Lethbridge, As an Individual
If you go back and read the Grain Growers' Guide between 1911 and 1921, there would be articles on how to improve your crop production followed by detailed articles about the single transferrable vote. The interest of the Canadian prairies predated even Ireland's adoption of STV. Ideas about these issues were floating around. There was a fertile current. It's quite remarkable to flip through the range of issues. I was finding that as UFA members, they were big proponents of referendums and direct democracy, but they didn't use that to bring in the electoral system change, which is quite interesting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. That historical perspective in Canada is very interesting.
Mr. Aldag.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
One of the bits of advice we've had before we start getting into solutions is to look at values. Over the last three weeks I've been home, and I've been talking to my constituents about values. I was pleased to see, and Professor Des Rosiers' piece mentioned values, that there are a couple of comments here about how no system can perfectly address all values that a society may want to see addressed. I'm hearing a wide range of values, and as we embark on this, the Law Commission did some great work.
In 2016 the question I throw out to all three of you is what values do we try to capture? What do we build on? In the brief we have, I see there are 13 qualities that could all be seen as values. How do we build a system that meets this wide range of values?
I'll ask the three of you, what are your own top three values that you've either heard of or researched, or could bring to the table that would be the top values we should be looking for in the design of an alternative to what we have?
I don't know who wants to go first, but I throw that out there because there's some great material here. Where do we start when we look at values?
Professor Dufour.
Political scientist, Analyst and Writer, As an Individual
Each system has its pros and cons, I would say. The danger is that we could at some point have the worst of both worlds, losing the strengths of our current system without gaining the benefits of a new system. We have to be careful of that.
In answer to your question, I would say that governance is a very important value. Much is said about representation here, but the point is to elect a government, and it must have the means to govern. In the turmoil of globalization, having a strong and stable government is an important value.
The other value, as I said, is being able to change governments at regular intervals. We know what happens when someone is in power for a long time.
Representation is the third value. Canada's changing population must be represented.
That said, there could be a very post-modern trend. Societies today are increasingly individualistic and fragmented, and people have opinions they want to express. We must not be overly influenced by this though because it could weaken our system. That is why I defend the State. The State and government are much criticized and maligned, but the average citizen does not really understand what the State and government are. They are forces of order and stability in the turmoil of globalization. This is an important value.
Modernizing the system is one thing, but I'm put off by the complacency I see. People say we are very post-modern, that things have changed, and that people have to express their views. The point though is electing a government. At the risk of sounding partisan, I would say that Canadians seem happy to have a Liberal majority government that can take action. How long will that last? I can't say.
A stable government that can govern, that can be voted out eventually and that represents what Canadians think reasonably well although not perfectly, that is what is important to me. Nothing is perfect of course, but there are also drawbacks with proportional representation. The difference is that we don't know what they are yet because we have never tested them.
Professor of Political Science, University of Lethbridge, As an Individual
My three would probably be fairness, representation, and participation.
I would like Parliament to look like how people actually voted, so there's that basic element of fairness. I say that as somebody who lives in southern Alberta, where it's a foregone conclusion. I can pretty much tell you, even before the votes have been cast, how it's going to turn out. There are a lot of people who don't see their votes reflected at all.
Representation and how it occurs is a complex topic to me. We need to see representation as more than just binary, with you as an MP representing your constituents. It occurs in a broader institutional context where representatives are accountable to the people they represent. Most of the time they're going to do what they want, but not always. When they don't, they're going to provide a good explanation and account for that. To give the professor a footnote, Hanna Pitkin wrote the definitive work on representation, and that was her definition.
With participation, I'd like to see Canadians engage, participate, and feel a sense of connection with their electoral process.
We saw an increase in voter turnout, but I'm concerned by the declines I see in political interest and the levels of political knowledge. That's the thing that worries me about a referendum. There was a survey done by the Institute for Research on Public Policy. It's old now, about 20 years old. A majority of Canadians think you need a majority to win the seat. Canadians don't understand the status quo.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
My questions are for Professor Jansen.
I want to start by saying that I am no particular great fan of the first past the post system. In fact, I am the author of a motion adopted in the last Parliament to change the way we elect our Speaker from a first past the post system. It's actually a process in which you drop people off the ballot one at a time to a preferential ballot.
Having said that, first past the post is not the best of systems I can imagine, but it's also not the worst. I would define the worst system as that which has a predicable outcome in terms of which parties are winners or losers, that effectively allows—albeit not in every election into the future—the next election to be predictably affected, at least in part to be rigged, by choosing a particular system. I don't think that that particular sin can be laid at the feet of any STV model or of MMP, but I do think that the alternative vote system, single-member preferential votes, may have that problem.
I'm turning to a paper that you co-authored with Peter McCormick that was published on November 30 of last year in which you point out something that others have pointed to as well, that had the 2015 election been conducted using the alternative vote and everybody had voted the same way they actually voted, with the same preferences and the same second preferences, the Liberals would have gone from winning 184 seats to winning 205 seats. Interestingly, in the 2011 election, in which we know the Liberals got less than half the votes under the current system than they did in 2015, the Liberals also would have benefited.
I don't know if you've done any further research into prior elections—2008 and 2006—to see whether it is a consistent pattern or not. Let me ask that question as a starting point.
Professor of Political Science, University of Lethbridge, As an Individual
There was a paper done and published in 2002 by Antoine Bilodeau, who looked at, I believe, the 1997 federal election and found that the Liberals would have benefited. I'm going to now rain all over the work that Professor McCormick and I did. The danger whenever you're projecting backwards is that we're using how people voted and assuming that they would have voted the same way had the alternative vote been in place. For example, in southern Alberta where I live, in the constituency of Lethbridge, it has been Conservative. It was Canadian Alliance, Reform, as far back as anyone can remember. So Liberals, New Democrats, and Green Party supporters have to face some choices about, would you vote.... That's the problem. If I look at how people say they're going to vote in a survey, I'm trying to project what's going to happen.
The hope with the alternative vote and the reason I think the Liberals would seem to do well under it—and there have been other people who have done similar kinds of analyses—is that they are a lot of other parties' second choices. That's the key. The hope, the argument that's been made in favour of the alternative vote, is that it's going to encourage parties to reach out to supporters of other parties and say, “Okay, I understand you're supporting them, but here's what we have common”, to try to seek commonality rather than to polarize.
The evidence that I have seen is that in Alberta and Manitoba, that didn't really happen. I spent countless weeks digging through archives looking at campaign material. I found one campaign thing where somebody was explicitly appealing for second choices. You just didn't see a lot of evidence of that.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
If you don't mind my asking, having lived in Australia myself, I noticed that at the poll you are handed typically—