Evidence of meeting #16 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 issues.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Obviously we're not going to go through 193, as was just mentioned, but I think if we can allow Ms. Norris—
Conservative
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Obviously mixed member proportional is one that has been talked about a lot. Proportional representation would be another one of interest, if you can touch on those.
Prof. Pippa Norris
For me the issue here is really more about the federal solutions rather than the electoral solutions.
Earlier, as we've said, there isn't one solution or one set of institutions that is appropriate for democracy or for the challenges of Canadian democracy, so one needs to think about a variety of reforms, and here one needs to think about federal solutions, federal powers, and federal representation. Those might be more appropriate rather than thinking about the electoral system as the best solution for all of those issues as well.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
This almost seems like we lined this up because, Dr. Norris, I too have a grid and have been doing the exact same thing you have been doing in identifying those objectives we have that we want to achieve and how we can achieve them, whether it be through an electoral voting change or federal solutions.
For instance, in terms of encouraging voting and participation, we've heard from witnesses that we can think of things such as mandatory voting, reducing the voting age, talking about civic literacy, or making it attractive for people, but that does not involve changing the voting system itself.
In terms of accessibility and avoiding undue complexity, there are simple ballots. We've talked a bit about maybe giving voting day off to make it easy instead of people having to leave work, trying to find a babysitter, and so on. In terms of increasing women representation, trust me, it was not the voting system that made me decide to run for office, but maybe quotas can be addressed in that regard.
Given the fact that we know that it's not going to be one thing that will fix everything...and, Dr. Axworthy, you talked about the consequences of whatever it is that we decide to do. For instance, what are the complementary reforms that are going to be needed?
If we decide to go with an MMP system, for instance, and we end up increasing the number of people in the House, well, first of all, we don't have the space for 600 members. How is the committee work going to be done? Do those who are on a list get to do the committee work, and those who are elected in the riding have to do the constituency work? That's going to change who decides to run for office in terms of recruiting people, because maybe someone wants to do both.
Those are all the things that are going to be impacted by whatever it is that we decide to do. So I'd like to get your thoughts on that. It's not going to be a one-stop shop in terms of an alternative voting system that will fix everything. I'd like to get your comments.
I'll happily share my grid, too.
Prof. Pippa Norris
The grid is the best way to think about this, that you're trying to achieve different things and that there's no consensus about what the problems are—and don't think, what's the range of solutions that we can have for any of those? Just as you said for turnout, compulsory voting or mandatory voting is one solution. Changing the electoral system is another much more radical solution that can also affect turnout. But there's also convenience voting, getting everything to the voter, rather than expecting the voter to come to the ballot station, and registration processes. There are many solutions around the world for all of these sorts of things.
One thing, again, that the committee is doing very well on and can expand our knowledge about is taking account of international perspectives. There are all of these systems at work in different places and bringing that international knowledge into Canada helps us to see the really practical solutions that could work in another country to solve those particular issues. There's never a single mechanical solution for all of those problems, but there are many, and we can learn from the best practices and share them across different countries.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Professor Axworthy, you look like you want to answer this question.
Public Policy Chair, Massey College, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think this committee has had the great advantage of going in depth on these issues, having people from different perspectives around the world. One of the responsibilities that I would recommend to you as you do your work is to do the kinds of lists and think about the possible changes that could occur, without their necessarily being complementary to the changes you recommend for the electoral system. It would be very useful to really think about implementation sets of issues around any new ideas that you come up with. Implementation on almost any public policy is the aspect that is never thought through. The press release is what's thought through, not the implementation. So it is, I think, on these issues of democratic reform.
Examples were just given of what may be several easier ways to achieve a solution or to mitigate a bad impact. Comparatively, with the experts and the citizens you'll be hearing from, and your colleagues in the House, a compendium of those solid ideas to improve the system should go along on the implementation program of whatever you want to suggest. That would be very important and fairly rare in the policy world of Ottawa.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Professor Norris, I would like to continue the discussion we started earlier regarding the selection of candidates to appear on the lists. Those opposed to proportional representation often mention that three people in a small, dark room at the party headquarters are the ones who would decide which candidates to put on the lists. You touched on this, but I am interested in hearing more about the various processes.
We know that there are nomination processes like the ones our parties already use. There are of course minor differences, but they are similar. There are also processes like the primaries in the United States to select the candidates who will be on the lists.
Can you tell us a bit more about existing procedures and how these lists can be democratized so that candidates are not chosen by three apparatchiks?
Prof. Pippa Norris
I think that's absolutely right. We get different types of traditions. If you take, for example, Norway, the parties there have always been very democratic, very decentralized, with an organization in which it's the local party that nominates. They nominate to the regional party, they then select. and they go up towards the national party. It's a grassroots democratic process that creates each district's list, and so on. In some other countries, particularly in some developing democracies, it's much more top-down. The party elite, the leader, the headquarters, and some other groups will personally nominate the individuals who will support them. For me, that's really a problem, because then you don't get internal party democracy, which you're trying to have, as well as having external democracy in the country as a whole.
In addition to the recruitment process, which is often somewhat closed and a private matter for the parties, you can also think about open and closed lists. So, again, with the closed lists and the party position, all that the voter does is vote for the party, and then they get the complete list, and it's not able to move candidates up or candidates down that list. With an open list, voters can express a preference for a particular candidate within a complete list as well, so it gives them a bit more choice at the ballot box.
All of these are details that we need to get right if we're going to reform the electoral system, even for a mixed member system or for a pure PR system.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
That is interesting. As I said, there are ways of selecting candidates that are similar to the way things are already done in Canada.
I'd like to continue on the topic of lists, which has already been discussed.
It has been said that the representation of women is higher in countries with proportional representation. I don't know if you have any concrete proof, but I expect that is also the case for other types of diversity, including young MPs.
Prof. Pippa Norris
Yes, it is often the case. What happens is that when you have a list system, there's a natural tendency to select a broad range reflecting society in general, because you don't want to exclude any group, as that would be to your electoral disadvantage as a party. So there's an incentive. But the second reason is that if you're getting a quota system, it's much easier to implement that with a party list. Say you have 20 MPs and you make sure that, say, one in three is a woman, and that's the law that applies to every single party, then that quota system works well with a party list system. It's much more problematic to implement quotas if you only have one district. You can certainly do that through internal party rules, which means that the parties themselves prioritize certain districts. For example, the Labour Party in Britain said that out of the 80 top marginal seats, be half of them had to be for women and half for men. But that can create more internal conflict within the party than simply having a party list that reflects whatever those interests are: rural, urban, working class, middle class, young, old, minorities in terms of immigrants, or populations within the majority. All of those things naturally include a broader representation in the party list system.
Liberal
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Yes, that's true. Thank you.
My last question is for you, Mr. Axworthy.
I'd like to return to a topic discussed this morning, namely, the tension between public negotiations and negotiations in caucus. Do you have any final remarks about that? I am very interested in this.