Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 30th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Boulerice is next.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today for this important study. They have presented various positions that are all very interesting.

My first questions are for Mr. Dufresne.

Your initiative is quite interesting because there seems to be quite a large and powerful movement in civil society in Quebec calling for electoral reform. The desired change is quite profound and the preference is for a proportional system. You did not refer to a specific system, but there appears to be a consensus among all the groups you mentioned earlier.

They are various types of proportional representation. One type, such as in Germany, involves voting for a local representative along with a list system. In another type, the ridings are larger and have multiple candidates, with three, four, five or six elected members representing the same region.

In light of Canada's geography, which of these two systems do you think would best be able to meet citizens' needs?

[Jean-Sébastien Dufresne]

Thank you very much for your question.

I will not give you my personal opinion or views. I will instead talk about the outcome of the debates in organizations in civil society that represent close to two million Quebeckers.

There seems to be a consensus in Quebec civil society for mixed-member proportional representation. This system has the greatest support among organizations in civil society. This is also the system that has been studied most extensively in all the work done in Quebec, including by Quebec's chief electoral officer. He evaluated the implementation of this system at the provincial level. In Quebec, there are some ridings that cover a very large area. A parallel can be drawn with Canada in this regard.

There is a concern about the representation of regions and of ridings. In a mixed-member proportional system, the same number of seats could possibly be maintained for ridings that should be a bit larger and have additional seats.

I would also point the Committee to the work of one of our sister organizations, Fair Vote Canada. In its brief, this organization presented an alternative system that would maintain the size of regional ridings as much as possible so as not to put them at a disadvantage. Fair Vote Canada talks about increasing the size of regional ridings by no more than 10% to 15%. It also mentions a combination with a single transferable vote in urban communities. These possibilities could be considered.

In our view, it is very important for each region to retain its political weight. This means MPs representing the riding and MPs for the regions to provide some balance. In other words, the regions would retain the same number of MPs in order to maintain their political weight.

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

You mentioned representation, political weight and the presence of the regions. People are often apprehensive about changing the current voting system.

Another fear that is often raised, rightly or wrongly, is that the direct link between voters and their local representative would be lost. As people like to say, they want to know whom to call when they want to complain.

From your studies and what you have heard, would it be possible, in a mixed-member proportional system, to preserve that almost physical link between voters and their MP?

[Jean-Sébastien Dufresne]

There is nothing in the studies we have read or in what has been said here that suggests that the link is lost in countries with that kind of system. There is no indication of that link being lost. We believe that the system can actually give voters more power. In a region with compensatory seats for different parties, for example, voters have access to several elected representatives. It is of course a question of political culture to some extent, because this would change the relationships between voters and their elected representatives a bit, but it is in voters' interest because it gives them more power and greater access to their elected representatives. We think that is in the interest of society and of voters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Over to Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your contribution to our work. It is very helpful. It is interesting to hear different points of view.

Mr. Maskin, you attach great importance to the issue of an absolute majority. In your view then, as regards federal elections in Quebec, the only time when the right members were elected without a shadow of a doubt was in 1993, when 54 Bloc Québécois members were elected and only three of them did not have an absolute majority?

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

That's right.

Under the current system, the first-past-the-post system, there are many, many cases of MPs being elected without absolute majorities. What's worse is that we don't know, because we aren't finding out from voters, whether there are other candidates whom a majority would have preferred.

That's why switching to a voting system under which voters can express themselves more fully is a way to ensure that the right MPs get elected.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'm not sure you answered my question, but that's all right.

If we are going to change the democratic rules in society, it must be done properly. The Bloc Québécois's position is as follows. We want change, but not just any change and not in any old way. Time must be taken to do things properly.

All the experts have said that no system is perfect and that each has benefits and drawbacks. We must not play around with representation on such an important issue, claiming to know what is best for the people. In our view, a debate on this is absolutely necessary. We can only do so under this mandate, which is unfortunate because there is not much time. If we had a debate and were able to agree on a model that we could present at the next election, that would be a sign of success. That would likely be much more effective that acting too quickly. In that case, there might be differences in positions.

In other words, why should we say that this experience will lead to agreement on a model that the people must in some way be able to approve in order for it to stand the test of time?

[Jean-Sébastien Dufresne]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Thériault.

As you said, a choice must be made that will stand the test of time and that will have a profound impact on the exercise of democracy. It is important, for both Quebec and Canada, for citizens to be as confident as possible when they choose between the system we have used for centuries and another system that has proven effective in other parts of the world.

In our opinion, the best way of doing this is to extend voters as much respect as possible by giving them the opportunity to make a fully informed choice. No matter what explanations we provide, the best way of course is to test the system to see what the benefits and drawbacks are. We have to try a system in order to be in a position to say that the proposed system, which is the result of much work ...

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt but I would like to hear from other witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Thériault, the five minutes are nearly up. Could you pick up on this later on?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Do I have a minute left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, you have about 25 seconds left.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I will wait for the next round of questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's fine, thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Ms. May is next.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses

I would like to thank the witnesses for their observations. They are most interesting.

It's difficult, I find, when we have panels with differing opinions. Diving in becomes more difficult.

Professor Maskin, you may be the only witness proposing this voting system, so I want to ask you some questions for clarification.

I think you'd agree with me that this would be, in Professor Lijphart's definitions, one of the majoritarian oppositional systems, as opposed to PR consensus.

I think you've put your finger on the difference, for me, in the very last line of your brief, so I want to dive in there. It's that while the first-past-the-post, majoritarian, and alternative vote objective is to select the “'right' MP” for a district, under proportional representation the goal is to select the “right” composition of Parliament. That really helps me.

I'm one of those very fortunate and honoured MPs who, at least in my second election, had 54.4% of the vote. Your system wouldn't change the result for any of the MPs in our Parliament who have over 50% of the vote in their ridings. Is that right?

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

That's right.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

The concern that voters would have.... In my case, I had 54.4% of the vote, but as much as I don't like to dwell on it, 45.6% of the electorate in my riding wanted to pick somebody else. In this new system, they wouldn't see any relief from the Green dominance from which they suffer. Am I right?

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

That's right, not in their district. There will be MPs elsewhere who might be closer to their political position.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes. This is where it doesn't seem, to me.... Is it at least theoretically possible under your voting system, although I know it's unlikely to occur, that you'd have as much as 25% of the electorate wanting candidates in a party that never managed to crest into a majoritarian group?

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

Yes, that's possible.

As I suggest in my brief, if what you want is a perfect match in Parliament to political opinion, if 25% of the people think this way and they will have 25% of the MPs, then proportional representation is the way to do that.

There are many strong points to be said for proportional representation. The reason I didn't dwell on it at length in the brief or in my comments today is that it would be a far bigger change. It would be a radical change, moving away from single-member electoral districts, etc.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, in a two-party system such as that in the U.S., or even in your examples from the article in The New York Times back in April on the examples from U.S. Republican primaries, we wee that this would have had an immediate impact there that would have been more salutary than in our more Westminster-based system here.

Would you agree with that?

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

I'm not sure that I would agree. Even in a parliamentary system, moving away from first past the post and toward something like majority rule or alternative voting would be salutary in the sense that it would ensure that the single member who's elected in that district is closer to what the majority wants.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I have about a minute left, which isn't enough time to get to the questions I have for you, Professor Loewen, but I'll start with a question I received over Twitter.

Some of what you've presented to us today seems to oppose some of the more detailed empirical studies around patterns of democracy, such as Professor Lijphart's work.

A tweet came in from Fair Vote Canada, saying that the information they had was to the contrary around anti-immigration parties and representation in PR countries versus majoritarian countries.

Do you have any additional data you could give to the committee later to support that?