Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 30th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cullen is next.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Happily we have time to consider our options.

To Professor Loewen, I just want to get a definition of a term you have in your testimony today. What's an “unalloyed good”?

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

Oh, it's unqualified. It's absolutely a good thing.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The idea of an unalloyed good is then dismissed later on, in terms of having a system that better represents our population—not just by numbers, but if 20% of Canadians want a certain thing, then Parliament should more or less reflect what they want. I think people like choice, and they like to have their choices honoured by the electoral system.

Is that a fair statement? Is that a good desire to have?

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

Well, to be sure, what I was saying in my testimony was that having a more equal balance between men and women in our Parliament is an unqualified good, and it's one that we should pursue. That's the point I was making.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Then if we have strong evidence that says there's causality, there's connection, between proportional systems and an enhanced representation of women, why wouldn't we consider that? Why wouldn't we, in fact, more than consider it: why wouldn't we implement it?

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

Because you have to make trade-offs. Because you have to design an electoral system that optimizes a number of goods at once, not just one.

Look, if your only concern is that we ought to have a balance between men and women in Parliament, there's an easy solution: pass a law that says you will refund election expenses for only—whatever the number is—169 men and 169 women, and in the next election you will have an equal number of male and female candidates.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

To be fair, we have such a proposal from Mr. Kennedy—

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

I know you do, and it's a wonderful one.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

—which is a wonderful proposal, yet it has been rejected by the current government, I guess because it's 2016.

The question I put to you about mandate I think is important. The mandate of this committee, and I'll read from the House of Commons resolution, is “to identify and conduct a study [on] viable alternate voting systems to replace the first-past-the-post system”. We're not engaged in whether or not we should change the system; this is a “how” question. As you say, there are trade-offs with every system. As Mr. Dufresne has pointed out, as well as Professor Maskin, there are some advantages.

I guess to my question about improving the quality of Canada, to defend the status quo and say it's worked to this point is not a strong argument in this sense. We wouldn't have made any reforms to the way we vote in Canada if we simply relied on the idea that Canada's pretty good right now. Women wouldn't be voting and aboriginals wouldn't be voting, because Canada up to that point was working pretty well. There were those who at that time said—and I'm not suggesting you align yourself with this—that first nations people shouldn't have the vote because Canada is working out fine as it is, and before that women, and in between that Japanese Canadians.

I won't hold that argument as a reason to stay with the status quo. I take some of your other positions.

Mr. Broadbent was here yesterday and said a weakness of the 1980 Liberal government was that while they got about 23% to 24% of the vote in western Canada, they had virtually no representation, yet they were considering a dramatic change to energy policy, to oil and gas policy in particular. He invited Mr. Broadbent and some others from the west and from the NDP to come into cabinet—that didn't happen—and brought in a policy that was incoherent to western Canadians.

Is that a fair assessment of that moment in time?

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

Yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes. Mr. Broadbent's point was this, and I would wonder if you would argue against it: having a mix of representation from different parts of the country, both in government and in opposition, is healthy for both sides of the debate? Is that fair?

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

I want to go back to the first point you made, which is that we would never make changes.

We can make distinctions between issues of rights versus issues of how we decide to have an election. Our court has not said—quite the opposite, actually—that we have to have PR as a matter of rights. That's quite different from saying whether aboriginals should vote. Yes, it's a matter of rights. Should women vote? Yes, it's a matter of rights. My point would be that there's a fundamental institution at the core of this, and we can change things around a parameter, such as who votes, when we vote, how many days we vote, what kind of encouragement we give people, to give us better democratic outcomes—more goods—while not changing the central system.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

But—

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

Now to your point—sorry—of whether there should be political representation across the country, yes, there should. I should tell you that my view is that it's failed in our country on several occasions, as you've noted.

That said, if we are concerned about the permanent regionalism of our politics, it seems to me that one way of doing that is to introduce electoral incentives that tell a party that it never has to break out of its region. The Reform Party is not in Parliament today because Reformers understood that to win government, they had to broaden across the whole country.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yet first past the post gave us the Reform and the Bloc Québécois as the official opposition in Canada, so regionalism is not exclusive to proportional systems. That's fair. We've had many instances. We had the example from Mr. Dufresne in which a party with less than the popular vote ended up forming government, so there are distortions that we're trying to correct, and those distortions, I would say.... Are you living in Toronto? I didn't want to assume.

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

I live in High Park.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

High Park, very good, or fortress Toronto, as it is often referred to now, and before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're not going to have time for—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

What does a Conservative voter or a New Democrat voter or a Green voter in Toronto do at those times when there is absolutely zero representation of their voice in Parliament, along with the nine million Canadians whose votes are not reflected in our Parliament today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're going to have to turn that into a rhetorical question and go to Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the three witnesses with us here today.

My first question is for you, Mr. Dufresne.

You used some strong wording in your introduction. You said you have not found anyone who is willing to defend the status quo. I think you have found someone today.

You also used the word “unanimous” in saying that everyone you consulted at various events, debates or discussions was in favour of proportional representation. Just to your left, though, is someone with a different point of view. I find it quite unusual that you claim that your organization represents a broad majority of Quebeckers who are in favour of the system you are advocating.

I have a very simple question for you. My colleague to my left asked you earlier but you did not have the time to finish your answer.

Once this committee has completed its work and a proposal has been put forward, do you definitely think that we should consult the entire population by way of a referendum to ensure that the proposal is the right choice and that it is necessary to change our voting system?

[Jean-Sébastien Dufresne]

Thank you for your question.

Yes, I should clarify a few points. When I said there was a broad consensus, I was not talking about individuals but about organizations in civil society. We work with organizations that have deliberative processes and that adopt positions further to debate within the organization.

I know that individuals may have their personal opinions, but I am talking about organizations in civil society. That is why I said there is a broad consensus on this issue.

Furthermore, I used the word unanimous in reference to organizations seeking electoral reform and specifically proportional representation. All the organizations that are engaged on the issue, in Quebec at least, have a clear position in support of proportional representation. I want to make sure that is clear.

As to the consultation process, I was very interested by the comments made earlier about conflict of interest. As our colleague indirectly said, our elected representatives who are debating the issue here, but whose reelection is directly influenced by the outcome of this debate, must be able to remove themselves from the final decision and engage the public in the process.

As I was saying, I have not heard any argument opposed to the idea of allowing the public to try out a solution supported by a broad majority of civil society before making a choice.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Dufresne.

I have a very simple question for you and then I would like to hear from the other two witnesses.

I heard what you said, but do you think it would be advisable to consult all Canadians at the end of the process before a new voting system is implemented?

[Jean-Sébastien Dufresne]

We maintain that the public must be respected and the best way of doing that is by enabling them to make a confident choice. To that end, there is nothing better than weighing the benefits and drawbacks of a reform based on the observed impact on political culture.

As noted, it is an important change and we have to know what impact it might have on the way politics works. That would take at least two elections, but first we must determine how it can be implemented before we can make an informed choice. We fully agree that the people must be given the opportunity to express their views.