Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 30th, 2016

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Yes, in the California example in particular, I'm pretty confident of that. That's helpful.

Of course, the concern you've probably heard here is a public choice problem with having the interested parties make the decision as to what system should be adopted. The argument that my party has been presenting is that the safeguard to prevent the interested parties from designing a system for the purpose of determining the outcome of the next election is to require that the citizens approve it. It would force us all to design something that meets with voter approval, or else we would have to suffer through another election under the current system.

Is my public choice concern, in your view, a legitimate concern, or am I imagining something that's not a real threat?

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

This is not something that I've studied closely enough to have a well-informed opinion. At the national level in the U.S., state legislatures are empowered with the right to change the electoral system, so at least at the national level, we don't throw things open to a referendum when reforming the electoral system. At the municipal level—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I don't think I'd be wrong in saying that is a highly imperfect way of doing things, based on some of the congressional district boundaries I've seen.

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

Yes. I'm not proposing that it's the right way of doing things, but it's the mandated way of doing things.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Right, yes.

Thank you very much, Professor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's perfect. We're right on the button.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Professor Maskin, but first I have a few introductory remarks.

During the last election, the Liberal Party said it would be the last one to be held under the first past the post system, the voting method that has been used for 149 years. This committee's mandate is to explore the various options available.

From the outset, Mr. Arend Lijphart provided information about the two main types of voting systems, the majority system and the consensus-based or proportional system. The alternative voting system you are proposing today is part of the same type of voting system that we have now and that we want to do away with—which is what the Liberal government promised—because it causes distortions and leads to false majorities.

It seems that the alternative voting system you are proposing is another way of creating a majority. That is problematic though for people like us who want Parliament to represent citizens' choices and voices. The only comparable example in a western democracy is Australia. The alternative voting system there produces very marked bipartisanship that quashes the voices of citizens who do not vote for these major parties.

Consider the most recent election in Australia, where the main parties are Coalition and Labour. In 2016, these two parties won 97% of seats. In 2013, they won 97%, in 2010, 96% and in 2007, 99%. There is a 15% to 25% distortion in the votes cast.

It is as though, in your system, someone whose first choice was the Green Party but, knowing that the Green Party will probably not win, decides to vote NDP as their second choice, Liberal as their third choice and Conservative as their fourth choice, because that is the last party that they want to avoid at all costs. There is a good chance they will end up with a Liberal MP, which is neither their first nor their second choice.

Suppose you go to a dealership to buy a car. Your first choice is an electric car. They tell you it is a very good idea but that it is not possible. So you decide to buy a hybrid. They tell you it would be a good option also, but there are none available right now. Since you don't want an SUV, you choose a van as a third choice, but that is not what you set out to buy and you don't want a van. Why should a voter be stuck with a van if that is not what they want?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's not an automotive question, by the way.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Prof. Eric Maskin]

The difficulty is that when the electorate is not homogenous, and yet a decision has to be made, a majority must be found one way or the other. That's inevitably going to mean that some voters' views are not taken into account. Even under proportional representation, which comes closer than the majoritarian systems to representing non-majoritarian views, it will be the case that many voters, and perhaps most voters, are not going to be represented in the sense of having their political aspirations implemented, because the majority coalition, whatever that turns out to be, will not include their party. There is no way, no voting system, that ensures that everybody ends up having his or her view incorporated into government decisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

It is Mr. Thériault's turn now.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

After hearing from various experts, it is clear that every electoral system involves some bias due to strategic voting. It is a question of values. Values determine our choice. All of the systems have drawbacks.

There is something that annoys me. One would expect that a voting system would not distort reality and the real political dynamics of geographical area. The minister or my colleague on the right says that what happened in 1993 is one of the reasons why we must change the voting system, because it led to regionalism.

It is a good thing in a way that this happened though. That is perhaps the only positive effect that the current system has had in Canadian history. After the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, it meant that, at these important junctures in Quebec and Canadian history, the two voices expressed were reflected in Parliament.

Reducing the realities of Quebec to a geographical region is as mistake, I would argue. In 1867, in the discussions that led to our form of parliamentary government, the Fathers of Confederation stated that the national identity of Lower Canada must not be obliterated. If we are looking for an electoral system tailored to Canada, we have to be clear about which Canada we are talking about. Is it the Canada after 1982 or Canada in 1867?

That said, when you talk about ideological pluralism, I can see a problem. You say there is a discrepancy and that a small party could form government with a larger core. That is what ideological pluralism is. Perhaps that will be what the population chooses so it can have a voice in governance. If a small party represents the people who voted for it and if its election platform is compatible with a bill implemented by the largest party which has the largest vote share, I don't see how this poses a problem mathematically speaking.

Ideological pluralism cannot be reduced to mathematics however. We have to go further. I sympathize with the Mouvement Démocratie Nouvelle, but I don't understand why its representative skirted the issue twice with regard to involving the population. In my opinion, for the population to be confident, it must henceforth become a participant in the decision. That way, it could judge what happens over the next four years. This would allow us to break away from partisanship and the aura of experts and insiders.

Mr. Dufresne, you represent the insiders. That works perfectly for our democracy because you will enlighten us. When I'm out on the street and visiting people though, they have no idea what we are doing here. Our mandate is to consult them and not to decide for them. Some experts have said—and this is scarcely an exaggeration—that democracy is too important to be left up to the people.

For my part, I think you should reconsider your position. Even if we are pressed for time, we will not achieve anything and we will remain entrenched in our positions. Electoral reform will not go anywhere if people are not involved, and to get them involved, we have to let them decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Dufresne, you have a minute to respond.

[Jean-Sébastien Dufresne]

Thank you.

Let me be very clear. We have full confidence in people's judgment and the intelligence of Canadians.

Do you not agree that it is preferable to give people the choice under the best possible conditions and to allow them to weigh the ins and outs of the proposals on the table as best as possible? Do you not agree with that?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Absolutely.

[Jean-Sébastien Dufresne]

So you agree with our proposal?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

No. The goal is be to complete the first phase by December 1. We would continue the whole process in order to agree on a specific model before the people are consulted. People will have the opportunity to decide in the election. This has been done in other countries. People on the ground would have the time to get voters involved. We are not doing this for the insiders or the experts, much less for politicians. It is for the people.

[Jean-Sébastien Dufresne]

A citizen jury could be a compromise. I invite you to consider this. It is a type of process that allows random groups of citizens to express their views on these matters. That would fully address your concerns and those of Conservative members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Dufresne.

Let us turn now to Ms. May.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As much as I want to dive into some more questions for Monsieur Dufresne and Professor Maskin, I want to go back to the quality and quantity of data on which we draw conclusions about PR systems versus majoritarian.

With your permission, Mr. Loewen, I'd love us to have a seminar at U of T someday where I would attempt to persuade you that there's something wrong with a concentration of absolute power with a minority of the vote versus sharing of the vote with majority power, but in my five minutes, I'm not going to do it.

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

You are welcome any time at the School of Public Policy and Governance.

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

I want to make sure, first of all, that I apologize for the confusion I had in the last round when you referred to 10 pages. What apparently happened was that with the font changes, we have six and a half pages. I have in front of me everything you've submitted thus far.

I want to know whether you ran analyses of the 15 countries you looked at over more than one election. Is there more data in your background material?

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

No, there's nothing.

In either the case of that table that I compiled for you or the New Zealand case, there are no tests that I've excluded. I just wrote down on a piece of paper before I did my testimony which tests I would do, and I did them.

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

When you referred to one book, you did not identify it, but I presume from the inferences that this was Professor Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy.

Would you agree with me, as an academic, that this one book was a 36-country study with electoral results for every election since the end of World War II, while with regard to table 2 here—obviously this is evidence to the committee, and you did this quickly—this is 15 countries and one election?

[Prof. Peter John Loewen]

Right.

The point I'm making in that second table is that I'm comparing the 15 countries in the world that have the largest foreign-born populations. I want countries that look like Canada. They're countries of immigrants.