Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 30th, 2016

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I'm happy to give you my next five minutes, if you like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have plenty of time. We're not even at the two-minute mark yet.

[Prof. Louis Massicotte]

Yes.

I think—

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

You can answer in French.

[Prof. Louis Massicotte]

Okay, thanks.

I am rather under the impression that people have a preference for majority governments. With a proportional system, regardless of the type, there would probably not be any majority governments, for a very simple reason. In our electoral history since 1921, you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times a party managed to go over the 50% threshold. Mr. Mulroney, in 1984, is the last such case to date. So it has been quite a while.

So we should get used to coalitions. Can those coalitions be stable? I think so. They are simply made up of several political parties. The Prime Minister's authority within the political system would not be as strong, as he would have to deal with cabinet ministers from another party who would have a certain power over him. It would be different from the current situation, where the Prime Minister is extremely powerful. As you know, some are portraying him as a monarch. So that would be quite a change.

I wanted to clarify something here. Although I have listed all the potential complications of a mixed-member proportional model, my intention was not at all to criticize or discredit that system. I have studied it in theory, but I have also used the experience of consultations that were held in Quebec and in other provinces. What seemed to us brilliant from a technical standpoint—the idea of dual candidacy—was viewed by some people as an abomination. As the old expression goes, if the front door has been closed, try to get in through the back door.

I think that's very unfair. I can tell you that this has not been seen as a problem in a number of countries. New Zealand and Germany have integrated and understood the system well. I did not have time to mention this, but Chancellor Kohl is the longest serving German chancellor to date. There is some competition with the current chancellor, Ms. Merkel, but he served for a long time. He was defeated twice in his riding, but thanks to the list, he was able to remain a member. I looked at his biography to see whether anyone had made a big deal out of that in Germany, but no one had. Perhaps we would be able to prove it here.

As for dual candidacy, we have noted something, especially in Quebec. Mr. Pelletier actually talked about this. Many members, starting with Mr. Pelletier himself, were terrified of seeing someone they had defeated in their riding end up in front of them, as they saw this as a threat to their grip on the riding.

That is not seen in Germany. That's all I can say. There is a tradition of collaboration and consensus dating back to the post-war period, prior to which, it was not a pretty sight. That much I can guarantee, as they say. The country went through difficult times and experienced the consequences of hate ad nauseam. Prior to the war, in the 1920s and the 1930s, German politics were extraordinarily polarized. Germany has now become a country of consensus, and things like these work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Reid, the floor is yours for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Professor Thomas.

Professor, back in February you were quoted in a newspaper article indicating that you thought that it would be inadvisable for the government to move forward with a new electoral system unless it had been approved in a referendum. Is that still your position?

[Prof. Melanee Thomas]

My position remains that we have a map outlined from several provincial governments, British Columbia and Ontario being the notable standouts, where citizens have been actively involved in the process. I would expect that anything dealing this closely with a democratic institution would follow that kind of citizen engagement model very closely.

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

The model used in Ontario and B.C. was a citizens' assembly, which chose and designed a model that was then submitted to the people in a referendum.

Do you think that two-step model would be the best thing to do?

[Prof. Melanee Thomas]

Not as it proceeded in British Columbia and Ontario. I liked the citizens' assembly part of those procedures, but there were problems with those referenda. I don't see the point of subjecting the Canadian public to a referendum when the rules would be stacked against it to fail.

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

Right.

[Prof. Melanee Thomas]

In that sense, I'm not going to sit here and endorse referendum versus not. I'm going to be honest about what I thought about those processes, and in both those cases I thought the citizens' assembly and that kind of engagement process was great and exactly what I would like to see in a democracy. However, those referenda were certainly open to critique on a number of democratic grounds, so I wouldn't give a blanket endorsement to that kind of thing in this particular context. No.

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

Right.

Back when the British Columbia one, the former of the two, was under way, I remember writing on the subject of the way the referendum had been structured and the difficulty of essentially a first-past-the-post choice on something for which multiple options were available. There was certainly strategic voting in that referendum. The leaders of the Green and the NDP parties, for example, both voted against the STV model because they favoured MMP and thought they'd have a second kick at the cat if they just rejected the proposal.

An alternative model used in New Zealand put multiple models before the people, and that did result in a change to the system. I think there's some evidence that the initial referendum in New Zealand was also designed to produce a different result, but it was unsuccessful, and the change did occur.

What do you think of that kind of model?

[Prof. Melanee Thomas]

I like the New Zealand model in which the initial reform gave voters more than a yes/no option. I like that.

What I like more about New Zealand is that they followed it up with several other referenda to see if people actually like the change now that they've used it. In New Zealand they've consistently said that they support the change and they're liking it more over time.

There was a second question involved in that. It asked whether, if you do want change, what you would like to revert to. The single-member plurality system is the choice. They said that if they were going to change again, they wanted to go back to the old way.

My main problem with what happened in British Columbia and Ontario—and this is not reflected simply by just endorsing New Zealand—is the requirement for a supermajority. This is a question that I think Canadians often ask in any number of contexts on questions that are put to referenda. How much of a majority is enough? Is 58% enough? I would have said so, and in that case both British Columbia and Ontario would have probably changed their electoral systems had that threshold been okay.

Certianly part of the question is how you ask the question, but the other question is how much of a majority you need. That's an open question that ought to be subject to political debate in each context where the public is going to be asked a question like that.

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

If you asked me, I would have said 50% plus one, but you're saying 60% was too much. I think that's why you said it was set up to fail, but I think I'm hearing you say that you may think that 50% plus one is too low. Is that correct?

[Prof. Melanee Thomas]

As Canadians we had already decided, coming out of the 1995 referendum, that 50% plus one was something that we didn't endorse in some contexts, so we can't have our cake and eat it too, right?

This is the thing: the thresholds required for referenda are going to be political and are going to be structured by the context in each particular one. The generalities I can draw from the Canadian political process are that in 1995, under a very particular question, there were people in the Canadian federation who said that 50% plus one was simply inadequate. Then the flip side is that 58% was also seen to be simply inadequate as well.

My only point is that having a proper and complete discussion about where we want to draw the line is something that I would advise in the context of referenda in general.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. DeCourcey.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our three presenters. I hope to have time for all three to answer my comment here.

I'll start with Ms. Northam, because the quote you cited from one of your members to end your testimony struck me as one of modesty and of encouragement to everybody here to be mindful of the process that we can undertake as a Parliament to continue to improve our democratic processes.

One of the things I've been challenged with in some testimony over the last number of weeks is someone who in one breath claims that Parliament is undemocratic as it is right now, and therefore illegitimate, and in the very next breath expresses their desire to see this Parliament exact its democratic legitimacy to enact reform. I think that rhetoric and hyperbole are a bit overblown.

I wonder if you can comment on that, and then I'll ask some of our other witnesses to comment as well. Do we, as a Parliament, have the democratic legitimacy to enact reform, and should we put some water in our wine when we're talking about how undemocratic Parliament is right now?

[Katelynn Northam]

I think it's probably quite difficult to go into this process as members of Parliament. It's not as if you don't have any skin in the game, right? I think it's in some ways admirable that you are going through this process knowing it will have implications on the way you do your work.

In many instances, people do feel they are well represented by their members, but we are speaking on behalf of our members who don't have that opportunity to feel represented by their members of Parliament. They've for voted their entire lives, for 20, 40, or 50 years, and have never had a representative they've voted for, or they have continually watched the vote split in their ridings.

That's what we're really speaking to. There is that element present in the Canadian electoral system, and we are looking to improve upon it.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

What do you think, Mr. Massicotte?

[Prof. Louis Massicotte]

Legitimacy is not a scientific concept; it is a normative concept. As a saying goes, legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. In order words, legitimacy depends on an individual's perspective.

Let's look at our system's history lesson, which is something more solid. In Canadian history, a number of electoral reforms have been carried out. They began in 1920 in Manitoba and ended in 1956 in Alberta.

I have looked at the circumstances in which every one of those reforms was adopted. In each case—so in Alberta, in Manitoba and in British Columbia—the provincial Parliament implemented a reform without a referendum. At that time, holding a referendum was not even considered. Based on the customs of the time, it seems fine that it happened this way.

Those are the indications I can give regarding whether Parliament currently has the democratic legitimacy to proceed. Ours is a system of representative democracy. There is no legal obligation to hold a referendum, but it may occasionally happen that what can be done legally is perceived as illegitimate by a good portion of the population.

When it comes to that, I would like to emphasize that I am deeply troubled by the fact that, according to the four surveys I have looked at, many Canadians feel, rightly or wrongly, that a referendum should be held.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

Professor Thomas, with the time remaining, do you have any comment as to the way Parliament can proceed with this reform conversation?

[Prof. Melanee Thomas]

My understanding is that even if there were a referendum, any change would have to be legislative, which means.... It strikes me as a bit silly to suggest that Parliament can't do it, because Parliament certainly can. Parliament has the legislative power to do what it would like to do in a representative democracy, as my colleague Dr. Massicotte has noted.

That said, I think what people are trying to tap into is the process by which the reforms are informed, and that's a different question. That's a much more fundamental question. It speaks to who we are as Canadians, what we want, and how we're talking about the scope of the problem. If we're talking about that, this is less about Parliament's legitimacy to write a law to change an institution, because Parliament certainly has the power, and that's that. Fair enough.

The thing that concerns me is that the definition of the problem seems to be rather limited in scope, which restricts the conversation we're having. I think there is also this populist element that comes through. Coming from western Canada, our politics is defined very much by populism, and that's going to colour how any decisions, recommendations, or processes transpire in a regional and a geographical kind of way.

These are things to be sensitive to, certainly. However, I'm not surprised that there are critiques of the process, because there are now norms and there is historical precedent for Canadians to be much more active in processes like these that have been conducted in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

I'll start with Ms. Northam and then I'll go to Professor Thomas.

It was interesting to hear in your opening remarks how your testimony today came from canvassing your members. I'm not sure we've had witnesses yet who have legitimized what they're going to say with their membership before they got here, so that's good.

I want to take a look at the question of so-called safe ridings versus swing ridings and the attention given them. If you're a Canadian living in a riding that has historically voted overwhelmingly one way for one party, the discouragement to get involved is very high. There's been some contention about this.

My question is about the so-called wasted vote.

In the last election we had in Canada, nine million votes were cast that are not represented in any discernible way in Parliament, although some have argued that those nine million votes have influence.

Power belongs to the people and is passed through us. Why would, say, a transferable vote system, whereby people are getting choices, not be considered as a way to do that by your membership?