Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 30th, 2016

[Katelynn Northam]

Well, have PR would be the short answer.

I was thinking back to what we were discussing earlier regarding whether this is a thing that people are really asking for. Is this a thing that people want?

It was really interesting for me as I was going door to door a lot in the last election and speaking to people specifically about this problem. I think the way you ask people about it is very interesting. If you come to someone and ask if things are working for them right now, they might say yes. If you then show them a pie chart that shows how many people in their riding voted for a different candidate from the one who was elected, they'd say it's not fair. People do understand this intrinsically.

One thing we should keep in mind, as I said earlier, is that Canada is the only OECD country that uses first past the post at every level of government, which means that Canadians don't have a reference point of another system. If we were to start seeing other types of electoral systems at different levels of government, which could be the case in the next municipal elections in Ontario, we would maybe begin to see a bit of a culture change.

As an organization, we are not endorsing a specific type of proportional representation, but something that gets us much closer to a system under which people can at least say they see themselves reflected in the House of Commons would be a big improvement.

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

Thank you very much.

I heard Mr. DeCourcey's objections, who is concerned about NDP and Conservative voters in the Maritimes. Thank you, Mr. DeCourcey.

Mr. Massicotte, there are four minutes left before you leave. I would like to clarify something.

In Germany, do the list members work with citizens? Do they work on constituency files?

In Canada, one of our roles is to guide citizens through the public administration.

[Prof. Louis Massicotte]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Boulerice. I did not have time to speak to that earlier.

One of my German colleagues surveyed members of the Bundestag. He asked them how important constituency files were in their work. Most of the riding members said it took up 87% of their time, while the list members, who we imagine watching television or doing something else, said 72%. In other words, list members do work on constituency files.

Members usually become list members in ridings where they ran unsuccessfully. Double candidacy is the best way to prevent differences from developing between the two types of members. It is often said that the “fat pack” list members do not have to work very hard, leaving the poor riding members to do all the work themselves. The system is not well understood, I would say. Double candidacy is a very good way of oiling the system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

You have the floor, Mr. Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Massicotte, we will take advantage of your expertise right to the last minute.

You mentioned earlier that there had been a few surveys in Canada about the need for a referendum on reform. I believe you said that some surveys were conclusive while others showed bias.

[Prof. Louis Massicotte]

When the question is phrased in a fairly neutral way, it is half and half, but it can be as much as 63%, as I recall. If the question is more difficult, the percentages are very high.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Okay.

If the government decides to go ahead with electoral reform and hold a referendum to consult Canadians, should the 50% plus one rule apply?

[Prof. Louis Massicotte]

Here is a clever answer.

Referendums are consultative. As Mr. Burns' white book on sovereignty indicated in 1978, there is no need to establish a threshold for victory since referendums are consultative.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I see. That is very interesting.

It gave me a start earlier when Ms. Thomas recalled that, following the events in 1995, the 50% plus one rule was no longer to apply. Quebec's National Assembly objected to this and it was determined that that was the rule. I think my colleagues in the NDP agree that the 50% plus one rule must apply. Thank you.

That is a problem. In British Columbia, they can not even adopt a 60% plus one rule. I think we are putting the bar too high and that is an obstacle. Thank you.

If there is time left, I have a question for the three witnesses.

In the Figueroa case, the Supreme Court pointed out that party financing is an essential component of the plurality of opinions.

Should a future reform of the voting system be linked to a reform of party financing, or should these two things be considered separately?

Should party financing be reformed? Is that essential or not?

[Prof. Louis Massicotte]

I would argue that these are two separate issues. I think public financing of parties is very legitimate and could be maintained.

That said, as omnipotent as Parliament is, it cannot stop planes from taking off, so I have to leave you now.

Thank you.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you for joining us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Professor Massicotte.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I will ask Ms. Northam and then Ms. Thomas the same question. I am referring to the decision in Figueroa and party financing, which is an essential component of the plurality of opinions.

If the voting system is reformed, should party financing also be reformed, or would you rather keep these two issues separate?

[Katelynn Northam]

I honestly can't speak on behalf of the Leadnow community on this issue either. We haven't consulted our members on it. We're broadly supportive of anything that would help smaller parties or more voices be represented in the House, but we'd have to see more. It's already a big question on its own.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

What do you think, Ms. Thomas.

[Prof. Melanee Thomas]

Just as a point of clarification, are you asking about public financing for political parties, such as the per-vote subsidy or something along that line?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes.

[Prof. Melanee Thomas]

I'm inclined to agree with my colleague Dr. Massicotte that these questions are distinct, but I also think they are linked.

In the literature on party and campaign finance internationally, most countries do have some form of public financing. It's broadly seen to be a good thing, because the political party is a key institution linking representative institutions and the voting public. I will happily own to being a fan of the per-vote subsidy. It struck me as a democratic way of doing party financing. It also struck me as a way of being able to tell people who thought their votes were wasted because they weren't necessarily voting for the winner that their vote was actually contributing to something.

I think it would be worthwhile to re-engage in this kind of discussion about what kind of public financing the parties need. The context around the past way we did it is less than sparkling, but I do think it's worth having a discussion. I know I have colleagues who disagree with me because they don't necessarily like either the per-vote subsidy or the idea of public financing, but I would broadly endorse it as a good thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. May is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm so sorry I didn't get to ask Professor Massicotte my question. I would love to have known what he thought about STV.

Following up on this, Professor Thomas, I want to be sure I'm presenting a fair summary of your view of the New Zealand experience. Let me just try it out. You would agree that the New Zealand shift from first past the post to mixed member proportional resulted in an increase of women elected to Parliament, but that by itself it has proven to be an insufficient way of addressing the informal barriers that continue to apply.

Is that fair?

[Prof. Melanee Thomas]

As long as it's not phrased as “the shift was necessary but insufficient”, because I don't think the shift was necessary; but it certainly has been insufficient, yes.

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

To Katelynn Northam, in terms of what your surveys of the Fair Vote community have told you, I think about 85% of the Fair Vote community wants to see proportional representation. Have you made inquiries about specific types of PR, and is there a general preference in your surveys for mixed member proportional versus single transferable vote?

[Katelynn Northam]

Yes, we have asked that question—and we're from Leadnow. Fair Vote is a different—

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

Oh, I'm so sorry. I don't know how I made that mistake.

[Katelynn Northam]

I just don't want to take credit for their work.