Evidence of meeting #19 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was politics.
A video is available from Parliament.
Campaigner-Electoral Reform, Leadnow.ca
As in a single transferable vote?
Campaigner-Electoral Reform, Leadnow.ca
Yes, the ranked ballots. Sorry.
I think there are a couple of different elements to it and there are a few different pieces as to why our members find first past the post problematic. I think one of the reasons is that we are concerned, as an issue-driven organization, about big issues.
We often look at Parliament as a whole and how it's composed and how the parties are working together to address those issues. One of the major flaws that we are seeing is a Parliament that doesn't look like the makeup of the country and the people who voted across the country for those specific parties. It's a bit of a macro-level issue with the way Parliament is composed. I think that's really where we get to the issue with alternative votes. Even if you have 51% or 52% of people voting for a member, you're still not representing 48% of people in that riding.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I guess the challenge—and we put this to a witness earlier—is that the 51% comprises not just a first choice, but there may be second or third choices. I don't know how I'd feel more satisfied about my third choice having some sort of influence.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Professor Massicotte, this triggered something about the power of the Prime Minister under different results. We've known that proportional systems lead to more power-sharing, coalitions, or co-operative governments, and you said that diminishes the power—I believe it was your term—of the prime minister and by extension the prime minister's office. I see that as a wonderful thing. If I think back not just to the context in other countries but to the Canadian context, in those minority governments when a prime minister's power is diminished, and when parliament's power therefore is enhanced, we've had some really great policy as a result.
Am I mistaken in this observation?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
By great policy let me be more clear: public health care, pensions, post-secondary education support, the flag. These all came out of times when the Prime Minister and his office—always his—had to share power.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I wonder if we would actually have reform of the National Energy Board right now if the Prime Minister's Office was not allowed to just do as they say rather than listen to other voices at the table.
Prof. Louis Massicotte
The absence of a majority does not equal, as you say, bad policies. I wouldn't be sure if the absence of a majority guarantees that at all times—not at all.
Prof. Louis Massicotte
Yes.
I've been particularly impressed by the work of Arend Lijphart on this point. I don't believe that countries with PR systems are necessarily Edens of harmony, except that it's not hell either.
It's very important, because I think we all tend to assume instinctively—and I must say that I had exactly the same attitude—that things will go better if we have majority governments. Lijphart had the wonderful idea of looking at the indicators of good governance and found, as I'm sure he told you, that there wasn't such a big difference between countries with majority governments and countries with coalition governments, and perceptive people had seen that before.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This will happen. Fear-mongering will be done in politics from time to time, especially when change is proposed. There is fear of this, that, and the other.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Massicotte, I have here two quotes from statements you have made in interviews with the media. As you know, politicians are also quoted regularly.
Your opinions may have changed since then, but I would like to know a bit more about these issues.
In an interview with The Prince Arthur Herald last February, you said that it would be very risky for the Prime Minister to go ahead with an electoral reform without the public opinion on his side.
Last March or May, in Radio-Canada's program 24/60—and you referred to this earlier when speaking with my colleague from across the table—you also said that you did not feel that people were tired of the current system and they would like to be consulted through a referendum.
Is that indeed what you said?
I would like to know whether you still feel that way or whether you have changed your opinion in the meantime.
Prof. Louis Massicotte
I see you are keeping tabs on me.
Regarding your second statement, about the surveys I referred to, my comments were based on the first survey carried out on this issue. I believe that it was conducted by Insight. The survey indicated that two-thirds of people were satisfied with the system and that three-quarters wanted a referendum. That is indeed what the survey seemed to indicate. The three other surveys that were done later, including by Ekos, indicated that the Canadian public was more divided on that issue. I did not have the time to talk about the reason, which is the following.
In some cases, the question asked was extremely loaded, if I may say so. People were asked whether they agreed with the government party, specified in the question, implementing the reform on its own. Of course, that kind of a question produces a more predictable result than the other one asking them whether they thought there should be a referendum on such a reform.
The picture is a bit more nuanced than I am painting it, but I still don't feel that Canadians are horrified or disgusted by the voting system they are using. They may be wrong, or they may be right. Based on the facts and the surveys I have read, and intuitively, when I talk to my students or colleagues, I do not feel that passion for reform.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I agree, no one was talking about it in my riding this summer.
On a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rank voters' interest in changing the voting method now?
Prof. Louis Massicotte
I would not say it is a priority, that is quite evident.
I would make one point about how the questions are worded. When we ask people whether they think the electoral system should be changed, we often forget to consider what the electoral system represents to them. Does it mean the voting method? I don't really like that term, by the way. Does it represent the right to vote as a whole? Both terms are probably used. A number of specialists might hesitate if we asked them the question.
I am not sure there is a very strong desire for electoral reform or that our fellow citizens consider it a priority, but perhaps the committee will come to different conclusions because you will have the privilege of meeting citizens.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
In the same interview with The Prince Arthur Herald, you said that you have always been in favour of changing the voting method but that, at the federal level, it is not really necessary at this time.
Considering all the warnings and explanations about proportional representation, which you are more familiar with than I am, it is hard for us to say as well. The Prime Minister has already taken somewhat of a position by saying he favours ranked ballots. A number of people who want to change the system, including the other parties, are more inclined toward proportional representation.
Do you still maintain that, at the federal level, it is not necessary to completely change the system or that the benefits would not be as great as suggested?
Prof. Louis Massicotte
The reasons for reform are not as strong at the federal level as I have seen in other jurisdictions, such as in Quebec.
First, there has never been an election in which the opposition was completely crushed and shut out of Parliament. I remember, when I was a student, we saw in the 1973 election that it could happen.
Second, and this is very important, there has been a series of results in Quebec that produced the wrong winner. Mr. Boulerice has already stated that this is completely unacceptable. I find his assessment quite moderate. I do not want to become overly emotional, but I must say I found it absolutely horrible and scandalous.
Federally, the elections produced a wrong winner on two occasions, in 1957 and 1979, as you know. In each case, however, the result was a minority government. So the winners did not have full power. In Quebec, however, on three historic occasions, the party that did not even win the plurality of the votes gained 100% of the power.
