Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 31st, 2016

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

Yes.

Turning to Professor Johnston, I'm at a loss, in that the opening line the article of yours in Policy Options, to which my friend Alexandre Boulerice already referred, is that “Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system no longer fits the facts of our electoral scene”. Yet I also know that you've written extensively on the fact that we're pretty much alone, that we were among the first countries to use first past the post and to exhibit a consistent multi-party Parliament, going back to the 1920s. You've said that, “first-past-the-post no longer fits the facts of our electoral scene, if it ever really did.” You also went on to say that “The way [FPTP] translates votes into seats always produces distortions.”

The distortions that occur, and I'm not trying to use hyperbole, certainly get called a “false majority”. Peter Russell also uses that term. We had a false majority in 2011 and we had another false majority in 2015. Those distortions are still occurring, and they result in some quite dramatic policy lurches.

Given your study in this field, I'm puzzled as to why you're concerned about the fact that first past the post doesn't fit our electoral scenes, which have changed due to Stephen Harper's uniting of the right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Be brief, please. I know it's a complicated question.

[Prof. Richard Johnston]

It isn't just Stephen Harper's uniting of the right. I've never been troubled by the fact that parliamentary majorities are most always “manufactured”, to use the term of art in academe. “False majorities” is a partisan label, I think.

The facts that didn't seem to fit in 2001 concerned the ability of the party system to provide a reasonably healthy level of competition for office. I underestimated the ability of the political right to get its act together. And in 2011 and 2015, although I wasn't advocating one way or the other, I underestimated the capacity of the centre-left to get its act together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

My question is primarily for Professor Johnston, but I'd be happy to have an opinion from everybody.

We've been talking about the value of accountability, but most of the discussion has been linked to local representation and people being able to hold their local representative accountable, that he or she knows the riding well and is able to advocate for it at the national level.

Professor Johnston, I know you've made some statements and written a bit about accountability within the MMP system, and about having the different types of MPs, with the list MPs and the local MPs, and having them creating coalition governments at the end of the day. How would you factor in accountability in the coalition governments and platforms we're talking about? Right now, under first past the post, you can see that this party ran on this platform. If they don't perform well at the end of the day, then you hold them accountable, or your local MP accountable, but when it becomes this mixed member system and coalition governments, how do you do that?

[Prof. Richard Johnston]

First of all, I'm not sure that the mixed member issue is particularly central to the question you're asking. Are you asking about coalition government?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

We've been hearing a lot that the mixed member system creates coalition governments oftentimes, or it also creates different levels. Please talk to both aspects of it.

[Prof. Richard Johnston]

It isn't the mixed member, as such, that creates coalitions, but the fact that it is a proportional system. The additional member component completely compensates, at least within the realm of arithmetic, for any disproportion at the constituency level.

I think the local representation component of electoral representation in the country is an oversold argument. One of the appeals of MMP to me is that you could have largish rural constituencies. You could have a disproportion that let's Nathan Cullen represent half the population of a typical Surrey riding. You could do that and fully compensate through the compensatory tier.

As for the question of the accountability of coalition governments, I think there are many systems in which they're perfectly accountable, and the focus is on the nucleating party, the one that is the formateur in the system. That's the one that, in some sense, takes the hit. There are coalition systems in which it does break down, because typically there's some pivot that is off-scale and extracts inappropriate equivalents.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Did anyone else want to comment? Otherwise, I'll move on to another question.

[Gordon Gibson]

If your main goal is local representation, then your best answer is the multi-member STV, because you will almost certainly find that one of the representatives from that riding has your particular point of view, whatever your point of view is. Of course, that's only one value, and there's a lot you want to satisfy.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

That's correct. Where would you rank accountability in terms of the values that we should be assessing here?

[Gordon Gibson]

It's certainly important. Overall government accountability is probably more important than individual member accountability. Governmental stability is tremendously important. I'd want to reflect on that a bit more before I gave a full answer.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Chair, do I have any more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about a minute.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I found the polls that you've done quite interesting, Mr. Bricker. It's surprising, and I think we have to work at improving the awareness of what's happening right now. I think we're up for the challenge.

Are there any other suggestions? Ms. May was asking about what we can do in the second half of our outreach when we're going across Canada. Is there anything you can advise us to do to increase that awareness amongst people about what we're doing? Hopefully we can come to a consensus at the end of the day.

[Darrell Bricker]

I think the number one job is increasing awareness.

All of you have run as candidates before, and all have done it successfully. I've certainly worked on a lot of election campaigns, and I can tell you that people won't vote for you and support you if they don't know who you are.

While you might want to get into all of the stuff I like to refer to as the “Yahtzee” for political scientists—all this very complicated craziness about how we should structure our system—the number one thing is to tell people that you're actually considering it and doing something about it and there's a way for them to participate in it, rather than trying to get into the complexities of what the outcomes will be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Gibson, I have some questions for you to start with.

You mentioned in your opening statements, and I might be paraphrasing slightly, that the type of change we're looking at making here would be akin to a constitutional change. You elaborated slightly on that, but I wonder if you want the opportunity to elaborate a bit more on why you believe this would be akin to a constitutional change.

[Gordon Gibson]

It's because it's a part of our basic law; it's a part of the rules of the game.

That said, it would have been something that Parliament could easily have done before 1982 and there wouldn't have been any question about it. Whether it was a constitutional change or not, who cared? Parliament could do it.

Now it really matters whether it's a constitutional change, and only the Supreme Court can give that answer. My guess is that with their evolving view of constitutional architecture, as they call it, they would probably think it is part....

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I know you said earlier as well what you just stated again, and that's that no one can say with certainty whether this would meet the constitutional test. I think that's best exemplified by the fact that we've had witnesses before us unequivocally say, yes, this would be seen as a constitutional change. Others have said, no unequivocally; this wouldn't be. I think that illustrates the point quite well, that this is something where only the Supreme Court would be able to make that determination.

Now, in terms of legitimacy of the process, referendums are something that you obviously are arguing in favour of. I think there are a couple of quotes. There's one from you previously and one from today, where I think you illustrate that perfectly. First of all you said, “No rules are more important than those that determine which MPs will be elected and which party forms government.” Then today I thought it was even more profound, “When it comes to the rules of the game”...“people want and deserve a [say].”

I want to take the experience you have from British Columbia and with the B.C. citizens' assembly there. There was a recommendation that any system was guaranteed to be put before the voters in a referendum.

I wonder if you could give us an opinion on whether you think that guarantee enhanced the work that was done by the citizens' assembly, whether it helped to keep things honest and neutral, and whether that was an important part of that process.

[Gordon Gibson]

Thank you. That's a very good question.

There's absolutely no doubt that such empowerment is absolutely essential to the credibility of a citizens' assembly. The assembly had a lot of credibility because the people knew, and the members of the assembly knew, that whatever they came up with would in fact be put before the people. If all they were going to be was another royal commission—and no disrespect to royal commissions—who cares? In this particular case, whatever they came up with was going to be voted on, and that made it very important.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

If we were to recommend this same sort of guarantee, that whatever comes out of this process would be put before the people in a referendum, would that add credibility to this process? Would that make this process greater and stronger?

[Gordon Gibson]

If this committee by whatever means, whether a citizens' assembly or whatever else, comes up with a proposition that is then affirmed by the people in a referendum, then in my opinion it is legitimate.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

To give that guarantee now at this point and say that no matter what happens the recommended changes will be put before the people, would that add credibility to the process going forward?

[Gordon Gibson]

Yes.