Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 1st, 2016

[David McLaughlin]

At the time we were doing our work, we found a bit of the opposite. I do recommend, if you're interested, some academic research that we had conducted and that we published in a book. Many of these academics you've seen here. Some of it may be dated, but we did some original analysis to show the effects of government formation and instability. At that time, 2003 to 2005, PR governments seemed a bit more unstable, but I know you've had some subsequent research. Maybe it's changed a bit, but I did look at it.

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

We looked at some OECD 60-year longitudinal study, that type of thing.

[Prof. Craig Scott]

I think the bottom line is that the two systems, on the stability measures of length between elections and length of government, are actually quite similar. There's a tiny edge on these long-term longitudinal studies for PR systems, but it's not statistically significant. A lot of the studies that might have been taken into account back in the early 2000s were throwing Italy in. What were effectively cabinet shuffles—

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

Ah, Italy.

[Prof. Craig Scott]

—were treated as government changes. That skewed some statistics.

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

When the cabinet would shift, it was recorded as a change of government.

[Prof. Craig Scott]

Right.

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

The voter's experience is what I'm interested in, so I want to go back to you, David, on the recommendations you made in New Brunswick about treating votes equally, regardless of where they're cast. You've joined some other folks, because we have this legitimacy question as well. How do we legitimize what's going on here?

I hear in different ways from all three of you a responsibility, a test put to us as a committee regarding the composition of this committee, which is closer to a reflection of how Canadians voted, and whether this committee can function. So far so good.

David, the idea of testing a new voting system after it's put in place has been supported by some and decried by others. You suggested support for it today. How come?

[David McLaughlin]

The starting point for me is that it's the public system. It's not the party's system or a politician's system and whatnot.

I also think our sense of democracy has changed over time in terms of what people are expecting from elected officials. It's unfortunate, but we don't hold a high enough opinion of them to devolve upon them all of these kinds of decisions. While I think elected officials through this process can very much inform the way people think and help them with the options, I just have a strong sense in this country that we will not, as citizens, give up that opportunity or that right, as we perceive it, to cast a vote on it, one way or the other.

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

Craig, you talked earlier about tunnel vision in policy. We had Mr. Broadbent here earlier suggesting that if you go back in time we've had many governments form in Canada with very poor representation from all the regions. Previous Liberal governments with almost no representation in the west, his contention was that it led to some bad energy policy. We've had Conservative governments with the opposite: a very strong western base, but virtually nothing in Quebec over much time. The balance of those interests and regional interests under a proportional system, some see that as a diffusion of focus for a government, a lessening of the strength of the policy that comes forward.

How would you argue against that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Be very brief, please.

[Prof. Craig Scott]

I'll be very brief.

I think insight and legitimacy comes from diversity. If you have a serious interaction of diverse points of view in a good-faith climate, you come to better policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Thériault, you now have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank you, gentlemen, for these presentations.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of open change, but not just any change in any way whatsoever. We are saying that we have to go beyond the inner circle, the experts, and especially the political parties. We are starting from the premise that this is a file dominated by partisanship. As balanced as it is, the committee is also dominated by partisanship.

That is why we believe that there must be a second step in the process. We must put citizens back at the centre of our desire for reform. I understand that you agree with that, Mr. McLaughlin.

[David McLaughlin]

I don't have a sense that this committee is that partisan. I do have a sense that it's proportional and the parties are doing their work and members of Parliament are doing their work. With that slight dissent, I do believe and did offer up a referendum, a chance for citizens and voters to pronounce on the work of this committee. More fundamentally, a government motion, a bill that would go into the House of Commons through the parliamentary process is the way to bring the most legitimacy to the eventual outcomes of the process.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

What do you think, Mr. Scott?

[Craig Scott]

As Mr. Fox said, I also believe that there is an educational aspect to this issue. It is not therefore necessarily a question of partisanship, but a question of knowing whether or not the the men and women in politics represent Canadians.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Do you not think, Mr. Scott, that when a government or political parties are responsible for reforms, the motivation for change is the extent to which it favours the party and partisan interests?

[Craig Scott]

Yes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

First of all, no one is going to forget that. Everyone recognizes that no system is perfect. There are advantages and disadvantages to every system.

[Craig Scott]

That is not the same thing.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The final decision must be the responsibility of the people; it must be up to them.

What do you think, Mr. Fox?

[Graham Fox]

That is exactly why the debate on values and principles is so important.

Even if citizens form constituent assemblies, we will do whatever we want if, during the debate, the first things discussed are the mechanisms and voting systems and whether we want one system or another. If we do not first agree on the values that underlie the system, we will have the dynamic that you described. We must produce a public declaration of the principles we want to uphold. Then, we can assess the specific proposals on the basis of these values rather than on one another's partisan interests.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Don't you think that's what would happen if we adopt a mixed-member proportional system?

We have to change the mechanism, but for things to be equitable, we need to reinstate federal funding for votes cast. We can't say we support ideological pluralism if we don't give an equal chance to every one of the voices that we want to see as part of that plurality in the House.

I would add that reforming parliamentary procedure would ensure that no MPs end up in a situation like the Bloc Québécois's.

[Graham Fox]

I don't necessarily want to speak to the specific issue of public funding for political parties. However, once we have greater clarity about the debate happening around this table, we will have to see where it fits into the greater governance picture.

What would more coalitions in Ottawa mean for the federal system if the provinces don't have the same system?

The funding issue is related to all that. We need a big-picture perspective on this.