Evidence of meeting #23 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 process.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David McLaughlin  As an Individual
Craig Scott  Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
Graham Fox  President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Research on Public Policy

Noon

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Right.

Noon

President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Research on Public Policy

Graham Fox

But it did not reach the pre-set threshold.

Noon

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

It was 57%.

Noon

President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Research on Public Policy

Graham Fox

Exactly.

Noon

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

There could be 50% plus one who want change.

Noon

President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Research on Public Policy

Graham Fox

Exactly.

Noon

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

I'm not saying that people reject the proposed system, not at all. People don't reject an option simply to reject it. Maybe, on some level, they like the existing system.

Noon

President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Research on Public Policy

Graham Fox

That is definitely possible.

Noon

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

I would like to hear your opinion on this trend, except with respect to what we saw in British Columbia.

Noon

President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Research on Public Policy

Graham Fox

The same thing happened in Ontario during an election in which I myself was a candidate.

The referendum was held in 2007 at the same time as the provincial election. The government of the day said that it would not campaign for or against change. I was a candidate for the official opposition, and its position on the issue was vague as well. The party let each candidate take his or her own stance.

When people have to choose between the status quo and the unknown, I think they are likely to choose the status quo. In some situations, if nobody explains why the change should happen, people are comfortable keeping what's familiar to them.

You said that we need to treat voters properly and give them information. I agree completely. They do not make bad decisions.

Noon

As an Individual

David McLaughlin

I'm in favour of the default position of letting voters decide because that works for us. At the end of the day that typically works for the system.

One of the reasons is that we accept the results. We have good winners and good losers. Good losers around the table, if you will, who then participate in a different way, not having won the main prize, the main chance, but agreeing to participate as loyal opposition, or as members of the opposition, etc. That's the nature of the system, so we accept it and we move on.

I've been involved in referendums. I was involved in the constitutional referendum in 1992 with Prime Minister Mulroney. I travelled everywhere with him on that basis. And yes, I saw first-hand where the animus toward him personally helped colour the results, etc.

So other things can come in, but to say that the public didn't know about the issues, didn't know all the things that were in Charlottetown.... They liked Charlottetown as a package; they didn't like individual elements. So perhaps too much was put forward, so that's learning.

We do know as well from elections why it is that, as practising politicians, you tend to go out door to door with your literature and hammer one message—and I've been a campaign manager—to the exclusion of others because you try to simplify it, and you try to put it in terms that matter to the public. You haven't yet found that sweet spot on this issue. Perhaps it will emerge in the process.

In the absence of a compelling argument to change—something that Graham said at the outset—or in advance of a concerted, independent effort of education, of information that in my view would have to accompany a referendum process, then the public will, I suspect, revert to they're not certain they trust this, or they're not certain, etc., and then probably that's more of a vote for the status quo.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

12:05 p.m.

As an Individual

David McLaughlin

If you are making a change you've got to make the case for change very strongly.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you very much.

We will conclude our week of work with comments from Ms. Sahota.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Thank you.

I want to move toward finding other ideas, a made-in-Canada solution, and then I think we could adopt a lot of these systems to perhaps fit into our country.

We have vast differences from a lot of other countries. Redrafting boundaries is going to be a big hurdle; it would be complex. Having ballots that have far too many options would be a problem. We've been talking about a lot of these different issues that we're facing, as well as the values that are important. I know fairness keeps coming up when we want to move toward PR.

And then there are also these other issues that we've been talking about throughout the week. I feel we haven't created a really concrete causal connection to PR, which is female representation, diversity, and other things. Because so many factors are in play when you look at those things I don't think any electoral system—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—but from all our witnesses we don't have a direct link at this point that gives cause and effect.

I would like to take a look at some slightly different options.

Mr. Scott, you had mentioned the Jenkins commission and an option that they proposed because they didn't want to increase the number of their members, and didn't want to perhaps redraft boundaries. They went beyond AV but tried to make it more proportional; I'm not quite sure. Could you lay out the differences between what they had come up with and MMP? Is it the same, or how does it differ?

12:05 p.m.

Prof. Craig Scott

Yes, some call it AV-plus, and some call it MMP-plus.

I call it MMP-plus because it's MMP but when you're electing on the local side, instead of using first past the post as we do, you use the ranked ballot, so you produce the locally elected MPs that way. That's the only difference.

But they also were quite fierce in their criticism of AV as a stand-alone reform where you just keep single member districts and use AV. I don't know what the compromise dynamics were whereby they must have seen a separate set of good reasons why having more general support—even if some of it is second preferences it counts for something—and they embraced it. I can't quite remember their reasoning. That was the only difference from MMP.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Okay.

We saw from this panel we had from Scotland, and we've heard testimony, that once people go toward PR they don't go back. But I'm just a little perplexed why that referendum in the U.K. didn't work since so many regions and their municipalities have changed toward a different system, but—

12:05 p.m.

Prof. Craig Scott

I think their referendum was on alternative vote, not on PR.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

So it was the question. It was the choice that was presented to people that they didn't like.

12:05 p.m.

Prof. Craig Scott

And it wasn't tied to the Jenkins commission report. It was separate. Alternative vote was the proposal, and it was voted down.

12:05 p.m.

As an Individual

David McLaughlin

It was the coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats. I think, as part of the agreement to form a coalition, the Conservatives agreed to have a referendum on this preferred system. That was the price of a coalition. There are prices to be paid in forming coalition governments.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Interesting.

12:05 p.m.

As an Individual

David McLaughlin

On your comment, Ms. Sahota, about “made in Canada” or a different system, etc., I would encourage you, encourage anybody in this business, because it is what animated us and drove us, to consider that the more it looks like a system that Canadians are familiar with, the easier it will be to find acceptance of change. With the idea of a whole new system, from stem to stern, as we say back home in the Maritimes, you're going to end up running against the view of that's a lot of change. Why that? What's the problem, etc.?

Part of MMP, why we moved that way, is it still has single member plurality, everybody still did the same vote for a local member, the way they did before. It introduced a degree of proportionality. The amount of proportionality depends on the splits. We went two-thirds and one-third, and there are other design features there. We didn't think it was that big a step for people.

It's just some advice, in terms of cautioning you, as you think about the way you want to go ahead. A big new system may deal with all the trade-offs, may deal with all the principles, but it just may be a step too far for Canadians to accept, given we do have an attachment to this system because, in part, we're comfortable with it and because we see that generally it seems to work. We know, as experts, and you're living in it, that there are certain flaws with it. I'm not certain that very many Canadians see that on a day-to-day basis.

So just some gratuitous advice, if you like, in response to what I think was a good question you asked.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you very much.

Thus ends our discussion.

I would once again like to thank the witnesses for joining us. They shared some very well-thought-out perspectives very clearly with us.

As I said before, it's a pleasure to see you on the Hill again, Mr. Scott.

We need about five minutes in camera for some future business. It will go very quickly.

Thank you very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]