Evidence of meeting #24 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 saskatchewan.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael Boda  Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Saskatchewan
Charles Smith  Associate Professor, St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
Darla Deguire  Director, Prairie Region, Canadian Labour Congress
Jim Harding  As an Individual
Kenneth Imhoff  As an Individual
Robert Bandurka  As an Individual
Nial Kuyek  As an Individual
John Klein  As an Individual
Ross Keith  As an Individual
Dave A.J. Orban  As an Individual
Lorna Evans  As an Individual
Erich Keser  As an Individual
Patricia Donovan  As an Individual
Calvin Johnson  As an Individual
Patricia Farnese  As an Individual
Jane Anweiler  As an Individual
William Baker  As an Individual
Russ Husum  As an Individual
Lee Ward  Associate Professor of Political Science, Campion College, University of Regina, As an Individual
Carl Cherland  As an Individual
Nancy Carswell  As an Individual
David Sabine  As an Individual
Randall Lebell  As an Individual
Shane Simpson  As an individual
Dastageer Sakhizai  As an individual
D-Jay Krozer  As an Individual
Maria Lewans  As an Individual
Norman L. Petry  As an Individual
Rachel Morgan  As an Individual
Dauna Ditson  As an Individual
Frances Simonson  As an Individual
Rodney Williams  As an Individual
William Clary  As an Individual

7:25 p.m.

As an Individual

Russ Husum

I think you'd have more centrist parties. I don't think it would change the complexion a lot, other than I could take a chance on the Green Party, for example. That would be my first vote, then, if I was going to vote, knowing that my second vote.... I think it might help a little bit like that.

Mr. Cullen mentioned about the bar being high in B.C. and that otherwise 58% would have passed, but what's the point of it passing if about 55% of that 58% didn't know what they were voting for? That's my point. I really do think that hardly anybody knew what they voted for in detail, because it wasn't presented in detail. It was presented as simple as one, two, three, and they understood that.

I don't think a ranked ballot will change the makeup a lot. The change will be that you'll get a government that the majority of the people actually want. You won't have somebody slipping up the middle, and that's what's happened.

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Okay.

Really quickly, Professor Ward, do you think this idea of going to the alternative vote as perhaps a transitional step would be a step in the right direction, or are you an all-in kind of guy who would like to see us simply go for a greater PR kind of system?

7:30 p.m.

Prof. Lee Ward

I think we have a historic opportunity to produce something, some kind of PR. That said, it's good to look at the electoral system as a mechanism, as something that isn't sacrosanct. In fact, it's not good in itself, but is meant to serve a purpose. Like everything in life, if it's not serving a purpose, then you fix it or you replace it.

I like the idea that we're looking at electoral systems as things you get your hands on, like looking under the hood of the car. I like that, but I would also like to seize the historic opportunity and move to a PR system.

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you very much.

We now move to Mr. Rayes.

7:30 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Good evening.

Mr. Ward, like Mr. Ste-Marie, I really liked how dynamic your presentation was.

However, there is one aspect that I cannot support. At the end of one of your comments, you referred to a third world country. I have been living in Canada for about 45 years now. When I look at the country that we have built with our governments, even if they are not perfect in representative terms, I consider that we are a long way from the third world. I just wanted to make that clear.

Professor Loewen, who testified before us when we were in Ottawa, made an observation about representation. People who talk about a proportional voting system or a mixed-member proportional system in all its forms, talk a lot about better representation in Parliament. He told us to be very careful because representation in Parliament and representation in government are two different things. The political parties might actually be better represented in Parliament in terms of votes. However, the government could be made up of a coalition of parties that failed to win a majority. We could easily be talking about one party with 45% of the votes and a small party with 6%. That is one scenario. They would then be represented in the government, which would in turn be making the decisions. However, a second party with 35% of the votes would have no representation at all in government for four years. That had an impact on me. It was the first time that anyone, a university professor in this case, had mentioned it to us.

I would like to hear your specific opinion. Are you of the same mind? He was the first witness to really mention it and it is quite important.

7:30 p.m.

Prof. Lee Ward

Thank you very much.

First of all, I didn't mean to say that Canada was a third world country in any way at all. If anything, I'm trying to say that our representation is outdated, not necessarily backwards or not progressive. I think Canada has succeeded very well. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

On government representativeness, there is a legitimate concern about how any major change to proportional representation would alter our understanding of the opposition. I understand that the opposition is an integral principle in Canadian parliamentary democracy. There will be a party with 35% that is not in the government, and that's a healthy thing. I would agree that we don't want absolute consensus and parties forming alliances to reach 50% or 60% of the population. The other 40% have to play a role in Parliament as an effective opposition.

The principle of opposition is something that is precious, and fragile in a sense. I think we must be careful not to sweep away the beneficial properties of having an opposition that's active and sees its primary job as criticizing government policy.

The specific concern of small parties making the difference, if you like, goes back to Ms. May's point about the Knesset, where very small parties blackmail major blocs. That is a concern. One way to look at that is to see that a flourishing multi-party democracy is the solution to that problem. The problem in Israel, with all due respect, is that they have two major parties and then very small parties that will always play that role in between.

If we have more competitive parties—three, four, or five competitive parties—I think you'll find that you won't have one very small group that can hold governments hostage in that sense, hopefully.

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

You only have about five seconds. Time flies.

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Did you count the time the speakers needed to put on their headsets?

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I am sorry, Mr. Rayes. You are right. You still have 45 seconds.

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

I will be quick.

Mr. Ward, are you for or against people being able to express their opinions by means of a referendum in order to ratify a change in the method of voting?

7:35 p.m.

Prof. Lee Ward

I support a referendum. I support a referendum on all kinds of issues. I think the referendum has to be an intelligent one, though, and it has to be comparing apples with apples. I think there should be a sunset clause in the legislation whereby, after two elections with a new system, we have a referendum to compare it with the old one so that the public has a genuine choice. I wouldn't buy a car without a test drive.

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

At the moment, Justin Trudeau's government is leaning towards a preferential system.

If he decided on a system like that rather than a mixed-member proportional system, would you accept that, given that he has a majority?

7:35 p.m.

Prof. Lee Ward

I would agree to a referendum after two elections to make sure that we could make a correction, absolutely. Supporting a referendum today in support of a ranked ballot would be hard for me. It would be hard for me to do that.

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Mr. Rayes.

Mrs. Romanado, the floor is yours

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC

Thank you very much.

Thanks to both of you for your testimony on this late evening in Regina. I appreciate having the two views.

We hear a lot about possible solutions or alternative voting systems for us, but often we don't get into the nitty-gritty of what it is actually going to take to implement if we adopt it, or what the possible consequences are of implementing it.

Professor Ward, you mentioned something, and my little thingy went up and went ding, ding, ding—sorry. It's been a long day.

You mentioned that there might be some rejigging of boundaries and so on, which always makes me a little nervous, because we just went through the exercise last year, and at the end of the day, as much as we want to make sure that whatever it is we're choosing is what Canadians want, we also have to be mindful of the costs.

I'm a little concerned that compared to something that might be very simple to implement, implementing something as elaborate as what you're suggesting would come at a significant cost. I'm just throwing this out there, because it's not a guiding principle, but it is something that we have to be mindful of as representatives of the Canadian taxpayer. I can't go to Canadians and say, “Listen, I'm sorry, but you're not going to get x amount of money out of the budget for this, because we spent a lot of it changing the system.”

I need to make sure that we understand what the ramifications are of whatever it is that we're going to propose when we're doing this exercise. I haven't been able to get witnesses to tell me concretely what all the costs and all the ramifications are of choosing system X or system Y, but that will definitely factor into our recommendation. Do you have any data for that?

7:35 p.m.

Prof. Lee Ward

No, I don't have any data, but I'm trying to think logically what the costs would be. In terms of districting, we re-district anyway under the federal electoral boundaries act, so that's just natural. That happens every census. That's in the law.

In terms of drawing new districts, I'm assuming that it would be the non-partisan boundary commissions doing this, working with Elections Canada. It's their job. Would Elections Canada need more funding? I assume it would, but I don't see that it would be exorbitant, and I don't think it would be the kind of thing that would require a great deal of ongoing costs.

There would be something at the initial stage, the implementation stage. There would be some upfront costs, although I can't for the life of me really see the cost being all that much more than it would be now. We'd have different ballots. We'd have to construct the ballots, so I'm sure we'd have focus groups and studies to figure it out so that our ballots are fair and we aren't constructing them in a way that's unfair, but we do that now. Elections Canada is already doing that.

If we are talking about adding seats to the House of Commons, then there's a cost. In the MMP option that I raised tonight, you wouldn't have to do that. We wouldn't have to add any seats to the House.

I actually don't think there would be an exorbitant cost in making a change that conceptually is very dramatic—and I don't deny that—but structurally, I don't think it would alter things very much at all. In terms of the actual daily life of you MPs as your ridings get bigger, yes, I suppose there would be adjustments to MPs' budgets. I'm sure that if you have larger ridings and greater travel, that should be factored in, but again, I don't think it would seriously have an impact in terms of finances.

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC

In terms of public awareness campaigns and education to inform Canadians about a new system, obviously, whatever it is that we choose, we're going to need to have that outreach effort. I appreciate your feedback on that.

Professor Husum, would you like to add to that? The system that you proposed was a little simpler. It didn't involve boundary changes and it didn't involve significant changes to the current electoral system. Could you give me a sense of the feasibility of implementation?

7:40 p.m.

As an Individual

Russ Husum

To be honest, I don't know. I assume it would be relatively easy, just because you won't change boundaries. Even in the case of the ballot, instead of making an X, you'd do 1, 2, 3, 4. There will be more entailed in the counting.

I think it would be simple, in that sense. If at some point there was a partial proportional representation added, I don't know how much it cost to redraw the electoral boundaries the last time, but it might be the same amount for a new system.

Just don't lose the opportunity now. At least walk away with something, and this is a simple system that I think improves our system over first past the post.

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Go ahead, Ms. Benson.

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK

Thank you, Chair, and thank you both for your presentations.

Professor Ward, I thought I would direct my questions to you first. You talked a little about the conversations you were having with young people in your class, and people asking questions about who won and why people aren't engaged. Could you talk about the challenge of getting people out to vote under a different system under which there is an impact when someone becomes involved?

What I hear a lot now is that we should stay in the safety zone of first past the post, because it's something everybody knows. I would challenge that. Many people don't know that system either. I spent a lot of time, when I was going door to door, doing civic lessons with people in my riding about who they were able to vote for. Many people thought they were voting for the prime minister.

I think we make a lot of assumptions about the system we have now. We assume that somehow it's operating really well because people know it really well. I'm just asking whether you think that may or may not be the case. They might be thinking they're getting something out of it that they are not.

7:40 p.m.

Prof. Lee Ward

I think that's a very good point. I'm not sure the public is as invested in the current system as we sometimes think they are. There may be a natural and kind of healthy reluctance to change without understanding the full ramifications of the change, but for Canadians generally—and as a political scientist, I say this with a sad heart—I think we do need a civics lesson as a people, and we need to take our institutions more seriously.

One of the things I find when students ask me whether it matters if they vote is that the sad truth in many cases is that your vote really doesn't matter as an individual, unless you're in a highly competitive riding, in which case your vote really matters.

As you know, we had some very close races in Saskatchewan in the last election. I live in Regina—Lewvan, which had one of the closest in the country, and maybe the closest. My students were electrified by that race in Regina—Lewvan. In the other parts of Regina, they knew so-and-so was going to win, but wow, this was quite something. Not only that, but there was a kind of calculation that kicked in when people starting thinking strategically and started asking me questions. I said that I couldn't tell them how to vote, but I could tell them how to find out about the issues they care about. I saw a much greater engagement. The data is there to show that when you have closer contests, you will get greater turnout.

As a general principle, I think, one effect of the greater PR system is that it would take away the sense that your territorial location will determine your significance as a citizen voting in an election, the sense that by simply being a Canadian citizen voting in an election, you will have contributed in some way to the formation of our Parliament in a meaningful way, not just negatively.

There's a very abstract sense that the general will is all of us. Mechanically, it's almost impossible to do that, and I understand that we're going to have thresholds and there are going to be areas of traditional strength for different parties, but if we can diminish that as much as we can mechanically, I think you will find a greater spirit and engagement.

Even from the sense that the losing candidate in my riding put up a good show, I think people got a sense that now this was beyond just symbolism and that it would actually be in some way represented in Parliament. I'm absolutely convinced—and the data is very clear—that the country should have a form of proportionality built into the system. The turnout is higher.

There are other things, too, such as the question of mandatory voting. They're all really interesting questions and important ones, but I think even such a simple thing as introducing a significant amount of proportionality will increase turnout. So too, perhaps, would greater choice, so maybe we could even just have multiple choices on the ballot, but again, I think there's the sense that you're still getting winners and losers.

7:45 p.m.

NDP

Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK

Thank you.

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Mr. Maguire is next.

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the members for making their presentations this evening.

Mr. Ward, I was interested in your comment that we should take our institutions more seriously. I agree. I think it's a very serious decision for Canadians to look at the mechanism of how they elect us, in this case, or other people too—not just members of Parliament, but provincial members as well. I won't go to school boards and municipal elections, because sometimes they're elected with less than 20% of the vote, so that's not good either. Don't get me wrong.

You made a comment earlier that was of interest to me. You said that you wouldn't drive a car without a test drive, yet you say we should have a vote after two elections have gone by.

7:45 p.m.

Prof. Lee Ward

That would be the test run.