I would like to explain it to you more.
Evidence of meeting #25 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 good.
Evidence of meeting #25 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 good.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Welcome to the committee, Ms. Sansoucy. It is a pleasure to see you here with us today.
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am going to use my first comment to express my respect for my colleagues and the team that is accompanying them on this tour to meet Canadians in every province and territory.
I would also like to say hello to those for whom this is home. Coming here is always a pleasure for a francophone from Quebec. On the bus from the airport, we passed through a number of communities with francophone names. It is a pleasure to meet you.
I would like to thank the two witnesses for their contributions.
Mr. Kidd, I have to tell you that I was very impressed by the work you have done in developing a model like this. Thank you for your contribution to the improvement of the voting system.
I would like to take advantage of the fact that I have two generations of university professors before me. We can sense their desire to improve the voting system in both their presentations.
For 60 years, governments have been elected using different voting systems. One thing strikes me. Those governments have the firm conviction that they represent the people and that they are there to work to serve them better. We also see that in the way our committee is working.
I would like to take advantage of your professorial expertise and ask you to talk to us about the democratic principles that drive you and that led you to testify today.
2:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you for recognizing my academic credentials, but I'm not a political scientist, just a regular citizen.
For a long time I've been concerned that the FPTP system is unfair. It produces distorted government representation. I sat down one day and I started thinking about how to make it better, and that's why I developed my own system.
No, it's not a professional thing that's drawing me to this; it's just a feeling that we can have a better democracy in Canada.
2:35 p.m.
Associate Professor and Department Head, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
It would become my job to think about these things and to teach about them.
Like a lot of people, I am concerned about Canadians' attitudes toward democracy, views towards democracy, and disenchantment with democracy. I can see some pathologies over the electoral system bear some responsibility for that. At the same time, they can be blamed unfairly for some of those attitudes.
That's what drives my interest in this issue, this feeling of democratic disengagement and unhappiness among Canadians and how might we fix that.
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
When it comes to changing the voting system, there is a resistance to change and that gives rise to fear. One of the characteristics of governments elected by a proportional voting system is that they are very unstable. That is one of the arguments against changing our voting system. The feeling is that the change will create instability. What is your opinion about what a change in the voting system might mean for us in terms of stability?
2:35 p.m.
Associate Professor and Department Head, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
It's an undeniable strength of the current electoral system that it does lead to stability. The distortions we all criticize tend to lead to majority governments, and so we get majority governments that last for so many years. Some people see that as a strength. I'm not that concerned about minority governments or coalition governments for the most part, but that's a strength people identify of the current system.
Do you want to add anything?
2:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Just to say it's important that whatever government represents the people, the policies they bring in should be supported by the majority of the people, and that doesn't happen.
You have 40% of the vote and government with 100% of the power, so they can do whatever they want. This is not a democracy.
We want fair legislation that the people will support. You put in a government and they are no longer going to necessarily bring that legislation in. Of course, you can vote them out later, but you can garner damage along the way, too.
That's all. Thank you.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the panellists as well, thank you.
Mr. Koop, you made several comments about centrality of voting systems, how present processes provide accountability in the constituencies for members of Parliament of all parties, and I think, Mr. Kidd, you referred to that as well.
We've had a lot of presentations. I've only been on this committee for a couple of days, but I've read some of the others that have allowed for a great deal of change and opportunity in some of these areas, but there is no consensus around what forms the best electoral process perhaps at that point. I may have my own opinions, but that's what we're hearing.
I'm wondering if you can provide us with details around what you were thinking of in regard to some of the trade-offs of making the changes you've talked about and others have talked about, from where we are today.
2:40 p.m.
Associate Professor and Department Head, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Electoral reform is all about those kinds of trade-offs. It's about competing values and having to make choices between them, so we hear about some of the strengths of SMP. Local representation is the big one that I emphasize, but proportionality with some of the good things attached to that is an equally worthy goal to pursue. That's why I'm glad I'm not sitting on the committee. I just get to talk and give my perspective. You're right; it's absolutely a case of competing values and trying to find places where you can actually reconcile those values, and it's a tough thing to do.
2:40 p.m.
As an Individual
It's a very good question you asked.
No system is perfect. If we could find a perfect system, every country in the world would be using it right now. All systems have their pluses and their minuses, and the big challenge that's facing you is to try to figure out a system where the pluses outweigh the minuses, or they do the things that you want them to do.
Take first past the post: strong, stable government, local representation, great. Disproportionate? No. Well, you know you give up one thing.
If you use tier PR or list PR, you get perfect representation, all votes count the same and everything, but you don't have any local representation.
I could go on and on. There is a whole list of different things that you want. You have to balance it.
I hate to keep plugging my system, but if anybody has ever read this white document, you'll see near the end of it there's a report card for EVC in which I list from A+ down to B, the lowest rating. I don't know if anybody ever read it, but I think it's a good system because it does have a lot of pluses and not any minuses that I can really think of, except for the problem of expanding constituency size, and if you're going to have a mixed member system, you're going to have to do that, unless you want 500 seats.
You have to balance. It's a question of balance.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Okay, my question as a follow up to that is what should that balance be. We have 338 seats. We just increased the House by 30 seats. It's been a while since that happened, so it caught up because of our increased population in the country. But that just happened, so now you're looking at what additional seats you would have and how many you would cut back on. That was one of the questions earlier. Is it 30%? You're talking about 50%.
2:40 p.m.
As an Individual
No, I suggested a 356-seat Parliament with 210 constituencies and 140 proportional seats. That's a two-thirds ratio, and that would certainly increase the size of the constituencies, but it wouldn't be as bad as if you had to cut them in half.
I sympathize with representatives who have huge ridings to represent, like Nathan and a few others, Matt also. I sympathize with them, but if you're going to have a mixed member system, that's going to be inevitable.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much, Mr. Maguire.
I'll go to Ms. Sahota to close the round.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you for being with us today and for your interesting presentations.
I'd like to start with Professor Koop. You said you shadowed a whole bunch of MPs. You don't have to name those MPs. I'm more interested in knowing what regions of the country they represented, what the sizes of their constituencies were like, and what the general demographic was like.
2:40 p.m.
Associate Professor and Department Head, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
We got diversity on all of those things: in rural/urban ridings; in dense versus dispersed ridings; MPs who have been around for 20 years versus first-term MPs; MPs in safe party seats versus MPs in competitive seats. There were 11 in total, and we aimed to get diversity on all those different kinds of scales.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I didn't realize that you went to that length. I thought that maybe you just shadowed a couple of MPs. It's good to know you have that perspective.
Are there any insights you could give us as to the different types of representation that were needed for the different types of ridings, depending on those factors you listed?
2:45 p.m.
Associate Professor and Department Head, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Yes, MPs develop different kinds of what we call representational styles. Some are very policy focused; some are service focused. Some are focused on what we refer to as symbolism, going to local events, community events, trying to present themselves as one of their constituents, trying to build a personal bond with those constituents. They develop these styles in response, in part, to what they think their constituents actually expect of them, and so that factors into the nature of the riding itself.
There are other things that go into that as well, for example, how vulnerable does the MP actually feel in the re-election contest that's coming up? We'll have a book coming out from UBC Press pretty soon—not to advertise or anything—where we go into detail on all of these MPs.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
That's really fascinating to me, being a new MP and trying to figure it out, just like my colleague was saying, and how to best represent constituents is really important to us.
Did you find that there was a difference in the demand levels that were placed on some MPs in certain ridings versus others?
2:45 p.m.
Associate Professor and Department Head, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Yes. The demands that are placed on MPs in dense urban ridings are a lot higher than those on MPs in other kinds of ridings.
In rural ridings they have a medium number of demands, of service requests from constituents. The suburban ridings, where MPs tend to get an easier ride, are not as demanding. It's not as pressing. There are not the kinds of service requests that MPs, especially in the really dense urban, high-rise kinds of ridings get. Those are the ones that impose really pressing demands on the MP.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Interesting. Because constituents are important we're trying to figure out, depending on which system we use, how large would you grow the riding and would the constituency MP be able to serve their members appropriately? It seems like the larger rural ridings don't have that same demand, anyway, so that's interesting.
I'd say that my riding keeps me very busy and on my toes all the time. I've met with a few different political science professors, and they said that ridings with huge minority populations tend to really rely on local representation and their MP perhaps disproportionately relative to other MPs in non-minority-heavy ridings.
In some things I've been reading I've also found that the current system has created smaller ridings, and that has allowed for minorities to actually do well with the sizes of those ridings, and get to elected because there are densely concentrated minority populations. That has given them an advantage, under the current system, to get the number of seats that we have currently. I found that interesting.
In moving to one of these other systems—and I would hope that parties are all moving in that direction, anyway, even if we ballooned the size of the riding, perhaps we would lose those minority representatives to actually win constituency seats, but maybe through the list representation it's my hope that we would put them back in.
You made an interesting statement about list MPs tending to support certain causes, certain other interests, and not necessarily those attached to a riding. That fascinates me a little bit, too, because I'm finding that this balance of being an MP, being able to maybe have something you want to achieve in Parliament but at the same time having a balance with the interests of your constituents, is really important and keeps you in a balanced perspective. You not only want to achieve your goals, but you want to make sure that everyone's voice is heard. I think those are good things that come out of our system, and those are things we wouldn't want to lose.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I found these presentations really interesting. It's given me a lot to think about, so thank you for that. I'm looking forward to reading your further submissions, if you have any. Thank you.