Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 21st, 2016

[Greg Essensa]

I would repeat my answer, though. I think it is paramount that there be widespread acceptance from all Canadians, whether we choose to change the voting system or whether we retain the current status quo, and that Canadians have confidence.

In the many elections that I have travelled to worldwide, the actual democratic institution itself is the one that, when.... Democracies evolve and become fully democratic countries when the citizens fully accept the voting system that is put before them and accept the legitimacy of the government and of the representatives they have elected.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Di Ciano, what do you think?

[Justin Di Ciano]

Prime Minister Trudeau is my prime minister, and I have great faith that he's going to listen to this committee as they travel the country to understand what Canadians are looking for.

I can tell you that in the City of Toronto, in the last term, our council voted to bring forward a ranked choice voting system for all residents of Toronto. Following that decision, in the new term that started at the end of 2014, as more councillors started to understand the complexities and the shortcomings of the ranked choice voting system, the council changed its mind and brought forward a motion that said that they did not want to move forward with that, and that if they did so, residents were to be consulted through a referendum.

So the council changed its mind, and I'm pretty confident that other people have the same ability to do so.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Rayes.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here, and a very warm welcome to the public who have gathered concerning this to us critical issue.

One thing I want to set out, which may not have been said yet, is that the mandate of this committee is, “...to identify and conduct a study of viable alternative voting systems to replace the first-past-the-post system....” That is what we are engaged in. That is the frame in which we operate: to identify and study those.

In terms of Mr. Essensa's comment—I think he said “think long and hard”—I absolutely agree. I believe Parliament started thinking about this in 1921, with the first study on changing the voting system. We have had 14, 13—Elizabeth will correct me—national studies, by the Law Commission and others. I'm not sure that number 14 or 15 is going to do the trick in terms of evidence or of being able to study alternatives.

The frame I operate in is that we're changing. The questions are to what and how. I think those are legitimate comments brought up by both of our witnesses today.

Mr. Di Ciano, I want to start with a couple of things you said.

Your concern, particularly around the ranked ballot, the alternative vote, is that votes are wasted—as you said, put into the trash can. As you go down the voting process, some votes are simply not counted.

Am I misrepresenting what you said?

[Justin Di Ciano]

No, that is correct. They are what is called “exhausted ballots”.

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

Let me offer this then.

Under first past the post, just in our last election, a little north of 18 million votes were cast, and more than half of those votes didn't go towards electing anyone to Parliament. One could argue, in a similar vein, that those nine million-plus Canadians who went in and made their mark do not see that will expressed anywhere in the House of Commons. We are trying to find a voting system that allows both.

I think you underlined the importance of having local representation. Is that correct?

[Justin Di Ciano]

That is correct.

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

Are you aware of proportional systems that maintain that direct connection, that geographical connection between a riding and a member of Parliament who represents that riding?

[Justin Di Ciano]

Well, there are hybrids in different countries.

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

This committee hasn't heard a proposal yet, from all the experts we have heard from so far, that would break that link, which is interesting. I think a so-called made-in-Canada model is important. Our geography matters. Our regional differences matter. It is certainly the view the NDP is taking.

In terms of stability, we had a presentation on an OECD study of the developed nations of the world, comparing proportional systems to majoritarian, first past the post systems over the last six decades. In fact, proportional systems turn out to be slightly more stable than the first past the post models. What is your concern?

You mentioned stability quite a bit in your testimony and painted a picture of political chaos and upset, of constant turning to the polls. However, we see with countries that have adopted this model—with the exception of the Is, Italy and Israel, which are constantly held up as models we are not considering—that plurality systems, proportional systems, are incredibly stable and are able to produce very good and long-term policy.

[Justin Di Ciano]

I just don't see it like that. I see—

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

Is that based on evidence that you can offer the committee, or is it more of an opinion?

[Justin Di Ciano]

It is going to be my opinion. I look today at Germany, where Angela Merkel was instrumental in bringing one million Syrian refugees to her country, and now she is facing serious backlash by minority voices and fringe parties. I look at Australia, which now has a prime minister who has to govern with a fringe party whose senators dispute global warming.

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

Interesting examples. I would also say, look at the United States, which seems open to the idea of voting in someone who is a racist under a first past the post system.

The modelling of the system is important. You mentioned earlier that the system works well. We had testimony that said Canada has been a success, not because of our voting but despite it.

We rank 64th in the world right now in terms of women in Parliament. Proportional systems do better at having women in Parliament. That is the evidence we have. We have a terrible record in dealing with long-term policies like climate change and poverty. We have evidence that shows empirically that countries seeking proportional power-sharing arrangements have done better on both of those issues, which don't typically serve a four-year perspective; they are longer-perspective issues.

Do you have evidence you can give us that would counter the evidence we have heard from those witnesses?

[Justin Di Ciano]

All I can tell you is that every country is different. Every country has its own dynamics. In the countries I have looked at and analyzed, I do not see the evidence the same, that proportional representation elects more women and minorities into government. I have read a lot of research on the topic, and I do not see or agree with a lot of what I've read on that topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are out of time.

We have to go now to Mr. Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you all for coming to meet with us today.

I would like to say hello to my colleagues and the team. I would also like to greet Mr. Boulerice, who is joining us today, and the people in the audience. Thank you for coming to listen to us. We look forward to hearing from you later today.

I have some questions for Mr. Essensa first and for Mr. Di Ciano afterwards if I still have time.

Mr. Essensa, according to what you said, for a change to be successful, a broad consensus is needed, which takes time. You said that the reform or the new system has to be clearly understood, accepted, and legitimate in the eyes of the people.

The government made a commitment to change the voting system by the next election. However the Chief Electoral Officer in Ottawa told us that, to do so, the system had to be voted on, agreed upon, passed in the Senate and referred back to the House by next spring.

In your view, is that realistic?

[Greg Essensa]

Having run elections for 32 years, I would concur with Mr. Mayrand's comments, which I did read with great interest when he appeared here before the committee. I believe he indicated that he would need approximately two full years to implement any significant change.

Given the nature of the change, and the uncertainty of what the change would involve, I would concur with his assessment that it would take at least two full years.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Okay, thank you.

In your presentation, you talked about the financing rules for political parties.

In your view, should this aspect also be studied in order to improve democracy?

Should we go back to a form of public funding that would allow groups with less economic clout to be heard through parties?

[Greg Essensa]

I think it's imperative that this committee consider all aspects of the reform in ensuring that not only the populace understands how the reforms are going to be implemented and operated, but as well the other political actors: the candidates, parties, third parties, etc. Political financing is an important element in those reforms. Yes, I would encourage this committee to take some consideration into what political financing reforms would have to be put in place and dependent on the model you would wish to recommend or adopt.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Di Ciano first and then for Mr. Essensa.

If a reform is passed, what could we do to ensure that it is legitimate for the public?

Earlier, my colleague Mr. Rayes talked about a referendum.

Gentlemen, do you think there are other ways to make the process legitimate?

Do we need a referendum before we change the voting system or at the same time as the election to prevent people from making a trip only for that purpose?

Do we need a majority of members of Parliament or a consensus among all the parties represented in the House?

On which criteria would the reform be legitimate?

Legally speaking, only the government, which has a majority, could change the rules. There would be no legitimacy in that case.

[Justin Di Ciano]

I think that's an interesting question.

Ultimately, I think that a referendum is the only way to get the legitimacy of Canadians. Even if the majority of MPs were to decide on a format moving forward, I think the vast majority of Canadians would say, “But why are we changing our system?” I think a referendum is the only way to get the conversation going in this country, to talk about why we're changing our system and how it's going to benefit us. I don't see that education coming forward without a referendum.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.