No, I had not finished.
Evidence of meeting #28 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 elected.
Evidence of meeting #28 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 elected.
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I had not finished, and I even said that I found it unfortunate that I was being cut off.
I want to emphasize the fact that the voting system is not the only issue that will allow us to have a more representative House of Commons. To achieve that, we have to enact laws containing institutional mechanisms that will allow for greater representativity.
I also want to stress that political parties are going to have to take matters in hand and adopt measures that will allow more women to stand as candidates and to get elected. Moreover, Parliament should oblige political parties to propose action plans to bring the issue of equal candidacies to the fore, that is to say that at least 50% of candidates should be women. We could then have a truly representative House of Commons, with gender parity.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
In fact, as we speak, there is a bill before Parliament to offer incentives to the political parties that achieve parity.
5:30 p.m.
As an Individual
Incentives are nice, but coercion is going to be necessary. It's unfortunate, but it is going to be necessary.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We will officially reconvene the meeting.
This evening, we welcome two witnesses to the committee: Mr. Éric Montigny, Executive Director, Research Chair on Democracy and Parliamentary Institutions, Department of Political Science, Université Laval, and Mr. Bernard Colas, Attorney, CMKZ LLP, former commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada.
I don't know if you were here during the previous testimony, but witnesses have 10 minutes to present their views. This is followed by a question period during which each member has five minutes to speak with the witnesses. Those five minutes include both questions and answers.
We will begin with you, Mr. Montigny. You have the floor.
September 22nd, 2016 / 6:25 p.m.
Éric Montigny Executive Director, Research Chair on Democracy and Parliamentary Institutions, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I first want to thank you for this invitation to appear before the committee. The work you do is very relevant, and essential to the vitality of Canadian democracy. It is all the more important because if it leads to a reform of the voting system, it may have a very marked effect on the institutions of other Canadian bodies, because of the tendency of institutions to mimic each other. The choice your committee makes will no doubt have repercussions beyond the federal Parliament.
I thank you for this opportunity to share my views with you. I am not here tonight to discuss my favourite voting system or to share my personal preferences. My objective is mainly to put forward certain elements from the scientific literature concerning voting systems.
In 2015, there was a symposium on democratic vitality in Canada and in Quebec. It was organized by the chair I hold, in cooperation with Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec. In the context of that symposium, we surveyed Quebeckers to find out whether they supported certain electoral reforms. This poll was not done Canada-wide; it was only taken in Quebec.
This survey allowed us to see that the population would like to see a change in the voting system. According to the CROP poll done in 2015, around 70% of the population is in favour of some form of proportionality, should the voting system be reformed.
The strongest argument for a reform of the voting system is representation. We want to reduce the distortions that are inherent in the current voting system. There are two factors that could improve representation.
First of all, from a mathematical point of view, this would reduce distortions, stop penalizing the smaller parties, and stop benefiting the party that comes first in a disproportionate way. In the single member plurality or first-past-the-post system, there is a benefit for the one that comes first that encourages distortions. In Quebec, in the fairly recent past, on some occasions political parties that had the most votes found themselves in the opposition.
The second factor is ideological. The various currents that are present in society should also be represented in Parliament. This is why we have seen the integration of a type of proportionality in voting system reforms throughout the world. However, I would add that one of the most frequent arguments raised to maintain the current system is the connection between the member and his or her riding.
A study was done in 2011 which appeared in a scientific publication in 2014. This was a survey of Quebec parliamentarians who sit in the Quebec National Assembly or in the House of Commons in Ottawa. Among other things, they were asked about their perception of citizens' expectations with regard to their work as parliamentarians, either their work in their ridings, or as lawmakers and comptrollers of government. The vast majority of parliamentarians said that they believed that citizens expect them to be highly effective representatives of their riding, that they be very generous with their time, that they be very present on the ground, and that they work hard on resolving the individual problems of the constituents in their riding.
The objective was to see whether Quebeckers' expectations were in keeping with members' perceptions about them. To our great surprise, we discovered that there was a large discrepancy. These were not at all the main expectations of the Quebec citizens who were surveyed in a CROP poll.
The main expectation citizens had of their MP was not that he represent their riding. What they wished for first and foremost was that he be a good comptroller of government, whatever his political affiliation. Citizens want their MPs, even if they are ministers, to be good stewards of government activity and question government policies above and beyond the party line.
So the argument regarding the connection between the member and his riding has to be nuanced. Currently, there is a gap between what the Quebec population expects and the perception members have of the population's expectations. Of course there may be regional variations. In less urban areas, the connection to the member of the riding is considered more important. Be that as it may, there's an important gap in perceptions.
The other element I want to emphasize is whether or not it is legitimate for Parliament to act on this. There is a debate on whether the voting system is a constitutional matter and whether it necessitates a major change. My interpretation, both in my teaching and in my analysis of the constitution, is that there is no constitutional convention governing the voting system. It is true that an electoral law has a particular status and demands that there be a consensus before it is changed. But a referendum on reforming the electoral system would be first and foremost political and not legal. It falls under the purview of the political actors.
I would now like to discuss the limits of electoral reform that would affect the voting system. According to the scientific literature, it is a mistake to think that changing the voting system would increase electoral participation. In fact, the growth in the participation rate that is related to the voting system is marginal. We are talking about a few percentage points. I would add that it is not probable that such a change on its own would diminish mistrust or the cynicism people feel toward the political class.
The Eurobarometer, which measures data within the European Union, has an index on the decline in the level of trust citizens have in parliaments. In Europe, voting systems are often different from the one in Canada. In Germany and the Scandinavian countries, proportionality has been integrated into the systems. According to Eurobarometer data, for about 10 years there has been a decline in the level of trust in all parliaments, whatever the voting system used. The crisis of confidence does not only affect parliamentary systems that use the first-past-the-post system. The crisis of confidence regarding elected representatives and parliamentarians transcends the voting systems.
Be that as it may, a reform of the voting system has to be seen as one measure among others to restore trust in our institutions and elected representatives. In our symposium we discussed partisan discipline. For instance, how can parties make party discipline less rigid? Paradoxically, it is stricter in Quebec than in Ottawa, and it is stricter in Ottawa than in London. There would even be an advantage to reviewing the evolution of the British political system, to see how the members of the different political parties benefit from greater leeway than elected representatives in Ottawa.
Gender parity is also an issue. The poll that was done showed that there is support for that parity. If the committee would like to see it, I could table a copy of the poll that was done at the time.
6:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Research Chair on Democracy and Parliamentary Institutions, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
Very well.
In closing, I would say that we have to see the voting system in context. It cannot be seen in isolation as the sole factor that would restore trust. We have to see it first of all as a factor that would attenuate the current distortions. There is no perfect voting system. Each voting system has its strengths and its weaknesses.
I hope that as parliamentarians, you will work on finding a consensus for the greater good of citizens, above all.
I thank you and am available to answer all of your questions.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Montigny.
I now give the floor to Mr. Colas for 10 minutes.
6:35 p.m.
Bernard Colas Attorney, CMKZ LLP, former Commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank you very much for this invitation to appear before the committee. It is an honour to have this opportunity to speak before you.
I understand that I was invited as a citizen, but especially as a former commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada who took part in preparing a report on the reform of the electoral system. I am going to say a few words on the Law Commission of Canada before talking about the content of that report.
The commission was created by an act of Parliament to provide independent advice on the improvement, modernization and reform of the law in Canada. We worked on several topics such as mediation, and we produced reports on topics such as security, intellectual property and family law. We also produced a series of reports on indigenous peoples. These reports were tabled in Parliament so that it could be made aware of them and could implement our recommendations, or not. It was amazing for a team made up of independent persons to be able to contribute to the democratic debate.
Unfortunately, the Treasury Board of the previous government put an end to the Law Commission of Canada by eliminating its budget. May I take advantage of this forum to encourage you strongly to restore the Law Commission of Canada. Those among you who are older will remember that first of all there was the Law Reform Commission of Canada, which then evolved into a different form as the Law Commission of Canada. I think this was a good model, but you need to find one that can withstand the tampering that can occur from one government to the next, and which our voting system may in fact be responsible for.
I will now address the voting system. In connection with electoral matters, the Law Commission of Canada examined the institutions that define our legal concepts and enact our laws. The issue was whether a system that embodied the values of the 19th century still embodied the values of the 21st century. Like you, I listened to the comments of citizens who testified in this regard, and the Law Commission of Canada also heard their criticisms. They were the same in 2002 and 2004. And so I have a good understanding of the situation you are faced with. It was in response to those criticisms of the democratic process that the commission began that project. It saw that there was a level of discomfort with our current system. Since 1945, the results of federal elections have been out of balance, in that they favour the parties whose electors are concentrated in certain ridings, as compared to the parties whose electors are spread out throughout the country.
The commission first produced a consultation paper after having met with experts, such as professors. Afterwards, we held discussions for two years, based on that document. We consulted citizens and experts, and when we had questions about certain aspects, we launched other studies. Two years later, we had a 230-page report containing 23 recommendations, which in our opinion are the best replies to the various complaints you've heard earlier and have probably heard in the course of your work. This work was funded by the electorate. The report was entitled: Voting counts: Electoral Reform for Canada.
We had to identify values upon which to base reforms. We identified a certain number of values, and measured the various political systems in order to determine those that best embodied preeminent values. You will not be surprised to learn that the electoral system should be fair, which means that the number of MPs from each party should correspond to the percentage of votes it receives; that Parliament should better reflect the constitution of society, that is to say include women, Aboriginal people and minorities, and that parliaments should encourage the expression of a wide range of points of view. In addition, people still feel it is important to have a certain relationship with their local member of Parliament, although that value is evolving.
We identified other values such as the need to have an effective government that can manage the state, the need for a responsible government, the need for an effective opposition, and ensuring that each vote counts and that each region is represented in decision-making processes, and that the decisions reflect a variety of viewpoints and are more inclusive. I have listed them rather quickly, but I encourage you strongly to read the document. They are better explained in it.
The system which in our opinion best reflects these values of the 21st century is a proportional representation system under which 66% of members would be elected as they are now, and 33% would be elected from lists. This 33% would allow us to correct the imbalance created by the current system. The idea was to tell the population that we had found a solution. It consisted in offering two votes: one to elect a member in a riding, and another, on the basis of lists, to elect a representative. Of course, these lists would allow us to encourage the inclusion of women, aboriginal people and members of minorities.
The cost of implementing such a measure could be limited by increasing the size of certain ridings in order to limit the number of members elected in them, and by increasing the number of representatives chosen from the lists.
I encourage you again to read the report, because various problems are raised in it. We wondered, for instance, if a member elected from a list should have the same status as a member elected in a riding. Many other questions were raised and we answered them in the report.
In fact, I understand that reforming the electoral system is not easy. You are facing quite a challenge. At the time, I spoke with the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, and I felt a certain resistance on their part. Many of those who were elected in a certain system feel that if this worked for them, why change the system that allowed them to get elected? So you are going to have to deal with the political arm that designs the system, but also with the politicians who work with it.
The system we proposed is in my opinion easy to sell to the population. There would be two methods: 66% of members would be elected in ridings and 33% would be chosen from lists. In my opinion, that proportion would correct the imbalance and reflect the values of the 21st century.
I will stop here, and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Thank you very much.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Colas.
We will begin with Ms. Sahota, who has five minutes.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you.
My first question will be for Mr. Colas.
It's very nice to hear that you understand what we're going through on this committee, because very few probably do.
The Law Commission came up with the MMP recommendation. Yesterday we heard some witnesses during our open mike night in Toronto propose different ideas that use that system but make it a little bit simpler. You would have the same ballots and you would vote for your candidate. I think in one of the systems they said you'd add 33% more seats, or something like that, and maybe make the ridings a little bit bigger than they are right now so that you're not changing the number of members as much.
Basically you would elect the members in the riding, and then to create some proportionality you would simply take the people who did the best in certain ridings and who were already candidates. Those people would then get placed according to the proportional vote.
What is your opinion? Did you have similar proposals that didn't use lists created by the party? We are also hearing about some hesitation in connection with lists.
6:45 p.m.
Attorney, CMKZ LLP, former Commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada, As an Individual
There are two points here.
The first one is that sometimes a voter will vote strategically. In accordance with our current system, there are strategies—who do I hate, who do I like? With the two votes, you may have to keep on being strategic, but you may also have the chance to elect the one you like. This is why you need the two votes.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Yesterday we heard from a professor that strategic voting only accounts for 3% of the vote. Once people know this new system is in place, do you think people would stop thinking as strategically, supposing that 3% is a true number, because they would know that even if they vote according to their hearts, the vote would end up affecting something?
6:45 p.m.
Attorney, CMKZ LLP, former Commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada, As an Individual
First, I don't know if the 3% is true. Second, I don't know, because we'd have to ask the voters of New Zealand, Scotland, and other places where they have this possibility.
In answer to your other question, there is a little nuance in the report. We suggest having a flexible list whereby you either vote for the list of the party or you select a specific person on that list.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Mr. Montigny, you talked a lot about trust. You said that trust is declining in Europe, but I didn't quite catch how Canadians feel about their parliamentarians. Is there a higher level of trust, or an even lower level?
6:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Research Chair on Democracy and Parliamentary Institutions, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
It follows the same pattern, I'm sorry to say.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
That's okay. We want to know the truth.
At the end you said that we need to reduce distortions and see the voting system as a whole. You also talked about a gender issue, but you didn't really get to talk about the gender issue very much. You talked about party rigidness and then you got to gender, but you weren't able to complete your thoughts on gender. I would like to know a little more.
6:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Research Chair on Democracy and Parliamentary Institutions, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
I will give you some information about the poll I referred to.
Concerning the 3% of strategic votes, may I specify that there is no consensus in the community as to the importance of those votes. In short, I would not give too much weight to that 3%.
The participants in the poll were asked whether they were in favour or not of forcing political parties to present as many female as male candidates in elections, or in other words, of having a mechanism that would constrain or even penalize political parties in this regard. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents were in favour of such a measure, 17% of those were very much in favour of it, and 42% were somewhat in favour. So not many people were very much in favour of this measure, but there is a favourable bias toward measures that would force parties to aim for parity.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I know you advocated changing a lot of things, and that would be one of them. How about if we are just moving towards a different voting system? If we had a new system tomorrow, what impact would that have on gender issues?
6:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Research Chair on Democracy and Parliamentary Institutions, Department of political science, Université Laval, As an Individual
In the current system, it is clear that the leaders of certain parties have less power over nominations because of conventions in ridings. If proportionality or the use of a list were adopted, party leaders would then have more freedom to choose candidates that would offset an imbalance in the whole pool of candidacies.