Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 23rd, 2016

[Jon Breslaw]

When you vote as a member of the public for a candidate, the candidate has at least two components: his own individual morality, etc., and his affiliation to a party. You don't vote for just an independent, because they're not effective. They're much more effective when they're part of a party. You have to have at least these two components of this basket, and often they don't necessarily match, so when I vote for a member of Parliament, I'm making a compromise, believe me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Madam Sansoucy.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to salute my colleague Gabriel Ste-Marie, whose riding is hosting the committee.

I salute the participants and the civic engagement they are showing by being with us today.

I also thank the two witnesses for their presentations.

Professor Breslaw, I understand the thinking behind the proposal you have made today. I am in considerable agreement with you that it would be difficult to apply, because, beyond the voting, there is the whole set of parliamentary rules about things like time available for members, and committee work by members. It is difficult to imagine how all this could be weighted.

Professor Nikolenyi, I am less well-acquainted with the single transferable vote. I understand you prefer that model. I'd like you to explain how this type of voting unfolds in practice. You have said that this voting system would be easier, but I'd like you to explain the reasons why you prefer a single transferable vote in the Canadian context. What are the advantages?

[Csaba Nikolenyi]

Thank you very much.

I'm in favour of STV precisely because of the Canadian context. If Canada wants to have a more proportional electoral system that changes as little as possible what we are familiar with and that is dear to us as voters and as the political class, which are set out in the five-point mandate, then for the reasons that I mentioned, this is the system that would come the closest, certainly closer than the other two.

The alternative vote is just not proportional. The MMP is too technical. This is the least complex system that introduces proportionality and still keeps those values intact. It's not my favourite system choice, but that's not relevant.

The mechanics of it, as far as the voter is concerned, are really quite simple. You are presented with a ballot, not unlike what we already have in any Canadian riding, except that you can rank order the candidates. Similar to the alternative vote, you are rank ordering the candidates in terms of your preferences.

Because there are multiple seats assigned to the district, political parties will be running multiple candidates. It is possible, as a matter of ballot design, to actually leave it up to political parties to determine how your preferences are going to be handled. That's an important detail that makes is easier for voters who may not be as informed about the choices to figure the system out. However, let's leave that complexity aside.

The system fundamentally works as such. You take a mathematical formula. It can be as simple as V over M plus one. The number of votes cast, divided by district magnitude plus one, which gives you a quota. That quota will essentially determine the threshold, the number of votes that will guarantee any candidate, any party, that gets that many votes from the electorate will be entitled to a seat. However, there will be surpluses and there will be candidates who are well beyond or below that threshold. Their preferences are going to be transferred in the order of the preferences that the voters themselves determine. The choice, fundamentally, in terms of who will be the beneficiary and who will benefit from these vote transfers, is automatically in the hands of the voter. It is proportional because of multi-member districts and because the quota I mentioned guarantees that.

Again, when you have many candidates running, and you have many candidates with a small percentage of the vote, those will still need to be transferred. That's why I said the administration of it can become time-consuming and complex. However, there are algorithms also now to work with that.

I want to stress that the system is not foolproof. If you follow current Australian debates about precisely looking at ways of changing the Australian system in place for the upper house, they are picking up on this issue. Therefore, the system is not foolproof, but given the mandate of the committee, it's still as close as it gets to meeting those principles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Sansoucy.

Mr. Généreux, welcome to our committee. Thank you for joining us this afternoon.

[Jon Breslaw]

May I respond?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Very briefly, as we do have time limits.

[Jon Breslaw]

Very briefly, it's not that you're going to get 0.8% of an office. Everything stays exactly the same. The only thing that changes is the weight of the member when she or he votes in the House. That is the only thing that changes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's right. Thank you.

Mr. Généreux, the floor is yours.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for being here.

And I thank the good people of Joliette for welcoming us to their lovely city.

Mr. Breslaw, you have mainly spoken about the potential system. I find you very original, and I like the "keep it simple and stupid" approach. In essence, that's the approach you are proposing, because you seem to be saying that your system is straightforward, and easy to implement rapidly.

Systems aside, Canada will be 150 years old next year, and the political party that has just been elected as a majority has decided to consider the possibility of changing the electoral system by saying, during the election campaign, that 2015 would be the last year Canadians would use the current voting system.

Do you believe that we 12 members of this committee, who are taking part in roundtables throughout Canada to meet the public, can and should have the mandate to change the electoral system?

Moreover, there are eight weeks to go before December 1, and the Chief Electoral Officer told us that it would take at least two years to implement a new electoral system.

Do you think the time for reflection is a bit short? I think our electoral system can be improved. In fact, everyone agrees with that.

Mr. Breslaw, do you think the time is a bit too short to make all these changes before the next election?

[Jon Breslaw]

Yes. It takes you back a bit to the 1960s when we decided that we would go and demolish a whole lot of houses and have highways because it was efficient, and we'd get on with it. In retrospect, that was a mistake. The mistake is not recognizing one's heritage. We have a heritage here in Canada—indeed in the United States and England as well—from England of 400 years of the first past the post concept, and it's worked pretty well for that time.

On the other side, you have this concept of being on the right side of history that asks for more inclusion and for votes not to be wasted. It was in that sense that, yes, throwing out the system on the basis of six weeks of discussion and 12 members sitting around the table is drastic. But at least seeing the idea that proportional representation does make sense, I was proposing this system that keeps our heritage, keeps the local representation, that link, keeps the way that we've been doing things for the last 150 years, and makes just one incremental change that is reversible if we need it to be, but that can actually attempt to satisfy the mandates that this committee has been given, and see how that works.

It's much, much better—and I think you've put your finger on it—to change organically. Don't just throw out everything because that's the thing to do these days, that's the fashion. If we're going to go for a change that seems to make sense, then let's go there gradually, and this is a gradual way of doing it, making one simple change.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Nikolenyi, go ahead.

[Csaba Nikolenyi]

Same question?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Yes, please.

[Csaba Nikolenyi]

That question cuts to the core of politics and the ways of electoral reform. Electoral reforms tend to be stickier, in other words, producing longer lasting results if they have a stronger buy-in. The more inclusive the input, not only are you better informed, but the greater the transparency and the legitimacy of the process.

If I'm asked that question, my dollar is on creating citizen assemblies. There are different ways of doing that. You don't have to poll people, but you can organize creatively. There is fascinating literature that actually looks at how citizen assemblies.... We are familiar with British Columbia in Canada, but they are also in Europe, in Holland, for example. It is sort of the increasingly more preferred way, if you will, or one increasingly more preferred way of doing it, and there are reasons for that. You create more opportunities for public education. Not just the 12 people you mentioned, but a broader segment of the population would really understand the nuances. It also gives greater opportunity to dispel fears about various systems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

That's the end of your question period, unfortunately. Time flies when dealing with such an interesting topic.

Last but not least, Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

It really is lovely to be here in Joliette, and thank you to Gabriel. It's refreshing, literally, because we have fresh air and scenery to see. It's also refreshing because the content that we've been presented by the witnesses is unique and new, and I like that. I'm getting tired of hearing the same thing.

I have been presented this idea, the weighted vote, by a few individuals from out west and Yukon, so some people have been thinking in this direction. I know you keep saying over and over again that, given the time frame that we have, this is the easiest way to do it, but given another time frame, would you still think that this is the best change for Canada?

[Jon Breslaw]

It's not only the easiest, it is the best. Yes, absolutely.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Another question I have is for you, Professor Nikolenyi.

You said that STV may not be your favourite, and it's irrelevant what your favourite is. Why do you state that? What is your favourite?

[Csaba Nikolenyi]

Closed list PR is, without any doubt, but it's too drastic for us in Canada. It's the other end of the spectrum. For that you need more than 12 people, as Mr. Généreux said. But by all means, if you want proportionality, go with a reasonable threshold: 4% to 5% closed list PR.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Were you not saying earlier on that some of the countries that have those systems are going through...? What country would you have in mind that has that kind of system right now?

[Csaba Nikolenyi]

Spain, Portugal, Israel, Holland have it.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Do you think those countries have a lot of stability in their governments? We've been hearing a lot about recurring elections and constant turnover.

[Csaba Nikolenyi]

Some have more than others. Certainly Spain recently has been less stable than before. Israel is always unstable. But you have variation. How much instability PR produces really depends on the nature of parties and fragmentation, which is a function both of the system but also of how fragmented society is. You can have a closed list PR system introduced to a very homogeneous society that will not fragment it all that much.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Perhaps the society is more homogeneous because of the current system they're in, and opening it up to having a lot more smaller parties is what—