Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 28th, 2016

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm going to turn to Mr. Jewell, just because I really do need to understand your system better. It seems to me, it is perfect in proportionality, but there are other values we've been asked to look at, including inclusiveness.

I'm picturing myself here in the election. I'd certainly have the voting power to potentially work in a minority government to some greater effect, but I'm still just one person and I think I'm going to die. There are committees. There are amendments. There are debates. Of course, we'd also like to see greater proportionality in the House to be closer to the gender parity in real life in our society. Is there some way that I'm missing in which your system would increase the number of women in Parliament? I think I know the answer. It couldn't increase the number of people who are actually Green Party members working in Parliament, but would it do anything around inclusivity and increasing the proportion of women or other unrepresented groups?

[P. Jeffery Jewell]

Thank you, Ms. May.

First, I'd say again that the intent of this system is to be scrupulously fair to everyone. When we have a system that is fair, the thing that none of us can foresee is what the difference will be in the voter behaviour if they have a fair system. Therefore, I can't say that you will have more colleagues, but what I can say is that you are supremely disadvantaged in the existing system, and nobody really knows what the natural level of support for your party would be if there was an honest voting system. That's the first thing.

As to the matter of gender parity, I do have ideas on that, which I have elaborated on. I have about 30 documents on the website. Just to make it simple, I believe that the election after 2019 should be one where Elections Canada goes through a serious redistricting. One area to focus on would be to reduce the number of ridings in urban areas, because we will now have a system in which it is geography neutral or population neutral. It doesn't matter how many people are in any riding. Every citizen's vote counts the right amount, wherever they happen to be. In the case of Mr. Cullen, you have a heck of a tough riding to handle. It's tough for you. It's tough for your constituents. I don't think that's a good use of the seats in the legislature. We have so many surplus seats in the urban areas, so I'm saying Elections Canada should be tasked to squeeze out some of those surpluses and reallocate them geographically, where it would provide better service and make your efforts easier.

As for females, there is no reason that we couldn't have, within an urban area, a district where there would be six seats, three of which could be reserved for male and three for female. Then you get gender parity by the design of the system and the candidates that the parties propose for it.

You can do the same for other diversity goals that you would have. Within the urban areas, there's plenty of potential to do much smarter things with the seats that we've got.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

It's your turn, Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Professor Kam, I'm going to start with you. It seemed that you got cut off when you were responding to some of Mr. Cullen's comments about the trade-offs in different systems. This is the stuff you know, that you study. Do you have any insights? As was mentioned, we're ultimately tasked with finding an alternative to first past the post. We've heard over and over again that there are these trade-offs. What direction would you give us in our search for balance in those trade-offs or recognizing the trade-offs?

[Christopher Kam]

The cost of trade-off is phrased in terms of representation and accountability. Various scholars have various perspectives on that trade-off. You had Arend Lijphart before you at some point. In Professor Lijphart's view, there's no trade-off whatsoever if you put zero weight on accountability. Another view, by G. Bingham Powell, is that there tends to be a fairly tight trade-off between these two qualities. A third view, advanced by John Carey, is that the relationship between representation and accountability could potentially be subject to optimization. That is, there's some sort of sweet spot that would allow us to choose an electoral system that gives us maybe not as much representation as you could hope for, or as much accountability as you could hope for, but a good blend of both.

My sense is that the literature is relatively inconclusive. I think there are fairly good metrics for representation. I think André Blais talked to the committee about measures of ideological congruence between the population and the legislature under various electoral systems. I think the balance of evidence is that you tend to get a bit better congruence under PR, but not by much, though the variance on congruence is smaller under PR.

There's very little good work on the performance of different electoral systems in terms of accountability, because, as I was saying previously, the metric that tends to be used, cabinet stability, is not something we can say is...we can't create a cardinal metric that says there's an optimal point of cabinet stability. Zero is bad, and complete cabinet stability, where you had no turnover, would be bad, too. It's not clear where the optimal point is, so our measures for accountability tend not to be very sophisticated, whereas the measures that scholars use to measure representation tend to be better.

This debate about trade-off remains ongoing. My sense is that there's no real evidence one way or another to suggest that some electoral systems provide a sweet spot. I think you're facing really hard and fast choices in this respect. I've already stated at the outset that I think the first guiding principle you've been given, to find a system that better reflects the democratic will, is tantamount to hunting for a unicorn. There's a lot of good theoretical work to suggest that's the case.

I think you will notice, as members of Parliament, that if you scrupulously followed the majority will in your constituency issue by issue, taking one issue at a time, you would soon find yourself supported by a tiny minority in your constituency, because the intersection of all those majorities could end up to be a very small set of people. I think that's the fundamental nature of the problem.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Well, thank you for sharing those thoughts. I really was hoping there was a sweet spot we could be pointed to and we could all go home and it would be good.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Deltell, please, you have the floor.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Gentlemen, it's a real pleasure for me to meet you.

First, Mr. Kam, I want to make a short comment on what you said, because it's quite interesting. You talked about every issue evaluated, and you will see that many people support you.

I think I'm speaking on behalf of all my colleagues here. We cannot find anyone who supports 100% of the propositions in our own parties. It's impossible. Humanly, it's impossible.

I used to say that if you hear someone say that there is 100% agreement with his program, and in every party 100% of his colleagues are agreed on 100% of that, you would have in front of you, 100%, a liar, because it is humanly impossible.

This is democracy. This is why we have to respect the fact that, usually, it's not a clear majority. People have been elected with under 50%. In my case, I've been lucky, and three times out of four I've been elected with more than 50%, as has Mr. Boulerice in his riding, twice.

It's very touchy, but at least we have a consensus on most issues. This is why we can move on the real issues of the people, even if we do not agree on all aspects.

As I said earlier, gentlemen, I welcome that kind of discussion. In our party, we always have the door open. We want a referendum, for sure, but we are open to discussion about the future of the electoral system.

This is why, Mr. Jewell, I welcome your proposition, even if I am not quite sure I understand it very well. This is why I raise this question: How do you think we can educate people about so many propositions that we have on the table? How do you think we could achieve that? Because it's not an easy task. We have run on this electoral system for the last century and more. If we want something else, it is quite a challenge.

What do you think we should do to educate people before moving on with a new electoral system?

[P. Jeffery Jewell]

Is it on the consultation that is the question?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

On the consultation, or how to educate people. It's how you tell the people that this is the new way we want to deal with the electoral system. It's simply to be sure that people understand what the issue is.

[P. Jeffery Jewell]

I think it's quite simple to explain the system. It's different, to be sure, but if you explain to people that you vote your first three choices and.... Everyone knows how leaders were elected. That's the process that is used, so that's how your individual member is elected.

People will understand that their vote will be taken forward into Parliament and trust in their elected representative, if they voted for the candidate who was elected, or someone else from that party if their candidate was defeated. I think they'll understand that pretty quickly. They'll understand that they're getting better with that system than they are under this system.

Did you ask about the question of validation for a system of this nature?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Okay, I will express myself in French so the translator will make it easier for you to understand what I tried to ask.

[P. Jeffery Jewell]

You mentioned a referendum.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I invite you to talk on that.

[P. Jeffery Jewell]

I have actually recommended a referendum on the PPR side of it. I think the government has all the power to implement the alternative vote. It's an upgrade on the first-past-the-post system. Parliament has the door to that. It's a proven system. It has been used in Australia for a century. It is the mother ship for the PPR side, so I say push forward with alternative vote, put out the PPR side to the public in a referendum, so that they have the understanding of what is being proposed and changed, and let them decide. If they wish to not have PPR, so be it.

I think that would be a pretty easy sell, because it's clearly putting more power in the hands of the people and, as was previously said, what the public wants is more power in their hands.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Is a referendum also a tool or a weapon, to give power to the people in a referendum?

[P. Jeffery Jewell]

It's your call whether you go with a referendum or not, and I'm not a huge advocate of referenda. I've seen how easily they can be perverted by political forces.

I also have an enormous respect for the role of representative government. I had a small experience as a municipally elected member. I know how hard elected members work, and it's that research and deliberation that the people really need.

If you guys are comfortable, and if you have a consensus that is cross-party, you have all the authority to go forward with this thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Romanado, please.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I'd like to thank our three panellists for being here today, and of course, the members of the audience for coming out in such large numbers. Thank you so much.

This has been a really interesting panel, because you have each brought something very different to the table.

My first question is actually for Mr. Canseco. You mentioned that the poll numbers you had just recently done in September, or the press release, will be on your website. Would it be possible for you to send that data to this committee, as well as, as Ms. May mentioned, the link to the questions, exactly how it was worded? It would be very helpful. Thank you so much.

Dr. Kam, I really enjoy your blog. I've been reading it, and it's actually really interesting how you explain some of the misconceptions that are out there in terms of electoral reform, and quite frankly, some of the issues that we've been hearing.

There is one that we hear often. I'm not diluting it and I'm not saying that the perception is not out there, but we have heard multiple times that people feel that their vote didn't count. When they say that, it's usually because whoever they voted for didn't win.

Could you elaborate a little? You mentioned in your blog some of the realities of what we would actually need to do in order to satisfy that condition. I think it is quite interesting, quite honest, and frank. I appreciate that.

[Christopher Kam]

I don't find the argument that “my vote didn't count” under a given electoral system to be particularly compelling, because, one, I have been a scrutineer at an election before and I remember that we counted all the votes. So it's not as if people are dumping some ballot boxes. That's in a legalistic sense. We've counted all the votes.

The other sense is that “my vote wasn't pivotal in electing somebody”. Guess what? There's one median voter. They're pivotal in electing a member, and the rest of them are either surplus or not.

If you want a system that maximizes votes counting, as in votes going to elect people, then here's the system: Any candidate who gets a vote gets elected. That's the logic, right?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Right.

[Christopher Kam]

Then every vote will count. That's pushing the argument to the edge of absurdity. It's clearly an impossibility.

We have a system here, and some candidates are going to win and some are going to lose. That's going to happen. Some quotas under PR systems will go unused. We can have higher tiers and higher tiers, and I suppose we could exhaust them, but then we'd get a very complicated system.

There are always going to be trade-offs. As far as I know, that's just a general condition in life.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I know my colleague mentioned a little about trade-offs. We don't have a measure at this moment. When we look at those guiding principles, or we look at what some of the values are that Canadians put towards their electoral system, we don't know what people would be willing to trade off.

For instance, if you're talking about accountability or local representation, if that's something that is absolutely non-negotiable, not an issue, that we cannot even contemplate, we don't have concrete data to support that information that it in fact is the be-all and end-all.

How can we as a committee determine which electoral system will most satisfy those criteria without knowing which ones are more important to Canadians? What are your thoughts on that?

[Christopher Kam]

I think the motion that sets out the committee's mandate sets it out in terms of values that an electoral system must reflect. There's no resolution, or unambiguous resolution, to satisfy all those conditions. In some cases, it's because we can't define, for example, what democratic will is, or it's hard to agree on what accountability is, and so on.

It's hard, then, to measure the trade-off we confront. What would be a better way to phrase this? If the mandate said to choose a more proportional electoral system, that's unambiguous. Right? I can measure the proportionality of an electoral system, and I can choose a proportional one.

If you want one that is decisive at the electoral stage rather than at the parliamentary stage, you ought to choose a disproportional system, a winner-take-all kind of system.

Proportionality is a value-free metric in some ways. It merely says that the slope between votes and seats is equal to one. Under an electoral system, it is or is not equal to one. That can be assessed unambiguously. As to the rest of this, I don't know how you assess these values unambiguously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Monsieur Boulerice.