Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 28th, 2016

[David Moscrop]

This is the great divide between the academic community, I think, and the activist community. The activists say that you go through the door that's open when it's open. I understand that perspective. Academics say that you want to get it right, that it's important that you get it done, but you need to get it done right.

I think getting it done right includes not just achieving a proper system for Canada but achieving it in a proper way. That requires, when it's something so fundamental as electoral reform, sustained and robust public consultation and education, because you need to get the buy-in from the public for it to be legitimate and you also want the public to know what's going on.

In New Zealand, they started the process in the 1980s with a royal commission, which I think was in 1986. They didn't get MMP until, I think, nearly eight years later, and they had two referendums. That's perhaps a little excessive, but I think the timeline you mentioned might be slightly ambitious if we want to make sure that the public not only has a chance to give their input, but also actually knows what's going on.

I think the poll from Mr. Bricker is indicative of a problem. People don't know that we're doing this, and it's very important that they do, because it's fundamental. This is potentially a long-term problem, because we want to build trust and legitimacy not just for electoral reform but for phasing Canadian democracy going forward. That requires that people become educated and aware.

Personally, I think that if the process has to be slowed down to include more public education and either a citizens' assembly or a referendum, it should be. I don't think we need to rush it. I know that the activist community is not going to love that line, but I'll remind folks: the outcome is important but the process is just as important, if not more important.

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

You've talked about the referendum, the New Zealand experience, and also the experience here in British Columbia with two referendums.

I could say that there is a new trend in our discussion now, in that people are open to a referendum, but after the new electoral system. As you know, I'm a Québécois. I'm sure you have already recognized my accent. We have good experience in Quebec with referendums. We had two referendums on separation.

I'm sure that I will please my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, because this would be like saying that we will get independence right now and then within five years we'll ask the the Québécois if they think it's a good thing to be independent. What do you think? Do you think it's good to have a referendum after electoral reform or before?

[David Moscrop]

A cooling-off period is not such a bad idea sometimes, especially with something controversial. In New Zealand, they did have a cooling-off period. They decided they wanted to keep MMP, and I think that's reasonable.

Part of the problem with a referendum is that it's a snapshot in time. It reflects the way that people are feeling in the moment. Imagine you'd run the Quebec referendum in 1995. If you'd run it again in 1996, I bet you would have had a different outcome, and then which one counts, today's or tomorrow's? This is part of the problem with a referendum. It gives you a moment in time. You have to decide which one counts.

Look at Brexit. Folks woke up the next day and said, “I voted yes, but I didn't really mean to vote yes. I just wanted to send a message. I don't like David Cameron, and I don't like EU bureaucrats, but I didn't think my vote would count.” They got trapped by their own vote actually mattering.

I do think that if we're going to have a referendum, we need a citizens' assembly no matter what, but if we have perhaps two, a referendum asking “Do you want this?” and then another asking “Are you sure?”, that wouldn't be such a bad idea. It gives people a little bit of time, a cooling-off time. They can decide what they want. I believe that proposal's been floated. I think it's not such a bad thing, but again, only if the votes are held extremely responsibly, and the money is spent and the time is taken, because if you do a referendum poorly, I would argue, it's worse than not doing one at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen, you have the floor.

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

Thank you to our panellists for being here and particularly to the crowd on this sunny Wednesday in Vancouver. I also recognize that we're on the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh nations' traditional territory, and we thank them for allowing us to do our business here today.

Let me pick up on something you just said, David. Here's my worry. I don't actually take this from an activist's point of view; I just take it from the experience of a parliamentarian who has spent a bit of time. Delay often means death in our Parliament. We started talking about this issue in the House of Commons in 1921. Some people say we should slow down, and I ask if they would perhaps like us to take another century.

We've had 14 major studies across the country from the Law Commission. Citizens' assemblies have been conducted here. All come to a conclusion of proportional of some variance or another. In terms of the political science on it, in terms of the expert advice that we've been getting, the vast majority of both the public and the experts who have come to us have recommended some proportionality.

Talking about the legitimacy, I think, is quite important, and that is at the heart of how we legitimize what we're doing. The NDP recommended to this government that we have the citizens' assembly process work in tandem with us. That hasn't happened, and I'm worried about the tension that the delay is causing. This government promised that the last election would be the last election under first past the post, and, in good faith, they are keeping that promise, unlike some of the other ones, but there is tension about our being able to finally get to a conclusion here, rather than saying, “Remember that great study we did in 2016? Wasn't that wonderful? We went around the country.”

I'm looking at a quote from Mr. Mayrand. Our Chief Electoral Officer said, “Not a single government, whatever the majority is, should be able to unilaterally change the rules of election. Changing the rules of that competition among them should require a broad consensus—the broadest possible.”

Could you reflect on that comment from our head of elections and what that might mean to this committee and with regard to the recommendations we put forward to Parliament?

[David Moscrop]

Absolutely. Let's be honest: I think Canadians would agree that the consensus needs to be broad. It needs to be multi-party. You certainly don't want any party gaming the system. I think the government understood that when they agreed to make the committee proportional, and I think that sends a good message. It was a respectful decision.

I think the consensus, though, doesn't need to be just a parliamentary consensus. It needs to be as close as we can get to a national consensus, or at least a national bargain. I don't think you'll ever have a full consensus, because people are going to disagree. That's fine.

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

We aim high.

[David Moscrop]

Absolutely, right, and you'll land somewhere in the middle. At the same time, I agree with you, and I'm super sympathetic, that you want to get it done. You don't want to just look back and say, “We were close.” So why don't you pass legislation that you can grandfather into the next Parliament and then let people work it out in an election, and then you can have your redistricting in the next election?

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

Let me step to the referendum question for a moment, because there's an inherent legitimacy in putting a direct question to voters, but I'll characterize referendums in this way: they're easier to do badly than to do well.

[David Moscrop]

Sure.

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

I watched this at this panel, questions coming from various committee members repeated as myths and outright lies about proportional systems.

It's similar to.... You mentioned Brexit. It was much easier to spread fear and to be on the side saying that it was going to cause terror and chaos than it was to explain. I've noticed that in politics—Nick will probably have some comment on this—explaining is harder than just spreading fear.

You said your condition was that they had to be run well. I guess that's my concern. We have posited this idea of bringing in a new system, with as broad a consensus as possible, allowing Canadians to see it actually function—so you can't spread those lies as much—allowing the comfort of change to be permitted, and then, at the next election, on the ballot, saying, “Do you want to keep it or return to first past the post?”

Do you have any comments on that? Maybe Nick and Megan can answer as well.

[David Moscrop]

I think that's reasonable. There are a bunch of different ways to do it.

It's worth remembering that referendums are good legitimacy-building tools, to some extent. They are awful policy-making tools. When you run a referendum, you are not looking to build a policy, you are looking to generate legitimacy for a policy that has already been submitted. That's worth keeping in mind.

I would say this. In British Columbia, the referendum actually worked fairly well. The government set an arbitrary 60% threshold to pass it. I think that was ridiculous and unnecessary, but 57.7% of people voted in favour of electoral reform. We forget how remarkable and how unusual that was. The referendum was actually run fairly well. Part of the reason was that the folks at the B.C. Citizens' Assembly, which was well funded, became educators. They went out into the public and essentially became points of contact for the public and taught folks what the option was and why it was good. They became heuristics. They became shortcuts for people.

There is a way to do that, but it takes a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of legwork.

What is one of the best predictors of whether someone is going to vote in an election? It's whether they have been contacted directly by a political party on their doorstep. We need to be doing this for electoral reform too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ste-Marie, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the public, colleagues and members of the support team.

Thank you for your presentations and your remarks.

I would start by asking Ms. Dias and Mr. Moscrop a few questions.

You say there is a new system to adopt, but the most important thing is how it is done, the process. The question has been raised by several colleagues here.

On the one hand, there is the government's commitment to changing the electoral system by the next election. On the other hand, you say that we have to take the time to do things right. Is it preferable to push the deadline back, if necessary, to make sure the process is carried out properly? Is that what you said?

[Megan Dias]

Yes.

[David Moscrop]

Absolutely. It's better to do the process right than to rush it and risk getting it wrong.

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

I think the idea of a citizens' assembly like the one you had in British Columbia is great. However, it takes time. As you said, that is one of the ways to do things right. It also costs a lot of money. I was talking about that with our chair during the break. I think the process of consulting the citizens' assembly in British Columbia cost about $10 million. If we did the same thing in Canada, where there are several nations and several regions, the bill could easily be double that amount.

Do you think it would be worth it?

[Nick Loenen]

It was $3 million, not $10 million.

[Megan Dias]

I think it would be worth it, yes. We are devoting significant time and resources to electoral reform as it is, and it would be worth doing it well.

It would also signify to Canadians that we care about this process and about hearing their voices and perspectives. We would get a more inclusive and representative discussion on this. Yes, I do think it would be worth it.

[David Moscrop]

When you are building a house, you don't want to skimp on the foundation. It is something that's worth putting some money into. It is the thing upon which the house is going to rest. Electoral reform is part of the foundation of our democracy. I think it would be worth the $300 million it would cost to run a referendum. If it becomes $325 million or $330 million, it's worth it.

The problem is that it sounds like a lot of money, and in some sense it is a lot of money, but it is something we are going to live with for an awfully long time. I think of it as an investment, not as a cost, and we ought to be making that investment because it matters a great deal.

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

Mr. Loenen, my questions are for you.

You said it will be difficult to adopt a new proportional system on which there was unanimous agreement. You suggest that we favour a compromise that would both ensure that electors are close to their MPs in rural areas, on the one hand, and incorporate an element of proportionality in the cities, on the other.

I have two questions for you about the model you present.

According to the witnesses who have come to talk to us during previous consultations, the public would not like there to be two kinds of elections across the country, one for rural areas and one for cities.

I would like to hear your thoughts on that point.

I will ask my second question right away.

Why should people in rural areas favour a preferential ballot? Preferential voting reduces the diversity of representation, because, as a general rule, everyone's second choice is the middle. So that would unreasonably benefit one party. Why, in your model, would we not simply leave the first past the post system for rural areas? Why move to preferential voting?

[Nick Loenen]

Thank you very much for the question.

Different types of elections? No. Both use a ranked preference system, whether you're rural or urban. I don't see any difference. You don't end up with two different types of MPs. You don't have a different voting system. The quota by which you determine whether the winning candidate is elected or not is exactly the same. It's a Droop quota under both systems.

I don't understand why people would feel that rural Canadians vote differently than urban Canadians. Urban Canadians have more choice, but the legitimacy of the MP in both cases is identical.

The second question was, why not leave the rural areas first past the post. Well, then indeed you would have two different voting systems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. I see the distinction. Unfortunately, we're out of the time. You made the point, and it's a good point.

We'll go to Ms. May. Maybe she'll ask you to finish that point. I think you were very succinct in making that distinction.

Ms. May.

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

I'm afraid that I really want to focus on the fact that David Moscrop and Megan Dias have a particular view about delay. I'd like to pick up on where Nathan Cullen was on that and see how you feel about the awareness of this meeting. I think it will have changed. Darrell Bricker's poll was in mid-summer.

If you turn around, you'll see, and I want to get this on the record, there are two tables here that are empty. Perhaps you'll see the nameplates for the expected visitors. It says they're for media. We've been in five provincial capitals, one territorial capital, and several smaller communities, and so far, the only place where media showed up to cover the hearing was in Whitehorse. Full points to the Whitehorse Star and the local reporters.

We are trying. Goodness knows this committee is doing more than I think most parliamentary committees have done in our history. We have open-mike sessions. We have tremendous turnout from the public. I'd like to suggest to you, and ask each of you, whether your answers would change, that preference for delay is better. I think I got this right from you, Mr. Moscrop, that it is better to get the process right than to risk getting it wrong.

What if this is it? Nathan Cullen and I are thinking along the same lines here as people who see a window opened, politically, that is going to close soon. I don't have anything on the record from the current government that there is a commitment to have electoral reform come hell or high water no matter how long it takes.

I've heard a promise that 2015 will be the last election held under the first-past-the-post system. If this process doesn't do it, if we don't deliver on that, would your answer change in terms of electoral reform? Bear in mind, if we can deliver a system that works by the fall of 2017, we have between 2017 and 2019 for further public engagement and further public education. Who knows what manner of things we could try in that time?

It's my belief that it's now or never. Well, not never; we can get back to it in perhaps 2060. We have lots of time. But I think this is it for electoral reform. If you thought that, would you provide what you think would work to enhance public participation in the timelines that I believe we have in real life?

First David, and then Megan.

[David Moscrop]

Part of the problem is that electoral systems are sticky. As you say, they don't change easily or often. If you get it wrong, then you might end up stuck with it. If it ends up benefiting one particular party or a couple of parties at the expense of another, then you might have the public and partisans saying, “Look at what this process has delivered to us. It's delivered this system that is benefiting some parties and not another.”

It's not like first past the post doesn't do that already, but when you're going to change something so fundamental as this, it's not going to be ordinary legislation in its impact. There's a risk of getting it wrong.

If we're going to stick to the timeline, to answer that question, I think we need people going door to door. That's the way to do it. We want to go high tech. I have to say, I admire the committee and how it has been working. The travel schedule must be brutal, but the way to do it is door to door. That's what works. We want to go to the Internet. We want to go to town halls. We want to tweet it. We want to have Facebook. We want to beam it into people's brains.

The only thing that works effectively in the long run is door to door with a grassroots engagement, and it can't just be the activist communities. It needs to be political parties and it needs to be MPs and their staff talking to folks one on one. That's the only way to do it. The ground game matters. This is what we go to.