Thank you.
Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.
Evidence of meeting #32 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 votes.
Evidence of meeting #32 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 votes.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses.
I would also like to thank the interpreters, who help me a lot.
The present consultation process is not perfect, but no process is perfect, as there is no perfect electoral system. Nonetheless, some are sometimes better than others.
We have to remember that this committee's mandate is not to improve the first past the post system, but to find a new voting system, a new electoral system. We should not forget that the present system, the status quo, does not have merely small flaws around the edges. It has inherent flaws that lamentably and systematically fail to represent the will of the people and reflect the choices and votes of the public, which is what democracy and an election should do.
Once in British Columbia and three times in Quebec, the party that got the most votes lost the election and did not form the government. That is a reversal of the will of the people!
In addition, we are used to a party that gets 39% of the vote having 55% of the seats and 100% of the power. Yes, we have to do some educating and get people to understand this; once it has been explained, they generally do not consider it reasonable. That is why most people who have an interest in this subject end up reaching the conclusion that some form of proportional representation is the best way of fashioning a parliament and representing the will of the people.
But how do we do that? There are several options and that is where the discussion heats up.
Mr. Moscrop, you are proposing a mixed member proportional representation system, which is generally what our party favours, but our minds are not closed to other options. How do you see this within the framework of the Canadian federation? Do you favour provincial lists or regional lists in the bigger provinces? Would you want there to be open or closed lists?
2:40 p.m.
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I think you would need at least provincial regions for top-up, or perhaps smaller regions within the provinces. You wouldn't need to adjust that with P.E.I., for instance, but you might in Ontario. Part of what I like about MMP is that it does give you the flexibility. Folks are fond of saying we need a made-in-Canada solution. I think there's enough room in MMP that you can design it to fit the federation well and to respect geography and local representation, which Canadians are quite rightly wed to. I also prefer open lists, which helps address some of the problem of Canadians not wanting too much political party influence.
I'll quickly comment on nominations to those lists as well. Right now we say, “Well, we don't like party lists because how do folks get nominated?” Ask people how they get nominated now. There are a lot MPs who say after they get elected, “Well, I got nominated somehow. I can't exactly tell you how it happened.” If you read the Samara book, Tragedy in the Commons, it's a great story about how these processes are opaque, bizarre, and inconsistent. So I do think we need to discuss also how nomination processes happen, but you can do that within an open list PR.
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Loenen, I imagine you are well aware that in the last federal election, the Liberal Party swept the Maritimes. It got 40% to 45% of the vote and 100% of the members, and that seems to pose a problem at this point, in fact.
On Vancouver Island, the Liberal Party got 20% of the votes and the Conservatives got 21% of the votes, totalling about 40% of the electorate, but they did not get a single member. So there is a representativeness problem. There actually are Conservatives in the Maritimes and Liberals on Vancouver Island.
Could your system, which seems to me to be more similar to the single transferable vote in the Irish system, solve these distortions in the existing system?
2:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you very much for the question.
The point is that under that proposal the distortions would have halved at least. You wouldn't have these huge distortions.
Getting back to what has dominated the discussion, namely process, I think it was Mr. Cullen who started that by asking whether a legislature, by a simple act of the legislature, can change the voting system. Provincially we have done that, and in B.C. as recently as 1953. The sky didn't fall. If you look at New Zealand, when the people were asked whether they were in favour of changing the voting system and were presented with some options, surveys indicated that as many as 50% of the people didn't have a clue what they were voting on and for. So I very much favour a confirmation referendum. That makes sense, because now people have understood what they're actually voting on.
That's just my contribution on that question.
September 28th, 2016 / 2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Thank you to our panellists and all of the audience members who have joined us this afternoon. Thank you for coming.
I'm going to start with Ms. Dias.
I listened carefully to all of the presentations, but I was struck by your testimony because you addressed something that hadn't really come out so far this week, and that is the shortcomings that seem inherent in the approach of consultation by town hall and by public hearing. It's wonderful that we have a full room here today, so obviously, there are many Canadians who are interested in this process. However, it must be said and noted that the people who are interested in this are perhaps a unique group of people. The Minister of Democratic Institutions, I believe, referred to them as democracy geeks. Is that it? I'm not sure if I like that phrase, but I think we get the point.
You said that public meetings, whether they be town halls held by members of Parliament or the travelling committee, or the minister's hearings, have failed to attract younger people, for the most part, and less wealthy, less educated individuals. You talked about marginalized or disaffected groups. I might even add to that, perhaps—I'll let you comment on it as well—that even a person interested in democratic reform might not be so interested as to book a day off work on a Wednesday or to get a babysitter to look after their children.
There are surely millions of Canadians who care deeply about their voting system but are not going to find their way into the testimony of this committee. You mentioned the Bricker poll that showed 16% of 20% are the people following this, roughly a little over 3% of the actual electorate. The part where I maybe go off a little bit is—and I'll ask you to comment on this—once the recommendations are in, once this committee makes its report, and once the government makes a decision on a proposal, why not then throw it out to the electorate at large and let everybody have a vote and a say on what the change might be?
2:50 p.m.
Graduate student, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I think there are two issues there. The first is, I would love for the actual system to be decided on by a group that is more representative than it is right now. If it goes the way you're proposing, the committee is going to make a decision based on the town halls they've heard, the testimony they've heard from witnesses, and the submissions. That's going to be based largely on a very specific group of people and not a broader audience. That's why I recommend a citizens' assembly to actually decide the system.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
Graduate student, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I'm with Dave on this. I'm not opposed to a referendum as long as it's very well run. I think referendums can be terribly run, and I think turnout in referendums would be an issue.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Fair enough, and thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Moscrop.
If I recall your preamble correctly, you characterized the current voting system as having largely served Canada well up until now, it would seem, because you are still proposing change, but you did characterize it as having served us fairly well. Then you highlighted that the inherent conflict of having elected people decide what the system should be is like letting the players make up their own rules in a contest. Yet you said that ultimately it should just be decided on a free vote in the House by those same members.
Again, I put it to you, would it not be better to put it to a referendum to again take out the inherent conflict of the politicians making up the contest?
2:50 p.m.
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I have to say that I care a great deal about electoral reform, but I also don't want to pretend that the country is falling apart. We are one of the strongest democracies in the world, and that isn't blind nationalism and that isn't jingoism.
Look at any ranking from any body. Canada is always at or very close to the top because our democratic institutions are remarkably strong. Our political culture is remarkably strong, but we can improve it. I think, to use a cliché, the time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining, so let's do it.
Now, in terms of a referendum, if you do a referendum poorly, then you might get a deeply unrepresentative turnout, so there's a real risk that a referendum might actually be less representative than a lot of these town halls, depending on who turns out. You have to be very, very careful.
2:50 p.m.
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
To quickly finish on one more, a free vote that ratifies the citizens' assembly.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
To all our presenters, Ms. Dias, Mr. Moscrop, and Mr. Loenen, thank you for your substantive, balanced, and fair testimony and the way you've interacted with all of us on this committee.
A lot of the line of questioning that I had has come out in the way you've answered questions. I think we all understand the challenges posed with this process. At the same time, we're tasked with doing our very best to come up with a recommendation or set of recommendations by December 1.
Starting with Mr. Moscrop, give us your closing advice or the things to remember as we deliberate and hopefully try to come to a consensus on what that recommendation or series of recommendations should be.
2:50 p.m.
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I don't envy the committee its task. You have to balance politics and partisan commitments with the fact that you're doing something that could very well end up being a foundational part of Canadian democracy, certainly for decades and perhaps for centuries to come. That ought to weigh heavily on your minds as you go forward. I'm sure it already does.
I would say this. Politics is political, and it should be. That's fantastic. I like the fact that we have a partisan system. I like the fact that we have a pluralist democracy. It should be agonistic. We should be wrestling with this stuff. We should be disagreeing.
The electoral system isn't ordinary legislation. It is a fundamental part in a democratic institution, a part of what keeps this democracy together and a part of what makes the country so great. I think we can improve, but we ought to be very careful not to get it wrong. Also, we ought to be very careful to not play pure politics with it, because the effect of that going forward is potentially catastrophic. I think we can do better, but the stakes are high, and that's why I'm so passionate about the process.
Let's say we don't have a different process. Let's say it's the committee and ordinary legislation. I would just say this. Keep in mind that you're not choosing this for your party and just for this Parliament. You're choosing this for all Canadians today and for all Canadians for years, decades, and even centuries to come, and it all has to be taken very, very seriously.
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I guess this is my closing statement. I believe that it's really, really important that you seek to empower voters, not political parties. That is fundamental.
From all of my experience—and I've been at this for a long time, as both a practitioner and an academic, and as an activist—I do not believe that Canadians will buy into any party-based system, including the mixed member proportional system. As confirmation of that, look at the survey done by the Broadbent Institute last fall, about a year ago. That survey was shamelessly biased in favour of the mixed member proportional system, yet they came up with what, 43% or something...?
It is my advice to you that if you're going to change the system, and I think you should, it must be candidate based, not party based. I know that it is going to require some compromise, but you know, that is what politics is all about.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you very much.
Ms. Dias, as we try to form a consensus on the committee, what are your closing pieces of advice?
2:55 p.m.
Graduate student, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
It's just echoing things that have already been said. This is a big decision. It's not something that should be rushed. Time should be taken to do this properly.
As someone who's been part of the process a little bit, I will say that this is the first time in my lifetime that there are town halls happening and there's a committee travelling across the country, and I am so excited by the idea that my voice gets heard. The more we can extend that, the more that Canadians can feel that they are part of this process and get to make a decision about what kind of politics we have and what type of government we have, I think that's a great thing for political citizens. I think that's something we need more of, so I would urge the committee to think about that.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. DeCourcey.
Thank you to the panel. We have a fresh perspective on the issue, that's for sure. It was a good discussion. It's going to contribute to the report. We thank you for your time. Of course, you're welcome to stay and listen to the next panel.
To the audience and to the members of the committee, we'll take about a seven-minute break. That translates into a 10-minute break.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm going to open the meeting now.
On panel number two, we have Christopher Kam, associate professor, department of political science, University of British Columbia; Mario Canseco, vice-president, public affairs, Insights West; and Patrick Jeffery Jewell. They will have five minutes each.
I don't know if you were here, panellists, when I explained how we function. Does everyone know that there's a round of questioning after? Each member gets to ask a question, or interacts with the witnesses for five minutes.
For the benefit of the audience, there are earpieces, either for the simultaneous interpretation or simply to amplify the sound if you're having trouble hearing because of the acoustics.
I would remind the witnesses that it's important, for the benefit of the interpreters, to not speak too quickly. Sometimes when witnesses really move along very quickly, it's hard for the interpreters to interpret.
We'll start with Mr. Kam, for five minutes, please.
3:15 p.m.
Christopher Kam Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Thank you very much for inviting me to speak to the committee.
Given the limited time I have to speak, I'll confine my remarks to two of the principles that define the committee's mandate, those related to effectiveness and legitimacy, and those related to local representation and accountability.
The first of these principles, effectiveness and legitimacy, mandates that the committee identify measures that increase Canadians' confidence that their “democratic will” as expressed by their votes is fairly reflected in electoral outcomes. An implicit assumption underpinning this principle is that the electorate considered collectively has some coherent democratic will.
A good deal of work in a branch of academia called social choice theory tells us that this assumption is overly simplistic. In any moderately complex electoral environment—think of one in which voters must choose over more than two options in more than two policy dimensions, say, three parties competing on social policy and economic policy—we know that it's unlikely, indeed it's verging on impossible, that there exists some singular monolithic majority. As a consequence, it's very difficult to say what is the democratic will of an electorate, and whether such a will accords or does not accord with a particular election result held under a given system or not.
The second of these principles, local representation, mandates that the committee identify measures that ensure or support accountability. I guess in the context of modern parliamentary government, accountability can operate on two levels, and it does so simultaneously: the individual MP's accountability to his or her constituents on the one hand, and the governing party or coalition's accountability to the electorate at large via Parliament on the other. My sense is that the motion implicitly prioritizes the first of these types of accountability because the wording is terrible.
Regardless, scholars are agreed that accountability requires that the electorate be able to identify the act responsible for political decisions and outcomes, and that it can effectively sanction that act, should it wish to.
In this regard, the issue of dual candidacy under a mixed system is worth some attention. It's clear that dual candidacy, whereby a candidate can run in a district and on a list simultaneously, dilutes the candidate's accountability to the local constituency. There may be offsetting merits in dual candidacy; however, my point is just that the issue deserves discussion with respect to this principle of accountability.
The second type of electoral accountability, government accountability, has been misconceived. It's often put in terms of the stability of the government. We'll hear the old saw that under first past the post, elections are more stable than in governments elected under proportional representation. The problem here is not cherry-picking the experiences of this country or that country; rather, it's that there's no optimal level of stability.
You can have too little stability, and you can have too much stability. A much better metric is to consider what we would technically call the monotonicity of the electoral system. That is to say, is there a positive relationship between shifts in votes and shifts in legislative power? Certainly, the converse of this, that if a government, for example, lost votes and gained power, we would find perverse.
I've looked at the relationship between shifts in electoral votes and shifts in power, and there's good news and bad news. The good news is that regardless of the electoral system we looked at, there is among advanced industrial democracies a positive relationship between shifts in votes and shifts in power. It's very clear that majoritarian systems outperform proportional systems on this metric in the sense that responsiveness or monotonicity of the electoral system declines by about 50% under any form of proportional representation.
Again, that's one of many values that one may wish to consider and trade off against, but that's what the data says.
Thanks.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much, Mr. Kam.
Mr. Canseco, for five minutes, please.