Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Professor Wood and Ms. Paradis. I am very pleased that you are here with us today on this major Canadian tour, which we are conducting to discuss the electoral system.

This committee has a mandate to study the many options that can be used to change the voting system, but also other issues concerning the electoral system.

Professor Wood, first I want to thank you for your work with the Canadian Law Commission in 2004; this is an excellent report. You are still in favour of these recommendations for a mixed-member proportional system.

I also want to thank you for your helpful suggestions for combating certain myths that circulate about mixed-member proportional voting systems. You say, for example, that this kind of system produces stable governments, preserves a local connection between voters and members, and does not cause an excessive increase in the number of small political parties represented in the House.

With regard to the connection with voters, the report states that, in Germany, even list members have close relations with their fellow citizens. They have offices, they receive people, they meet with the organizations of civil society, and they deal with individual files. As Mr. Broadbent said, this voting system may be the best of all possible worlds because it offers the advantages of both proportional systems, majority and mixed-member.

You have changed your mind about closed and open lists. I find that interesting. I used to be more in favour of closed lists but am beginning to lean toward open ones. On what regional basis do you think lists should be constituted?

It is perfectly understandable why there might be a list for Nova Scotia, for example, but regional realities are very different in Ontario and Quebec. How would you divide up members who are elected on a broader regional or, in some instances, provincial basis?

[Roderick Wood]

We proposed that the list, except for Quebec and Ontario because of the size of those provinces, would be on a regional basis, so you would have your provincial list. What that would mean is that if you have a province like Newfoundland and Labrador with seven MPs, then there would be four constituency MPs and three list MPs. Every province would have its own list. That was regional MMP, as you would have in Scotland.

By doing that you eliminate the need for overhang seats like you have in Germany and New Zealand, although I think they are proposing to do away with the overhang in New Zealand.

It would be on a regional basis. One problem was, what about the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon?

What we proposed was that you have to add another list MP. You can't have a regional basis with only one constituency MP. That would increase the size of the House by three.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Only by three, which is not too much.

In a mixed-member proportional system, you vote on two ballots: you vote for your local MP and you vote for the party list. What is your opinion about double candidacy?

This summer, we heard from former Quebec minister Mr. Pelletier in Ottawa. There was a process in Quebec that was created by the National Assembly. It faltered partly because people were afraid of losing regional power and because it was proposed that an individual could be a candidate both in a riding and on the list. It was very poorly received. People said that, if an MP was not elected in his district, he should not be able to slip through via the list.

What do yo think of that?

[Roderick Wood]

It is a matter of some controversy. The worry was with the backdoor candidate. You get voted out on Friday, and you're back in on the list on Monday. That's how people refer to it in New Zealand. New Zealand and Germany do allow dual candidacy, and I think there is a good reason for it.

What you find is that without it people either want high on the list or safe seat. You want to have candidates contesting the ridings. If not, they still have a chance to be chosen on the list.

What you see in Germany and New Zealand is that 80%, or so, are dual candidacy. Yes, there is that perception—and it's discussed in the 2012 New Zealand report—but they concluded that dual candidacy was fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks.

Monsieur Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. Paradis and Mr. Wood.

Thank you for coming to speak with us. It is very interesting to listen to you.

I also want to say hello to the people in the audience. We are eager to hear from you.

I want to say hello to my colleagues, particularly Ms. Jolibois, who has joined us today and is doing a remarkable job.

Ms. Paradis, you said that, if you want to carry out electoral reform, it always takes more time than you expect and it is therefore better to do it right and come up with a reform that works than to rush the process to meet an electoral deadline. Is that correct?

[Patricia Paradis]

Yes, that is what I said.

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

All right, thank you.

Mr. Wood, I would like to know whether you agree with that.

[Roderick Wood]

Yes.

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

All right, thank you.

Mr. Wood, in response to my colleague Mr. Boulerice's questions, you said that, in your model, you would add a seat to each territory. So for there to be a proportional system, there would be three more seats.

Ms. Paradis, from a constitutional standpoint, are the territories like provinces? For example, could there be one or two MPs for all the territories, or do you really have to go by territory?

[Patricia Paradis]

I can't see how that would create a constitutional problem. At the end of the day, we have to keep our system working. It seems to me that this is just a logical approach. That's my opinion.

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

All right, thank you.

We can put that question to the court, if we want to ask long questions that result in long response times.

Mr. Wood, once again in your mixed-member proportional system, would there be an option to reserve seats for the First Nations, by province, where the demographics warrant it? What do you think of that idea?

[Roderick Wood]

We considered that as a possibility in the report, although we didn't put the mechanism in. We said that it would require a whole different order of discussions and conversation. We didn't want to rule it out, but we said that, at this point, we were dealing with the electoral system, and that element would have to be studied later and independently. It has a number of other issues. We certainly didn't want to rule it out.

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

All right, thank you.

Mr. Wood, in British Columbia, a citizens assembly was established and worked hard for a year. Is that an avenue that should be explored?

[Roderick Wood]

It is certainly a possibility. The advantage of it is that you can get citizens who do have the time to study the particular system in detail and make an informed choice. As I said, the difficulty with a referendum is having an informed vote on the question. I think there might even be a greater chance of that if people in a referendum say, “Well, I trust the instinct of those who were involved in this as an assembly.” That might be an antidote, in part, to the problem of the referendum, where people are simply not informed. There is actually a possibility of a combined effect.

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

All right, thank you.

In the mixed-member proportional system that you present, the party in power would go from a majority to a minority situation, in which it would constantly have to have the support of third parties to be able to govern.

What would be the best arguments that could be advanced to convince the party in power to adopt a new reform? After all, by losing power, it would be the first loser.

[Roderick Wood]

Well, first past the post is also cruel to them, because they won't be the winners forever. The tide will turn, and they'll find themselves on the losing side. They might find their party virtually wiped out because of the vagaries of first past the post. You might find them leaderless, because their leader isn't even in the House. I think that, if you take the long view of things, you'll recognize that it's not just the next election. You have to think the bigger game on this, and you'd say, well, we are better off, as a party, over the long run with a different system.

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

That is very interesting.

It was in England, in Great Britain, that the Labour Party, which had dominated for decades, finally gave way to other parties. Consequently, proportional voting might have a beneficial effect for the survival of the present government.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Duly noted.

Ms. May, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you.

Thank you to the witnesses who are with us today in Leduc, Edmonton, and thank you to all the members of the audience who are here.

This is such helpful testimony, and I wish I had more than five minutes. I want to thank you so much, Professor Wood. We also had the great honour of hearing from Bernard Colas, who was involved in the Law Reform Commission. I take to heart the approach the Law Commission took, because it helps us find our way forward as MPs at the moment when we have to sit down and decide which of these systems meet which of our standards and our most important principles. Clearly, fairness is a primary concern, no matter what system of voting we move to.

Because this is a novel recommendation, and one that I have been personally interested in, I want to direct my questions to Patricia Paradis. I am very grateful to you for raising the idea of a reference question to the court. It has occurred to me in the past that this might be a useful thing to do, both to add weight on the legitimacy side of this question and to allay any concerns that we are tripping into any perceived constitutional tripwires. I have a background in law—obviously not as distinguished as your own. It doesn't seem to me that there is a constitutional question here, but that concern could be laid to rest.

Why do you think that a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada would delay our process? The court will either say, “We are taking the reference question”, or it will say, “We don't think there as a question to be answered, so we are setting it aside.” It seems to me that it could be done relatively quickly.

[Patricia Paradis]

I agree, it could be done relatively quickly or not, it depends on the court. We did wait some time for the Senate reform reference decision to come through. I seem to recall it was almost a year. It's if you're willing to wait that length of time and, frankly, a year is not that long.

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

In terms of our process and I'm thinking very operationally, but, of course, the Senate reform reference as well as the Supreme Court's review of judicial appointments clearly touched on constitutional law matters. They're a clearly different class of discussion. As a matter of fact, if you go right back, as I'm sure you know, to the British North America Act in its original form, it said the new British North America will vote as Westminster votes—

[Patricia Paradis]

Yes.

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

—until the Canadian Parliament decides what voting system they want. It's never been.... But, as you said, there's some cloud created by the Senate question of the Supreme Court's ruling. It just strikes me that might be a way to give greater gravitas to the decision that parliamentarians, I believe, have every right to make.

[Patricia Paradis]

I completely agree.