Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

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

Okay, that's very helpful.

Then I will have time to ask you a question, Professor Wood. The Law Commission in several places in its report dismisses the idea of multi-member ridings. Two days ago in Victoria we heard from two members of the B.C. citizens' assembly who are very firm in their view that the Law Commission had made a mistake in so quickly setting aside the proportionality benefits, the fairness questions, and so on of single transferable vote and multi-member ridings.

Can you recall why it was the Law Commission felt in its review that multi-member ridings were not desirable?

[Roderick Wood]

On the question of STV, although perhaps we could have dealt with it at greater length in the report, it's not because we didn't consider it, it's just that you have an over 200-page report and you have to make choices.

We did consider it and it satisfies a number of the criteria in terms of proportionality and the like, it's just that we thought MMP did it better. It had a greater link with the geographic representation. In terms of the ballot, there's a complexity in the STV ballot. It's probably the most complex in completing. In fact, that was one of the reasons I've changed my mind in favour of the closed list. It's because the open list creates a complex ballot. When you look at New Zealand it's simple, vote for the party, vote for the constituency candidate. It's really simple. That's important, the ease of use, it really is important.

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

Yes.

[Roderick Wood]

I suppose, as well, in terms of countries that use STV, my impression is that it probably works better in smaller jurisdictions or smaller settings, where it's really the candidate who counts. That's why you see it used in municipal politics where I think it first arose. So for those reasons, it's not that we thought STV was bad, we just thought that something else was better.

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

That's helpful.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Romanado.

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

Thank you so much, and I'd like to thank our two panellists for being here today and also the members of the public who came out on a sunny day here in Alberta.

We heard some conflicting comments and I'd like to get your opinion. You have very distinct competencies and skills that you'll bring to the table in helping to clarify this. We've had folks come to see us to say—and we've heard it quite often— that they felt that their vote didn't count, that their voice didn't matter.

Yesterday, we heard from a witness who said, in fact, no matter what system you put in place there's always going to be that one candidate or that one person who said my candidate didn't win. Because, say, for instance, you have seven candidates running in an election and you have an MMP, you're choosing three, then there are four who didn't win. And if somebody out there voted for them, then meeting that requirement of making sure their vote counted means everybody who got a vote should be a member of Parliament. It's taking it to one extreme.

How do we make sure folks understand that just because you voted for someone, it doesn't mean they necessarily should become an MP, not that they don't deserve to be an MP, but there are going to be times when someone didn't win something.

Could you elaborate your thoughts on that? I have a follow-up question.

Professor Wood.

[Roderick Wood]

We looked at the wasted vote. We thought that first past the post accentuated that, because if you don't vote for the winning candidate, it's pointless. With mixed member proportional, you can see that the relationship is that your vote ended up electing the list candidate. You can see that your vote wasn't wasted; it did count. I think if people can understand the operation of the system, they'll say, well, yes, collectively we voted for this party; this party benefited from that with extra seats in the House. I believe that absolutely. If your constituency candidate doesn't win, well, that's life and that's politics, but your vote should count for something in terms of reflecting the final distribution of seats in the House; that's the element of proportionality.

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

Ms. Paradis, what do you think of that?

[Patricia Paradis]

I would agree with that, and you're quite right; obviously, not every vote is going to count, but it's important for Canadians to know that there might be more than one approach, and that is the benefit of this MMP system.

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

Speaking of that, Ms. Paradis, you mentioned that so many Canadians don't understand their democracy.

With regard to the education component, I think Canadians are incredibly savvy and incredibly smart. I think that for whatever it is we're going to propose, whatever comes out of this exercise, a large educational component will be required, whether that has to do with changing the voting system or with tactics that we employ to increase voter participation or whatever it is that we do.

Who do you think is best placed to make sure that education is done well, in a way that it is non-partisan and fair, so that all sides of the issue are put forward—the good, the bad, and the ugly—along with the ramifications of whatever it is that we choose. We have heard that, obviously, the people sitting around this table, the political parties, advocacy groups, and others have a vested interest in whatever is being put forward. Do you think Elections Canada would be best placed to provide that education component?

[Patricia Paradis]

I haven't given this a great deal of thought. I don't think Elections Canada should have to do that work. It seems to me that if you're really looking at a strategy for informing your electorate, you're going to use many different approaches, not just one. One is, obviously, to get into the schools and to look at the curriculum. It's about time we started teaching about the Constitution and the charter. People tend to think the charter is the Constitution. They don't understand that it fits into a much larger thing. Getting into the schools and getting students informed is one way.

There are many, many others. Hearing you say these things is music to my ears, because this is something our centre tries to do. Of course, one tiny little centre in the middle of Edmonton, Alberta isn't going to do it. With online technology now there are so many more opportunities available. We're working, for example, with the National Film Board right now on a web-based project that will be available to 16- to 24-year-olds on the patriation, hearing from Peter Lougheed as he then was, etc. There are many different ways to do it; I just don't think Elections Canada should be responsible for all of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madame and Monsieur, it's a real pleasure for me to meet you.

I think we are the first ones to recognize that the electoral system is not perfect, but there is no perfect system.

If it existed, we would have it,

as we say in French. But this is the true reality.

There are some things that exist about the so-called proportional system. You know, this is the panacea for so many people, but the reality is not there. The problem we face with our system many times is the same with the proportional system.

The experts acknowledge that changes in voting systems do not really have an impact on voter turnout rates. It is more the election issues and personalities that increase turnout, not the electoral system.

However, it is generally recognized that a proportional system means there are more small parties than in a regular system, which is not bad in itself. That is called "democracy". I will come back to that a little later.

Talking about the strategic vote, we heard so many people say in the last election that we needed a strong strategic vote to get the Conservative government out and all that stuff. I know what I'm talking about; I'm a Conservative MP. I heard that a lot, but not in Quebec City, because I won. But I recognize that. This is why I have the authority to say that.

Whatever the system, whatever reality we'll see, people will say, I want to get this government out, and the best way is to have one party that will attract the most votes. Whatever the system, you will see that people will vote strategically. Sure, I recognize that in the actual system more people will vote strategically than in the other system, but you will not erase it; that's the reality of democracy.

Now I am going to talk about the lost vote. I am sorry, but no vote is lost in a democracy, except if a person does not vote. A losing vote is not a loss. That is the difference. There will always be winners and losers. That is what happens in real life. If everyone votes for the same person, then everyone will win. Otherwise it goes without saying that there will always be losers. It is not because people lose that their votes are permanently lost. A losing vote is not a lost vote.

Nearly 99% of Canadians who vote have a voice in the House of Commons, and that is because they voted for one of the five parties represented there. Everyone in my district is represented in the House of Commons. Furthermore, even though it is a small number, 1.8% of the people in the district of Louis-Saint-Laurent voted for the Green Party and are represented in the House. I have never heard anyone say that his or her voice had been eliminated and that that was a terrible thing. No, their voices are there and very well represented by Ms. May. I do not think she is listening to me. That is unfortunate.

Okay, maybe one day she will understand that.

Here is my question.

Yesterday, Mr. Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer, said that what we need in this country if we decide to change the electoral system—I think Mr. Mayrand is a partisan of that issue—we shall have a lot of support in this country.

There are two options for him. One is the support of 75% of members of Parliament or a referendum. What do you think of that?

[Patricia Paradis]

I thought it was an interesting suggestion. If you can get 75% support in the House, that would be great. What I don't know is whether or not the Canadian electorate would be sufficiently swayed by that 75% vote to feel that the new system was legitimate. Now coming from Monsieur Mayrand—

I entirely agree

—one would think that he knows what he's talking about. However, a referendum and a 75% vote in the House are very different. Clearly, there's a lot less risk with the 75% vote in House.

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

Mr. Wood, what do you think of what Mr. Mayrand said?

[Roderick Wood]

Having not heard what he said, I'm not sure where the figure of 75% comes from.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

It's the system they have in New Zealand. He said that the New Zealand system says you can change it if you have 75% support.

[Roderick Wood]

Okay.

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

He referred to that.

[Roderick Wood]

Yes, 75 or two-thirds, higher or lower, I'm not sure where you draw that. In terms of legitimacy, we see that in our history. In this province, electoral reform was put in in the 1920s without a referendum. It was changed again in the 1950s without a referendum. Then in Manitoba, single transferable vote was eliminated without a referendum. When we look at the biggest electoral change in Canada in all of its history—giving women the vote—that was done without a referendum.

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

Is it true that, in the last decade, three provinces asked for a referendum to make some changes to the term?

[Roderick Wood]

Yes.