Evidence of meeting #33 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 first.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Professor Wood and Ms. Paradis, give me a few moments and then I will take the time to say hello.
Mr. Chair, before we go to the break, I would like you to request unanimous consent—since you are the one who does that—for us to distribute and discuss a motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
As you know, according to the rules we have adopted, we may not discuss substantive matters while travelling, except with the unanimous consent of committee members.
Is there unanimous consent to discuss an NDP motion?
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Mr. Chair, we have witnesses and people waiting, so I would say, no.
September 29th, 2016 / 3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We will take a short break and come back for the second group.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I do apologize, but this is about the third time we've almost come to the end.
We should regard this as being a notice of motion, in that case. Is that right? It's been distributed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't even know if we can give notice of motion if there's no unanimous consent to entertain the motion.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Our clerk does not have to give you advice and resolve this now. Maybe when we come back we could find out what the rule is.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Sure.
We'll have a break of five minutes, and then we'll come back for our second panel.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The meeting has been called to order.
We have with us three panellists for the second segment.
We have, appearing as individuals, Mr. Doug Bailie, Sean Graham, and Joseph Green.
Each witness will have five minutes to present ,and then we'll proceed with the round of questioning, which affords each member five minutes to engage with the witnesses.
Without any further ado, Mr. Bailie, we'll ask you to lead off.
Doug Bailie As an Individual
Thank you.
I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to speak here today, and I'd also like to thank all the committee members for deciding to travel around the country to give as many people as possible an opportunity to have their say on this very important issue of reform of the federal electoral system.
The written brief I've presented focuses on three main points: the current voting system provides only weak accountability at either the local or national level, it exaggerates regional divisions, and a system of proportional representation would best meet the principles for electoral reform as stated in the committee's mandate.
I'm very pleased the committee has come here to listen to Albertans speak on this issue. I was born and raised in Alberta in the 1960s and 1970s. I remember seeing a picture of Canada's federal electoral map with Alberta a solid blue, but no matter how blue Alberta was, the federal government in that era was always red. It was a picture that masked the diversity of political opinion here in Alberta as well as in other provinces. It was a picture that fed a deep sense of alienation from federal politics and the federal government that was certainly ever-present when I was growing up here. It was a picture that was, to a significant extent, created by our electoral system.
I strongly believe that the House of Commons is intended to be an inclusive body that broadly represents the national community as a whole. What we have is a body that represents the plurality of opinion groups in 338 local ridings. It excludes other opinions at the local level, which results in an inaccurate reflection of the aggregate strength of those groups at the national level. Accountability at the local level is important. That's why we need proportional representation instead of the situation we have now, where in some ridings, from one election to the next, competing opinion groups take turns choosing the local MP, while in other ridings one group maintains exclusive right to representation in election after election.
Proportional representation provides a group of MPs responsible to the community as a whole. Imagine, for example, a three-member district with two MPs from party A, and one from party B. In the next election, party A knows it's not going to win all three seats, but they want to hold on to the two they have. Party B wants to take one of those seats away from party A, while other parties are also evaluating the possibility of taking a seat away from either A or B.
Instead of a plurality of voters determining one representative for the whole riding, multiple opinion groups are included in selecting several MPs. It would be a more inclusive and accountable system of representation.
My briefing has evaluated four electoral systems—first past the post, the single transferable vote, mixed member plurality, and a list PR system—against the principles of electoral reform described in the committee's mandate. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses; however, the current voting system is clearly out of line with those principles.
I therefore urge the committee to recommend a proportional representation system. Which PR system the committee chooses depends on the weight the members place on each of those principles.
Thank you.
Liberal
Sean Graham As an Individual
Let me begin by saying it is an honour to be able to present my work to this committee. I'm here today as the creator of an electoral system called dual member proportional, or DMP for short. My objective this afternoon is to introduce DMP to the committee and explain why it would be the best choice to replace our single-member plurality electoral system. I plan to accomplish this by first discussing why DMP should be considered when there are already multiple alternatives to choose from. Then I will briefly explain how DMP works. To conclude, I will highlight how DMP aligns with two of the committee's principles of electoral reform.
Primarily, the committee has heard recommendations to adopt some form of single transferable vote or mixed member proportional. While both of these systems would be more effective than the status quo in terms of ensuring the votes of Canadians are actively reflected in the House of Commons, each one has features that make many Canadians uneasy with the idea of reform.
STV requires the creation of large multi-member districts. Not only would this be a significant departure from the present system, it would also be impractical to bring this type of reform to many areas in rural Canada. To implement MMP it is necessary to establish a second tier of representatives elected through the use of party lists. Both of these features have been met with skepticism by many Canadians.
In contrast to these alternatives, DMP has been designed to eliminate the need for these unpopular features. It doesn't require large multi-member districts, introduce a second tier of representatives, or use party lists. Instead it retains the simple ballot design and highly localized representation of the current system, while ensuring that all Canadians are given an effective vote. A handout has been provided to committee members that shows a sample DMP ballot.
DMP has a comprehensive design and has been subjected to thorough testing and review. This, in addition to its retention of features that are valued by Canadians, has allowed DMP to quickly gain traction. Not only does it now have supporters and collaborators from across the country, but it may become the first proportional electoral system to be approved by voters in a plebiscite and adopted by a provincial government.
On April 15, DMP was officially recommended by the P.E.I. Special Committee on Democratic Renewal for inclusion in the province's upcoming plebiscite. This decision is a testament not only to the level of rigour that went into the development of DMP, but to its ability to make Canadians more comfortable with the idea of electoral system reform.
Briefly put, DMP works by creating two-member districts where the first candidate is elected by plurality and the second by a process that ensures proportionality of the results. More specifically, proportionality is achieved by using the regional voting results to determine the number of seats each party deserves, and the individual district results to determine where each party will win its seats. In other words, DMP optimizes election results by simultaneously working to give each district its most preferred representation and each party its deserved number of seats.
While there are many options when it comes to the number and size of the regions, I'm strongly recommending that Canada be divided into four, as follows: Quebec; Ontario; Atlantic Canada, comprising Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick; and western Canada, which would encompass B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the three territories. With this choice of regions, all Canadians would see the full benefits of adopting DMP. In other words, every Canadian would know that their vote would have a meaningful effect on election outcomes.
However, this important principle could easily be compromised by deviating from my recommendation. In particular, I would caution the committee on defining smaller regions. For instance, making each province a distinct region would exclude the territories from reform. Additionally, it would bring a much lower degree of improvement to small provinces, most notably P.E.I., than to large provinces such as Quebec. In my view, it is imperative that the committee give every Canadian, regardless of their place of residence, a meaningful vote. There should be no exceptions.
I will now turn to the committee's principles of electoral reform. While DMP satisfies each of them, I will focus on two.
DMP would align with the principle of effectiveness and legitimacy by virtually eliminating distortions in election outcomes and strengthening the link between voter intention and election of representatives. Unlike some proportional alternatives, it would also respect votes cast for independent candidates. Ultimately, DMP would give every Canadian the confidence that their voice is helping to shape the composition of their government.
Since every MP would belong to and represent a two-member district, DMP would preserve local representation. Importantly, MPs would remain accountable to the local constituents and would rely on their support for re-election. Furthermore, the use of two-member districts would allow Canada to retain the close relationship all MPs have with their constituents. However, DMP would not merely retain the status quo; instead it offers to improve upon this relationship. Simulations of past Canadian elections demonstrate that approximately 80% of districts could be expected to be represented by two different parties in future elections. This would significantly increase the number of Canadians who are represented by a candidate that they voted for, and provide a large majority of Canadians with a choice between two MPs from different parties to approach with their concerns.
This committee has the chance to recommend that Canada start a new chapter in its democratic history. I sincerely hope it doesn't pass up this rare opportunity.
I will now be happy to answer any questions the committee has.
Thank you.
Joseph Green As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Green.
First, I'd like to thank you for inviting me. I'm a retired professional engineer. My job number one these days is to be a grandpa for three kids.
I've prepared something here. I'm not sure where this reform thing is going to go, but I wanted to leave something for my grandchildren, so they at least knew we tried. One of the things that happens when I don't sleep very well at night is that I watch Supreme Court hearings. When I get tired of watching that, I sometimes fool around with mathematics and things like that, to make sure that my left lobe is still connected to my right lobe.
One of the things I ran into, and I have some training in mathematics, of course, because I am an engineer, was a minimization exercise. There is a way to maximize representation in a numeric sense, if we can spot something. The basics of democracy is one man, one vote. The basis of our parliamentary system, both in Ottawa, and in Edmonton, and in our provinces, is that we have something that should be roughly equivalent equality between representatives. We shouldn't have one rep, for example, like Ms. May, who I guess represents about 660,000 votes in this country and has one seat.
Even more disturbing than that.... It's not about PR for me or my kids, as much as we're concerned with the cleavages that have been happening because of the first past the post system. To hear people talk in Ontario and Quebec, as I have in my various previous travels heard people talk about Alberta, you'd think there wasn't anybody here except true blue Conservatives. Fortunately for us, in the last election we stopped the circus that we see playing out in the United States, which is something that Cicero and the Roman senate would have been commenting upon in terms of giving them circuses.
What I stumbled into was this. If you calculate the number of seats allocated within each province by the number of votes by that party, you get a number. It's just a calculation. You then pick the first party with the most votes and allocate the seats in the House by a declining plurality order. If you look inside your own website, you publish two numbers: how many votes and what percentage. If those ridings that have the largest plurality are filled first, then what will happen as you go down the list is that you'll get...in Alberta's case I think we should get 21—how many seats there are mathematically—and you fill the ones with the highest plurality first.
Then the second party gets its chance to fill its seats by plurality order, and guess what? All the parties that came in second, third, and so on, who won outright in first past the post, will also get filled. At the end of the day, out of the 338 seats, you'd only adjust 67 of them in order to get much closer to a situation where each MP represents roughly the same number of voters. It would not be like we have today. And I'm not selecting the Green Party for any reason, other than that's the most exaggerated circumstance.
If you do the numbers as I have, if I didn't screw up here because it was the middle of the night when I was doing this stuff, we had in the last election.... I did the math just to see what the House would be if Joe Green were configuring it. Over a million Canadians voted and are not represented in the House of Commons in any context, either as an elected MP or with a party that they voted for. If you do nothing but just allocate on a declining plurality order, that number decreases quite dramatically, to something in the order of 200,000 people.
Doing nothing but leaving the machinery alone, which as you all know is very well respected around the world.... We do not have hanging chad problems in this country. All of that machinery works well. The judicial recounts work well. We don't have to change any of the machinery. All we need is an adjustment in how the official seats are filled. My suggestion is that if we do it with a declining plurality order, we'll get very close to the objectives of PR and all those various things.
We'd end up with a minority government, but guess what? We don't elect trained seals. We elect each representative to participate in making public policy. You folks make and decide on what the public interest is.
That's all I wish to offer. I did the math, and I sent the spreadsheets, and I hope I didn't make any errors, because it was late at the time. That's all I wish to present. I would not have even appeared, except that it was a trick and it may not be obvious. But that's what I did.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much, Mr. Green.
We'll open up the round of questions with Mr. Aldag first, for five minutes, please.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'd like to thank all three of our experts for joining us today.
One of the challenges we have is getting material circulated in a timely manner because of the translation requirement, so I would say to Mr. Graham and Mr. Green, I haven't seen the briefs you submitted. I don't know if they're in translation or not, so I'm trying to piece together what you've submitted and how the systems work. What I'd like to do is take my five minutes to maybe go into a bit of the detail of your systems or your thinking, which may help the rest of the table better understand what it is, then we can really dig into what you're proposing.
Mr. Graham, I found an online article on the dual-member, mixed proportional that I've been scanning through, but there's a lot of material here, so can you give me the Reader's Digest version? You talked about two-member districts. I don't know if that means doubling the number of seats, or if it means doubling the size of the.... Take us through, in a couple of minutes, what high level your system is. The graph seems to show direct proportionality, but why and how?
As an Individual
The basic idea is that you would take existing districts and merge them together. In some exceptional circumstances, mostly with northern districts in most provinces, you would have to look at maybe not merging them with neighbouring districts and maybe adding extra MPs, something of that nature.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Simply to clarify “districts”, are you talking constituencies?
As an Individual
Four. But the region's purpose in any system, whether it's DMP or MMP, is for allocating seats, which party is on a proportional basis. In some systems, the regions and the districts are synonymous and in some they're not. In DMP and MMP, for example, they're not. They're two different entities. You would merge, likely, the districts rather than doubling the House of Commons.
In my report, for instance, I recommended increasing it by about six seats, simply to account for the provinces and territories that don't currently have an even number of seats to merge together. Then it wouldn't require a massive increase to the House of Commons.
The basic idea, in terms of electing the MPs, is you would elect the first candidate by first past the post. This is to ensure that the first-placed candidate is guaranteed to win a seat. That also puts the floor of the representation at basically the current system. Currently, the first-placed candidate is the only one who wins, and it's only the voters who voted for that candidate who are represented. In this system, since we're always electing that candidate, we're always going to be above the representation of the current system. That second MP who's elected would be an additional number of Canadians locally represented on top of the current system.
That second MP would be elected to fulfill the requirements of proportional representation at the regional level. If the Liberals need 10 seats in western Canada, for example, the second seats would account for that. The way those candidates are elected is based on merit. For the Liberal Party, for example, if they needed 10 seats, you would look at the top 10 candidates in that region for the Liberal Party and assign those seats to those candidates.
In some cases there will be conflicts. The Liberal Party might be assigned the same seat as the New Democrats, for example. In those instances you would look at the party that performed better at the local level, and the party that performed better locally would be elected. The party that didn't would have to take the next best seat on the list.
The system is designed to simultaneously elect candidates based on merit, based on their local vote, but also based on the regional decision Canadians made in terms of what they want the House of Commons to look like.
Does that give a bit more clarity to that process?
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Yes, absolutely. In the calculations, such as on the sheet that you've given us, it appears that you do get an accurate representation of voter intent.
As an Individual
Yes, you're merging districts and taking half of those seats and using them to create a proportional result. It's similar to the proportional effect you would get with an MMP system, with 50% top-up seats. The difference with this system is that you can make the regions larger without making the ballot or the electoral process more complicated. With MMP, as the region size increases you're required to list more candidates on the ballot. With DMP, citizens never see how big the region is by looking at their ballot alone. Their ballot would look the same whether the region encompasses five MPs or a hundred. In this way, it makes the process simpler.
For example, in Atlantic Canada, for parties that receive more than the threshold, the level of proportionality should be pretty precise. I recommended using a district threshold of 5%. That's why in this case the Green Party is one percentage point off their deserved representation. The way I've used the threshold, it's a local veto rather than a regional veto. By doing that, if a small party performs fairly well in the region in enough local districts, it can still receive representation, whereas if you establish a regional threshold of, say, 5%, you bar those parties from winning representation until they hit that benchmark. The benchmark is slightly different from what you're used to seeing, but it's roughly the same idea.