I'll let you answer it then, Jim.
Evidence of meeting #36 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 riding.
Evidence of meeting #36 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 riding.
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I do have one question for Professor Bickerton at the end.
2:45 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
Some of our best governments have been minority governments; there's no doubt about that. I would point to successive Liberal governments in the 1960s to whom we owe many things that many Canadians regard as central to a Canadian identity. That's great. I'm not going to put myself in the position of opposing that. But that also happened because there was some agreement between an opposition party and the governing party.
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Professor Bickerton, in your opening statement you were talking about policy lurch. Coincidentally, some of us during breakfast today were talking about defence procurement and how obtaining the equipment necessary for our military to function properly is often a lot longer than an electoral cycle, but governments often want to put their own stamp on policy directions. We are often finding ourselves unravelling the previous government's policies, which might take a year or two, and then really putting our own policies in just in time for an election. I was wondering if you could expand a little bit about that particular area.
2:45 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
Yes. I think that the problem is particularly acute in our system where we have one-party majority governments that can be changed very easily with just a few percentage points change in the popular vote. It can result in this problem because many policies, not just military procurement, require a longer time horizon than a single electoral cycle. If you have coalition governments with more than one party involved, you're not as likely to get these kinds of dramatic changes as the result of a few points shifting, which is usually the way it is, actually. An election usually turns out to ride on a very small percentage change in the popular vote. As a result you have more stable long-term policies because there has to be more of a consensus on those policies. I think that's true of moving toward a proportional system.
I'd just like to suggest an answer to Ken's remark asking what the Liberal monopoly on seats in Atlantic Canada says. I think his point was that it's a message to the other parties that there's something wrong. I would, in fact, say that it's a perfect example of the distortions that our current electoral system produced, because the outcome was clearly at least partially due to strategic voting, the belief people had that they had to move strongly to one alternative to the current government to ensure that the current government was defeated. That's what our electoral system does. There were a number of excellent MPs who were very popular in their ridings who were pushed aside by that, and people did not feel good about that, people who I've talked to. They felt they had to do it, and it was the electoral system that made them do it.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
October 4th, 2016 / 2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Good afternoon. Thank you for being here with us.
Mr. Bickerton, I have a question for you. My colleague Blake Richards asked if you were in favour of consulting the entire population through a referendum if the government decides to change the voting system. Going by your answer, I think you feel that would not really be necessary, because the government and Parliament represent the population.
I'd like a small clarification. You say the government represents the population very well, but in your presentation you said that we should have a proportional voting system that would represent citizens' opinions better. It seems to me there is a contradiction there.
The current government formed a majority government, as we all know, with 39.5% of the vote. This same government has the power to unilaterally change a voting system it deems unrepresentative.
Could you tell us a bit more about this? Did I misunderstand your answer?
2:50 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
There maybe was a bit of a misunderstanding. I don't think I said that a government is representative of a population. I said I believe in representative democracy, which is quite different.
My point was that we elect representatives and we entrust them to a certain extent to make these complex decisions for us, to gather all the evidence they need to gather, and the testimony we're hearing today is an example. Then, in this case, it's to come to some kind of consensus about what kind of a change would be good, even beyond a single party or a single government in terms of making a change of this order.
However, it's not the same as a referendum on whether to secede from Canada. For instance, clearly for a decision of that magnitude, you must consult the population in a referendum to get a yes or a no vote. Changing the electoral system, the mechanism by which we elect our representatives, is not a decision of that order.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you very much.
When we were in Quebec, my colleague Mr. DeCourcey put a question to a Laval University political science professor. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he asked him whether he felt there should be a public referendum to establish a certain consensus. Would this compromise be acceptable to you, would this make changing the voting system conceivable for you?
Is my question clear?
2:50 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
I'm not sure. Are you asking me if a referendum would be a way to generate consensus or to measure consensus? Is that the question?
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
In order to obtain a consensus on the voting system proposed to the Canadian population, should we hold a referendum? Could that option be of interest?
2:50 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
I think for the reasons I stated already, the consensus that I think is needed is some consensus among the political parties. Unanimity...certainly we don't have to impose that rule, but broader than a single party or a single government.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Suppose a referendum were needed to obtain the support of another political party for the government decision. Let's suppose there was no consensus and that no other party accepted the government's proposal. That could happen.
2:50 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
Ah, I'm sorry. I see what you mean now.
If the government attempted to impose its solution without the agreement of any other parties, then that government should go to a referendum to get the public's approval. Is that what you're saying?
2:50 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
I think since I've already said that a single party government should not impose its will on everybody else, in this instance, it does logically push me toward the direction that they should go to a referendum if no other party can agree with their solution.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
My next question is addressed to either of you.
People often tell us that we have to listen to them, that their opinion is important and that being able to express their opinion only once every four years is not enough.
Before this meeting started, I took a little Facebook poll. Our minister is very fond of social networks. Many of you quote people who put questions to you on Twitter.
In less than an hour, 45% to 55% of people indicated that they would like to see the voting system changed. I want to understand clearly. A little more than 50% of people want to see the system changed.
At the same time, over 86% of those polled said that they want an opportunity to have their say about the voting system to be considered. You can feel the skepticism out there. People wonder why they should give an opinion if they don't know what model is being considered. That seems to be the general feeling out there among citizens.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That was more of a comment, so we'll stop there and go to Ms. Romanado.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
As a good Canadian, I will say thank you to everyone here today and apologize for my tardiness. With this many meetings in this many cities, I didn't realize which floor this meeting was on.
That being said, it was interesting to have two conflicting panellists today, and when I say “conflicting”, that's not in a bad way. We've heard a lot about various systems and the magical powers they have, that they will solve all evil on earth, and so on and so forth.
I'm also of the mindset that our electoral system is an ecosystem. There are many parts to it, and it's not necessarily the way we vote that is going to fix everything. There are tactics we can develop. There are things we can implement to address, say, the tone in the House.
We talked a little bit about how we can change the committee structure to include more different voices. We talked a little bit about mandatory voting. And we heard a little bit about cynicism. I'll premise this by saying that a lot of people are surprised to know that after these meetings, most of this committee—in fact all of the committee—usually sits down and has a debriefing, and we laugh and we joke around. We actually do get along.
One thing we did notice is that, if there is a political will to change something, it's not necessarily an electoral system that will address some of the problems. For instance, let's say we want to increase the engagement of women, of youth, of minorities in politics to run for office. I'm of the firm belief that people decide not to run for office not because of the fact they don't like the electoral system per se, but rather it is the job, the idea of the adversarial tone, the idea of your life being on the front page, the idea of the constant bickering.
I'll give you an example. There are 197 new MPs. I'm one of them. We decided, little backbenchers that we are, to change the tone of the House by one simple measure. We brought forward the idea to stop clapping during question period. We tried this in June. We decided we would not clap. We support our government, but we're not going to clap at the answer. On the first day everyone looked at us as if we were crazy. On the second day, they were all wondering what the Liberals were up to. On the third day, we saw that the tone in the House actually calmed down because the reaction on the other side was amplified because we weren't reacting, and it calmed the House down. There wasn't a change in the electoral system; it was a change in political will to do things differently.
My question is for the two of you. What can we be doing that is not necessarily a change in our electoral system but can address some of the issues we are facing, whether it be participation at the polls, running for office, changing the tone, or having a collaborative approach?
If you could elaborate, that would be great.
2:55 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
I applaud you for your efforts to change the tone in the House. I think I need to remind you that you are in the first year of an electoral cycle and you are a brand new MP.
There have been changes attempted since the 1970s—or 1960s, if I go back that far—in the procedures of the House in order to try to alter in some way the political behaviour of MPs in the House. They always break down in the end. There was a concerted effort by the Paul Martin government, in fact, to do away with confidence votes except on certain items, and he took other measures as well to try to change the tone in the House. There were similar kinds of attempts—the bells crisis, I can think back to, in the Joe Clark and Pierre Trudeau days, and so on.
This is not something new. This has been around for decades and decades. I would think it's not just simply a matter that we can do better if only we have the will to do it. I'm sure that will be a factor, but unlike you, I believe that there is such a thing as institutional incentives to behaviour, and that institutions do ultimately shape behaviour. They don't determine it, but they shape it.
Minor reform to procedures in the House is not what's needed here. We need bigger change, and one of those bigger changes is electoral system reform. Unlike my colleague here, I actually think it will be easier to bring about than Senate reform, which was the alternative. He thought we should concentrate on Senate reform, but I think electoral system reform is actually within your power to change in a serious way. I'm not sure Senate reform is. We'll see how the current changes work out.
Based on many studies over a long period of time and a lot of experience that older parliamentarians could bring to this discussion too, we know it is always easier to get along in the early part of a new electoral cycle. As you go along the electoral cycle, things change fairly dramatically. I hope it doesn't happen, but I think it probably will.