Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Monsieur Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to say to Mr. Coffin that I share my colleague's opinion. Political science professors from several universities came to speak to us. The opinions they gave us were diametrically opposed as to the effects of the proportional voting system. We are having trouble sorting it all out, insofar as the representation of women is concerned, and the percentage of the votes.

Among the recommended models, a professor from Concordia whose name escapes me opted for the preferential vote, another for the proportional system, and a third for the status quo.

It isn't easy for us to sort all this out.

I was struck by your comment on the fact that politicians and political parties did not take young people's perspectives into account. Yesterday, one witness told us that if we adopted compulsory voting, we could reduce inequalities in our society. If everyone voted, politicians would have no other choice than to take into account the opinion of low-income people, of the the poorest citizens. For that group, voting is often a less natural gesture.

I would like to hear your opinion, all three of you. If we brought in compulsory voting, would the vast majority of citizens vote, would it have a positive effect? Politicians would then have to take into account the opinions of the entire population, and we would not have to change the voting system. I would like to hear your opinions on having an obligatory vote.

[Mark Coffin]

Maybe just as a point of clarification, in the translation that came through, you said that I said political parties don't take into account people's interests. I don't know if that's completely accurate.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

No, no. I thought you said that if we took young people's opinions into account more, political parties might make other types of proposals. Unless I am mistaken, we are not taking young people's opinions into account enough.

If voting were mandatory, a larger number of young people would vote, necessarily, and so political parties would not have a choice and would have to take their opinions into account, correct?

[Mark Coffin]

Right. On the surface, that's one of the benefits to a mandatory voting law. A downside, which you can see in the research, is that when you have mandatory voting laws you get fewer women elected. I have a statistic that I'll find in my papers here. Generally in states where there are mandatory voting laws, there is a decline in women's representation from when there wasn't mandatory voting.

The other thing I would say is that it doesn't necessarily create a situation where there will be consideration of those issues. Certainly there is a new voting base out there, but in single-member electoral districts, as we have in most winner-take-all systems and in our system, there is an incentive for parties to find the wedge issues that will get them elected in the ridings in which they need to get elected in order to hold just enough power to form a government. That won't go away with a mandatory voting law, but they'll start to consider the incentives.

It's not necessarily a foregone conclusion, but the incentive is to maybe work slightly harder to get power in those ridings where you need it. There's no reason to believe that if one part of the country is disadvantaged.... Atlantic Canada is an example. I wouldn't say we are necessarily disadvantaged, but if we were to become so, the fact that all of us can vote won't have much of an impact if the population is growing in other places and they continue to hold power.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Blair and Mr. Pardy, I would like to hear your opinion on compulsory voting.

[Andy Blair]

Fair Vote doesn't actually have a position on mandatory voting. I would have to say, though, that it's a double-edged sword. Not to be elitist about it, but a number of people choose not to pay attention, not to vote. That's their choice. Forcing them to vote would tend to engender some resentment. I'm not sure how you would force them to vote. Maybe fine them, as they do in Australia, if they don't cast a ballot.

I'd be more in favour of mandatory participation, where you have to show up rather than necessarily having to mark a ballot.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

That is what I meant, by the way. People have to turn up, and afterwards they can vote as they see fit. They can choose to return a blank ballot if they wish.

[Andy Blair]

Instead of mandatory voting, a better strategy would be to set up a system that incentivizes political participation on a voluntary basis, where they view politics better and view their vote as actually counting toward making a difference, etc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Pardy, if you can be brief, go ahead.

[Larry Pardy]

I don't really have much of a position on it anyway. I would just say that it seems to run counter to the notion of democracy and free choice of what you want to do and whether you want to vote or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Romanado.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank our three panellists for being here this evening and the members of the audience for coming out to listen. I know that I'm the person standing in the way of the public open-mike session, so I'll try to be brief.

On the question of sitting on our hands, I was the MP who was talking about our non-clapping initiative.

My question is for you, Mr. Coffin. You talked a little bit about women's representation. Right now, 26% of our members of Parliament are women. Often folks come here and explain to us, and I love having males explain to us, why women run for politics. That being said, there are two issues. The first is the decision to run for the nomination or for office, and the second is getting elected, and we have to separate the two.

Ms. May will tell you the same thing I will tell you, which is that it is incredibly difficult to convince women to run for office for many reasons, and I guarantee you that none of them have anything to do with the first-past-the-post electoral system. It has to do with the fact that if you decide to have children as a member of Parliament, you do not have paid maternity leave, so you're on an unpaid leave of absence. There is no day care for anyone under 18 months of age. If you happen to live in British Columbia, the fact that you have to travel a long distance to go to work is not really an incentive. You're spending a good 10 to 12 hours on a plane there and back. The fact that our Parliament sits more than any other Parliament in the Westminster system, except for the U.K., could also be a disincentive.

There are other reasons women decide not to pursue public office. A lot of it is the cynicism, the adversarial tone. It's not the electoral system per se. Once we decide to run, there might be a reason behind that, but I am living proof that you can run in a non-winnable riding. I'm the proof that we women can succeed, so when people tell me that proportional representation is the Noah's Ark, if you like, plumbing for all the ills of our electoral system, it is a fallacy in my view.

I'm not against proportional representation. I don't have an opinion right now. I'm listening to Canadians, but I think we need to put the good, the bad, and the ugly out on the table because there is no perfect system. It is an ecosystem, and as my colleague said, we actually have a lot of things we can be doing that can address some of the boo-boos we have, i.e., mandatory voting; i.e., quotas for increasing women on the ballot; i.e., zippered ballots. There are many things. It's not one thing that's going to fix the system.

I just had to get that off my chest.

Mr. Pardy, you talked a little bit about your non-preference for PR systems. In your opinion, what system, if not a PR system, do you think Canada should look at, whether it be first past the post, AV, or AV-plus? Could you give us your opinion?

[Larry Pardy]

I'm satisfied that first past the post gives us effective governance in this country, based on the outcomes that have been achieved for Canada and where we rank in world rankings on just about every measure. First past the post is fine.

Some people seem to prefer that MPs should get at least 50% of their riding behind them and want alternative voting, a ranked ballot, or whatever. That is fine too, if they want to go that way, but then you get into the question of whether it's a more complex system.

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

To address the issue of distortion in electoral results, would you think it would be an idea to perhaps add a small amount of proportional? We could keep ridings perhaps the way they are right now but add some proportional regional seats to fix the distortion we currently have. What are your thoughts on that?

Right now, Canadians are asking us to make it a little more reflective of what the actual intent is at the polls. Keeping it as is obviously wouldn't address that issue. One of the guiding principles is to make sure that it is reflective of what Canadians are expecting at the polls.

Could you give me your opinion on that?

[Larry Pardy]

I think that's more a misconception than anything. If you expect proportional outcomes when you have a riding-based system with more than one party, it's just not going to happen. If there's an education requirement, so be it. I think the system works as intended, and I think it's a fair system.

I point, too, to a case taken to court in Quebec on the whole system. I think it was the Daoust case. It was found that the system respected both democracy and equality rights, so there isn't a problem that way. The court's view was that this system adequately reflects our democratic rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. That was a very interesting panel. You gave us some fresh angles on the issue.

Mr. Coffin, when you said you were a marine biologist, I thought immediately back to a gentleman I used to deal with about 20 years ago when I was working in an MP's office in Ottawa. If my memory serves, he was very keen on making sure that the wreck of the Titanic was protected from treasure hunters. I see his name here on the speakers list: Dr. Alan Ruffman.

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's not the same one. Okay. There's an Alan Ruffman who was a marine biologist here in Halifax, and you look like Dr. Alan Ruffman on top of it.

We'll have two people at the microphones, please, for two minutes.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming. We really appreciate it.

[Aubrey Fricker, As an Individual]

I must begin by sincerely thanking you for holding these public consultations. I think what you're doing is wonderful, but I must immediately follow that with an apology. I'm afraid my hearing is now so shot that I can't really make out what's being said over the amplification system.

What I've prepared takes just under four minutes to deliver. Shall we leave it at that? I left four copies with the registration desk, and they can duplicate it for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Here's what I would suggest. Is it under 3,000 words, do you think?

[Aubrey Fricker]

Oh yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That then qualifies as a brief to the committee, and if you give it to us—I think you may have already—we can have a look at it, have it translated perhaps, and put on the website.

If you could, just take two minutes to give us the main points.

[Aubrey Fricker]

Two minutes, just for the meat of it...?