Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[Larry Pardy]

I was anticipating that question. I hadn't really come up with a good answer yet. At some point, whatever the committee comes up with, it will require some legitimization for Canadians. I haven't seen anything better at this point than a referendum, while recognizing all the challenges of conducting a referendum and getting a meaningful result and so on. I don't think it's enough, particularly where there are probably going to be differences between the political parties in the House or even on this committee. There's probably not going to be absolute consensus. How do you get to that next step of ensuring that such a fundamental change to our democratic system adequately represents the views of Canadians? A referendum might be the only way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. MacGregor. Go ahead, sir.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thanks.

Mr. Coffin, I'll start with you.

I'm really glad to hear that you have a background as a scientist. My brother is one too, and I understand the close scrutiny part of it. In mixed-member proportional systems that are established in other countries, what have you found the relationship to be like between members of Parliament who are elected from a geographic area versus those from the lists? What are people's perceptions of that relationship? Can you elaborate a bit on that?

[Mark Coffin]

I can't say I've done a tonne of research on this. In particular, one of the people I work closely with is Mr. Risser, who is speaking with you this afternoon. On that question I would usually defer to him.

My sense is that it doesn't necessarily create as much inner-party tension as is often theorized. An assessment of what it does for the politics is that it gives relief to some members of Parliament, or of whatever house of assembly it is, because it relieves them of the local constituency duties, which are important but I would say are overrepresented in our current system.

The only people with a responsibility to look out for national or provincial issues are often cabinet ministers, and they don't necessarily get rewarded for that at the polls. If you look at the electoral success of people who have been ministers in subsequent elections, they're often punished for it by voters because they haven't been in the constituency, so I think having some mechanism by which to reward those who focus on more broad policy issues is probably a positive thing. You can get that with the list representatives in an MMP system.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'll open it up to Mr. Blair, also. Do you have opinions on multi-member ridings that are proportional, in which constituents can shop around for the MP who does the best job. For example, I could try going to the Liberal MP, and then I could try going to the Conservative MP, and I could balance both of their work for me because my riding would have five MPs.

Do you have any feedback on that kind of a system?

[Andy Blair]

I think that certainly sets up a different dynamic for electors in which they can compare different MPs and the work of those within their own particular riding for multi-member ridings. It also sets up a slightly better system for some people who feel that their MP doesn't really speak for them. I know that every MP tries to represent all constituents in their riding, but if you have a particular viewpoint on health care, the long gun registry, or whatnot, you may have an MP who you feel is basically shutting the door to you. Under a multi-member riding, you could sort of shop around for an MP who is maybe more responsive to what your needs and your concerns are, and would be better able to represent your views in Parliament.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Because I'm cognizant of five minutes—and it does run out—I just wanted to address my next question to all three of you. Maybe I'll start with you, Mr. Pardy.

There has been a lot of talk about a referendum in the course of this committee's deliberations, and I think one of the compromises that has been offered is that we write in a sunset clause for the new electoral system that states that a new government must have a referendum after voters have had a chance to try it out. I think that would allow them an informed choice.

I would just like to hear feedback from all three of you on that proposal. It may be a way to bridge the gap between two very polarized positions.

[Larry Pardy]

It's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how effective it is given the timing between elections. Perhaps it would be useful, but I don't know if you're going to see the tangible effects of any system until several election cycles anyway. If proportional representation does lead to more parties being represented in the House, and more minorities, that may take a period of time. If the current parties remain fairly strong in the current areas where they're strong right now, it may take a few election cycles before you see the true effect of proportional representation with all the parties that might be represented in the House at some point. At what point do you know that you're getting a true reflection of that system?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. May now, please.

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

Thank you.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here tonight.

To start with, Mr. Pardy, it's very easy to categorize proportional representation as if it's one thing, but the more we dig into it here, for instance.... I'm not quibbling with you, although I have one tiny little quibble. You said you live in Cumberland—Colchester. I hate to correct you, but you live in the riding of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. Talk about a large riding, it extends from the boundaries of Halifax all the way to the New Brunswick border.

There are also PR systems that would work just with the boundaries of the one riding you're in now. There is another version that.... We've been pitched a whole bunch of different ideas, and one of them would be to have riding twins. You would have two ridings together, but you'd have two MPs for that riding.

There are an almost infinite number of variables to make sure that we have a system that works for Canada. Do you think you are open to persuasion? For instance, if this committee came to a consensus agreement that gave us a made-in-Canada solution that addressed the concerns you have, do you think that's something that would be of interest to people like you who are quite skeptical about the PR systems they've heard about that have party lists, expand the power of parties, or create lots of additional parties? We have lots of evidence that those things are not embedded in moving to proportional representation, depending on the system we choose.

[Larry Pardy]

Just like the difference between proportional representation, and the variations of it, and first past the post, it involves trade-offs. Within all of those options you talk about that are available, there are trade-offs as well.

I guess I direct my concerns at proportional representation in a very general way, based on most of the suggestions that have been made. Of course, I would be open to a system that addressed those concerns, but I haven't seen it yet, because the more proportionality you want, the larger the ridings are probably going to have to get.

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

That's the interesting thing. That's true sometimes, but not always. We've had presentations on truly proportional, completely proportional systems where riding boundaries don't change at all. The weighting of the votes changes, in terms of how the MPs vote in the House. That's an example I don't think we'll end up recommending, but there is a range here that is almost infinite. Every time we go to a new city and think we've heard of every possible proportional representation system you could possibly imagine, there is a new one.

There are a lot of different variables in play, and we want to make sure—at least I do—that there is a local representative, so people know who their local MP is, and that we have proportionality. With those two principles in my mind, I can see, at this point, at least four workable options for Canada, and none of them involve more party power. They involve more citizen power.

I will turn to Andy Blair, because he says that Fair Vote Nova Scotia doesn't have a position on a proportional representation system. Can I ask you personally? Do you have a personal favourite that you are hoping we'll look at?

[Andy Blair]

No, I'm actually pretty agnostic. Whether it's the STV system that was voted upon in the B.C. referendum or MMP, as recommended in the 2004 Law Commission report, those would work, and others. I'm sure you could pick and choose the mechanisms and the values that you want and construct a system that actually works, out of those from Canada. You've heard of many systems here, and I know that you'll be hearing from the executive director of Fair Vote Canada later in the month. They will present yet another system. There are quite a few different ways to do it. There are lots of options to pick and choose the principles and values that you want to promote.

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

One of the things we have found from academics, which is obvious when you think about it but I hadn't turned my mind to it, is that Canada is something of an anomaly among the first-past-the-post countries, in that, since 1921, we've had multiple parties in our Parliament. We've had four to five through history. The four or five parties that come up will change. We've had farmer parties, progressive parties, and all kinds of regional split parties. Over the last almost 100 years, we have not been a two-party system, but we've had a two-party voting system.

Mark, your comment was that saying that proportional representation will favour party power is like “saying that wet streets cause rain”. I think that was it. Do you have anything else to add on this question, before my time runs out? Does the proportional representation system promote party power? You've obviously said it doesn't. Do you want to expand on why that is?

[Mark Coffin]

Again, you said there are an infinite number of proportional systems that we could have. There are two winner-take-all systems that I think are being seriously considered: alternative vote and first past the post. There's not much that you can do other than change the borders.

One point I will make on party power is that we often talk about it as if it is a horrible thing. When I think of party power, in the best-case scenario, it is members getting together and making decisions. That's something that you try to control in any system, and if we adopt an open-list PR system and focus on democratizing political parties, I don't think that would be a bad thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Pardy, I'd like to ask you questions surrounding stability. We've heard on both sides of the picture that some people are saying PR systems create more stability, because you have coalition governments and you don't have this back and forth of undoing things that the previous government has done. Then there has been criticism that PR systems are unstable because you would have minority governments, and those kinds of comments.

I have read some comments you've made in the past that in order to have stability, if you were under a PR system, there are other changes we'd have to make so that we wouldn't have Parliament dissolving and we wouldn't have constant elections.

What are some of those changes we would have to adopt in our Canadian parliamentary system?

[Larry Pardy]

Well, as I indicated earlier, things like a chancellor's majority in Germany would clearly achieve greater stability or constructive...as opposed to no confidence.

First of all, coalitions themselves are a key part of providing stability, and we don't have that right now. I think it's one of the misconceptions that if you adopt PR you're going to end up with coalitions. I suggest that coalitions arise when parties have to obtain the confidence of the House before they're sworn into government. We have the opposite here. In Canada, we choose either that the prime minister continues on as the government and swears in his new cabinet, or he resigns following the election and the second-most popular party takes power and is sworn in. It's only after that that we have a Speech from the Throne and the prime minister is in power for a period of time. Then finally, several months later, we test the confidence of the House.

By doing it in that fashion, you don't get coalition governments, and that's why we haven't had any. We're not going to naturally evolve into having coalition governments just because we adopt a system that creates more minority parliaments.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

What are some places in the world that you think have that balance right and have made the proper adjustments?

[Larry Pardy]

I think there are a lot of PR countries that probably do have it right. I know one that's cited quite a bit is New Zealand. It's compared a lot to Canada, because we're both Westminster systems and stuff like that. At the same time, they have a couple of mechanisms that we don't have.

There, it was really ironic. The governor general of the day, recognizing that they were changing to a PR system and that they were going to have minority parliaments, did some research and then came to the conclusion that he would assess whether or not the parties had sufficient members, or a coalition, to control Parliament. Rather than following the system that we do now, that they did in the past, all of a sudden he took it upon himself...which is really bizarre. I can't imagine we would ever allow our Governor General to take on such a political action.

Since they have adopted PR, from that point forward, their governor general receives proposals from the parties as to which one can control the parliament, and they proceed on from there. As well, they do allow the parliament to continue even when there is the loss of a confidence vote, which we don't have. Our prime ministers get to dissolve Parliament at that point. Also, the New Zealanders have a three-year life cycle for their parliament. That sort of negates the need for voting down a government, except in the most dire circumstance. It also means that the party in power somewhat restricts themselves in the measures they take, because they know they're facing the electorate fairly soon afterwards.

There are quite a few differences between their system and ours as to how it has evolved since they adopted proportional representation.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Interesting.

You work in Aboriginal Affairs. We've been talking a lot about representation, and that they're not well represented in Parliament. We've been making inroads, but we aren't there. Do you have any opinions on that?

[Larry Pardy]

I don't think I'm in a position to speak to that. I'm here just as an individual and I believe my work is totally separate.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Fair enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm a bit confused with that.

On that last interaction about the Governor General, I'm reminded of the letter that Stephen Harper signed with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe to the Governor General suggesting that, if Paul Martin wasn't able to maintain confidence, there were other options on the table. I can also recall when there was a different formulation when Prime Minister Harper was in, and Jack and Stéphane Dion, with the backing of Gilles Duceppe, said they were prepared to form government.

Our system, I think, responded poorly in a sense, because the Prime Minister was able to pull the fire alarm. There was an imminent confidence vote, and the will of the people in the previous election was about to be expressed, yet it was simply going to the GG and proroguing Parliament, which is quite a bit of power. I find it hard to say that is a good, functioning, democratic system when, as you say, the system is built such as it is to test the House. The House was about to be tested, but the Prime Minister was able to delay that test for months until a campaign was run.

Even the idea of a coalition government was then vilified, even though smart people like you and others would say, “There's nothing unconstitutional about it. It's perfectly legitimate”. Is that right? I would assume smart people like you would say things like that.