Evidence of meeting #37 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 seats.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
When they go to the national region I'm presuming that is another group of members of Parliament who serve at the national region more or less at large as opposed to representing a riding.
As an Individual
Yes, by name they'd be representing the nation at large, but they would be coming from the single-member riding. Each person elected would run in the single-member riding, and each riding would have two members at the end of the day. One of the members might be considered a national member.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Do you have any idea off the top of your head how many MPs you would have in this category of national region?
As an Individual
Based on this simulation there would have been two from Atlantic Canada, and coming from the other regions it could be in the six to 12 range.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Professor Dunn, I'm trying to squeeze in a chance for you to expand on your point, which I found very powerful, that power shared is power diminished. Professor Peter Russell testified to us that one of the reasons he felt proportional representation was so important was that the Westminster system as applied to Canada has an extraordinary amount of power in our executive. If there's time with the chair's indulgence can you expand on that?
As an Individual
The point about power being diminished if it is shared is the mindset of the leadership of the national systems. It is a fact of life in the decision-making system with regard to external affairs, the decision to enter wars, the nature of trade agreements. The list goes on and on, and they all demonstrate this one orientation and that is that power shared is power diminished. I haven't seen this point I'm making about the nature of electoral reform and external affairs in any of the literature. I'm wondering why it's not there and why some discussion doesn't take place, because the nature of many forms of electoral reform, namely PR and mixed systems, is toward diminishing the concentration of power in national systems.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, I just want to correct the record, and of course it would explain why Mr. Ring wasn't ringing the bell on this one, but it's the Sean Graham not the Sean Fraser system. I apologize.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you for clearing that up.
Mr. Aldag, you have five minutes, please.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thank you.
I'd like to thank all three of our panellists today. There is a great diversity of opinion. It's a great way to start our day here in St. John's.
Professor Bittner, I'm going to start with you. I really liked how you laid out the dilemma that we're facing, the million-dollar question: what is the problem that we're trying to fix? With my colleague Mr. Cullen, you talked about some of it, and with Ms. Sahota, you talked about some. What we're trying to get at is that there's a range of issues out there. It's not just one clear problem but the lack of representativeness, the lack of diversity. There are a number of issues.
One that I heard when I was out knocking on doors during the campaign period was that people had just simply checked out. We've heard about declining participation rates in western democracies. I know that when I was knocking on doors, there were a number of people who felt, as we've heard on this tour, that they have never elected a winner, that their vote has never counted. A woman who came to one of my town hall meetings was in her 80s and had started voting as soon as she could, but had never elected a winner. She was still going strong and she still believed in democracy, but she felt that she wanted to have her vote really count once before her time was up.
What I'm looking at and what I'd like your thoughts on is that we've heard of a number of strengths of proportional representation, and I think there is something there to deal with many of the issues we're facing. However, I have constituents who feel that the current system is working fine.
My colleague Ms. Romanado was telling us that on the way from downtown Halifax to the airport today, they got talking with the cab driver about what we're doing. His question or comment was, “Well, there's nothing wrong with the system; why are you messing with it?”
So there's this broad range of perspectives. We could jump in with a wholesale change and go to a proportional system such as Mr. Ring has given us, or any number of other ones that are out there. We could also step back and say, “You know what? We'll tinker around the edges with first past the post.” Things such as the quotas, the incentives, and mandatory voting could help with participation rates. There are a whole bunch of things.
Do you have any thoughts you can offer us on the best bang for the buck in starting to deal with some of these issues? Do we go with a full-on change of systems to PR to deal with the suite of problems we're trying to face, or should we keep the existing system and do a whole bunch of stuff around the edges that will deal with some of these issues?
Do you have any thoughts or the million-dollar answer?
Associate Professor, Memorial University, As an Individual
You mean the magic bullet.
Liberal
Associate Professor, Memorial University, As an Individual
I would say a few things.
First of all, I think you're right that voter engagement is a major problem. It's especially a problem among youth. If we look at the voter turnout rates there, we see it's a huge problem. It went up a little bit in the last election, and that's a good sign.
There are lots of things that we could tinker with that would make the system work better without making major changes. I would say quotas are one, and campaign finance reform is probably also good. I think—and this speaks to Mr. Cullen's observation—the most important characteristic of a parliament is the opposition; it's not so much who's in government. This speaks to the issue of power-sharing to a certain extent, the idea that if we have a strong opposition, we have better policies. You don't actually want to have concentrated power, which speaks to Professor Russell's observation, and we could make lots of analogies to our households. I am happier if my partner and I share power, as opposed to him dominating the household and imposing policies on me. That's not obviously what's happening in my household, but I'm just saying....
If I didn't have any knowledge or ideas or things like that, then I'd be doing a bad job in running my own household, because I wouldn't be participating fully, so having people engaged and having a strong opposition are the most important things. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that the turnout goes up when voters think their voice matters, whether or not it's rational from a economic voter perspective. We know it's not rational; one vote doesn't make a very big difference most of the time, or almost never.
Those are two things I would suggest, as well as more committees that have power. There are a lot of things that you could do with Parliament itself to restructure its operation to make it work better. A committee such as this one, with all parties sitting on it, is a great thing, because it means you're getting all the voices all the time.
Giving you guys power is probably also good. You don't want to be told by the Prime Minister what you have to do once you've done all this work, right? You want to actually think your work is worth something. Empowering legislators such as yourselves, and in particular opposition members, to say what they want to say, to have the resources they need to do their job, to hold government to account effectively is going to make voters think that what they're doing makes a difference. That's because even if you don't elect the winner, you're electing somebody who has a lot of power, because you're electing the opposition, and that's actually more important in some ways than electing the winner.
It's not a magic bullet, but....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Do you want to make a very brief statement, like 10 or 15 seconds?
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
It appears we would have more than one tier of MPs in your system. I'm wondering if that's actually the case and if there is any benefit or drawback to it.
As an Individual
That's a question that comes up in any mixed system. People can say there might be an issue with having tiers of members of Parliament. It isn't an issue in Germany. It would be something to which the political culture would have to adapt. The idea of a mixed system is used in a lot of other countries. At the end of the day, I don't see having different types of members of Parliament as being a big issue.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank our witnesses today.
My first question is for you, Mr. Ring.
I'm trying to understand this. Under the system you're proposing, each riding would have two members, and to achieve that, ridings would be combined into two's. Theoretically, then, the member elected in the riding would have twice as big of an area to cover.
As an Individual
With a few exceptions, the ridings would essentially be twice as big as the current ridings, and then there would be two members elected per riding, one as the riding representative and the other to represent a larger overlapping region.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I'm interested in other details.
Yesterday, I had a little fun. I posted a survey on Facebook to find out where people in my riding stood. I have to tell you it had a bit of a spillover effect all over Quebec. What is emerging quite clearly is that people are extremely attached to their local MP. That confirms what I, myself, and many others think.
I often use my riding as an example. It has 40 municipalities. It would be nearly impossible to double the size of my riding. We spend eight months of the year in Ottawa and the other four months in our ridings. I have trouble seeing how that attachment to the constituents could be maintained under your system.
From people's comments, it's clear that they want their member to represent them. They aren't even mentioning political parties. Once the member is elected, he or she represents everyone in the riding. Whether the constituent coming to see me voted for the Green, NDP, or Liberal candidate, I treat them the same way I would the constituent who voted Conservative.
Under your two-member system, let's say I finish second. Someone outside the riding who came in second could come into my riding as a top-up member based on your proportional formula. Did I understand that correctly?