Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 5th, 2016

[Robert Ring]

One point there that you addressed is about the riding being twice as large.

Yes, the riding would be twice as large, but there would be two members in that riding. In terms of having representatives, I think it would be better for voters because they would have at least two members to choose from, and they could even choose a member in one of the overlapping regions who wasn't elected in their riding. They could go to any of those members with issues they have. In terms of having an diversity of members to go through, I think it would be more beneficial, because if citizens have an issue that concerns them and they approach their member and that member is part of a party that opposes that position, it might be better if those voters went to a different member—maybe the second member in the riding, or the member in the overlapping region.

I believe there was another question you asked as well.

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

Let's continue with your analysis.

The person who finished second in my riding wouldn't necessarily be the second member elected. It could be the member from the riding next door who received a higher percentage but wasn't the first choice. That person could become the member for the riding. So the people in my riding could get a new member representing them, one they did not vote for, under the proportional formula. Is that correct?

[Robert Ring]

You're saying that the person who finished second in your riding isn't necessarily the second person elected, but it will be one person from that riding, because once the ridings are twice as big, it's one riding. The person who places second in that riding isn't necessarily going to be the second person elected from that riding. It could be one of the other members, and it would still likely be one of the ones who finished high, but it would depend on the points pooled in the region.

In Quebec, for example, it wouldn't be all of Quebec. The first region could be regions of four to six ridings, and then the points would be pooled in that region, but once the number of members who will be elected from that region is determined—say, the top-up members—then it's determined which members they will be and which ridings they are coming from. Again, it's a maximum of two members per riding.

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

I'm very clear on what you're proposing, but there's something I still find very troubling. Given all the people who have written to us and the comments we've heard on the ground, I have trouble with the idea that people would accept having someone from a neighbouring riding who they did not vote for become their representative.

I agree with what Ms. Romanado said about the taxi driver. Yesterday, after posting my survey, I received six private messages from constituents essentially asking me why we wanted to change the voting system. They also wanted to know what the other systems being proposed were, as well as what proportional and mixed systems were all about.

Now I'm coming to you, Ms. Bittner. No matter what, I'm going to be short on time.

The Prime Minister is looking for consultants to help him follow through on his election promises. I think you hit the nail on the head: we're trying to change the voting system because it's an issue that received attention in the public space. We are discussing it without knowing what the real problems are; we are trying to find a magic bullet that unfortunately doesn't exist.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Romanado, you may go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our three witnesses for being here today.

Thank you to the members of the audience for coming out. It's my first time here in St. John's, and what a beautiful city. I wish we could stay a little longer to enjoy it a little more.

First off, Professor Bittner, I am a happy puppy today. That's all I'm going to say, because if you've been following any of my testimony, I've been looking for somebody to explain that the electoral system that we use is not necessarily the reason that women don't run for politics. I think your testimony today nailed it on the head. It's exactly what I've been trying to get out. There are many reasons that women don't get elected, and let's start with recruitment.

You mentioned what kinds of people are getting elected. I think that's a perfect example. It starts with the parties. Who are they recruiting as candidates? Once they've recruited a candidate under the current system, they have one candidate they're putting forward. If they're putting forward as candidates what we heard described in previous testimony as pale, stale males, which I found quite funny, well, guess what? That's what's going to be reflected.

You said that average Canadians looking at Parliament say, “I couldn't do that. Look, it's a whole bunch of older white lawyers who are all in Parliament.” But when they see school teachers and farmers and women and younger men and aboriginals, they say, “You know what? I could do that too.”

That goes to my point of engagement. On engagement, we're not just looking to increase voter turnout: we're looking to increase people's interest in possibly running for office. Can you elaborate a little more? I know my colleague John talked about the fact that it's not necessarily one change in an electoral system that's going to fix our problem. We have a lot of little things that we can be doing. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit, because it seems as though you're going in the right direction.

[Amanda Bittner]

I guess I like happy puppies. That's a good start.

There's no magic bullet, and that's kind of the thing. All of these factors are factors, and yes, it is the case that often in a proportional system we tend to see more women, we tend to see more minority groups, we tend to see a greater dispersion of parties, lots of variety, and we tend to see more collaboration, more co-operation, more coalition governments. A lot of folks think those are good things, and a lot of folks then do see their voices being heard in the governing party as parties share power, in that kind of sense. However, that's not a guarantee, because at the end of the day it's still the parties that are putting forward their lists of candidates, and if the lists of candidates are traditional, then you're not going to fix that problem.

Again, I keep saying that the rules matter and the rules have to be clear. We talk about constitutional reform. We talk about the need for a referendum in the context of electoral reform, for example, and the rules aren't that clear. We have an opportunity to make some rules pretty clear and to tie the hands of parties to force them to make certain kinds of choices because at the end of the day.... I haven't heard the “pale, stale, male” description. I think that's funny, but not all candidates who are white men are pale, stale and.... Well, they are males, but that doesn't mean they are bad. It just means that this is what we've been doing for a long time and we know about the power of incumbency and therefore we know that once you've been there for a while, on continue avec ça. There's a pattern that goes on that prevents certain groups from participating and diminishes engagement, participation, interest, and so on, because we just think it doesn't really matter.

I love politics and I love politicians, but the voters tend to equate them—I say “them”, not “you”—with used car salesmen. There's a lack of trust that goes on. Has that changed?

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

I'm going to stop you because you just said something that just went ding, ding. It's the incumbency issue. Sometimes we have ridings that have had the same person in there for years, and they're not going anywhere, so people are disengaged because they think whether they vote or not, that person is going to get in.

If we're going to do reform, what are your thoughts on having a maximum term? We haven't heard this. I'm just throwing it out there.

[Amanda Bittner]

I'm not against the idea of a maximum term. I do think that having a maximum term would prevent certain individuals who are doing a good job from continuing, though. There are a lot of folks who wish Obama could continue right now, for example.

Whether you set those kinds of strict rules—term limits, fixed election dates—those are reforms we can make that may or may not make huge changes. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you have incumbency. You don't need a term limit to have a different nomination process at the riding level.

The way that our parties work right now—I'm telling you about yourselves—is that it's a very decentralized process. There are riding presidents who have a lot of control over things, and part of the problem is that riding presidents often believe that the white men are the successful ones. We often talk about diversity in terms of trying to appeal to “diversity voters”, but there are a lot of voters who are white like me who would prefer to have diversity in candidates as well. This is a misperception among party elites.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Richards is next, please.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you, and I appreciate all of you being here today.

I'm doing to start with Professor Dunn and Professor Bittner.

You were both signatories to a letter in January of last year with regard to the boundary redistribution process here. It stated your disappointment with the House of Assembly in that regard. I'll quote: “It is a long-standing Canadian principle that effort must be made to ensure that redistribution be a fair and non-partisan process....”

Obviously we are not talking necessarily about redistribution in this case, but we certainly are talking about a process that relates to our election system, and I would argue that as it exists currently, this process might not be able to be seen as non-partisan. It is certainly an agenda being driven by politicians, many of whom have come into it with a stated position, a pre-position, on what they want to see come out of it.

I would say we really haven't engaged the public to any large degree at this point. If you look behind you, there are maybe 15 people, and this is the one meeting for all of Newfoundland. Wherever I've been in the country, whether in my riding or elsewhere, this is obviously something that's on my mind, because I'm participating in it as a member of the committee and so I talk to people about it. Many are surprised to hear it is happening. Many say, as we've heard from the other side already a couple of times today, “What's the problem, exactly? Why are you trying to change the system?” It seems to be a process that's being driven by politicians and political parties.

I wonder if you could give us some sense as to how you think this process might be enhanced to ensure there is legitimacy if any changes are made and to make it as free as possible from being politically driven.

I'd love to hear thoughts from both of you on that. Whoever wants to can go first.

[Christopher Dunn]

Are you asking about the process of redistribution?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I'm asking about the process we're undertaking now with electoral reform. That may have to involve redistribution at some point, depending on what system is chosen. Yes, I'm referring to this process of considering and potentially changing our electoral system.

[Christopher Dunn]

The first thing to note is that in order to ensure the legitimacy of the process, there has to be a referendum or a plebiscite on this subject. We have established by our past ventures in electoral reform in this country that not having a referendum or a plebiscite is contrary to the way the Canadians operate. I think to do anything else would be to court illegitimacy or lack of acceptance by citizens. That's my primary observation with regard to that point.

The second thing is a tangential matter, but it brings up a previous question with regard to term limits. Term limits would be unconstitutional. The way our constitution operates it would be contrary to section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Are there any other questions besides...?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I may have some, but I wanted to give Professor Bittner a chance as well to answer on this point about what we might want to do to improve this process to ensure legitimacy and to ensure the proper engagement of citizens.

[Amanda Bittner]

My main area of expertise is voters and voting behaviour. Part of the problem for voters is that they often don't have information. Voters need parties as a shortcut. We need you to tell us what you think, because that helps us figure out what we think.

It's perfectly okay to take a partisan stance or even take a stance within the party that conflicts with the party, because then as voters we're getting information that we need to make decisions. I think that having a multi-partisan committee is important, and voters need to know what each of you thinks about things, and especially what your party leaders think about things, in order to make choices.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Can I just finish it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're out of time. Go ahead, very briefly.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I don't disagree with you. This is a good process that we're undertaking now, but I'm asking if there is a way we can improve it so that we're better engaging the public. I don't disagree. As politicians, we should be pronouncing our thoughts on it, and that helps voters to be able to determine. How do we better engage the public and ensure they see it as legitimate in the end?

[Amanda Bittner]

I feel that every answer I give begins with “It's tricky“.

Voters don't know that much about what's happening, they don't know much about electoral reform, and they don't know about systems. When I ask my first-year students what we use, they think we have PR. They have no idea what's going on.

In order to engage voters, we have to demonstrate to them the problems as they have existed so far and what we think the solutions are and then ask them what they think. At that point, they can participate meaningfully. I think that until we tell them what we think, they can't develop their own thoughts.

There are some keen people, as evidenced in this room, who are going to have thoughts no matter what. They are few and far between, and they're unusually fantastic for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We've got to move on. Sorry.

Mr. MacGregor is next, please.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Professor Bittner, I've really appreciated your testimony today. I appreciate the fact that you've come today to talk to us, especially on your work regarding women in politics. I'm a father of young daughters and I would love nothing more than to see them grow up and consider a life in politics, although having seen my experiences, they may be dissuaded from considering that.

When we were in Halifax yesterday, one of the first people who came to us was Professor James Bickerton, and he uttered a phrase that really stuck with me. It was the phrase “institutional changes to behaviour”, and I'm really glad you mentioned my colleague Kennedy Stewart's Bill C-237. I'm glad that it's actually making the news, because often private members' bills get lost in the mix. I appreciate that the bill would do some great things if passed, but the fact remains that under our current system, we are still depending on the good will of the Liberal government to get that bill passed, and that's a majority government based on 39% of the Canadian vote.

I was wondering if you could give me some of your thoughts on that phrase “institutional changes to behaviour”, in the context of our requiring the support of the Liberals' goodwill to get that kind of bill passed, because if we are going to make these changes, we hope they will agree with that bill, but at the same time, it's kind of like the chicken and the egg problem. Do we change the system that elected this government, or do we ask it for permission to get this change put forward?

[Amanda Bittner]

It could also be two tandem pathways.

I didn't hear Jim's testimony, so I can't speak to that specifically. I think it's certainly the case that the rules of the game affect how we play, and I suspect that there are probably some governing caucus members who would support having more diverse members elected, including women. I mean, there are some women across the table from you right now who probably would support that.

Perhaps convincing them that it should not be a whipped vote is a possibility, but you're talking about a basic parliamentary structure, and there are other parliaments around the world that operate in a more collaborative way and don't have a majority government usually, right? We're talking about coalition governments, which will then allow parties to negotiate. At the end of the day, it leaves you guys with power to negotiate across bills, discuss, deliberate, and decide what the best policy is and really horse-trade on a lot of things—let's face it.

I think in some ways that leads to better policy, while others might say that they love the Liberal policy. Then actually this is great. We have a government; they do their thing and they get their laws passed, and then it's our turn later on, maybe, if the voters choose us. There's something to that as well, and again, this is that issue of trade-off. Do you want to negotiate every single piece of legislation, whether it comes from a private member's bill or it comes from a governing caucus, or do you want to take turns, if taking turns is what actually happens?

This is the basic question, I think.