Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

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

I guess if you presume that this is what happened.... I think in this case a number of potential options were laid out. There would be discussion on them, but without, as you said, a final solution in mind, although some people have alluded that they think there was a solution the Liberals had in mind. Having the committee come forward with a consensus, as you've suggested should be done, would be important, but if that's not able to be arrived at here, then obviously going to the people would be the option.

I don't think it was clear to anyone what exactly the outcome would be. It was saying that 2015 would be the last election under a certain system but giving no indication as to what the system would be. That's obviously something that would be important to voters as well.

I want to turn the floor over to my colleague Mr. Reid. He has a couple of questions that he has a burning desire to ask. I'm in a generous mood, so I'll let him have that opportunity.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you, Blake. Your cheque's in the mail.

I just want to say that Mr. Brown very thoughtfully sent a note over indicating that page 18 of the April 2016 report deals with the issue of voter participation levels. Rather than read it into the record, could I just ask members if we can accept what they said as testimony that's being submitted to us? Would that be okay?

Okay, all right.

I want to ask about something else, Mr. Brown. You dealt in the same report on pages 11 and 12 with the question of how to structure the questions in the referendum. You give a very thoughtful analysis of the five different ways you could have asked the question. Then you explain, having made the decision of a multi-option, referendum how to structure it.

Why did you choose a multiple option referendum as opposed to a single versus the status quo referendum from 2005? I keep saying referendum. I know plebiscite is the term you're using, I apologize.

Also, the way that you've structured it, it's a simple preferential ballot as opposed to a two question ballot, as has been done, for example, in New Zealand. What is the rationale for those two decisions?

[Jordan Brown]

I'll start by saying that I'd need a lot more than five minutes to explain the rationale behind that. It took us three or four meetings, times about three hours each, to get to that conclusion.

However, the rationale behind the structure that we ended up with was that we thought that would be the most engaging ballot structure that we could arrive at. If you look back to our mandate, it was to engage discussion out of the white paper, so that's the primary.... It pits our current option on equal footing against four different options. The four different options were related to principles that we had heard about. You start out with a handful of principles that would hopefully represent the different optimal desires that we had heard from the public throughout the course of the fall and then refined it over the winter, and they're each given equal opportunity. Regarding the ranking part of it, if your first is not number one, then you get to have a say in the second, third, fourth, and so on.

That was thought to be better, but I will say that there's no perfect answer to this. You could have a two-part ballot, which might ask: Do you want change, yes or no? Then you would rank your possible favourites for change. The problem with that kind of a ballot structure is that if you don't want change or if you're okay with the system, it's way easier to just say that you don't want change or to not vote at all and never have to consider the other four options. Then in a ballot where all five of them are there on equal footing and you know that one is only a little different from the next one.... The systems that are there are on a spectrum and that's on purpose. If you want a little bit of change, well there are options for a little bit of change. If you want quite a bit more change, there are options for quite a bit more change and you have the opportunity to rank on your order of preference one to the next.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

It sounds like you're trying to eliminate the phenomenon in which someone walks in, simply votes no to any change in the first part of the ballot and then doesn't bother filling out the second one at all. Is that what you're saying?

[Jordan Brown]

That's basically correct, yes. The other thing that is coming out of the 2005 plebiscite, is there's basically an information vacuum resulting from that. We knew that people didn't want that kind of change, but we didn't know whether they didn't want any change or what the real results of that plebiscite were because there were only two options.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, thank you.

We'll go to Mr. DeCourcey, please.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I can see the rationale in allowing someone who doesn't want change to then at least have a choice, if the public is voting for change, to have a say in what form of change is most palatable for them.

Let me say it's great to be back in P.E.I., not golfing, horse racing, or playing soccer, but doing something much more interesting and meaningful. Jordan and Leonard, thanks so much for being here today and for everyone else who is joining us as well.

Jordan, when I was listening to you, you talked about the difference between the process of putting forth a particular option detail versus the status quo and the second option being to provide some high-level, value-laden options for people to choose from. Put the whole question of referendum aside for us, and I'm still seeing the parallels between those two options and the options that we have in delivering a report. The report is a specific recommendation to government versus some areas of common values that we can deliver to government, where there might be an opportunity to find some consensus.

What sort of advice would you have for us, if that's the process we have to undertake? Yes, a referendum will be part of the equation or part of the question, but even then are we providing high-level, value-laden recommendations to government or do you think we need to find a specific system and deliver that in a recommendation?

[Jordan Brown]

The reality is that—in my understanding, anyway; I don't presume to know too much—at the end of the day, people have entrusted you to come back to them with their presentations consolidated into something concrete that they can make a decision on. We heard this in presentations to us throughout. I guess the answer to the question is that you have to look at your mandate. I don't presume to know what your mandate is. If it is to come back and give advice in terms of principles, then that's probably what you ought to do, but if it is to come back with a system for consideration, then that's what you ought to do.

What is important, based on what we heard, is that whatever systems you have or have developed, or have been presented to you that you've managed to ball up into a neat package, be related back, at least the general principles that you heard or something that people can effectively get behind. We heard a number of different times that it can't be just something you made up: “Here, this is great. This ought to work.”

In a roundabout way, that's all to say if it is logical and generally something that people have presented as being workable, I think people will respect that, and that's what they would expect as well. Basically, it has to be transparent, and it has to something that people can get behind. If you have accomplished that, and you feel that you have a consensus or a mandate, that's what you need to be looking for.

I don't think it would really be appropriate for me to dictate to you that it should be principles or that it should be a particular system. You really need to hear that from the people themselves. I could give you my own personal views, but that's all they would be.

That's the best I can offer you on that one.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Our mandate is to deliver a report to Parliament at the beginning of December. To my understanding, the government cabinet will deliver its proposed legislation in the spring.

Given that, Mr. Russell, and the fact that we've gone across the country and have heard diverse views from Canadians, still the challenge is, how do we reach out to the millions who have not, unfortunately, been able to be a part of this process and ensure that their voice is heard and that they have some insight into the process?

Do you have any lessons from your experience here in P.E.I. that we can be mindful of in our final deliberations over the next two months?

[Leonard Russell]

Again, in our situation, we were mandated to bring back a suggested wording for a plebiscite question. Having said that, our committee felt strongly that, unlike what Jordan and his group are doing, it would not be valuable to anyone to try to present something that had several parts to it, whatever it was.

If I can get to your question directly—and if I can be forgiven for just being sent here for the afternoon by my wife—I would say that, for a group of this size that is travelling the country to find the best thinking—if I can excuse myself from that—on the topic at hand, surely it wouldn't be out of place to suggest a question on a particular approach.

If mixed member proportional is the way your committee thinks, on the strength of everything you've heard, then as a taxpayer, I would expect you to make that recommendation, and not have it somehow get caught up in the conglomerate that exists beyond you, to now try to figure out whether that is one of the options or not. Don't challenge me. Not having heard everything, I have to trust you anyway, so don't challenge me with four or five options that I don't know a whole lot about.

I'll trust the committee to do that. I hope you will trust yourselves to do that. I don't know if those who exist beyond you in the House of Commons have that level of trust or not.

You said you wouldn't give a personal opinion, but I'm giving mine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. MacGregor.

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

Mr. Russell, I'll start with you. I just want to go back to exploring elephants in rooms, and so on. You know very well that in the debate in the House of Commons leading up to the formation of this committee, a lot of the debate centred on the fact that the original committee was going to have 10 people: six Liberals, three Conservatives, and one NDP. The committee was going to be looking at reforming our electoral system based on the electoral system we all seemed to be criticizing at the time, with parties with vested interests, and so on.

It's really been fantastic testimony today. With all of your experience in this process, what's your opinion on how the present system is proceeding? Keeping in mind vested interests, if the present government gets a clear message from the people of Prince Edward Island, do you have faith that it is going to act on it, when it is in power because of the current system?

[Leonard Russell]

I wish Jordan and I were meeting with you on separate days, because my comment is going to run over some toes or something.

If the government, however committed, is given too many options to choose from, I think the chances of it being addressed in the manner everybody thought it would be are slimmer than if you took one option to them for consideration. Bear with me on that.

There's already been a commitment made in this province that the issue will be looked at. If the issue is looked at by Mr. Brown's committee, and a recommendation goes forward, it will be tougher for the government not to do something very constructive in the direction being recommended than it would be if it had four or five incremental types of recommendations.

I am fearful of any government, your own included, that would see a small though seemingly significant change made to the electoral system that in the end would not allow proportional representation in the House, given the concern that now seems to be all around us, either provincially or nationally. If in the end it didn't allow that to happen, then if I were on your committee, I would ask what all this has been about.

Surely the people who put your committee in place, as with Mr. Brown's committee, understand that you do your legwork, you bring in your recommendation, and then it's time for something to happen. I think it will, if the choices aren't too great, when it gets to that level.

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

I'm a rookie member of Parliament. One thing you learn quickly about this job is that it's very much a balance between being a trustee and being a delegate. Sometimes it's somewhere in the middle. On some very important questions, like Bill C-14, I consulted very widely with my constituents for their opinions, but for the day-to-day stuff, I think the electors who sent me to Ottawa trust my ability as a member of Parliament to make the right decisions, and I will be held accountable in 2019 for those decisions.

I want this committee to make a firm recommendation. Otherwise, what's the point? We've spent a lot of money. We've spent a lot of time on the road. I appreciate the fact that you've echoed that.

If this committee, by consensus, because it is based proportionally on the votes we received in the election and not on our seats, gives a clear recommendation, do you think the government should proceed with legislation next year instead of going to the people? What's your opinion on that?

[Leonard Russell]

You mean instead of going back to the people again.

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

Yes.

[Leonard Russell]

I think the House should ensure that the legislation is put in place and should go with it.

Mr. Chairman, I wasn't invited here to give my personal opinion, was I?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Oh, absolutely you were.

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

It's too late now.

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Leonard Russell]

I remember once being offended by that comment. I was 15 at the time.

One of the things that kills well-intended statements, beliefs, and intents is that it's fuzzy when it comes down to the point of the big group making the decision. That would be the same whether it was a committee of a Lions Club or a chamber of commerce or whatever it was. If it's still too fuzzy when it gets down to the level of the big organization to make the decision, then the chances of breaking from tradition and making that decisive step into the unknown, so to speak, are greatly reduced, I think.

I know you don't have this information, but I spent 35 years serving the public. It wasn't at this level, but I had to answer to irate parents of schoolchildren. I worked a bit at the level of government on a secondment basis. I know the difference between being in the public and trying to do something and working with government and trying to get something done. I've learned on both sides that if you're going to do the work, make it concise and clear. Put it on the plate, move it across, and say, “Okay, we have a consensus. We've agreed on this. We certainly appreciate the fact that we were tasked with doing it.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Rayes.

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

My question is for Mr. Brown.

Do you think the process implemented in Prince Edward Island was good and legitimate?

[Jordan Brown]

I'll answer in English, if that's all right.