Evidence of meeting #42 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 mps.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Byron Weber Becker  As an Individual
Katie Ghose  Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society United Kingdom
Darren Hughes  Deputy Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society United Kingdom
John Poulos  President and Chief Executive Officer, Dominion Voting Systems, Corp.

8:05 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Alternative vote is worse.

8:05 p.m.

As an Individual

8:05 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Okay, that's helpful. If we wanted to distort the results even more, if we wanted to have votes reflected even less, we would take the system we have now and throw it into an alternative vote system.

8:05 p.m.

As an Individual

Byron Weber Becker

That's correct.

8:05 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Okay. That's good, because that's not the intention of this committee, nor its mandate.

Just for context, our mandate, which I'm sure all of you have read, is to change.... It is to offer to the government some ideas, and then a model which we recommend for change to improve our system, to make it a better behaving system, a more accurate system.

In that context of change, I want to turn to you, Mr. Hughes, for a moment.

The New Zealand experience is often held up: “New Zealand, New Zealand, New Zealand”. We hear a lot about you, and often people arguing for opposite things use New Zealand as an example to somehow try to prove their points. The context for the change that New Zealand went through was rather special. There was a high level of voter discontentment and maybe a gaff from a prime minister promising one thing that was not as written on the paper.

Up until maybe this morning, the context we were operating under was also unique in Canada. We had an elected government with a majority under first past the post also committed to making a change to the system that got them elected, understanding the false majority that was achieved, similar to that of the last government we had, which was 39%. Yet this morning, the Prime Minister was musing that maybe people are happier now ,so the mood for change is less, and so maybe the commitment is less. The unique alignment of stars to get change through is important.

I want to get to a point Ms. Ghose made about how voters see things differently under a change. She said that there are no so-called safe seats, seats that have traditionally voted one way to the extent that they kind of get ignored, not just by the party that has the seat, but also by the other parties, which think they can't get the seat.

Was there any cultural change that went on in New Zealand in the way that voters experienced the campaigning of parties? What happens on policy if those voters remain relevant because their votes affect who will form the next government?

8:05 p.m.

Deputy Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society United Kingdom

Darren Hughes

I think that's a very interesting way of looking at it.

Because of the stage of the process here at the moment, by definition, you're looking at structures and statistics, how it would all work, and what it would all mean. That's an important thing to do, but in terms of the New Zealand experience, looking back on it now, I would argue that though we count votes differently, what's been more important is actually the political cultural change. For a political party to be successful, it needs to reach out to the entire country and not just see voters according to the determinant of geography. Geography is important, of course, but it's not the only thing. There are lots of other values and that forces parties to really shake up the way they campaign and think.

8:05 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

It's interesting. One of the things that was decried of the last government not just by my party but also by the now-governing party, was the notion of narrowcasting. Messages and policies increasingly became focused only on the Canadians “that mattered to them,” the ones who were likely to vote for them, knowing that they only needed somewhere around 40% or less in order to achieve a majority government. It distorted policies because they could simply ignore 60% or more of the country, and discontentment rose.

This seems to happen to governments in Canada. You hear it in every election night victory speech: “I was elected by these Canadians, but I will now govern on behalf of all Canadians.” It's a nice and important thing to say, but over time you watch this narrowing and narrowing, because the calculation is that you can't please everybody; you have to start to focus on people that matter, in places that matter.

Does the promise of proportionality upend that somewhat natural and cynical outcome of first past the post?

8:10 p.m.

Deputy Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society United Kingdom

Darren Hughes

I think it does. The larger parties obviously want to try to maximize their vote so that they can form a government and have as much influence in that government as possible, which is an entirely rational thing to want to do. But they also look to make sure that their message and their appeal is broad enough so that parties that are outside of government are interested in working with them post-election.

The other thing you said that really chimed for me is that it's so easy in talking about a topic like this to be obsessed about what it would have meant for the last election and what it would mean for the coming election. With all respect to everyone here, I can understand why, because you've recently been elected and you'll be running for re-election soon enough, but I think that on a topic like this, you're having to think about what system you want to be robust for at least 100 years. Once you decide that, you would have to assume that the parties behave competently and with integrity, and with the dollops of luck that I mentioned politics requires, that you would get a fair shake at being in government over that time. But I think to have a narrow focus on “what it means for us next time” or “what would have happened last time” in the end, is a self-defeating way of looking at it.

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

This is the interesting exercise of reform. Everybody involved in voting on that reform in the House of Commons has a self-interest in no reform. Whether you actually got into government or opposition doesn't matter. The system that got us here is the system that we promised to reform, so maintaining that commitment, even though it may speak against the self-interest of the elected politicians, is an interesting moment.

Ms. Ghose, I want to get into—

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Briefly, though, please, Mr. Cullen.

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

—diversity. We just came from the House of Commons where a bill that was commended by many witnesses here as helping women get nominated in Canada—we rank 64th in the world—was defeated overwhelmingly by the two major parties.

You've seen different models in the U.K. You have working models on the ground, some proportional, some winner-take-all. Can you speak to any change in the notion of diversity under proportional systems in terms of the diversity of the parliaments that get elected?

8:10 p.m.

Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society United Kingdom

Katie Ghose

Yes, definitely.

First past the post, the evidence tells us very clearly, is the world's worst system for achieving gender balance in politics. Every other system is better. The reason they're better, and we see this from the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, is that they enable parties to do the right thing, to put forward a more balanced group of representatives to the population.

The Welsh assembly was the first gender-balanced parliament in the world. As Darren was professing earlier, we should never say the electoral system is the prime cause of anything, or that it's a silver bullet. It's not, but it's an enabling factor. That was one of the factors there that enabled the parties to take the positive measures to make sure that it was a more diverse parliament.

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Monsieur Thériault.

8:10 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome. Thank you very much for your testimony.

I will continue along the same lines as my colleague.

Ms. Ghose, you said that a structural change in the voting system, such as having members on a list, would be needed to achieve gender parity. I think that's more effective than a coercive measure that may well exploit women in a simple plurality system, in the sense that political parties could assign female candidates to unwinnable ridings in order to achieve the number required for so-called gender-balanced representation. That would not help advance the cause of women. That's why I voted against the idea, even though I'm not in either of the two major parties.

If I'm not mistaken, you are more in favour of a structural change than of measures that would supposedly increase the participation of women in politics in the current system.

8:10 p.m.

Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society United Kingdom

Katie Ghose

What I would prefer is a society and a democracy where all of our parliaments and our political institutions aren't necessarily a carbon copy of our society, but where they are a mirror and a better reflection of all the people and the rich diversity that is out there.

If I've understood you correctly, you were saying that I was advocating for structural change as the way forward. I think what I'm saying is, frankly, if parties wanted to field equal numbers of women and men to achieve parity, they could do that in first past the post by making sure that women were in winnable seats. We see this at home in the U.K., and it's a party-based system. It's women in winnable seats that gets you to parity. In terms of structures, what I'm saying is that proportional systems are an enabler and they make it easier for parties to do what they want to do, which is to end up with a balanced parliament. That's how I would put it.

8:15 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

We're on the same page. In a first past the post system, it is easier to manipulate the participation of women in politics.

As soon as there are several parties, the number of potentially winnable ridings decreases. However, if we shift to a mixed member proportional representation system with a list of members, it is then up to every political party to ensure gender parity on the list. Structurally, parity can be achieved.

It is very easy to say that we will keep the current voting system and that we will vote for either coercive or incentive legislation. However, there may be more female candidates in each party, but if we don't place women in winnable ridings, they will not have seats in the House, especially since the current situation favours the two-party system.

8:15 p.m.

Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society United Kingdom

Katie Ghose

I'm not sure I've understood your point. Are you asking me if I'm arguing that basically a plus of proportional voting is that it helps parties get more gender diversity, or are you arguing that under first past the post that's also possible? Which part are we looking at?

8:15 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

I'm not sure whether the interpretation is accurate, but it's not a big deal.

What I'm basically saying is that, if we want to achieve gender parity, it is best to change the voting system.

8:15 p.m.

Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society United Kingdom

Katie Ghose

Yes, I agree one hundred per cent. There are many reasons to change the voting system, and a fantastic plus is that it will help us to get near it. It's not just gender diversity. It will help parties to do the right thing and to field a more diverse, balanced slate of candidates.

8:15 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

You said that we don't have a lot of time to organize a referendum. What is your point of reference on the issue? Are you referring to the 2019 date for the next election, which is when we could also hold a referendum?

Why would we not be able to engage voters in a process that would lead to a debate and decision at the next election in 2019?

8:15 p.m.

Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society United Kingdom

Katie Ghose

I have been informed. I'm making that comment on the basis of what Elections Canada has said about the two-year implementation and preparation period that would be needed to bring about a changed system. Therefore, working back from that, and looking at some of the evidence we've taken from recent referendums in the United Kingdom and elsewhere as well, it would seem impossible to do all the important preparatory work, groundwork, and public education, to provide the information that you need to be part of a good referendum, and to do that in the time available.

8:15 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

The Chief Electoral Officer told us that he could not hold a referendum separate from the 2019 election, because we wouldn't have enough time.

It's 2016 now. Let's assume that the committee agrees on a mixed member proportional representation system, that it goes in the field to consult all the voters and to explain the difference between the current system and the new system so that the people can decide on the issue in the next election. In that case, would you consider the three-year timeline as adequate?

8:20 p.m.

Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society United Kingdom

Katie Ghose

Are you talking about that being part of the platform commitment that voters would be voting on at the election, or are you suggesting that there could be a referendum around the time of the election?

The position we take is to ask how to get the best quality and most inclusive public consultation. That, for me, is the question and the goal. A referendum can be part of that if it's well prepared, well conducted, and well done, but it doesn't have to be.

There's nothing magical, if you like, about a referendum. There's nothing magical about a change to the voting system that suggests it's of such a grand constitutional order that there has to be a referendum to make that decision.

What's going to give you the richest and most inclusive public consultation? That would be the question for me. Is it going to be some of the discussions that you've been having and a citizens' assembly? Is it going to be that without a referendum or that with a referendum? That would be my response.

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

Ms. May.

8:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

My colleagues and I have just finished 19 place visits in 10 provinces and three territories, so I had thought, and you'll have to forgive me, that our theme song was I've been everywhere, ma'am, but I now want to change it to Ain't misbehavin', savin' my votes for you.

I'm going to ask you some questions Mr. Weber Becker. I'm also going to try to get to Darren Hughes and try to get some questions to Dominion Voting Systems.

Your summary says that first past the post frequently misbehaves, and if I heard your evidence correctly, in the models you ran, it always misbehaves. Is that a fair statement based on the models you ran?