Electoral Reform Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

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

Always.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Or at least be present more—

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

Work harder.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay.

I'm going to start my questioning with you, Professor Cross. I found your discussion really interesting. I'll tell you where my mind has gone this morning. We've had discussions about different forms of government that arise from proportional systems and about this idea of coalition, and I've poked around with other witnesses about what kinds of policy compromises would be made in the sense that some small parties can have a unwieldy amount of weight or a disproportionate amount of weight.

Because of their being able to broker within the power scheme of things in Parliament, they could end up with a stronger voice than they might have had otherwise, but I had never considered this in the sense of party leadership selection. You've given the example of Australia, so I'm sitting here and looking across the table, where we have the Conservatives currently starting their leadership search and the NDP about to embark on the same process. I'm thinking, wow, so you're saying that Ms. May, with a perhaps slightly expanded Green Party, could actually dictate to the Conservatives who they're going to select as their leader, and the Bloc could actually get involved with the NDP and determine who is going to be ruled out or not.

Could that actually happen in the Canadian context? I find that absolutely fascinating.

[Prof. William Cross]

Well, in all three of those countries, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, this has happened.

In the 1990s, two Fianna Fáil prime ministers—taoiseachs—were removed from office because the supporting parties in the coalition, in one case, the Progressive Democrats, and in the other, the Labour Party, said they would not continue to support the party in power unless Fianna Fáil removed and replaced their leader, which they did. There had been some scandals that had arisen.

Now, as I mentioned quickly, in all of these cases the parliamentary party has the authority to remove the leader. That's not the case in Canada, unless you were to adopt the reform act. One of my concerns would be just what you suggest. Let's pretend that the Conservatives are in a coalition with the New Democrats, and the New Democrats demand that the Conservatives remove their leader in order to continue to have their support.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Prof. William Cross]

How does the Conservative Party do that through an extra-parliamentary process? It would take a long time. As a corollary of fact, that could result in adoption of the reform act, a sort of unexpected implication of electoral system change.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

That's really interesting.

The other piece of it—and I don't know if you could comment on it—gets into our structure within the House of Commons. Right now you have to have 12 members in order to have official party status, to participate on committees, and to get other things. In this kind of coalition system, when two parties that don't meet that threshold join, are they actually considered one party? Could that trigger additional subsidies and budgets to these smaller parties? Would it get them over that barrier they're up against right now?

[Prof. William Cross]

In the other countries they continue to be considered independent parties.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

They wouldn't ride on the coattails of the party that had crossed over that threshold. That's very interesting.

You were talking, in your opening comments, about the role of parties. It's this dilemma about how autonomous parties should be in setting their policies compared with Parliament imposing their will on parties.

I go to, as Ms. Romanado mentioned, yesterday's vote. There was a bill before the House that could have provided penalties to parties for not meeting targets. I was weighing where I was going to go with that one, and I ended up abstaining because we are deliberating right now, and I thought it would be premature to do that.

The idea of Parliament imposing its will on parties I think is a dilemma. How do you let the grassroots, which is really the foundation of our democratic system, do the right things? Where do you provide disincentives? Where do you provide the stick, and where do you provide the nudging through positive incentives? I don't know if you have any comments you'd like to offer on that. It is one that I find difficult, the will of Parliament versus the will of parties.

[Prof. William Cross]

It is a difficult question whether or not parties should be viewed as private organizations. On the other hand, perhaps it's something like public utilities, because they play such an important role in our democracy and receive a significant amount of public funding from the taxpayers.

I testified before the Senate committee on the reform act. When the act was still prescriptive, when it said you had to do these things, that it wasn't left up to the caucuses to decide, I thought it was a terrible idea, because it imposed on our parties a particular set of values and ways they should organize.

For the most part, I think that's best left to the political parties to determine for themselves, although I do think the money that's given can sometimes be used as a carrot. You could incentivize things like increasing the number of women nominated. It is an area where I think we want to move very cautiously. We don't want parties to be creatures or captive of Parliament.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Is there—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We have to move on. Sorry about that. I told you it's a stricter game today because of the time limits.

We'll go to Mr. Richards, please.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

I'll start with Mr. Bozinoff and Mr. Schatten.

I was shocked when I heard you say, when you were asking about the understanding of the various systems.... I understood you to say that the question you asked was “Could you explain it to a friend?” That was a way of determining if there was actual understanding. I was shocked when I heard you say that only 54% could explain first past the post, which is our current system. Then you went on to say that only 40% could identify that first past the post was our current system, so I think that largely explains that.

I'm curious if you've ever polled on explaining our current system. The reason I ask is that obviously 54% is lower than the typical turnout at an election. If they voted in an election, they should understand the system they voted under. I'm just curious about whether you've ever asked that question. Rather than asking about first past the post, have you asked, “Could you explain our current system?” I'm curious about that.

[William Schatten]

No. We haven't gone into too much detail in the surveys on describing how our current system works.

Language is important. When the committee makes its decision, and if the government decides to move forward, whether it's through a referendum or through other means, you're going to have to.... There needs to be a public awareness campaign around all of these issues, whatever the decision is. There needs to be some knowledge transfer, some education. This is very indicative of that.

In terms of these individuals, just over half say they could describe what first past the post is, but when provided an example, only 42% would indicate that Canada uses the first-past-the-post system. There are definitely some knowledge gaps there.

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

Yes.

Along the same lines, 52%, I guess, are saying that we should keep our current system. When you asked whether we should change, 48% said they agreed, so that would mean that 52% disagreed, I would assume. That would mean that there would be a large number that would want to keep our current system, I would assume, potentially.

When you asked what their first choice was in terms of systems, 42% said it would be first past the post. That was the highest number, but it's still less than those who indicated that they wouldn't want to change.

I'm curious about how that question was asked. I assume they were given choices of various systems. If someone had said, “our current system”, would that have been considered a valid response and included with the first past the post? I'm just curious about how that would have been conducted.

[Lorne Bozinoff]

No, they had to click one of the three options we gave them. They couldn't say, “the current system”. They would have to recognize what the current system is, and maybe they don't know what it is.

Just remember, though, on the knowledge thing, that there's no knowledge test to vote. We don't test people and say, “Gee, you can't vote because you don't know the details of the voting system. You don't know the name of it. You can't describe it to your friend”. They all are going to vote. They're all going to have opinions. There are some “don't knows” in here, but we gave the people three choices, and most of them picked one of those three.

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

I was just curious about it. It stands to reason that if they were able to indicate the current system, it might have made that number higher.

I would agree that there shouldn't be a knowledge test to vote. There have been many who have made that argument when talking about referendums. They say that people wouldn't have enough knowledge or understand enough to vote in a referendum. I just think that's a really arrogant viewpoint. It's unfortunate that some people see it that way.

I want to move on to you, Professor Cross.

You mentioned, and actually, in response to Mr. Aldag's question, it was brought up again, one of the unique challenges that might exist in Canada, and that was in talking about party lists and other parties being able to influence party leadership choices. You explained that because that choice in Canada is done by the extra-parliamentary membership, or the grassroots membership of parties, it would create a unique challenge in terms of issues such as coalitions and party lists and things like that.

I'm curious about whether you have thought much about other unique considerations in looking at a system for Canada. Obviously, Canada is, in many ways, very much different from a lot of other countries. We're one of the largest countries in the world. We're a very sparsely populated, very diverse country. Do you have some suggestions on other considerations we should be thinking about? If a new system were to be created for Canada, we have to think about those unique challenges. Have you thought about what some of those unique challenges might be that we would want to think about?

[Prof. William Cross]

Sure. I would take just 10 seconds at the beginning to touch on something from a previous conversation. In reading the testimony of some of my colleagues who have appeared before you, I can say, without exaggeration, that I've been shocked by the attitude of some of them that Canadians can't learn about this issue and have an informed opinion on it. I just want to put that on the table.

I think there are a couple of other issues that are important in the Canadian context. One is—

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

I'll just interrupt you. You made that comment, so obviously you have some thoughts on it. Do you think that's an important way to proceed, to give Canadians that option, that choice? You're saying that they could be educated, and I agree.

[Prof. William Cross]

Yes.

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

We should be making sure that people have the proper education to make a decision.

[Prof. William Cross]

Sure. Look at the New Zealand example, for instance, where there was that kind of government-funded and initiated educational program. I think with a robust educational process Canadians would be able to understand the basics of what's required. They don't need to understand the Droop quota and how all the transfers might work and things. They would need to know what it would mean to them in terms of how they're represented and who represents them in Parliament.

On the question I think you're asking about a referendum, and I go there hesitantly, since it's become somewhat of a partisan issue, I take Mr. Reid's point. It gets close to being a constitutional issue. It's something fundamental. I think in terms of fairness and Canadians' acceptance of whatever is recommended, and if we have a change, it's important that they don't view it in any way as a partisan exercise. One way to ensure that this is not the perception is to have it be something that is approved of by Canadians. Now, I don't think we need supermajorities or anything of that sort.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks.

We'll go to Ms. Sahota, please.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses here today. It's really nice to see everybody in the audience. It's probably one of the bigger crowds we've had in some time.

Ms. Webb, what would you think the paramount reason to move toward a PR system would be for your organization? What would you want to accomplish through that?