Evidence of meeting #5 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 question.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Kingsley, take a minute of my time and give an answer to that question.
NDP
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
I heard Mr. Mayrand talk this morning about the six months' minimum that he would require, and I generally would agree with that.
One must remember that the experience of the 1992 referendum is easy to trace. There's a lot of documentation at Elections Canada, in the media, and elsewhere, so a lot of the provisions of the statute could easily be replicated.
There's a lot that would have to be changed. As I said, one would be the constitutional reference, if it's not a constitutional question, as well as references to the Canada Elections Act. There are only 40 sections to the Referendum Act. When you hold an election, there are 300, 400; I don't remember how many. In any case, there were references that would need to be refreshed.
The reason we were able to succeed was that it was such a high political imperative at the time. Initially, most of the members of government—the prime minister and others—did not want a referendum. That changed when the provinces started to say that they had to hold a referendum. People started to get concerned about what the provincial question would be. Would it be the same? By holding a federal referendum, the question was the same.
In terms of the ability to carry it out, it was because I was able to take the Elections Act, the organization of Elections Canada, and just make it work for the referendum. We went at it as if it were an election, with the same returning officers and the same hiring patterns. Everything was just replicated. That simplified matters within a reasonable six-month period.
Conservative
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You owe me two. All right.
In the time I have left, Chair, perhaps I can squeeze in a question.
First of all, sir, everything I said about Mr. Mayrand I apply to you. Thank you for your contribution. You still continue to provide guidance for us, and I thank you for that.
In addition to being our chief electoral officer from 1990 to 2007, you were also the president and chief executive officer of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, a Washington-based NGO. One of the beauties of having you here is that you have all the informed knowledge that Mr. Mayrand has, but you also have the ability to give opinions, which is more difficult for him while he's in office.
I want to ask you at a basic level about the whole notion of a 39% vote. The current government actually got less of the popular vote than the previous government. It was by a small amount, but it was smaller nonetheless. The idea that 39% of the vote gets you 100% of the power is a problem for some of us.
We can take my own riding as an example. The government talks about moving to a majority. They talk about that as a preference, an alternate vote. This term I got 47%, but last election I got 57%. Fair enough; that's a nice clear majority. However, the 43% who didn't vote for me had no voice. Their votes had no effect. I just walked away with everything, as did everyone who won on first past the post.
Can you just give a civics lesson to Canadians as to why, from your international experience, it makes sense that we would move from our comfort position, our comfort zone of first past the post, into something that more accurately reflects the will of the people?
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
Well, sir, from my international experience, since you raised it, I can't think of a country that went with a first-past-the-post system when they were installing a democracy, because of known difficulties. Now, there may have been one, so I can't say there were none, but you're getting the gist here.
That was why I indicated that I think we need to look at this. Canadians have to come to an agreement on how we do it, and if we maintain the present system, the people will simply have to lump it.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Sorry? Do you want to expand on that? You're basically saying that if we don't make a change, Canadians will be left with a system that doesn't as accurately...? Am I understanding you there?
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
Given the fact that Parliament is focusing on this in such great detail, if you do not come out with a new system, then the people who are complaining about the system that's in place now will simply have to understand that this is the way the matter has been settled and it is part of the compromises that Canada is willing to make.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
Do I agree with that or do I not agree with that? That is another issue. I wish to see a fair process undertaken here, which is why I'm here.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You have a preferred model that you've talked about. Can you expand on that for us a little?
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
What it was, and I know—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Very briefly, please. Mr. Thériault is waiting to ask a question.
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
Okay.
May I come back to that later, sir?
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Well, let's see what the next person who has the floor does.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I told you they'd be tight five-minute rounds.
Mr. Thériault, the floor is yours.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Good afternoon. I really appreciate your testimony.
Would it not be crucial, according to the spirit of the Supreme Court's Figueroa decision, that, in addition to establishing a voting system that reflects the plurality of representation and the will of the people, state funding be made more equitable?
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
State funding has been more equitable in the past, back when a subsidy of $2 per vote cast for a party was given to that party, every year, on a quarterly basis. I think that was a significant improvement. I personally recommend going back to that formula, but without necessarily keeping it at $2.
At first, the figures we had at Elections Canada easily justified a subsidy of $1.50. That amount may be $2 today, but I would gladly accept $1.50. That is a more equitable way to proceed, even though it's not perfect. It is not possible to establish a perfect mechanism to maintain fairness within the electoral system. Invariably, some people benefit and others are disadvantaged. It's a matter of minimizing that inequality and making the situation acceptable from the perspective of a reasonable Canadian.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
That would at least help small parties hold on to their votes in an election. By receiving that funding, they could make their voice heard between elections and participate in the democratic debate. That is one of the aspects highlighted in the Figueroa decision. The decision indicates that Parliament does not necessarily have to have a Green candidate—and I apologize to Ms. May—but that the Green Party or other fringe parties must from the outset be equal and have the same means to have their voice heard during that democratic debate brought on by an election, and thereafter. Otherwise, this disappears.
It is clear that you have a bias toward a diverse system. You say that this system contains an important element, which is the relationship between elected representatives and the electorate.
I know that, for the first aspect, there would be a first-past-the-post system, but what would you recommend for the other aspect?
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
Do you want to know where I would introduce proportionality in the results?
Chief Electoral Officer, 1990-2007, As an Individual
That brings me to answer the question that was put to me. I would now like all the media to listen carefully. I was not making a proposal, but rather a suggestion, since I have not had the time to develop it.
That being said, here is my suggestion. Since Canada is so vast, we would keep the first-past-the-post system for remote, rural or large ridings. About 40, 50 or 60 members would be elected using that system.
As for urban areas, we could cluster four or five current ridings and ensure that four or five members are elected by the voters based on the vote results. I will not defend the following to death, but according to my way of thinking, a voter would vote for a party or a candidate. The candidates would be selected by the new cluster association of the four or five ridings. So the people would be choosing.
As for gender parity, let's say that there are five seats to fill. I would ask that three men and three women be elected, and that the party choose, at a local level, one man, one woman, one man, one woman, one man, one woman, and so on, so that it would always be one, two, one, two, one, two.
In short, the voter would choose. They would vote, as they currently do, for a candidate or a party. It would be the same thing. There would be only one vote. From there, it would be determined, for instance, that 60% of people voted for a given party, and that there are three seats. So we would be talking about 20%.
