Evidence of meeting #6 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 voters.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
What was the result of the referenda in British Columbia, Ontario, and P.E.I.?
4:10 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
One succeeded, in British Columbia, as you well know, although the 58%—
4:10 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
As I mentioned in my own remarks, the Ontario one failed quite spectacularly, as did the second one in British Columbia.
4:10 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
And in Prince Edward Island.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
It's your position that the people were wrong. You just want to keep trying until they get it right.
4:10 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
I'm not saying that they were wrong, but the referendum campaign, as I was involved in it, did not allow for an educated debate about the system, about the alternatives, and, again, partisan posturing tended to pervert the debate.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I see. So the voters are easily misled, is that what you're saying?
4:10 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Sometimes, not always.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I see. You want to keep trying until they get it right or just obviate the need for a referendum altogether.
4:10 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Mr. Kenney, I believe that this is an important reform for democracy, and that's why I will continue to militate in favour of electoral reform.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Is it such an important reform for democracy that we cannot submit it to a democratic decision in a referendum?
4:10 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
As I said, you can, after it's in place for one actual electoral session.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thank you.
One of the items in our committee's terms of reference relates to effectiveness and legitimacy. When I was out door-knocking prior to the election, I actually heard from a number of my constituents that they wanted to see change. It wasn't necessarily in the terms we're talking about now, electoral reform, but there were concerns about the existing system and a kind of cynicism about whether their perspectives were being reflected and whether their vote was actually counting. That was one message I heard over and over again.
I also heard, though, that people did have trust in our existing system. What I'm struggling with and I'd like your thoughts on is, as we consider moving forward to change to achieve effectiveness and legitimacy as principles we're trying to achieve, and also looking at your comment that there is no perfect system, how do we design something moving forward?
I guess the question really relates to an issue of trust. How do we move into this dialogue on electoral reform knowing that many Canadians are actually looking for change, while they also have a sense of trust within the existing system? How do we move that barometer? How do we go to something different and maintain trust? What words of wisdom would you have for us as we try to shift on this very important part of our democracy?
4:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I don't pretend to know how to advise you on how you can persuade the public that they ought to trust. I think trust comes when they see that there's been a legitimate process, that there's been a fair and open conversation about it, and that there wasn't a kind of manipulation. I think there's likely only to be a kind of legitimacy awarded to the system after it's been tried a couple of times and people have decided that it works and it works fairly in terms of their expectations and values. They will come to see that it works differently.
It probably won't work very well the first time. There's a lot of evidence that, in the first election in New Zealand, most of the parties and many of the candidates operated in ways that were essentially irrational in terms of their own immediate interests because they hadn't quite worked out how it was going to work. It's an iterative process between politicians and voters, and they're going to have to learn how to work together in a whole different set of institutional incentives and constraints. There will be a lot of uncertainty. There will be questions about legitimacy and effectiveness, but that's inevitable in any fundamental institutional reform. I think the best you can hope for is a process that is open and that's as transparent as possible. I would think things like a free vote in Parliament would go a long way to sending a signal.
Questions about referendums are going to be difficult because there's a widespread view that this is important. Then there will be hard questions about what would count. Would a 50% majority in a referendum count? What if everybody east of the Ottawa River voted against a different electoral system and everybody west of the Ottawa River voted for it? Then you would have a kind of legitimacy problem.
That's why, of course, we had this extraordinary double standard in British Columbia. I don't know if it's the right one, but there was a perception that 50% wouldn't work if all Vancouver wanted one thing and all the rural areas wanted another thing. There are real challenges.
Again, you need openness, transparency, and working through a process that's understood to allow all those viewpoints to be somehow weighed and balanced in what inevitably will be a series of trade-offs. Nobody's going to get all of what they want in this process. There ought not to be a process in which everybody can get what they want, so what you want is a process in which the trade-offs are seen as fair and reasonable and in accord with what people understand to be decent.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Director, Canadian Studies Program, and Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think our system right now is very effective. One man holds a lot of power, as was pointed out by one of the members on the committee. I think our system is very legitimate, and I think if we change the voting system, it will probably remain effective and it will remain legitimate. There will be a transition. I think the words of Professor Carty are very wise, really wise, on this issue.
The issue of trust might be much more related to things such as, if all of a sudden the economy is booming, I have trust in the government, and if it's not, I lose a lot of trust. Right now there's a lot of trust in the government.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
As a non-regular member of this committee I'm going to take a little bit of liberty and ask whether in your opinion it would be better for this committee to come out with a general set of principles or guidelines about what a good system would look like or whether you think it would be more productive to have this committee come out with a more concrete proposal for what an electoral system would look like and then ask the government to either accept or reject that proposal. In your view, what would be better from a process point of view?
We started with Professor Wiseman last time. Maybe we'll start with Professor Carty and work back to him.
4:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I think that if the committee came to the conclusion that a particular kind of system would be desirable, it would be very helpful if Parliament had a real debate—a kind of “second reading in principle” debate—about whether this is really where they wanted to go.
If you decided to go to an MMP system, it would be complicated to design. I remember that when the British Columbia citizens' assembly designed their MMP system, there were I think 17 separate decisions that had to be made about the fundamental pieces, and there were very subsidiary pieces. Every time you made one of those decisions, it impacted upon the other 17 parts of that MMP system.
I think, then, that having a preliminary debate about whether to have first past the post or the alternate vote or a compensatory system such as the law reform commission suggested or an STV system would get you a long way down the road. Then there could be a debate about the niceties, which is where the traffic is really going to hit the chickens in terms of MPs' interests, financial interests, funding, registration of local associations, etc. They're all going to be deeply affected by the details, but you have to get to that principle—what type of system to have—before you can get to that point.
4:20 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Essentially, I agree totally with what Professor Carty said. It would be better to indicate the broad models that are possible here. That ties in to the question Ms. Sahota asked earlier: what is not acceptable in Canada? Well, “list PR” is not acceptable. Also the Israeli system is not acceptable, nor that of the Netherlands. Anything that simply offers voters a single choice for a party is not acceptable.
The options are fairly clear: alternative vote in single-member ridings, some combination of alternative vote with STV in larger ridings, mixed member proportional, or no change. I think if you have the broad alternatives available to voters and discuss and debate them fairly and transparently, that will serve this committee and the government well.
4:20 p.m.
Director, Canadian Studies Program, and Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I have great confidence in you as committee members. I think, after you've been given a mandate to go out and listen, that you'll listen.
I think you have to meet. You can meet behind closed doors and work out whether you have a consensus or not. If you have, I think you should report it to the government and make your recommendations. It might be for a free vote, it might be for a referendum, it might be for a specific system. Let's get some action.
We've had a lot of talk about changing the electoral system in the last 20 years; I don't see any action. This is more talk.
