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.
3:10 p.m.
Director, Canadian Studies Program, and Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
My position is that voters will adjust to whatever system is devised and they won't have any problem with it, as Mr. Carty said, after they do it once. They'll see what will happen after.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Tell me if you think this is a mischaracterization of your position: that potentially radical changes to the electoral system are supported by elite opinion, shall we call it—you said 600 or so of the 900 submissions to the Ontario citizens' assembly, for example—but that it is not supported by popular opinion.
3:10 p.m.
Director, Canadian Studies Program, and Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
It's not supported because the public doesn't think about this issue. As Professor Carty said, they don't go to bed at night..., and changing the system doesn't take away from people's right to vote or their preference to vote.
It seems to me that the assumption in your question is that changing the system favours a certain kind of party, for example.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Professor Carty just indicated that it was the view of former Liberal premier Gordon Campbell that the electoral system did not belong to politicians, but to the people, and therefore they should be involved, initially through a citizens' assembly and ultimately through a referendum on any changes to it.
Professor Wiseman, you're now suggesting that not only should there not be a referendum, but there shouldn't even be a free vote in the House of Commons. The executive branch essentially ought to dictate a system.
Why do you reject former premier Campbell's contention that the system ultimately belongs to the people and that they should have the ultimate say?
3:10 p.m.
Director, Canadian Studies Program, and Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'm not opposed to free votes in the House of Commons. I just believe if you do have a free vote it will be defeated. I'm not saying the government should act without a free vote. That's up to the government. I don't have any problem.
With respect to Campbell, Campbell was interested in getting re-elected. One of the ways you get re-elected is that you tell people we're going to give you a referendum on a question. “Hey, I like referenda. Give me any question. I want to vote on it.”
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, that's it.
We'll have to move on now to Mr. Aldag for five minutes, please.
July 25th, 2016 / 3:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thank you.
I'm going to turn my questioning to the issue of online voting.
Professor Wiseman, I think you indicated that you don't support online voting except, perhaps, for the housebound.
I would like to just get your thoughts on your hesitation or resistence to online voting and then move to our other two witnesses to get their thoughts or comments on the question of online voting.
3:15 p.m.
Director, Canadian Studies Program, and Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
In my limited reading in this area I've seen that the preponderance of experts are opposed to it because it's easy...well, not easy, but you can hack the system.
A few years ago three federal government departments were hacked. We have no idea of how extensive the information was that was lifted. Also, we just had the Democratic Party, the DNC, hacked.
At the University of Toronto the students decided—students are ahead of me, I don't even have a cellphone—that by having Internet voting it would increase participation because turnout was only 15% when students went to vote. They introduced Internet voting and turnout was 15%.
Two or three years ago, the University of Western Ontario had an election for their student council and president and it was hacked. The NDP had a convention to select the leader and snafus appeared. Can you imagine what will happen on election night?
The Internet is convenient, but incidentally it's not a social activity. It's social when you show up at the polls, you meet your neighbours, you get in line, and you talk to other people. Pressing these buttons at home is cocooning.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thanks for sharing your concerns about that.
I would ask the other two if they have any thoughts on online voting.
3:15 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
This isn't something that I have done research on, but like Professor Wiseman I would be worried about the security aspects of online voting. However, nonetheless I am intrigued by the prospect and believe that a number of studies at the municipal level here in Ontario are being conducted or will be conducted in the future, and ought to continue to be conducted. I think it's definitely something that should be explored.
All the while we should keep in mind that the Internet is not necessarily a secure environment for this kind of thing.
3:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Yes, I know nothing about the technicalities. I heard both the current and the past Chief Electoral Officer say they don't believe that the security concerns have been dealt with yet. I think this is an issue probably for the future.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
The next one I would like to look at is the idea of a referendum, and we've talked about it and we're hearing some ideas, concerns.
I have particularly enjoyed, Professor Wiseman, your candid thoughts on this.
I would like to throw out to all three of you that we are, as a committee, trying to have meaningful consultation with Canadians and setting aside the question of whether or not there's a referendum. What advice would you have for us in terms of getting out and having meaningful discussions with Canadians on this work and the question about how to go forward on electoral reform in Canada?
3:15 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
I think this committee should continue to conduct the work that it is doing. The town halls are going to start taking place or already have started taking place.
This committee should conduct its work and issue its report and recommendations. The government should bring in legislation and there ought to be included in that legislation some provision for review in the future, which could include, if need be, a referendum. But I think at least one electoral cycle should take place, and maybe two, with the recommended system.
I think Professor Wiseman has made the case that the referendum on this is not needed and in fact might just muddy things. However, by all means include a provision for reviewing whatever new system is brought in after one or two electoral cycles.
3:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I have the experience of probably hundreds of public consultations on electoral boundaries, on different electoral systems across this country, and my experience is that they're not very helpful at all. Most people who come to them either come with their own very narrow agenda, with a line to push, or they really don't know very much about it.
Where they can be very helpful is if you have a concrete proposal you're seeking a response to. Certainly that's the lesson of electoral boundary commissions. We go out and hear ideas for boundaries and you get stuff that's not helpful to boundary commissions, but when you propose a map then you get really specific suggestions and reactions that can be enormously helpful.
I think that without a specific proposal saying, “Look, what do you think about this and how should we be thinking about it?”, it's very difficult to get very coherent and cumulative opinion.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We'll move on to Mr. Blaikie, if that's all right.
3:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
We've heard a fair bit from Mr. Carty concerning his views about the impact a proportional system might have on regionalism in Canadian politics.
I came of age in an era in which, under the first past the post system, Canadian politics was intensely regional. You had the Liberal Party, which was really the party of Ontario; you had the Bloc Québécois, representing Quebec; you had the Reform Party representing all of Alberta and much of western Canada. I'm therefore personally open to the idea of trying something different.
I know that regionalism in Canadian politics was one of the considerations of the law reform commission report in 2004. I wonder, Mr. Tanguay, whether you would share your views on how switching to some model of proportional representation might impact regionalism in Canadian politics.
3:20 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
I'm not as convinced as Professor Carty that it would be the death knell for national political parties. I don't see Canada being as riven by what political scientists call cleavages, as, say, Belgium is. The model proposed by the law reform commission would have a built-in kind of threshold. You'd need, probably, at least 10% of votes in a region to get one of those list seats.
To me, the worry that there would be a proliferation of fringe or extremist parties and that the national parties would fall apart seems exaggerated. I just don't see—and I share, actually, your views so eloquently stated in the preamble to the question—that we grew up or lived through the near death of the country, all under first past the post. I don't think that a mixed member proportional system would exacerbate regionalism. I don't think it would be any worse than it is now.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
To the extent that it might help get regional voices inside national caucuses, it could actually have the effect of reducing regionalism in Canadian politics.
3:20 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
I would agree with that, yes.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I think it's fair to say that critics of the first past the post system would say that one of the major issues is that, with a minority of votes, you get 100% of the power.
When we look at the two main streams you can choose as an alternative to that, you have the alternative vote system and you have some form of proportional system, and there are many configurations. Which of those two do you think is most likely to duplicate that problem of the first past the post system, and how?
3:20 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
I personally am not a fan of the alternative vote. Although it does give greater choice to the voters, it seems to replicate all the problems that we find in first past the post. The ranked ballot by itself would not address the issue that we certainly heard from citizens at the time of the law commission and at the time of the Ontario referendum. That system would not address the flaws in the current system that are so in need of resolution.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Maybe I'll put a more philosophical kind of question to the entire panel. For me, part of the question between trying to decide between an AV model and a proportional model of some kind, if there's agreement that we move away from the first past the post system, is whether we are electing just a rep from a local constituency or trying to elect a Parliament, and one that represents the diversity of views within the Canadian context; and whether we affirm the idea that Parliament, however many parties might be in it and however much they might have to compromise and negotiate, would be better if it represented that diversity of opinion.
Even Canadian voters are sometimes divided within themselves. They say, I really like that person and would like that person to represent my area, but I don't really like their party or I don't like their leader. They wish they could vote for party X and candidate Y, even though they don't belong to that party.
Do you see part of the point of an electoral system as being to represent a Parliament, or do you think it's really just about who the person is who is representing this particular point on the map that we've carved out?
3:20 p.m.
Director, Canadian Studies Program, and Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I appreciate your concerns. I'll tell you what I think will happen.
Unlike Ms. May, I don't think it's the first past the post system that generated the Bloc Québécois. I think what will happen with a proportional system is that you'll get a “B.C. First” party, and people in British Columbia will appreciate, given the number of seats they have, that they're not going to become the official opposition but that in a minority Parliament they could be the difference between being part of keeping a coalition in power and not, and could end up driving the agenda of a federal government in favour of British Columbia. Then we'll get an “Alberta First” party.
Actually, the position of the Bloc would probably be reinforced. I think that's the danger. We saw, in Israel, a pensioners' party arise, but on vital issues of war and peace they had no position whatsoever. They were simply interested in securing the position of pensioners.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. I have to stop you there to give the floor to Mr. Deltell.