Electoral Reform Committee on July 26th, 2016

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

So, when the government has to move on a very specific issue, a very major issue, the referendum is a good idea.

[Michael Marsh]

Well, you only have referendums on constitutional change. Some of the biggest and most important important things never went anywhere near a referendum. When we decided to repay bondholders in our bankrupt banks with public money, to the tune of tens and tens and tens of billions, that didn't go to a referendum. Had it gone to a referendum, it wouldn't have happened.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

But changing the way of votes and elected people, is that—

[Michael Gallagher]

Generally speaking, the bigger the issue and the more clear-cut the issue, the more sense it makes to have a referendum. My colleague mentioned the referendum last year on same-sex marriage. That clearly meant a lot to a lot of people. It was very clear-cut. People could see the arguments and it really did engage society. But because our constitution is quite detailed, we do have to have referendums on things that logically shouldn't really go to a referendum.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll end with Mr. DeCourcey.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thanks once again, professors.

Taking note of your remarks in your presentation on the simplicity of ranking the ballot for voters in Ireland and your knowledge of comparative political systems, can you speak to the ease with which Irish voters see this process compared to other European voters and/or other voters around the world?

[Michael Gallagher]

Well, the truth is that nearly all PR electoral systems look pretty complicated from the outside, if you try to understand them in every detail, but for the voters they're all pretty straightforward. I really can't think of any electoral system where the reports have said the voters found this just too complicated. They're all fairly straightforward for the voter.

Now, under PR-STV, voters can say a bit more about what they really think. They don't have to just say, “Yes, I like that one and I don't like the rest”. They can rank all of them. They can say, “This is the one I like the best and that's the one I like second best” and so on. They give a bit more information and because of that it's a bit more complicated, but really it's not in any way too complicated for voters to be able to do what they're meant to do.

[Michael Marsh]

I think there are systems that we might think are complicated. The Swiss system strikes me as very complicated, but the Swiss don't find it so. They did some tests in Scotland before adopting STV. People did lots of focus group studies, and there were many voters who said this sounded very complicated. But Irish voters don't think it's complicated and they do it perfectly easily. It's easy, I think, to exaggerate the complexity of voting under any electoral system.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

What about changing electoral systems and going from one system to another? What value does your research suggest voters place on ease of understanding how to vote, comparing a new system and an old system?

[Michael Marsh]

To begin with, I'm sure voters are not quite clear what they have to do. I keep going back to the Scottish experience. The Scottish experience is a very good one, because they have different electoral systems in local government, in Scottish assembly elections, and in European elections, and in their Westminster elections. They seem to manage perfectly well; there are very few spoiled votes.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

In your experience in the PR-STV system in Ireland, in the balloting, is there any culture, any prevalent instances where voters clearly demonstrate their disfavour with candidates or parties by spoiling ballots, or clearly demonstrating who they are not in favour of supporting? Does that happen with any regularity?

[Michael Gallagher]

Certainly, in situations of lower preferences when votes are transferred, we can see that some parties are very transfer attractive. They may not be that many people's first choice, but lots of people kind of like them. In this country, for example, the Green Party often has that status, or Labour Party at some elections. Sinn Fein, who were mentioned earlier, tend not to be very popular among other parties' voters. They've got their own base of support but they don't do very well in attracting second preferences from other parties and that plays into the final relationship between votes and seats.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

In spoiled balloting, is that something that happens often, even with first choices?

[Michael Gallagher]

I wouldn't say spoiled voting happens very often, because if you write anything on a ballot paper it becomes a spoiled vote and it's invalid. There are some spoiled votes by people who feel so strongly they can't refrain from writing so and so is a such and such, but there are not too many of those.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thanks very much.

That's all I have, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Professor Marsh and Professor Gallagher, thank you for a very fascinating presentation. You enriched the discussion and our information base immeasurably.

Again, thank you for making yourselves available at this time of the year.

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you.

Earlier, I raised, on a point of order, something which ought to have been presented as a notice of motion. I'm now prepared to give notice of motion. I've prepared something here. I apologize for the fact that it's somewhat hand-held.

Given that the Honourable Stéphane Dion is a recognized and credentialed academic, who, in April 2012 expressed the view that “precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada. Changing the voting system would require popular support.” Given that Mr. Dion was invited to appear as a witness at these proceedings and has formally declined that invitation. Given that this committee is very likely to have accommodated Mr. Dion's attendance any time, including at an irregular meeting. Given that Mr. Dion has deeply held and compelling views on these matters, we are currently engaged in studying, the public expression of which would have benefited this committee and those observing its proceedings. Given that no member of the House of Commons may be impeded in his or her right to be reasonably heard in a proceeding of the House, including its duly constituted committees, therefore, I move that this committee refer to the subcommittee of whether the Honourable Stéphane Dion has been inappropriately or unjustifiably impeded in his right to be heard by this committee contrary to the rights and privileges of members and if so, by what or by whom?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This is a notice of motion which you want debated at a future time?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I guess it would have to be, unless we want to start debating it now, but I think I'd need unanimous consent of the committee to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do we need unanimous consent to debate it now? I'll defer to the clerk on this.

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

Forty-eight hours' notice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't know if that was in the rules that we adopted. We'll just verify that.

We did create a rule or approve a rule at the very beginning on motions. I'm just going to refer to that.

It says here that 48 hours' notice be required—so you're right—for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to the business then under consideration, which is the case, so we don't need the 48 hours, and we don't need unanimous consent to debate it. In some ways it's up to you if you want to debate this now or if you want to do it at another time.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Chair, I suppose the answer to this would be as follows. In the event we can resolve this quickly, then I'd be in favour of dealing with it now. It's not my intention to cause us to be still here after a length of time, but we did plan to be here until noon, so I'll just point out to members—this will be my way of addressing the motion—the intention is to refer this to the subcommittee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Right. It's not to have a big debate on it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

It's not to have a lengthy debate on this, but members may not agree with that nevertheless, and I understand that.