Electoral Reform Committee on July 26th, 2016

[Prof. Patrice Dutil]

How do you get cynicism? You get cynicism when politicians look after their own interests purely. That's the answer. People will turn cynical against politicians when they see that you're only defending yourself and your own personal interests or your own collective interests. It has to go to a referendum; whether you do it with a committee or with some sort of electoral college or whatever, the people have to have the last word. If you want to defeat cynicism, then you have to show that it's not just about the incumbents protecting themselves. It's about opening up the system so that Canadians can voice their opinions on it. So I think you have to do it.

I need to address the idea, because it's been a subject of my research, that the Prime Minister's Office suddenly got stronger under Mr. Trudeau. I have a book coming out next year that demonstrates vividly that this goes back to John A. Macdonald in 1867. The times have modernized, but the Prime Minister in this country has been very powerful from the get-go. It's nothing new. It's adapted to modern times, undeniably. John A. Macdonald did it one way, Laurier did it one way, Borden did it one way, Mackenzie King did it one way. It's nothing new.

Parliament's not going to change that. There are other ways that can perhaps contain the Office of the Prime Minister. I think the Australians are teaching you guys a really good lesson, that when you have strong ministers, strong members of Parliament who can defeat their Prime Minister—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you. I have to get my second question in after.

[Prof. Peter Russell]

Just on your referendum question, I hope the proposal is not the Prime Minister's. I hope it's a recommendation from this committee with a strong cross-bench consensus behind you. That's what the people of Canada want from you. They don't want just Justin Trudeau's preference. They want this committee's preference. You have a real obligation to take something to them that you've really thought through and have a consensus on. They don't want a voting system that's favourable to just one party or two parties. They want one that's good for all Canadians. I just can't emphasize that too much. Then you can have a decent referendum. But do look at the referendum rules.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

In the past, I have been open to different kinds of electoral systems as being preferable to first past the post. I've never had a doctrine or view about this, but I must confess to a certain degree of cynicism in this process, because the governing party has made no secret about the fact that it has a preferred outcome, which is a transferable vote. We're obviating a citizens' assembly. We're obviating a referendum.

If the objective is for every vote to count, then we move in the wrong direction with a strict STV system, because under an STV system, it's estimated that the Liberal Party would have won 66% of the seats in the last election, as opposed to the 54% that it did.

Could you comment on a single riding STV system, because the centrist party tends to win the second-choice vote?

[Prof. Peter Russell]

Are you sure you're talking about STVs? That's not a single member system. You're talking about alternative voting, preferential voting. That's different. That has nothing to do with STVs.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Does not the alternative vote system end up meaning that actually fewer votes count than with the status quo?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Quickly please, because we're over time.

[Prof. Patrice Dutil]

That is a possibility. The other possibility is that some people are going to have more votes than others. If you vote for one of the candidates who reaches second or third position, your vote is counted, but if you vote for somebody who falls lower on the calculations, you get to vote twice: you have your vote, and then you have your second vote counted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. DeCourcey.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just looking for some clarity and to perhaps build a bridge between this idea of causality and coincidence and the way the electoral system precipitates the look of Parliament.

All the other witnesses who have come before us have said in one way or another that the current electoral system is one of a number of factors tied into a larger political culture, including the way Parliament operates, certain policies available to members in Parliament, and a number of other things that factor into the way Parliament looks and feels to Canadians. Would you agree that the system is one of a number of factors that lead to the Parliament we get?

[Prof. Patrice Dutil]

Of course. The system is pivotal, and it's certainly one of the factors. But if you're looking for representation, I think you have to dig a little deeper. If you're looking for representation, you have to ask yourselves, as a party, if you are running enough women, if you are running enough people who represent the country.

This Parliament has made tremendous inroads. We have much greater representation of the Canadian population in this Parliament than ever. There are not enough women, I grant you. You're absolutely right. At the provincial level, we're doing a lot better, and at the municipal level, not so much. I think it's a question of your own culture as a party. You have to work towards that.

In terms of representation, if you're going to run a list, and you put a whole bunch of women on the list, you're dealing with a different kind of system. You could also have that kind of system and have a lot of men on it. It's a choice you make as politicians. It's really a political choice. And I think political enlightenment.... People might think of it as kind of idealistic. I still believe in political enlightenment: you represent this for me.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Professor Russell, what is your view as to whether the system is one factor among a number of other factors?

[Prof. Peter Russell]

With MMP, it is clearly easier for many women who have, particularly, domestic responsibilities, to be list candidates than to do the very heavy-duty door knocking, which you people all know you have to do to be an MP elected in a constituency. You've all done that. In STV, where you have, say, five for an urban district of Toronto or Montreal, the major parties pick five candidates for each of those seats. That gives women a much better chance, because very likely, all the parties will want to have women evident on their list. That's also seen in the Finnish system of STV, and so on. So it's not just a coincidence. These systems seem to bring out more women, even in parties that are trying their darndest to get more women candidates.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Professor Russell, can I dig a bit further there, because I've heard other witnesses and members talk about the list in a potential MMP system still being drawn from candidates who have also run and done the door knocking and that that can lead to more legitimacy in the process.

Would you share that view, or would you share the view that it's all right to just be on a list and receive—

[Prof. Peter Russell]

You know what you should do? You should look at some of these lists.

Don't take it from me. Look at some of the lists that the German parties and the New Zealand parties have. You will see that they've put terrific people on there. They put stars on there—outstanding people—in the arts, in business, even in sport. The geographic constituency is not the only constituency. Take aboriginal people. That's a constituency in itself. One of the advantages of lists is that you broaden the kind of representation you can have in Parliament. It doesn't all come down to geography.

However, take a look at the lists. Don't just have a vague idea. You have research from the parliamentary library, and they'll give you some samples.

[Prof. Patrice Dutil]

If I can I add one more thing, I urge you to take a look at the Senate.

Why not use the Senate as a House that would compensate for the distortions inside the House of Commons? Why not have more women in the Senate dictate to the Prime Minister—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You've made that point before, and it's a good one.

Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I think because it's a committee on democratic reform, making recommendations about the Senate is just out of scope.

That might be one reason why we wouldn't do it.

[Prof. Patrice Dutil]

The Senate is a house of Parliament.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

We talk about political enlightenment being the way to get more women in politics, despite what I think is an obvious correlation, at least, which doesn't imply causality or coincidence between PR systems and the participation of women in politics. However, then we switch to talking about a PR system and how we would have a proliferation of small parties and it would be unworkable.

I wonder where the call to political enlightenment is there. If political enlightenment is an efficient way of delivering more women into politics, I don't see why, if we're capable of being politically enlightened in that sense under a first past the post system, the same kind of goodwill and political enlightenment wouldn't mitigate toward less regional politics within a proportional representational system.

I've been struggling with the presentation of your concepts that are meant to do work, on the one hand, which is to get women into politics. We don't need any particular systems or rules about that. We're going to do it because we're great politicians and we care about the country and this is important, so let's get it done. However, under a PR system, all that political enlightenment and goodwill would evaporate. We wouldn't have it anymore, and we would revert to petty regional politics.

I'm finding it hard to square your optimism about our capability as politicians with your pessimism about a proportional representation system.

[Prof. Patrice Dutil]

Thank you for the question.

I think that under the system now, where you are elected with most people voting against you, it is incumbent on you to work hard and be mindful of what people are thinking and to do the best job you can, knowing that most people have voted against you.

A PR system, a proportional representation system, is fundamentally different. Parties are going to form because they represent a rather narrower perspective. This is not just conjecture. Look at every jurisdiction that has used proportional representation and you will see it. You will see it in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Spain, and in Greece. Everywhere that has used proportional representation, parties will emerge that will cater to a particular—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes, so you have regional parties.

I mean you have regional parties under the first past the post system. You had the Reform Party, which I think quite arguably was a regional party—

[Prof. Patrice Dutil]

Indeed.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

That's why it had to engage in.... You know, the right had to come back together. You have the Bloc Québécois, which is a regional party.

The idea that somehow we would be introducing regional parties to Canada because we adopted a proportional representation system is just wrong.

[Prof. Patrice Dutil]

Here's my point. They're no longer there.