Electoral Reform Committee on July 26th, 2016

[Robert Peden]

One of the benefits that was advanced for MMP by the royal commission was that it was likely to result in a more representative parliament, because of the feature of the party list, and for whatever reason, it seems to be the case that it's more difficult for candidates who are women or candidates who are Maori to win in an electorate. It seems to be easier for parties to be able to put women candidates or candidates who are Maori or Pacific or Asian in winnable positions through the list. Therefore what we see in the New Zealand experience is that MMP has had the effect of increasing the diversity of the New Zealand Parliament because parties are able to put a wider range of candidates in winnable positions on the list.

One thing I would emphasize is that in our legislation there are no quotas, no requirements. This is something that is driven by political parties.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You mentioned the incorporation of logos on the ballot. I believe this was happening in the Australian example as well. Out of curiosity, was there a particular reason? We don't do that. We have the party name alongside the candidate's name. Was the logo included for any particular reason?

Let's start with Australia and then go to New Zealand afterwards.

[Tom Rogers]

For a whole range of reasons, that's a political question, but it was to aid voter identification of the political parties. I'll leave it at that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

In New Zealand's case, my suggestion was that it was to overcome literacy barriers or any other issue that voters faced by providing a more recognizable symbol for anyone who was struggling with literacy issues.

Was this the reason, or was there something else?

[Robert Peden]

It was introduced first in 1995 in the first MMP election. One of the things about MMP is that it recognizes as a system the importance of parties, so Parliament's intention was to make the ballot paper easier for voters to use by identifying more recognizably the party and also the candidate who represented that party.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have a last question. Is there a distinction made in the functioning of Parliament in New Zealand between so-called list MPs and MPs who are elected directly? Second, is there any distinction made—this is perhaps more a cultural question within the New Zealand community—so that list MPs and direct MPs are ranked differently or viewed differently?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Answer very briefly, please.

[Robert Peden]

Formally, no: a parliamentarian elected from the list has exactly the same entitlements and responsibilities as a member elected from an electorate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Thériault, go ahead.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you very much.

What strikes me in your presentations is the keen interest in education, in awareness-raising. You are ensuring that citizens are involved in those reforms. New Zealand, in particular, has an 18-month time frame between the beginning of the committee's deliberations and the submission of its report.

Yesterday, experts told us that representative democracy was a legitimate way to take action without holding a referendum. But I see that two referendums have been held in New Zealand, and they were supported through information campaigns. I assume the idea was to ensure that the people can be involved in those reforms.

Some individuals have told us today that a referendum is certainly necessary given how important the change is.

Our term will be up on December 1. I feel like we are in 1985, at the planning stage. After everyone has decided to change something, a committee is struck that will have to issue a report. But the committee will have to submit that report by December 1. It will have to consult the entire Canadian population in a few weeks.

As we know, it is not in the practice of the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff to either take sides or criticize other countries. That said, in light of your experience, would you not say that our approach is a bit reckless?

[Tom Rogers]

I think my friend from New Zealand should take that question.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Robert Peden]

Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

I am able to speak with authority on the New Zealand context and tradition. I'm not at all in a position to comment on what might be appropriate for Canada. That is very much something for the Canadian Parliament and people.

In the New Zealand context and tradition, when a fundamental reform of the electoral system has been proposed, it has been supported by comprehensive debate and education campaigns and has been confirmed by way of a referendum.

[Tom Rogers]

I'd simply say that the Australian Electoral Commission is funded for three main functions. One is to maintain the roll, the second is to conduct elections, and the third is to ensure there's an educated electorate. We go out of our way on the third area to make sure that Australians have as much information as they possibly can have to make informed choices.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll move on now to Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

I want to thank our colleagues from New Zealand and Australia for joining us.

In addition to being the member of Parliament here for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I'm also the leader of the Green Party of Canada, so I want you to know that I've been delighted to work very closely with New Zealand Greens such as Kennedy Graham, James Shaw, and Metiria Turei, and in Australia with Bob Brown, Christine Milne, and now Richard Di Natale. I have a rough familiarity with the voting systems from them.

That leads me to ask a question of Mr. Rogers from Australia. I mentioned the Australian parliamentarians with whom I work. As you know, they're all senators and they're elected under a system that is different from the one we spent most time on this evening. They're elected under single transferable vote. Do you have any comments on why Australia went to an elected senate with a single transferable vote system while leaving the lower house with a majoritarian winner-take-all system?

[Tom Rogers]

I think there were some historical artifacts there. With the Senate, I'm not sure about the way the process works in Canada, but theoretically the Senate in Australia is known as the states' house, as you may be aware, and was originally established to be a house of review for the states, so a different electoral system was developed.

Each state has a constitutionally guaranteed minimum number of senators. A quota system was developed to help fill that number. The only difference is that each of the six states has 12 senators who complete a full term of six years, and the two territories—the Australian Capital Territory, where Canberra is, and the Northern Territory—have two senators who complete a three-year term. It's just a different process that emerged, and people seem broadly comfortable with it, as noted in the comments I made previously about the recent changes to the Senate electoral system.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

I'll turn to Mr. Peden. One of the unique characteristics of the New Zealand system is having specific seats and districts designated for indigenous peoples, for the Maori people. How does that work? How do you determine them? Is it a geographical Maori district? Is it seats reserved across the country for Maori people? I know, of course, that Maori candidates are electable under the other seats as well. Could you shed some light on how Maori representation works?

[Robert Peden]

There have been separate Maori seats since 1867 in New Zealand. People who identify themselves as being of Maori descent are eligible to enrol either on the general roll or on the Maori roll. Depending upon the exercise of that choice, when it comes to defining the boundaries, we have a Maori electoral population and a general electoral population. New Zealand is divided into 64 general electorates and seven Maori electorates. The number of Maori electorates will increase depending upon the choices exercised by people of Maori descent as to whether they want to go on the general roll or the Maori roll. All electorates represent the same number of people, so there are seven Maori electorates because, if you divide the Maori electoral population by the electoral quota, you get seven.

Does that answer your question?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

It's very, very helpful to have the historical understanding that it dates back to 1867.

I also wonder this. You mentioned that you've done a lot to educate the New Zealand population about the electoral system. I'm wondering what you regard as the most effective methods of education that New Zealand undertook to change from our current system of first past the post, which we want to remove, and move into proportional representation. What were the most effective ways in which this transition was made in terms of public education?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Answer briefly, please.

[Robert Peden]

In relation to the decisions made in 1992 and 1993, they were in the context of ongoing debate that had been under way since the mid-eighties. This was an issue of much public discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. DeCourcey.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

Thanks to you both for joining us from afar.

I'll direct my first question to Mr. Peden. My colleague Mr. Cullen asked about the differences in theory and perhaps in practice in the role that MPs from an electorate may play versus the role of MPs from a list. Adding on to that, is there any evidence to suggest that the public perceives a difference in their roles or that they interact differently with the two different types of MPs?