Core 1..140 Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Special Committee on Electoral Reform ERRE Ï NUMBER 032 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 42nd PARLIAMENT EVIDENCE Wednesday, September 28, 2016 Chair Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia 1 Special Committee on Electoral Reform Wednesday, September 28, 2016 democratic deliberation and the psychology of political decision- making, so I'm approaching my remarks as a democratic theorist and Ï (1340) as a student of Canadian politics. However, I'm also a citizen who [English] believes that while we've done quite well as a country, we can do The Chair (Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): better. Good afternoon. We're opening our first panel here in Vancouver for meeting number 32 of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, which is on the eighth day of its cross-country tour to gather feedback from stakeholders and Canadians on how we can improve our current first-past-the-post electoral system. Let me start with how we should adopt a new system. Electoral reform is not merely a technical exercise, it's a political exercise and We have with us this afternoon David Moscrop, Ph.D. candidate, a normative exercise. Choosing a system is about power, inclusion, department of political science, University of British Columbia; Mr. and how we want to live together. Nick Loenen; and Megan Dias, graduate student, department of political science, University of British Columbia. My understanding is that each witness will have five minutes to present. This will be followed by a round of questions from the Because no electoral system is neutral, because political parties members of the committee. Each member will have the opportunity are affected by it, and because we disagree about which is the best to engage the witnesses for five minutes. That includes the questions one for us, only a thorough, open, and sustained democratic process and answers. will provide the necessary legitimacy for whichever system is chosen. Accordingly, the process of choosing a system must be If for some reason you can't respond because time has run out, the separated from the process of ratifying that choice. More specifically, next time you have the mike you can respond to a question that was politicians who will be directly affected by the system should not be previously asked. in charge of choosing it since they face a direct conflict of interest. Without further ado, we'll ask Mr. David Moscrop to take the The electoral system belongs to the people to whom the polity floor, please. belongs, that is, all of us. Mr. David Moscrop (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, As an Individual): Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation. I look forward to having a chance to speak with you. I strongly recommend that we initiate a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform, similar to that which was held in British Electoral systems do not change often or easily, nor should they. The electoral system is a part of the fundamental rules of the game in Columbia in 2004 and in Ontario in 2006. The assembly should be tasked with learning about electoral systems, deliberating over which a democracy. These rules are institutions that enable citizens to is best for Canada, and then making a specific recommendation. understand and predict how their democracy will function. In essence, they help make democracy user-friendly. However, some institutions can and should change over time. They should adapt to evolving norms and expectations, to shifting demographics, and to new priorities, technologies, practices, and Now, for ratifying the proposal, the controversial bit, either a free approaches to democratic governance. While Canada's first-past-the- vote in Parliament or a referendum is necessary. I prefer a citizens' post system has served the country well since Confederation, I assembly followed by a vote in Parliament. A parliamentary vote believe that a change to a proportional system would better serve us would be quicker and less costly than a referendum. More in the 21st century and beyond. However, whichever system we importantly, provided Parliament merely ratifies the recommended choose, the way we choose it also very important. system without amendment, I believe this would meet the threshold of democratic legitimacy that requires that the system chosen is a In the next few minutes I'm going to discuss two things: which product of disinterested individuals acting in the public good and not system we should adopt and how we should adopt it. I study of partisan political bias or engineering. 2 ERRE-32 September 28, 2016 That said, a referendum, provided it follows a citizens' assembly, remedy he took from John Stuart Mill was multi-seat districts and a that is extremely well resourced and includes a robust and sustained ranked ballot. public education campaign might also meet the threshold. However, when run poorly, and referendums often are, referendums risk undermining their democratic intent through low and unrepresenta- Those two problems that Fleming saw are still with us today. The tive turnout, public misinformation campaigns by partisan interests, remedy he proposed is as relevant as it was in his day. Would we be and structural biases that creep into decision-making. able to turn all of the 338 ridings into a multi-seat district? I don't To summarize, a citizens' assembly, if properly resourced and run think so. I don't think it's possible because it would mean chronic and followed by a free vote in Parliament, would be a wise and coalition government, and Canadians are uncomfortable with that. In democratically legitimate approach to choosing an electoral system. addition, it would mean that in rural Canada, the ridings would be so It would help us pick an appropriate system for Canada and would large as to be deemed unmanageable. take the choice out of the hands of politicians who might benefit from that choice, perhaps at the expense of their opponents. Not only would this approach be democratically legitimate and effective, it For those two reasons, we can't go that way, but we can go a long would be politically expedient for a government or for a committee ways that way. In other words, we need a compromise. that finds itself in a tricky position. Now, which system do I think we should choose? I believe a mixed member proportional system is best for Canada. MMP allows Hence, my suggestion to you would be that we have a single seat for direct local representation and lives up to the commitment many preferential ballot for rural Canada and multi-seat in the urban Canadians have to fairness understood as a proportional translation centres. That is a perfect fit. It's a perfect fit for our geography. It's a of votes into seats. Now, this is a value choice. It rests on a perfect fit because of the uneven distribution of population, and it fits conception of fairness related to the idea that each vote should have a the need of the hour. high likelihood of contributing to electing a member of Parliament while also allowing smaller parties to win seats in the House of Commons. At this point in our history, I do not believe Canadians want full proportional representation, but they certainly want to go more MMP would address what many see as a serious problem. Under proportional than what we have. I believe that this is exactly what we first past the post, governments win majorities with around 40% of need at this moment, and what is perhaps the only alternative that is the vote and often with the support of a mere 25% to 27% of the possible politically, which is another very important consideration: eligible voters. Such outcomes offer weak electoral mandates that What is possible? raise questions in the long run about democratic legitimacy. Properly designed, MMP would allow Canada to have the best of two worlds, the local representation and an effective House of I do think that this kind of hybrid common-sense adaptation of all Commons that we have in our first past the post and fairer electoral of our Canadian needs makes a whole lot of sense, and we had it in outcomes and representation offered by proportional systems. history. Both the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba for 30 years had Ï (1345) exactly that kind of hybrid system between rural and urban ridings. It was discontinued in the 1950s by the politicians. The people had no In conclusion, we have a once in a generation opportunity to voice in it. choose an electoral system that represents the values that many Canadians cherish. I believe that choice ought to be MMP. However, the way we choose a system is at least as important, indeed, perhaps I looked at your guiding principle, and it's a wonderful statement. more important. A citizens' assembly is necessary for this choice, It's a beautiful statement. It's inspirational. It yearns for greater followed either by a free parliamentary vote or an extremely well-run democracy, and particularly more effective local representation, for referendum. inclusion, for MPs who will speak for their constituents. It talks Thank you. about civic engagement, and for the voters to be empowered, not necessarily the parties, and in particular for MPs to have some more The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Moscrop. clout. Those two, electoral reform and parliamentary reform, are Mr. Loenen, for five minutes. both needed, and are tied very closely together. Mr. Nick Loenen (As an Individual): Mr. Chair, members of the committee, we all know Sir Sandford Fleming for giving us the 24- hour clock, but he was also a student of Parliament.