Home President's Corner President's Speeches and Presentations

President's Corner

President's Speeches and Presentations

2006 | 2005 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000

15/12/2005

Speech on Electoral Reform Given to the Rotary Club of Hull, 15 December 2005

Check against delivery

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you about the Law Commission of Canada's 2004 report on the need to reform the federal electoral system in Canada. When, a few months ago, I spoke with Khanh Vu Duc about possible topics for my speech today, we could never have suspected that, by a stroke of luck, it would be right in the midst of an election campaign. I call it luck because election time is, in my opinion, a particularly auspicious time to ask whether all the resources we are investing in this process (nearly 300 million dollars) would be better spent if the electoral system worked differently.

Various electoral system models are used throughout the world and it is quite possible that another would better respond to our needs in Canada's current political context. Just as we converted from the Imperial system to Metric, we might well decide to change from the current electoral system, based entirely on the election of MPs in their constituencies and known as the first-past-the-post system, to another system. Moreover, it would be very surprising if at least one jurisdiction in Canada, whether a province, territory or even Parliament itself, does not opt for a new electoral formula within the next five years, given that the traditional electoral system is being challenged across the country.

• At the provincial level, two provinces, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, have held referenda in the past twelve months on whether to keep or change the existing electoral system. In British Columbia, a 57% majority of voters supported changing from the first-past-the-post system to another system. However, this significant majority fell short of the 60% super majority required to change the system. The party in power in this province will likely review the issue soon, given that the population is clearly no longer in favour of the current system. However, in Prince Edward Island, where a very strong majority of voters participated in the referendum held a few days ago, 64% voted against the proposed changes.
• In Ontario, a committee of the Legislative Assembly was instructed to examine the issue and presented its report last month, recommending further examination of the pros and cons of changing the system.
• In New Brunswick, a commission formed to examine the issue recommended a system that would achieve better balance between the percentage of votes received by a party and the number of MPs.
• The Quebec government is currently reviewing a bill with a similar aim.
• At the federal level, a House of Commons committee recommended in June that two committees, the first composed of MPs and the second, members of the public, begin examining the issue in Fall 2005. However, these committees were not formed before the election was called.

This reconsideration of the electoral system, while it seems more prominent on the political scene this year, is nothing new. As early as 2001, the Law Commission of Canada determined that the issue was important enough to launch a project on the topic, leading to its 2004 report, in which it recommended changing from the current system to the mixed member proportional system.

Why is the electoral system, a mechanism fundamental to the functioning of our democratic system, being called into question?

In my opinion, part of the problem is that the current mechanism has gradually lost its legitimacy in the eyes of many Canadians. Unable to vote through another system, many Canadians have chosen to stay home on election day, rather than vote.

When you arrived today, we asked you to participate in a short survey. The question was, "Did you vote in the last two federal elections?" I expected that the vast majority of you would answer that you had, given that your membership in the Rotary Club suggests that you are committed to your community and are likely, if not certain, to have a strong sense of civic duty. The survey revealed that I was not mistaken. In fact, 95% of you voted during the last federal election. Despite major flaws in the electoral system, you are not deterred from voting.

Now compare your participation in the elections to that of the rest of the Canadian population. (Q: Does anyone know the voter turn-out for the 2000 election?)

In the federal election in 2000, before the Commission began addressing electoral reform, only 62% of voters cast their ballots. At the time, it was the lowest voter turnout in the history of Canada. Today, this sad record belongs to the 2004 election, in which only 60% of voters participated. Many experts predict that this record could be surpassed in the next election. In that case, some will blame a winter election, others the electoral system. Yet the truth remains that today, in the information technology era, fewer and fewer people are participating in the electoral process. In light of this observation, which it describes as "democratic malaise," the Law Commission decided back in 2001 that it would begin examining the merits of replacing the current system with another electoral system. While no electoral system is perfect, the Commission concluded that the flaws of the current system and the benefits the mixed member proportional system, were significant enough to justify choosing the latter.

- First, I would like to quickly go over the factors that undermine the legitimacy of the current system; then, I will briefly explain to you the system proposed by the Law Commission of Canada and respond to at least one of the most common criticisms of the system proposed.

1) The design of our electoral system already contained elements that would predictably undermine its legitimacy sooner or later.

- I will illustrate by examining two problems with the system: i) the frequent disparity between the popular vote and the number of seats and ii) barriers to a diversified representation

i) the frequent disparity between the popular vote and the number of seats

This system allows the candidate to be elected with fewer than 50% of the votes (which is the case in most Canadian constituencies). Yesterday, an article in Le Devoir reported that in several constituencies in British Columbia, the Liberal Party, Conservative Party and New Democratic Party were neck and neck; surveys showed that each party received approximately one-third of the decided vote. If these surveys are correct and this tendency materializes on election day, MPs will be elected in several of these constituencies with 34% of the popular vote. In constituencies where the Green Party arouses interest, a candidate could be elected with even less public support.

The result of this system on a national scale is that a majority government is generally elected with less than 50% of voters' support . Since 1979, there have been eight federal elections, six of which produced a majority government. (Q: Of these six elections, how often do you think the majority government won with more than 50% of the votes cast?) In fact, none of these governments had more than 50% of the public's support. The government elected in 1984 received exactly 50% of support, followed by 44% in 1980 and then 38% in 1997. In 2000, the majority government was elected with 41% of the votes. Since only 62% of the electors voted, the party in power gained a majority government with 25.42% of the electorate's support.

At the federal level, a party can win a considerably higher percentage of MPs than its total percentage of votes (for example, in the 2000 election, the Liberal Party received 41% of the votes, but 57% of the seats, which gave it absolute majority in Parliament). Conversely, other parties won a much lower percentage of seats in Parliament than the percentage of votes cast (for example, in the 1993 election, the Progressive Conservative Party won 16% of the votes and 1% of the seats).

In certain cases, in both federal and provincial elections, sometimes a party with fewer votes still obtains most of the seats (Q: Could anyone give me an example?). In Quebec, the government under Jean Lesage was defeated in 1966, even though more Quebeckers voted for that government. In 1998, the Parti québécois was elected even though the Liberal Party received more votes in that province. In the 1979 federal election, the Conservative Party formed a minority government with four more MPs than the Liberal Party, even though the Liberal Party had more support among voters.

In addition, parties that obtained significant voter support nationally, but where such support is not concentrated in a specific region of the country, have considerable difficulty electing MPs. In other words, our current system favours parties with a regional, rather than a national calling. Although it is impossible to know the outcome of the next election, if you read the opinions of political commentators these days, you will find that many of them are predicting a 3% to 5% change in the number of voters who will exercise their right, which could give us a majority government. Just like an increase of three degrees in the temperature could have a significant impact on the planet's ecosystems, a relatively minor increase in voters could have a seismic impact on politics!

ii) Barriers to diversified representation

Our electoral system does not facilitate diversity within Parliament. Without a regional base, the smaller parties, which have nevertheless won considerable support from electors, have difficulty gaining MPs. The 4% of Canadians who voted for the Green Party in the latest elections have no representation in Parliament.

Moreover, there is little pressure for parties to diversify their representation because the candidates in each party are generally selected by the constituency and the campaign is waged constituency by constituency. Parties do not have to draft a regional or national list of voter diversity. Result: during the last federal election, there was a very slight increase in the percentage of women elected, from 63 during the 2000 campaign to 65 in 2004, meaning that only 21 percent of all members in the House of Commons are women.

2) The system proposed by the Commission

The Law Commission of Canada, after widely consulting Canadians over a period of three years and examining various types of electoral systems all over the world, proposed the mixed member proportional system. I will briefly describe the key elements of this system.

First, it is a mixed system because it keeps the system of electing MPs by constituency, but adds a proportional component. In concrete terms, this means that two-thirds of MPs would be elected in constituencies by obtaining more votes than their rivals, as is the case right now. The other third would be elected from a list of candidates proposed by each party. This list of candidates would be provincial, except in Quebec and Ontario. There would be regional lists in both of these provinces (four regions in Ontario and two in Quebec), given the large population in these provinces.

- Canadians would be asked to vote twice on their ballots. First, they would vote for a candidate in their constituency. Then, they would vote for the list by choosing a candidate listed by one of the parties or by simply voting for a party without indicating a preference for a particular candidate.

- The percentage of votes received by the parties on the list (either through votes for the candidate of a party or for the party itself) would determine the percentage of MPs elected for each party. For example, in Quebec there would be two regions. Gatineau would be in a region 1 with 40 MPs up for election: 27 by constituency and 13 by list. Suppose that Party A receives 50% of the votes. It would have 20 MPs. Suppose that 15 out of 27 of its representatives were elected MPs by constituencies. The other 5 seats it won would have come from the list. The first 5 names on Party A's list would be elected unless enough citizens decided to vote for a candidate further down on this party's list.

- Result:

1. Clearly, this system would achieve better balance between a party's popular vote and the percentage of representatives elected
2. Experience shows that the representatives elected would be more representative of the population's diversity because parties could include this diversity in the list they create. In 1996, New Zealand switched from a first-past-the-post system to a mixed member proportional system, which increased the percentage of female representatives from 21% in 1993 to 33% in the latest election in September 2005.
3. Studies show that this system attracts an average of 5% more voters on election day than our current system. I believe that one of the reasons for this increase is that the possibility of making two choices means your vote is never wasted. For example, take a voter who lives in a constituency where Party A historically wins by a landslide. This voter prefers Party B. Although his vote is unlikely to change the result in his constituency, his list vote could contribute to the election of an MP on the list.
4. Individuals who vote for small parties will have a better chance of electing a few representatives.

3) Response to criticism of the proposed system:

- I do not have enough time to address criticism of the proposed system in detail. First, keep in mind that the Commission is aware that no system is perfect and that the mixed member proportional system, like all other systems, has its strengths and weaknesses. I will limit my comments to just one criticism that the mixed member proportional system would result in more frequent minority governments (which others more justly call coalition governments). According to these critics, minority governments are by nature unstable, indecisive and divided, and give too much power to smaller parties. However, this analysis is quite debatable.

• Coalitions in countries with a mixed member proportional system do not appear less stable than elsewhere. Thus, New Zealand's electoral law dictates that elections be held every three years. All coalition governments elected by this system have lasted three years. Why? Because these parties know that an election will likely give way to a new coalition. Therefore, it is rarely advantageous to defeat the government.
• Minority governments are not necessarily indecisive. It is Parliament's job to adopt laws. Take a look at the work done by the last Parliament of Canada. During its final session, Parliament, led by a minority government, sat from October 4, 2004 to November 29, 2005, for a total of 13 months. During this time, the government introduced 82 bills, 43 of which were enacted. Compare these numbers to a recent majority government. For example, the 2nd session of the 36th Parliament lasted from October 12, 1999 to October 22, 2000, a total of 12 months. During this time, the government introduced 45 bills, 25 of which were enacted. At the very least, these figures demand circumspection regarding the supposed indecisive nature of minority governments.
• Lastly, some will say that minority or coalition governments grant too much power to smaller parties. If that is really the case, why is it that in a minority government, the smaller parties have not yet succeeded in persuading the big parties to change an electoral system that works against them?! In reality, a small party must, like all other parties, convince and also worry that in pushing too hard or too quickly, it will be pushed back by the electorate.

Churchill once said of democracy that, "It is the worst form of government apart from all the rest." In the opinion of the Law Commission of Canada, the mixed member proportional system is the electoral mechanism least likely to encourage Canadians to stay at home, winter or summer, on election day. Thank you.