You are on page 1of 6

Supplementary Opinion of the NDP and the Green Party on Electoral Reform: A

Strong Mandate for Proportional Representation


It has been an enormous privilege to serve on the Special Parliamentary Committee on
Electoral Reform. As a group of individuals, all twelve members of parliament, as well
as their alternates from time to time, have done an enormous service to Canadian
democracy. There was a tremendous esprit de corps, as the clerk and her team, the
parliamentary analysts and the technical, translation and support crew put in long hours
on a grueling schedule. Our chair, Francis Scarpaleggia, deserves special thanks for
his deft touch, respectful engagement with hundreds of citizens who waited hours for
their two minutes at the open microphone, and his neutral and non-partisan facilitation
of our process.
The New Democratic Party and the Green Party are pleased that the Special
Committee on Electoral Reform has recommended evolving Canadas voting system
into the 21st century, by advocating for a strong proportional representation system in its
majority opinion. Canada remains one of the few modern democracies in the world that
still uses the antiquated first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system.
The Committees decision to support proportional representation for Canada is an
historic achievement and an important moment for the deepening of Canadian
democracy.
The Committee was given an extensive mandate and a challenging schedule, but we
believe that this process has been a strong success. We are proud of what the
Committee achieved: a truly broad consensus.
The success of the Committee is inextricably tied to its composition and, indeed, speaks
to its final recommendation of proportional representation. All parties in the House of
Commons were given seats at the table, and because no single party could rely on its
majority of votes, members relied on compromise and cooperation, and sought
consensus or at least multi-party support for different initiatives over the course of its
study.
As Minister Monsef said before on the committee on July 6, 2016, first past the post is
an antiquated system designed to meet the realities of 19th century Canada and not
designed to operate within our multi-party democracy. We require an electoral system
that provides a stronger link between the democratic will of Canadians and election
results. The government made two key promises: to repeal our unfair, outdated FPTP
voting system and to make evidence-based decisions. Therefore, we urge the Minister
of Democratic Institutions and the government as a whole to examine our report and the
evidence it contains carefully. Our key recommendations break down in two categories:

329

those driven by evidence and those driven by an effort to achieve a consensus


recommendation. As Mr. Reid wrote in October, each party came to the table with
certain bottom lines that, if adhered to, would make consensus not simply achievable
but unavoidable. The Liberals needed to have changes implemented by 2019, the
Conservatives and the Bloc Qubecois desired to see a referendum on that change,
and our requirement that the change be toward proportional representation. The
committees majority report reaches this consensus.
The Decision to move to Proportional Representation
The evidence was overwhelming that Canadian democracy will be reinvigorated and the
quality of it vastly improved as we reject the archaic FPTP voting system. The
recommendation to move to proportionality to ensure that, in the words of the Speech
from the Throne that every vote counts, is driven by abundant evidence.
The Committee heard from the leading political scientists, electoral systems
practitioners, academics and public policy analysts from within Canada and around the
world. While we heard many opinions, the vast majority contended that FPTP is a
deeply flawed system that perverts the will of the electorate and creates a political
culture of hyper-partisan conflict.
Professor Peter Russell coined the term false majority to describe the phenomenon
only experienced under majoritarian systems, where the minority of those who vote can
elect a majority of Members of Parliament. The dangers of this are well understood.
When asked pointedly in our hearings what harm had ever come to Canada from a false
majority, he responded global warming. In academic terms the risk is called policy
lurch. One government puts in place a policy and a programme, such as a climate
plan. The next government unravels it. All this despite the fact that, since the early
1990s, in poll after poll, 80% of Canadians have said they want climate action.
Some of the Committees most persuasive testimony was that of Professor Arendt
Lijphart, professor emeritus from the University of California, San Diego. His years of
study of thirty-six modern democracies is empirical evidence that proportional
representation serves citizens far better than majoritarian systems, such as FPTP or
ranked ballots. His seminal work, Patterns of Democracy, clearly shows that evidence
for patterns. Compared to those countries that use FPTP, proportional countries have a
higher voter turn-out, elect more women, have greater ethnic diversity, have as stable
and marginally more stable governments, superior macro-economic performance and
have more effective environmental protections.
The evidence from Australia is particularly convincing. The Australian lower house uses
the majoritarian system of ranked ballots; the upper house is elected using a
proportional system, Single Transferable Vote (STV). At the end of the most recent

330

election this year, the number of women in the lower House rose to 29%, up from 23%.
Meanwhile, in the elected Senate, using STV, the percentage of women was 39%.
No doubt, a focus on other barriers to women and other under-represented groups will
make the impact of a change in our voting system more robust - its clear that strong
barriers exist at the nomination level.
Therefore, we are very happy that the committee has recommended that the
government create financial incentives for political parties to nominate more women
candidates. Canada currently ranks 64th in the world in terms of gender parity in
government. If parties are given stronger incentives to nominate more women, then we
will greatly increase our chances of electing a more representative Parliament.
There is clear evidence that proportional systems enhance the voters sense of
empowerment. Voters have more choice. And this government has many viable choices
to replace the current electoral system.
System recommendations
While the committee did not adopt specific electoral systems within its report, we
believe the government would benefit from some specifics. We believe the government
should consider adopting one of the following models, both of which would result in a
Gallagher score of less than four.
Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP), with 2/3 of the House of
Commons elected to represent direct constituencies, and 1/3 elected as regional
compensatory members. Regional compensatory MPs may be elected from an
open list, flexible list, as recommended by the Law Reform Commission, or they
may be elected as best runners-up, as per the Baden-Wrttemberg system.
Open and flexible lists have the benefit of letting voters choose. The BadenWrttemberg option has the benefit of forcing all candidates to be scrutinized and
supported by voters every election in order to win their seat. Compensatory seats
would be drawn from territories, provinces, or sub-regions within provinces. As
such, since it would not affect current riding boundaries, a full riding redistribution
would be unnecessary. The government could decide to take an incremental
approach by adding regional compensatory MPs in groups of 30-45 over the next
three or four elections.
Rural-urban proportional representation (RUP), as first elaborated by former
Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, in which current riding boundaries
are maintained, but current urban ridings are clustered into multi-member ridings
of three to five MPs. To minimize the level of distortion between the popular will
of the electorate and the resultant seat allocations in Parliament, in 2019, the
331

government should add an additional 50 seats for regional compensatory MPs.


Again, regional compensatory MPs may be elected from an open list, flexible list,
or elected as best runners-up, as per the Baden-Wrttemberg system. Like our
proposed MMP model, compensatory seats would be drawn from territories,
provinces, or sub-regions within provinces. As such, a full riding redistribution
would be unnecessary.
Validation and engagement
We take the question of public validation and engagement extremely seriously. We
believe that significant additional public education and consultation initiatives on
electoral reform must be undertaken. While it remains an option, we have serious
concerns about holding a referendum on electoral reform. The evidence for the
necessity of change is overwhelming; the evidence for the necessity of holding a
referendum is not.
If the government decides it must hold a referendum on electoral reform, it should
include both MMP and RUP as ballot options, and Canadians aged 16 and up should be
allowed to vote.
Keeping the promise
We strongly support the governments campaign and throne speech promises to repeal
the unfair, outdated first-past-the-post voting system, and replace it with an alternative
that will ensure every vote counts. Now that our report leaves the Committees hands, it
moves into yet another sphere of real politic.
In this, we urge the Minister of Democratic Institutions, the Prime Minister and the
Cabinet to fulfill the worthy goals buttressed by evidence in the work of our committee.
Canadians are ready for reform: almost 9 in 10 experts and average citizens who spoke
to the special committee urged the government to adopt proportional representation and
make every vote count. Furthermore, several recent public opinion polls show that a
substantial majority of Canadians expect the government to make good on its promise
of electoral reform.
In our view, there is clear support for action and a clear path to achieve reform
especially given that the approaches iterated above would not require a redistribution of
riding boundaries. With a strong electoral mandate comprising nearly two thirds of
Canadians in 2015, and an all-party committee recommendation in favour of
proportional representation following a five month, national consultation, we believe the
government now has the mandate, the path, the tools, and the obligation to make 2015
the last election under FPTP.

332

There is no question that more work needs to be done to increase public awareness
around electoral reform. But we have two years between putting a system in place by
2017 and using it in 2019. That two-year window creates the opportunity for the full
engagement of Canadians. Prime Minister Trudeau stated, on countless occasions,
both before and after the election, that 2015 would be the last election held under firstpast-the-post. He and the Minister of Democratic Institutions promised, in black and
white, to make every vote count. The government must not squander this generational
opportunity for reform that will have an enormous impact on the quality of Canadian
democracy.

333

You might also like