Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 19th, 2016

[Darla Deguire]

I'm not sure I could put a definitive number on it. I would suggest that this issue has been talked about for a while now at the leadership level.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the structure of the labour movement. We have our national leadership, which makes up what we call our Canadian council, which represents all 54 of our member unions. With many of the issues we take up, the conversation usually starts there. We rely a lot on our member unions to go back into their organizations and support the various campaigns and issues we're talking about, but it's more up to them to engage their membership. We don't actually touch, or reach, or even phone 3.3 million members. We rely on our member unions to help us do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Is it the leadership that makes this decision?

[Darla Deguire]

Well, I guess it depends on the issue. I'm not sure exactly what the process was with this particular issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I assume someone takes charge of doing the work. I guess that's the question.

Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you both for being here.

Ms. Deguire, in your presentation, you quoted polls to document what you were saying or your organization's position. You gave one figure of 17%. There are also plenty of other polls on many other topics, including the referendum afterwards.

Why use this poll to support your vision, when according to almost all polls released in Canada, Canadians want to have an opportunity to express their opinion through a referendum? Yet, in your organization's position or in your presentation, you don't take this into account.

[Darla Deguire]

For the record, we do not have a position on a referendum. We leave that decision and that process or consultation to take place at whatever the appropriate place is for that to happen, whether it be through this committee or through another government committee. We don't have a formal position on a referendum.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

We had a very good meeting in Ottawa a few weeks ago. Young people from the Institut du Nouveau Monde came to speak to us. It's a Quebec organization that does a lot with young people, in particular. As an aside, they are in favour of changing the voting system.

Looking at the observations they made after asking young people about their lack of interest in voting, we can see that no one necessarily spoke about the voting system or said that they felt under-represented. However, what did emerge was fairly clear.

The main reasons people 18 to 34 years of age did not vote were a lack of interest in politics, quite simply, and being too busy to vote. The third reason for not voting, according to the categories, is the problem of registering, which we are hearing a lot about in the regions. I don't think that changing the voting system will result in more or less. You can change it without changing the voting system. Adding polling stations throughout would be very simple.

We also asked seniors. The Conservative Party didn't conduct this survey, but a completely neutral organization that is in favour of a change so that we have a mixed member proportional system. Seniors gave more personal reasons, such as being outside the riding, having health problems or being disillusioned with politics altogether.

I often ask myself this question. We often come back to changing the voting system. Having said that, I'm not necessarily for or against this change, but I find that perhaps we are asking the wrong questions. Today, I'm not convinced—and I'm trying to let myself be convinced by some—that we will have greater turnout and greater interest by changing the voting system. In almost every democracy around the world, even in countries that have adopted the proportional vote, voter turnout has dropped. In New Zealand, the percentage of voters has dropped from 85% to 75% since they adopted a proportional voting system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're going to consider that more of a comment than a question since we don't have time for an answer.

We'll continue with Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you.

My colleague Ms. Sahota asked Ms. Deguire about values, and I want to continue with that discussion. Actually, I'd like to hear from both our witnesses.

You've come up with recommendations on solutions that you'd like to see, and I'm curious about the discussions that you had. What are the values that you would like to see reflected in a system, and what led you to that conclusion? To me, it's really important to understand the process you've gone through in order to come to the recommendations that you've made. If you're able to articulate them, what kinds of values would you say need to be reflected in an updated electoral reform system that would be a reflection of your recommendation?

Maybe Ms. Deguire could start, and then we'll flip it over.

[Darla Deguire]

As a starting point, why does the labour movement in Canada care about electoral reform? Why would that be something that we would want to engage our membership on and want to put resources into?

I guess it all comes down to fairness. We as an organization—and I would go as far to say including our 53 or so member unions—didn't just start having a conversation about electoral reform when the Liberals were elected or when we heard that this government was committed to having a process and wanted to hear from Canadians and organizations such as ours. We've been having this conversation for a long time, and the conversation started around fairness.

That was really the starting point for us. We want to see a system that is fair to Canadians, so that people can start voting for something, as opposed to voting against something.

We already heard about strategic voting today. When I talked about values, I mentioned that what's really important for us is to ensure that people, when they go to the ballot box, feel that they are voting for a representative and a political party that will represent their issues or their concerns as citizens, as opposed to saying, “I'm going to vote for this person because I don't want that other person to win.”

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

That's good. It's about fairness. You've made that point.

Mr. Harding, does your organization have any thoughts? You came to a proportional representation conclusion as well. Was any of the thinking leading up to that related to things like values? How did you reach that conclusion?

[Jim Harding]

It's certainly fairness and equality in the sense I described, but it's sustainability and stability as well. We think you will get stability and an ability for governance for the long term with a shift in global awareness about the climate crisis. There is certainly a strong value in our generation in shifting to governments for sustainability. I don't think that can happen with the fragmented four-year appeasement of the voter base that occurs under first past the post.

I've been in politics, and I know. I was a mayor and I was on city council here, and I know what happens after you're elected. It's a real force of fragmenting and shifting and partisanship, and the common interests of the community—the capacity to learn, listen, and co-operate—are interfered with.

That's tough. I've come out of the shock waves of being a mayor and I'm back to being my normal self again. You know what I'm talking about. The values, it seems to me.... We need a different view of stability. You get a different concept of stability for the long term, for seven generations and our grandchildren. My son's a marine biologist. He just had a baby, and he's worried. Those values move to the centre.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Benson, please.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank both of you for your presentations.

My first question is for Mr. Harding. I assume you are not a professor anymore and not a mayor anymore. Are you, Mr. Harding?

I am just being funny. I really related to some of the things you said. I am a first-time member of Parliament and I came out of the not-for-profit sector. I have worked my whole life trying to be around a table bringing people together in order to find the best solution that includes as many voices as possible.

In terms of changing the electoral system, I come to the conclusion that the current system will not allow us to address some of the issues that are facing us. Certainly, being on the community side, I have done the flip-flop with different governments and have tried to work over a long term on some issues that remain in my community around racism, poverty, and homelessness. A few times people have come to me and said, “I didn't vote for you, but I live in your riding”, so I would say “Well, I am still your member of Parliament.” It is an interesting conversation to have with people. What does that really mean?

I am asking you to continue your comments and perhaps show an example of why the system currently doesn't allow us to tackle some of the issues that need to be tackled in a very different way. Currently, when you sit in the House of Commons across the aisle from a majority government, you feel your inability, and I am not saying this is personal. There is no impetus, no incentive to co-operate, to be consensual. You can feel that there.

[Jim Harding]

With the winner-take-all system, the other side of it is the losers are out. Winner take all means the losers are out. The losers are our neighbours and citizens. We know who they are. We know poverty, housing, food security. Come on, folks.

Right now in my community we have an MP, Andrew Scheer, who believes he's secure, and therefore he turns from the interests of the broad community because he doesn't have to address those issues. Now, he went from 56% to 46%, so he's through next time. If PR came, we would have had different representation from rural prairie Saskatchewan. It wouldn't be the blue zone, folks.

Don't ever assume that rural Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta are all still in the aura of Harper. They are not. They never were. The values of co-operation, of neighbourliness, of planning, of responsibility for each other, of including each other in governance, even if we voted differently, are actually still very strong. They just haven't had a chance to come back.

It's funny: I'm rurban. I was born on an experimental farm in Swift Current, where Brad Wall comes from. My parents were part of the first medicare experiment in Swift Current, which led to the provincial system under Tommy Douglas. I used to drive Tommy Douglas as a kid, by the way. I was raised in that ethic.

He drove in cars with PCers and Liberals to rallies because they didn't have enough cars. They argued in the car all the way to the rally, they argued at the rally—and with the Socreds—and then they argued all the way home. They were always engaged and learning what it is that we're trying to do as political public servants.

That ethic is not here anymore, folks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that we can achieve consensus under first past the post if we have fewer cars.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Jim Harding]

This goes back to the values. Our society is changing, and we can all say we could become more participatory and democratic with the new technology if we get intergenerational respect and work together. We all have that vision, but there are barriers in the system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Maguire, please.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the presenters again for your views.

Ms. Deguire, I want to check on a couple of things. I have two questions, if I have time. You indicated that you have 3.5 million members in your opening comments and that the first-past-the-post system was outdated, that nine million votes didn't count. Then you indicated that the solution to this is a PR system whereby people would be elected locally by first past the post and there would then be a second vote in which you could vote for the party you wanted as well.

Is it your premise that a lot of people would vote for other than the party of the person they voted for under first past the post? In first past the post, I think everybody knows that each one of us has a political party behind us and that we're a part of it.

Can you elaborate on that?

[Darla Deguire]

Yes. It's an interesting question.

We do think there would definitely be maybe not a significant amount, but definitely a small group of people who absolutely would want to decipher between the two, and this system would enable them to do that. I guess it would localize it more.

You'd be voting for your local MP. Even though they are attached to a party, it would be more for your local representative, as it is now, but then there would be a second voting system of voting for a party. Yes, we would maintain that. We think people would perhaps vote differently, as far as I know, as far as we've concluded.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you.

You've indicated that you have a number of members and that you weren't that engaged in this discussion on electoral reform until the Canadian Labour Congress brought it to your attention. Then, of course, you have the process of informing your membership through your union representatives and regional unions to get the message to them. I'm assuming that each one of them has a say, of course, in electing your leaders of the Canadian Labour Congress, and also then would have a say in this electoral reform process. Is that correct?

[Darla Deguire]

I guess the short answer is yes.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

If they each have an opportunity to vote on significant changes in their area, I think my colleague's question earlier was why you would not be in favour of a referendum for something as important as changing the electoral system. I see it as similar to the contracts that employees sign with their employers.