Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 19th, 2016

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

That's eight years and two elections down the road. Why would you not have a democratic process to allow people to make the decision on how they want to vote and how they want to do that?

[Prof. Lee Ward]

You haven't gotten the car yet. You haven't hit the road with it. You're just looking at it in the showroom.

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

No. In your analogy, you basically put the test drive way behind the decision to make the change, so you've gone ahead and gone through all of the expense and the process without a definition of the people having a say in how that process should work. I'm not going to say to pick one way or the other; I'm just saying that you've taken away the right for the people to have a choice in how that decision should be made for two elections.

[Prof. Lee Ward]

I would respectfully disagree. I think the parties ran with electoral reform as part of their platform. The majority of Canadians voted for those parties. To me, it crosses the level of legitimacy. The reason I support the referendum is for good government, so that in fact people have had a chance to compare the two systems.

I wish we had more examples of PR at the provincial level so that we could see laboratories of democracy and you could say, “Well, they tried it here, and this is how it works”, and we could have better models. We have no modelling. We've had the same system practically unchanged for 200 years, so I don't think we're getting a fair kind of comparison. If you are going to compare, it should be apples with apples, so I think there should be some period of experimentation.

I don't want to suggest that we would use that two-election cycle as an opportunity to entrench and absolutely enforce a certain way of thinking. It would still be understood to be an experimental period. It would be a chance for people to test it to see if they like it, to see if it's the kind of thing that would reflect their values. I don't know that asking the question up front without the experiential aspect will get a fair result. I don't think you would get a fair result that way.

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

But you just said you think it's okay to experiment with the Canadian government for two terms.

[Prof. Lee Ward]

Yes, exactly, and then you have a chance to correct, to reverse, or to alter. At the end of the two terms or the two election cycles—it wouldn't have to be six years and could be less, I guess—you could have multiple questions then too. You could have go back to first past the post, keep MMP, or have some form of single transferable ballot. Democracy is about choice as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that your time, then?

Go ahead, Mr. DeCourcey.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both presenters for wonderful presentations this evening.

Professor Ward, I enjoyed reading your brief earlier today with the philosophical underpinnings that led to a lot of questions, which you answered in your presentation, about the specifics of what your favourite mixed member proportional system would look like.

I've been trying to think of a question. Something I've been thinking about lately is building a sense of empathy throughout this process for the way different people approach this question. A lot of our witnesses who have preferred a proportional representation system cite wanting their vote to count or cite voters wanting their vote to count as the reason for that preference. I accept that as a premise under which they propose proportional representation. I have also spoken to people on the street in my riding who will say, "I go to the ballot box and I vote all the time. Sometimes I win and sometimes I lose. I'm okay with that; that's democracy."

How do we reconcile those two opposing views and the shades of views in there, and how do we explain the view of those who feel that their vote doesn't count to someone who says they are okay with the current system?

[Prof. Lee Ward]

That's a very good question. I think it gets to our idea of citizenship and what we share as a community, and whether, even if I win the election, I care about those who don't feel they have won.

In democracy, the pendulum swings back and forth. We won't always be on the winning side. We would hope that the winning side would show the same kind of concern for our rights and our feelings that we would show if we were on the winning side, but I think that historically the sense of winning and losing an election is not the same as alienation and a feeling of disempowerment. My concern is that in many respects, we've reached that level in Canada. It's not simply "Aw, shucks. Next time we'll get you back."

There are areas of our society, segments of our society, that don't buy in to the electoral system because they don't feel that the marginal voices have any kind of proper venue and platform. It's not simply a matter of good intentions or motivations. Even for highly motivated public-spirited people, the structure has developed in a certain way that creates choke points for access to the media, access to politicians, access to the academy. The answer to the example about the universities is that we have to be absolutely conscious of the fact that we're not doing everything we think we should be doing. Everything isn't going great. That there all kinds of marginalized groups and concerns that aren't being taken seriously simply because we don't consider them part of the spectrum.

When you speak of it in those terms and you bring out the sense of fairness, which is such a basic human principle, then I think you'll find that even people who are happy with the current system would be willing and open to change. There are people who really care that much that their voices aren't being heard.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Let me dig at that a little bit.

If we can get those people to accept the potential for change, do we have the legitimacy as parliamentarians to vote and enact that change, or should we ask those people to validate that change in the form of a plebiscite or referendum?

[Prof. Lee Ward]

In answer to Mr. Maguire's question, I think at some stage we do, but to me, the timing is crucial. I think we actually need to have the experience of the new system to be able to judge it fairly. As such, I am a pro-referendum guy. I think there are a lot of constitutional questions in Canada that I think we could answer better with a referendum. We changed the succession rules to the British monarchy without going to the Canadian people on that. I would have loved to have seen a referendum on that one, but these things happen.

We have to be able to compare apples with apples. I think your concern is that there will be a permanent opposition in the country to this system, even if it's a minority group who feels that the rules have been changed unfairly. That is the concern.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think there is a concern there, but I think there are people who may be willing to accept the change; they just want their voice to be expressed in the delivery of that change. I'm not sure exactly what the number is, but anecdotally, I'm hearing some of that.

Thank you for your view on this aspect.

[Prof. Lee Ward]

Absolutely. If one political party, for whatever reason, did not go with the changes but campaigned on the problems of the new system, it would be healthy to see the results of that approach. We'll see what the Canadian people say when they have their chance to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Those were excellent presentations. I was struck by the clarity of both presentations. I think that enhanced our understanding of a lot of issues surrounding ranked ballot and mixed member proportional.

Thank you so much for being here in the evening to share your perspectives with us.

We now have an open mike session for those who are in the audience.

The way the open mike session works is each intervenor will have two minutes. At 90 seconds, I'll put my hand up. It doesn't mean you have to stop; it just means you have about 30 seconds left. It worked well this afternoon.

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

Chair, may I suggest a 30-second break to stand in our seats and stretch?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll have a little break for about a minute or two.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll resume with our open mike, and we'll proceed as we did this afternoon.

Each intervenor will get two minutes. At 90 seconds, I'll put up my hand as an indication that time is running out. We have two microphones, number one and number two. I'll call up the first person to mike number one and I will call up the second person at the same time. He or she will go to mike number two. We'll start with number one, and when number one is done, I'll call up another person to go to number one and wait to make a comment.

We'll begin, for two minutes, with Mr. Carl Cherland. I'd like Nancy Carswell to take number two while she's waiting for her turn.

Thank you.

[Carl Cherland, As an Individual]

I'd like to thank Professor Ward for his clarity, his eloquence, and the information he provided. It totally blew what I had to say out of the water, so I affirm, I confirm, and I hope his ideas will prevail upon you all, or upon most of you.

I appreciate greatly the five guiding principles that make up the foundation of our Canadian electoral reform process. I have particular interest in restoring the effectiveness and legitimacy of voting by strengthening the link between each voter's intention and the electoral result. Consequently, I think proportional representation, whereby 30% of the vote gets 30% of the seats, would benefit us all.

On voter equality, every voter should be able to elect an MP who reflects his or her values.

On diversity, our Parliament should reflect our diversity in Canada, including the political diversity within each region.

On collaboration, proportional representation means parties working together—oh, my goodness—and policies supported by parties representing a majority of voters.

Consequently, I support the promise and the platforms made by three parties that 2015 was the last election under the first-past-the-post system and that every vote will count in 2019. There was a clear, strong majority of voters for these three parties. I do not believe we need an extra referendum. That was a referendum, in a sense. I expect the government to stick to its promised timeline and I look forward to the committee delivering a recommendation for a new electoral system in its final report in December.

I support a mixed member proportional system. I think anything less is a failure to grow as a democracy, a failure to change—which is what maturing is all about—and a failure to mature as a country seeking to be a democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for that eloquent statement.

Before we go to Ms. Carswell, I will ask David Sabine to take mike number one.

Ms. Carswell, you have two minutes.

[Nancy Carswell, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Can you hear me fine?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

[Nancy Carswell]

Dear electoral reform committee, your mandate and my vision need proportional representation, which makes this the most important two minutes in my life.

I've had fierce conversations about why civilizations rise and fall. Author Chris Harmon says that civilizations rise when citizens “remould society around the values of solidarity, mutual support, egalitarianism, collective cooperation and a democratically planned use of resources.” Civilizations fall when citizens fail to maintain these values.

Let's focus on the value of the democratically planned use of resources. As an environmentalist, I was frustrated when a wage slave would step in between me and the tree I wanted to hug. Then I realized that the tree would not need hugging if the wage slave's owners were not free to undemocratically use that resource in ways that externalized costs on the poor and the environment, and then use the profit to amplify their voice in government.

As citizens, the best way we can maintain our values is if our voices are proportionally represented in government. Give Canadians the opportunity to remould society around our values. On December 1, identify proportional representation as the one electoral reform that offers effectiveness and legitimacy, engagement, accessibility and inclusiveness, integrity, and Canadian-made local representation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Before David Sabine takes the mike, I would ask Randall Lebell to take mike two.

Go ahead, Mr. Sabine.

[David Sabine, As an Individual]

Thank you, all. I currently live in Toronto. Thank you for convening here in Regina. It so happens I'm here on business. I grew up here in the Prairies. I've lived in many different places throughout Canada and throughout North America. I think of myself as having a great perspective on Canada and what it means to be Canadian, having lived in other countries.

Now, there's a page at Wikipedia, arguably one of the greatest artifacts ever produced by the commons in the world, which I think is very appropriate to this particular situation. The page is not well known except to those who actively participate in the ongoing creation of the encyclopedia. The page reads as follows:

Be bold

[This] can be explained in three words: “Go for it”. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. [Resources] like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia....Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. This does require a certain amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be.

“Instead of getting upset,” it continues, just “assume good faith”, assume “civility, and be bold again”.

So I'm here with I think a message from many Canadians: Go for it. Be bold. Canadians have proven to be very capable of adapting and succeeding easily in light of change. Not only are we capable of electoral reform, we want it. Normally we are very cautious and polite, but we would like you all to be bold and help make Canada a better Canada. This—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.