Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 20th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We are a little tight for time.

Mr. Maguire, please.

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

I wanted to touch on a concern of mine, and I want to raise this with you, Mr. Schwartz.

It's been suggested by many that Canada is a leader in the world with regard to democracy and our economy. One suggestion was that we should implement a PR system, run it for a couple of elections, and then have a referendum to see what people think of it.

Do you think that in a solid democracy or a solid country like Canada we should be doing something like that? To me it seems like a great big experiment with our national system and our national way.

I certainly agree with your premise that alternation is a good thing. Coming from a politician, that might be a bit of a surprise, but I think that it has worked, and it does work in a democratic system.

Could you elaborate on whether you think that's dangerous or not?

[Prof. Bryan Schwartz]

Yes, I certainly agree with the idea that simplicity and understandability are important criteria. Voters have to understand how the system works, and they shouldn't have to wait until the computer is finished two days later to find out who won.

In terms of experimentation, I'm generally pro experimentation, but you also have to be careful about the irreversible experiment, right?

An incumbent party could put in place a system which keeps them or their coalition in office forever. They could say, “Well, vote us out.” No, you can't, because the system is rigged so they cannot be voted out.

I believe New Zealand had a referendum going into it, and then they had a referendum on whether or not to keep it.

For whatever it's worth, whether I agree with the system or disagree with the system, whatever the question, whatever people come up with, I don't believe in the elitist democracy view, and I've been consistent with this for over 35 years. I believe that you have to have a popular buy-in on changes that are of a fundamental nature.

Whether I disagreed with the proposal or agreed with it, I would be committed, then, now, and in the future. One thing I don't think I'm going to change my mind on is that the incumbent class doesn't get to permanently rig the system. You have to have the morality of consent, which nowadays in the world is a referendum or a plebiscite.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Maguire.

Our final questioner is Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Well, I'm very intrigued by your position, Dr. Schwartz, because it's the kind of conundrum we're in as well in this committee. You get so deep into studying different systems, thinking about all these complex issues, and getting various opinions, conflicting opinions at most times. We know we have to do something but our minds are kind of overwhelmed with all the different options and where we're going to land.

I would like to hear more about your PR light option, which you're not so sure about today. It is something that you put forth to the Law Commission. Could you explain that system a little bit more to me?

[Prof. Bryan Schwartz]

I wrote an article in the Manitoba Law Journal, which did a run of what would have happened in Manitoba if we'd had PR light all along. There were some majority governments and some minority governments, so I thought it actually worked pretty well.

PR light means you keep the current system, but add a small number of seats to compensate for the disproportionality of the first-past-the-post system.

The way you allocate seats in the PR light model, the proportional part, is not that if the Liberals get 40%, they get 40% of the PR seats; you find out who's most under-represented. Let's say the Green Party had 5% of the vote, but got less than 1% of the seats. You would say, “Who is the biggest victim of first past the post?” They would get the first PR seat. Then you would say, “Okay, who's most under-represented? You get the next PR seat.” It's compensatory. It tries to counterbalance some of the dysfunctions of first past the post.

The idea of “light” is that we would predominantly keep the benefits of the existing system and we would try to mitigate it by having a limited number of PR seats. By “light” I mean we could still get a fair number of majority governments. So it would be “light” enough that if a plurality of people, a strong plurality, want a majority government, we could still get it, and it would be the most reversible one, because you wouldn't have a whole lot of people who owe their jobs to proportional seats voting against going back because their jobs depend on it.

PR light seems to me now, seemed to me then.... In the book the argument was that the best two system candidates from the criteria were first past the post and PR light. That continues to be my view. It's just a question of where the balance of wisdom lies, in light of what's happened since then.

In terms of the idea that we have to do something, the Liberal Party platform had a lot of really good stuff about open government. It also said, on Senate reform, “We don't want to spend a lot of the people's time on constitutional negotiations. We want to get on with the priorities of the country.”

Even though this is one of the many things I spend a lot of time on, I'm not sure the biggest priority of Canadians right now is redoing the election system at a fundamental level. There are a lot of open government reforms we can do within the system. You can read the Liberal Party platform; there are about 30 proposals, and I think about 29 I agree with. There are a lot of reforms you can do without doing a fundamental reform of the system, and we would be the better for it, having a more democratic, pluralistic Parliament regardless of who wins. All you need is a good initiative.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

What suggestions do you have for top priority reforms?

[Prof. Bryan Schwartz]

More free votes and performance-based government: you actually measure outcomes. Rather than just guessing, ideologically, “I think this is good”, well, count: “This is actually reducing crime” or “This is actually increasing crime.”

I always give the example of the Republican right in the United States, which has become soft on crime again. It wasn't because they changed ideologically; they figured out that if you put people in jail for 10 years rather than giving them a chance to rehabilitate, you have destroyed them as potential contributors to the economy, you have made a mess of their family, and this is hurting everybody. It wasn't because people woke up and had an ideological epiphany.

On a great many issues, I think there is a lot more room for consensus than we have. If we would actually be willing to reason together and look at statistics, facts, and the lessons of experience, we could achieve a lot more consensus, but you have to be prepared to measure stuff and measure it dispassionately: independent budget office at Parliament and credible independent metrics, metrics that don't change.

One of the books I am working on right now is studying the international experience with happiness metrics. The United Kingdom is innovative in terms of measuring well-being.

I have about 30, but if you ask me to list the top two, I would say more metrics and more free votes in Parliament. The one that is less talked about is the metrics stuff: actually measuring outcomes rather than thinking that because we have an ideology, it corresponds to reality. To get to a more consensus-based, more pluralism-based, and better government, being more open to empirical evidence and letting reality tell us what's happening rather than ideologically dictating reality, I think that would be a reform that all governments would benefit from.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. We are a little tight for time.

I would like to ask the mayor to come up and say a couple of words of welcome. Say what you wish, but I would like to give you the opportunity to address the room.

[Mona Fallis, Mayor, Village of St-Pierre-Jolys, As an Individual]

I welcome you all to St-Pierre-Jolys.

My name is Mona Fallis. I am the mayor of the village of St-Pierre-Jolys. You have heard a lot of good discussion today and you are going to hear even more as you go across the country. I encourage you to listen to all the comments, so that you can prepare a plan that represents everyone in the country.

In our little Franco-Manitoban village, we face challenges because we are surrounded by anglophones and those of other cultures. We have to work to find ways to make our voice heard.

I wish you all the best with your efforts.

Thank you for coming to St-Pierre-Jolys. I hope that your voyage through the country and listening to all the voices of citizens will help you formulate a good plan for all citizens.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much for having us. Obviously, you are welcome to stay and listen if you wish, but we are not going to tie you down here.

Thank you to the witnesses.

We will go to Mr. Alexander and Ms. Storey for two minutes at the microphones, please.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to be pretty strict about the two minutes, because there are planes to catch if we want the hearing in Toronto to take place properly.

It is Mr. Alexander, isn't it?

[John Alexander, As an Individual]

Yes, it is.

I would ask the chair's indulgence. My speech is two minutes and 20 seconds long. I will go as fast as I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead.

[John Alexander]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman.

My name is John Alexander. I am a Canadian citizen and 75 years old. I started to vote when I was 17 and joined the RCAF in the 1950s. At that time, if you were old enough to die for your country, you were old enough to vote. I have voted in every municipal, provincial, and federal election in which I was entitled to.

As a matter of fact, in October 1970, when “Wacky” Bennett, the premier of B.C., made his famous statement that B.C. would be the first out of Confederation, not Quebec, I made sure I was on the B.C. voters list even though I was working in Germany. The vote did not happen.

First, why don't we look at the problem we are trying to fix? What? No problem? That takes care of that. There is no fix required.

Some would say that first past the post is an old system. Admittedly, it has served us well for 149 years, although I have been told that it existed in Nova Scotia in 1757, which I cannot prove. I am holding a pencil here. The first pencil was made in 1565 in a small town in England, and I don't see anyone trying to reinvent the pencil.

Others say that first past the post does not give a 50% plus one majority to the winner. So what? Fifty per cent is just a number. It could easily be 55%, or anything else. To artificially boost the number of votes by using weird and wonderful count-back systems makes no sense. Half of today's Parliament is made up of MPs who did not get over 50% of the vote, nor did today's government, as they only achieved 39%. This means that 61% rejected today's government. As a matter of fact, our Parliament does not use a 50% threshold for any of its votes. It uses a majority win and that is that.

In conclusion, I say to you, what is the problem? Let us retain first past the post voting as our Canadian system. And have a referendum? You betcha.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Alexander.

Ms. Storey, please, and then Mr. Hayward.

[Katharine Storey, As an Individual]

Thank you.

My name is Kate Storey. I come from Grandview, Manitoba, which is in the northwest of Manitoba. Thank you very much for coming here this afternoon.

I'm going to tell you what the problem is. First past the post is broken, or at least, it's broken for me. I don't like divisive politics. I think parliamentarians should work together. I don't believe that any one parliamentarian or any one party has all the answers. I believe we get good decisions when we force people to sit down and work out their differences rather than fighting over them in the media.

I say no to referenda because we know they are very easily manipulated by those who have the power to do that. They're not the voice of the people. They're a voice of power.

I don't like any system that leads to a majority government, because, as I said, I think people should sit down in a minority, work out their differences, and get better results. I would like to see a proportional representation system.

I don't know which one that should be. I don't know if you've talked about dual-member systems or not. My reasoning is that I live in one of the very large ridings. We are very split demographically, and the majority doesn't care about most of us minority voices. My MP doesn't pay us any heed.

I heard you talking about the problem with ridings that are too big. Well, we are way past that. There is no way for an MP to visit every community, and as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't matter if the riding were twice the size. I would like to see proportional representation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Storey.

Mr. Hayward, please, followed by Mr. Mahaffy.

[Terrance Hayward, As an Individual]

I'd like to follow up on the welcome the mayor of St-Pierre-Jolys gave you and let you recognize that we are on Treaty No. 1 land and also the traditional homeland of the Métis Nation. I think that is an important factor here. As Ms. Storey just mentioned, she's from Grandview, which is quite a distance from this area. We have people here from Buffalo Point, close to the U.S. border. We have people here from all around rural Manitoba.

One thing that I would like this committee to also concern itself with and very much look at is education. When my son was in high school, he came home and said that his civics teacher said there was no reason to vote because it doesn't count. That's from our school system. Well, the teacher got a call from me.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Terrance Hayward]

As well, some other things happened, but now that I have been a little involved in politics—as some of you may know, I ran unsuccessfully in this riding three times—I've never felt that my vote was lost. I got out there and told people what I stood for, and we went from 7% in 2011 to 35% or 37%, I think, in 2013 in the by-election, and also in the general election.

Even though people might not get the person they want in there, their vote is one to count. The important thing is to get up to 100% showing up, the way we did with our Stats Canada long-form census. We got it back in, or the government put it back in, and people got their say. They have to do this in that way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hayward.

If Mr. Edward Alexander could go to the other mike while Mr. Mahaffy provides his comments, that would be great.

Mr. Mahaffy.

[Blair D. Mahaffy, As an Individual]

Hello. I'm Blair Mahaffy. I'm from Lorette, which is part of this riding as well. I'm with the Green Party in this riding, a small fraction of the voters.

I thought the political diversity of the backgrounds in this room was very interesting. It shows how people can come together at a table and work on a problem. This is why I'm a big supporter of proportional representation. I think it's really good to get lots of good ideas at a table and come up with an idea together.

I don't think that happens so much with first past the post and the big majorities that tend to drive things through.

I think the Liberal Party has been very courageous in opening up this committee to a lot of different opinions.

I want to make one quick comment on Professor Koop's observations. There were 600,000 Green voters, 800,000 Bloc voters, three-million-and-some NDP voters, many of whom do not feel they have a representative in Parliament. I'm sure Ms. May can't deal with all 600,000 Green voters.

I'd like to have more representation for my views. I'm probably very similar to many people across the country who don't feel our local representative follows our views, and we may not get a sympathetic ear.

I like the idea of having someone in a regional setting or a proportional setting that has a sympathetic ear to my views.

Thank you. Good luck.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We have Mr. Edward Alexander.

Mr. Hoeppner, take microphone two, please.

Thank you. Go ahead.

[Edward W. Alexander, As an Individual]

Hi, my name is Ed Alexander and I live at Buffalo Point in Manitoba. It is a first nation reservation although I am not a first nation person. I represent only my own views here this afternoon, and perhaps those of others who are not here.

There are four points I want to make. First, the public perception of the importance of candidates and MPs has decreased. Second, political parties have become a necessary evil. Third, leadership cult has been given too much importance. Fourth, my view of the best solution to electoral reform is the alternative vote. I'll briefly touch on those.

I believe that many voters today have forgotten that they are electing a member of Parliament. They think they're voting for a party, or they think they're voting for a party leader. They are covered that way.

I think also that in some cases they feel they are voting for a person who has to go and vote the way they want, take their particular view to the government, and enforce it on the land. I look at gun control as the type of thing that happens there.

Parties also, I think, treat their MPs poorly a lot of times, in that they treat them as puppets on a string. They vote the party line and that's it, or else.

When I vote, what I look for in my ideal candidate is integrity, intelligence, and courage; that is, he is willing to stand up against the party and against the extremists in his own constituency.

Political parties, I think, have value in bringing people together to study and establish policies and positions. Unfortunately, when it comes to implementation, these positions are often guided by what's best for the party, rather than what's best for the country. They sometimes sink to very low levels with attack ads, which does not improve our system at all. I know all the members are good, honest people. It must then be through the parties that corruption comes into our governments. That's another reason why I'm not too happy with them.

I don't think I need to say much on leadership cults. I just think we're paying way too much attention to that, rather than the consensus made by the members. I believe we will get consensus among people if we go through the AV system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I would invite Mr. Bruce McKee to take microphone one.

Go ahead, Mr. Hoeppner.