Evidence of meeting #26 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was please.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Morrison.
I would ask Mr. Proven to come up to the mike while Ms. Rubinfeld presents to us.
Go ahead, Ms. Rubinfeld.
8:20 p.m.
Sandy Rubinfeld As an Individual
Thank you.
I first got keenly engaged in politics when Harper prorogued Parliament. Since then I've remained keenly involved in various groups.
I was really interested in finding out about Fair Vote Canada about three or four years ago, and then found to my surprise and delight that there was a local group. We had some discussion about our name, but I think we go by “Fair Vote Manitoba”.
In that group one of the women is an adult educator, and she was doing a presentation for one of those teacher conferences. She asked us to do research. I looked at the alternative vote. Someone else took the single transferrable vote and someone else took MMP. I can say, from researching that alternative vote, that it's just another majoritarian system. It's a way of ranking the ballot. It is not another electoral system. Even worse than that, in my research I discovered that it can sometimes lead to even more lopsided results than first past the post.
A third point, which I've come to myself and not heard mentioned elsewhere—
8:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I'll ignore the third point and just ask if anyone on the committee has come across a group called International IDEA.
The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance is the only global intergovernmental organization with the mission to support sustainable democracy worldwide as its stated mandate. It has amazing resources online, 200 pages of which I read. One of the things it looks at, besides increased capacity, legitimacy, and credibility of democracy, is more inclusive participation and accountable representation.
My only other point is that they have a bunch of charts. They have helped fledgling democracies select their form of government. They have never advocated first past the post, and very rarely advocate the alternative vote, for any other fledgling democracies.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
I did know about that organization, so I appreciate your mentioning it.
Mr. Woods, could you come to the mike while Mr. Proven speaks?
Go ahead, sir.
8:25 p.m.
Randall J. Proven As an Individual
I'd like to thank the Government of Canada for going on this quest to change our voting system, because it is archaic and does not produce what we would normally call “democracy”. You can't have democracy when 39% of the voters control the rest of us.
The voting system must have three elements. Every vote has to count equally; every vote has to count; and the result has to be proportional. There can be no other way to have a fair system.
You have been charged with changing this voting system. Do not shirk your responsibility by calling for a referendum.
[Applause]
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Ms. Rosemary Hnatiuk, please come to the mike while Mr. Woods presents.
Go ahead, Mr. Woods.
September 20th, 2016 / 8:25 p.m.
David J. Woods As an Individual
Thank you.
I'll shorten my intervention by saying that I agree with most of what has been said before. I'm definitely for some form of proportional representation.
I think Professor Thomas's points are very good in a practical sense, but I don't feel this is a practical question. This is a question of principle. We want our vote to count, but when I vote strategically it doesn't count. It doesn't matter if changing the system improves voter turnout or not; I want my vote to count. That's what democracy is about.
Even in a practical sense, if I had an elected representative of the party I voted for, that would give me much better representation. In previous governments, I know that it was very difficult for me to get answers from and in contact with my elected representative, who was not from the party I had voted for. I feel it's a point of principle and something I feel a certain urgency about.
I agree that this has to be looked at in a certain amount of detail, perhaps in the next election, but this question should certainly not be put off for a long time. As was mentioned, it was already looked at in 2002. Has anything happened? No. We have to stop looking at it and take action.
I would just like to make a point that some people have probably already thought of. Our system dates from 1867, when ridings had 2,000 to 2,500 people and you knew the person you were voting for and they knew you. Now, with 40,000 to 50,000 people in a riding, it's not the same. It may still work, somewhat, but it's time to look at that again. It has been a while.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
Could Ms. Shawn Deborah Kettner come to the mike?
Go ahead, Ms. Hnatiuk.
8:30 p.m.
As an Individual
At the risk of sounding a little glib among all these very serious and very thoughtful presentations, I'm going to be a bit contrary and raise a completely novel idea regarding voter turnout that's sort of inspired by Professor Thomas's comments on getting people into the habit of coming out. It's sort of like in therapy, where people are often told to smile or to laugh to improve their mood. If we can get people to come out and vote, then maybe they'll actually start thinking about the issues underlying the politics of the parties, etc.
When I go to my credit union meeting or to the Ukrainian Farmers Co-op meeting, or to my condo board meeting, for the AGMs, there's door prize.
8:30 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
8:30 p.m.
As an Individual
Why do we have to be punitive about compelling people to vote? Why don't we enter everybody into a lottery for $1 million, or have regional ones?
[Applause]
We're worried about poor people coming out to vote. You know that poor people like to gamble. That would be a very big incentive for poor people to vote. Maybe then they would think about what they're voting for. Regional ones could be for $10,000 across the provinces. There could be some sort of interesting combination to incentivize voting rather than punish the failure to vote.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. You made a good point in that maybe if people are kind of required to vote, they will naturally follow this logic and all of sudden and start to think about it. Who knows? Nobody has brought this up before, so I thank you for that insight.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I'd like to make a comment. Can we not do something like the blood drives do? The first time you give blood you get a little pin. Maybe we could do a little “I voted today” pin, or a 10-time voter or something. I like it.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's an idea.
We'll have Mr. Wasylycia-Leis come up, and we'll go with Ms. Kettner, please.
8:30 p.m.
Shawn Deborah Kettner As an Individual
I just want to say that I think very strongly that now is the time to move beyond first past the post. I have been voting in elections since the mid-1970s, sometimes finding the candidate of my choice in the winner's seat and sometimes not. However, as an engaged member of my community, I know that the day after the election a large number of my community's members were not represented. When people are being pushed out of the political process, they become disengaged until the next election. It is paramount that we all feel that it is worth our while to be engaged in the political process throughout the term of our elected representatives, not just at election time. By moving beyond first past the post and providing a system that better represents the citizens of this country, we will provide an opportunity for more citizens to be involved in what happens in our political system. This should be teamwork. Our elected representatives come from the people, and therefore they should represent the people.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
We'll call Ms. Sexton up to the mike, and we'll go to Mr. Wasylycia-Leis.
You wrote to me, didn't you?
8:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Hi. My name is Joe. I'm a community organizer with Leadnow's “vote better” campaign here in Winnipeg. I just want to touch on a theme that's been common here tonight and that Paul Thomas took an extensive amount of time to explain, this idea that changing our voting system is somehow a false promise or a silver bullet. Now I agree that we need to change other aspects of our democracy, we need to decentralize power, and we need to improve accountability mechanisms, but I must challenge Mr. Thomas's central point that changing our voting system is the one thing that can truly shake up our political culture and improve our democracy. Now, myself and 25,000 other Canadians from across the country who have signed the “vote together” pledge believe that proportional representation is the right way forward. Introducing PR can be the catalyst for improving other elements of our democracy, mainly addressing poor political literacy and voter apathy. Let's shake things up. Let's transform our curriculum and launch massive public education campaigns.
I'll just end by pointing out that this cautionary and hesitant mindset is the same mindset that's now leading us towards 3° warming and threatening to destroy our climate for future generations. This is our moment to adopt PR and bring Canada into the 21st century alongside nearly 100 other countries. I urge you to push for real change and to put forward a plan for PR. Take comfort in the examples of successful PR systems from around the world and in the fact that Canadians, and especially young Canadians like myself, will support you all the way.
Thank you very much.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Krosney, please come to the mike.
Ms. Sexton, you have the floor.