Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 20th, 2016

[Suzannel Sexton, As an Individual]

Hi.

We're using a lot of words tonight. I'd like to cover accountability, ability, parity, clarity, and mandate.

First, I'd like to clear up one word that we're all using in a certain negative way. We keep talking over and over again about voter apathy, youth apathy, and apathy. You say that they're turned off from politics or they simply don't care.

Has anyone actually considered viewing this in a different way and asking if 150 years of first past the post has made Canada such a wonderful, great, fair, and open country that people do not have the need to vote? They are so comfortable, well fed, and happy that they don't have an issue to bring them out. Please, consider 150 years of proven results. Maybe our increasing voter apathy is increasing voter comfort and they're satisfied.

Please, I am going to ask for a referendum tonight. I find it very interesting that the people who are asking for respect for the individual and respect for their individual feelings are also demanding that individual Canadians do not get a vote on this. You've been put here by your constituents who received the vote, and they had faith in you to do your jobs. Give them that same right to vote on changing our democracy. If they trusted you, you should trust them to choose the system and you should have a very clear question.

Clarity: that's a word that we really need to cover tonight. If we have a referendum, which would be respecting the citizens of this country in choosing a new democratic system, the referendum question would have to be very clear and very simple. We have many people complaining tonight about ability. They are saying that Canadians were not able to get photo ID to vote and that it was beyond their capabilities as average citizens to get a photo ID to vote. How are those people going to understand a new system in two years before the next election?

Accountability: regional representation is very important. We have someone who is accountable to us for a vote, not a party insider that is going to vote with their party for the job all the time.

Mandate: if the last election gave us the current administration and was so trustworthy, and if first past the post gave them the mandate that 39% of Canadians claim to have voted for electoral reform, if it gives you that mandate, then why won't we have a referendum?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Dr. Gerstein, you could come to the mike while Mr. Krosney speaks to us.

Go ahead, sir.

[Evan Jacob Krosney, As an Individual]

First of all, I want to say thank you again for hosting tonight's event in Winnipeg. I know that electoral reform isn't always an issue that's on the top of people's minds, but it really should be. It's something that I've been advocating for over a number of years now, and I'm really glad this issue has come to light.

As a young person, I'm glad to see that so many young people have come out tonight. I wanted to touch on one point that Professor Thomas mentioned. He was talking about how our voting system isn't what's discouraging young people—it's simply apathy.

As a young person, I would like to disagree with that. I was working on the ground in the past federal election. What I heard from young people was clear: their vote does not count. If I'm a young person and I want to vote for a party but I know my vote is not going to count, there's going to be absolutely no reason to go out and vote. That apathy is being caused because of our electoral system, but also because of hyper-partisanship, cynicism, and a general distrust in government.

I would like to argue that a proportional system, where 39% of the vote gives you 39% of the seats and 39% of the power, is going to encourage co-operation. It's going to encourage collaboration. It's going to encourage better participation, not only from young people but from all Canadians. It's going to encourage our parties to work together in a system where they know they're representing Canadian values.

Finally, I also wanted to touch on mandate. I know that the previous speaker mentioned a referendum, but I think it's really worth noting that in the past election a huge majority of Canadians voted for political parties that were proposing a change to our system. The Liberals promised that it was the last election under first past the post, the Greens promised a proportional system, and the NDP promised a proportional system. Why can we not respect that mandate?

People voted for change. It's absolutely time that we implement a system where every vote counts, where people can work together in Parliament, and where people know that their vote is going to go towards electing someone. Where everybody can work together, we can reduce cynicism and foster democracy in our country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could Mr. Siemens come to the mike next?

Dr. Gerstein.

[Dr. Aleela Cara Gerstein, As an Individual]

First of all, I want to apologize for the at-times-crying baby. He does not yet realize that he has to wait his turn.

I'm here, in part, as a community organizer with Leadnow in Winnipeg. I want to point out that there's clearly an engagement disconnect in this country. We had less than 70% voter turnout, yet some 98% of Canadians returned their census form. Also, I'm not the only person who was sad that I didn't get to fill out the long form. Something is wrong and there has to be a solution. It is not that Canadians are simply disengaged.

I first learned about proportional representation as a voting option in Grade 10. That was probably my last formal education in political science, but that fact has stuck with me for almost 20 years, long before this was seen as a possible change in this country. I simply don't understand why it hasn't already happened.

I'm not so naive as to believe that proportional representation is a magical cure-all that will solve all the problems of this country, but I am just optimistic enough to believe that it is the only clear choice and that it will facilitate change in the right direction.

On a personal note, Mr. Cullen, in my voting lifetime you are the politician whose written views best represent me on this issue and on many others, and I consider you as my voice on this committee. I hope other people in this room also find their voices on this committee. I think you have worked hard to be representative of Canadians, although it was still a first past the post system that determined the makeup of the committee.

Finally, to reiterate what other people have said: please, no referendum.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Siemens, you have the floor.

[Eric Suderman Siemens, As an Individual]

Thank you.

It will be fun to look on Hansard later. I have a bunch of friends who do that. I'm in political science at the University of Winnipeg and I am glad that they will look up my name after this.

Many people have raised points that I will not go over again. A majority of people voted for parties that wanted change in this last election. There are benefits to proportional representation that I will not go over again.

However, I want to be clear on one point. The alternative vote is not a solution for Canada, and it's not a solution for most countries in the world. Only two countries have any part of alternative voting in their system. They are Australia and Papua New Guinea.

Australia has been thinking about changing that. In the 2014 election, there was a riding where the Australian Motor Enthusiast Party got 0.5%, that's 5 votes out of every 1,000, on the first choice. Then, by eliminating a bunch of candidates, they won that riding.

There are other very wonkish reasons why alternative vote doesn't work. If you switch preferences in some places, you can get the same result, which is baffling to me. Also, alternative vote will not guarantee representation for regions across Canada. You would need to have 50% of the vote to pass that post instead of merely a plurality, so regions such as Atlantic Canada would not be guaranteed a Conservative or NDP voice. Likewise, in regions such as Alberta, Liberals and NDP would not be guaranteed a voice, as has happened in elections in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Can you wrap it up in 20 seconds?

[Eric Suderman Siemens]

Absolutely.

A mixed member proportional system allows for a variety of members from a region. If you cannot get hold of your MP, you can go to another. It's a multiple line of communication towards Parliament.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you .

Ms. Herscovitch.

[Judith S. Herscovitch, As an Individual]

I would like to thank Dr. Thomas for being here.

Canada has one of the most peaceful and best democracies in the world. If we look around the world, changes in other kinds of voting systems are in some of the most poorly run countries in the world, with violence and chaos not only in the streets but also in the halls of government, and with fringe groups and extremist groups forming coalitions and still fighting with each other. Demanding this kind of change in the Canadian parliamentary system is not reform in any good sense of the word. No one who wants change has proposed anything specific in what they're saying. To people who say their votes don't count, I would say to them, get out and work for your candidate and convince other people to vote for that candidate.

At the town hall meeting that was held in Winnipeg earlier this month, the choices offered for discussion were only voting systems other than the one we have now. There was no discussion about the benefits of our current system, in which each Canadian voter has a secret ballot vote counted once and counted equally with every other vote. Alternative systems allow for one person's vote to be counted more than once in certain circumstances, but not in others.

Some people complain that there can be a majority with less than 50% of the vote. Yes, that means we have more than two political parties in Canada. Anyone is free to form a political party. Anyone is free to stand for election. Canadians are free to vote for whomever they choose, and no one is required to register with a political party to have their vote counted.

People complain about the lack of voter turnout. There was talk of imposing fines if a voter doesn't vote. This is a bad idea for so many reasons, including hardship for those living below the poverty line and for those who are homeless and cannot register.

Simple solutions were not discussed, such as setting up registration booths that are accessible to everyone, including in homeless shelters, community centres, storefront organizations, and so on. There was talk of apathy and lack of interest. How about civics classes? How about incentives to vote? How about Elections Canada becoming more public and within the education system? Don't create problems and chaos where there are none. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Mr. Elwood-Oates. Go ahead, sir.

[Ian Elwood-Oates, As an Individual]

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to members of this committee.

I'm speaking for myself and my wife. Honestly, you can get her signature afterwards.

It's our belief that first past the post is not working for the majority of Canadian voters—only 40% of them. First past the post is not working for potential voters who choose not to vote because there will be no representation for their views. First past the post is not working when it leads to governance that breeds an us against them mentality, as in majority versus opposition. First past the post is not working when any viewpoint not represented by the two main parties will have little or no influence in the House.

I have friends from Holland and family in New Zealand. They all strongly support proportional representation, especially the way New Zealand has made provision for its aboriginal citizens. I think this could very well apply to our aboriginals as well.

My wife and I strongly support the adoption of proportional representation in the Canadian election process. As to which form of PR it should be, that is possibly not as important at this time, because it should be given the opportunity to be tweaked over a period of time. Canada is a unique place with unique needs, and the rural-urban plan sounds like a good plan to start with.

I believe that mandatory voting would be unnecessary if PR were adopted, because every vote will count and all beliefs will have representation. As a former teacher, I'd like to say that the students who took part in a governance project and voting system where they had consequences for what they did, respected voting. It should start in the school system, although incentives are good. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Degen, please.

[Gene Degen, As an Individual]

I have a couple of points I would like to make in favour of mixed member proportional representation, which probably looks to me like it would meet my needs best. I'm one of those folks who has voted federally for a long time, for over 45 years, and my local candidate has never won or even come close to winning. I don't live in a tuxedo and I have worked for my candidate, and neither of those things has made my efforts all that effective. I do want a system that gives better representation of my values and views.

There is actually one exception. In the last election, I voted strategically. I had no idea how difficult it would be in the voting booth to do that. I felt like I had just about had a heart attack in doing that. I never want to be in the situation of doing that again, so, please protect my health. I'm getting old, and I have to watch my heart. It's on your heads if that happens.

The other point I want to make is that Mr. Thomas said that we're not in any kind of crisis, but jeez I've sure felt like we were in a crisis the last number of years. It really alarmed me that a majority party, made up of a minority of votes, has the ability to reshape our democracy in ways that degrade it and benefit their own party. It it really has felt like a crisis to me.

I believe that our democracy is safer if power is less concentrated in one or two parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll call up Mr. Beddome to the mike.

Mr. Taliesin, go ahead, sir.

[Karl Taliesin, As an Individual]

Thanks very much for coming to Winnipeg. I appreciate your coming out here.

I don't speak with a lot of evidence behind me. I'm a citizen in the west end of Winnipeg, and in the west end I have never cast a ballot that elected my candidate. The problem of wasted votes is one of the largest problems that you can help to solve, especially in the west end, where we have one of the poorest neighbourhoods. It is very disenfranchised when the people don't go out to vote. When you have a voter turnout that's less than 50%, then something wrong. It's not about having the right candidates. It's not about political malaise. It's about their vote counting, and proportional representation would be a very good answer.

Paul Thomas mentioned accountability a lot, and that really resonated with me. Combined with what Carlos Sosa was saying, in the perspective of a person with a disability, an able-bodied person cannot see the barriers that are put in front of them, but a person with a disability experiences the barriers. In this case, the accountability is the barrier. When our members of Parliament are not accountable to our citizens, that's when voter turnout goes down. Our voter turnout is our second biggest problem; we need to increase our participation. I think that accountability can greatly be solved by not putting the onus on citizens. If there's a mandatory rule to vote, the citizens shouldn't be penalized; the members of Parliament should.

If the members of Parliament can't get their voter turnout up, penalize them, kick them out of office, since they haven't done a good job to get in there in the first place. That's the perspective when you have a disability of accountability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll call up Mr. Menard and we'll go to Mr. Beddome.

[James Ro Beddome, As an Individual]

I just want to thank the committee for coming here to discuss this important issue. I also want to acknowledge that we're on Treaty No. 1 territory as well as the homeland of the Métis Nation here.

Perhaps I could simply encourage this committee to move forward now. I think we've heard it. There are some people who had different opinions, but the vast majority of people want proportional representation now, not proportional representation later. They want to see this committee implement much needed changes.

There's no such thing as a perfect electoral system. We could look at the different ways in which we could implement proportional representation. I am a bit partial to the single transferrable vote, and I know we had it in Winnipeg from 1922 to 1958. So when Mr. Thomas, with due respect, says we can't just go ahead and change the system, we did it. In fact, we had it here in Winnipeg. We had an alternative vote in rural Manitoba, and I think we should move beyond an alternative vote, but we had it for almost 40 years. So it can be done.

Alberta had a similar experience. It can be done, and that experiment doing that right now will create that opportunity. That will create that driver. We can play around with a truly proportional system. A system in which we aim to achieve proportionality in terms of the overall percentage of votes cast would be somewhat similar to the number of seats that we're going to see in Parliament, or in the legislature in the case of a provincial context.

I should say, just for the sake of being honest, that I'm speaking as an individual citizen, but I am also leader of the Green Party in Manitoba. I have never run federally, but I've run provincially several times, and I want to make a comment. A number of people have commented that if you don't vote for a party that wins, your vote doesn't count. I want to say that as someone who ran as a long-shot candidate, your vote counts because you're sending a message and you're putting issues forward. I think it's really important that people recognize that.

That said, there are a lot of ridings. I see Mr. Maguire nodding along. Quickly, I ran my first campaign in 2007 in what may be known as a yellow dog riding, in that sense that, generally speaking, the election doesn't actually take place at the time of the election. It takes place in the nomination party of the leading party. That's what we need to change, and that's what I think people have said resoundingly they want to see here today.

Thank you.

[Applause]

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Would Mr. Lobson like to take the other mike while Mr. Menard speaks? Thank you.

Mr. Menard.

[Allan Menard, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm not going to go back over everything that's already been said numerous times. I am going to say that basically our system, for all intents and purposes, is an oligarchy. It's a two-party system; it goes back and forth between the two parties. To bring it into the realm of those who cannot afford to make it to vote and who are facing barriers to expressing themselves, the oligarchy is not going to work. They must have a voice, and so far we've seen one side making sure that our society sticks to looking after those who are at the top, and then we have the others who are saying, well, we need the middle class. Well, unfortunately, the vast majority of Canadians are of neither of those two persuasions. They are the underclass. They are the lower class. That is where the vast majority is. If they can't make it out to vote, and if they're disenfranchised, which, granted, they likely are, then they're not going to be out to vote. So you have to make sure that we start fighting poverty and that we look after those people and bring them up so they're able to vote. That is where we're going to have the majority of change.

PR is definitely going to see that. I myself weigh towards the urban-rural only because it combines the two systems and takes the best of both. But that's for you to decide.

[Applause]

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

Mr. Hoeppner, would you take the mike.

Mr. Lobson, the floor is yours.

[David Lobson, As an Individual]

Thank you. I just want to make a couple of comments on the meeting itself. I had to show my ID to get in here, and we've talked a lot about ID and the requirements for voting and so on. Perhaps we could have a medical ID card in this country and you could get around the privacy and find a way to get that solved. I'm not sure why I needed ID to come in here tonight and speak. Without it I don't know if I could speak. I'm a little bit disappointed that we could only speak for two minutes. I'm also a little disappointed that I had a really hard time finding out about this meeting. It came through back channels. I wonder why.

My other point is that I'm very non-partisan, and belong to a group of people among whom there are different views but who come to a conclusion a lot of times. Anyway, where I want to go with that statement is that I noticed there are mostly proponents here and that if 60% voted for the NDP, Green Party, and LPC, then I would think that we'd have six here and four, but I'm not seeing that. Are we really getting a cross-section here, because to me that's what democracy is about. It's hearing everybody, even your opponents.

I could clamour about whether it's democratic or not and referendums and all that. I am for a referendum. I go back and look at when we were dealing with the Fair Elections Act and the outrage I saw from people in response. It was fair outrage too; I think the Fair Elections Act should never have occurred, but I see the same thing occurring now with electoral reform. I'm seeing the same thing happen. It seems that a lot of people just say, “No it's not the same thing”, but it is for me. I think a lot of other people see it the same way, as a sort of a railroading.

I am for a change in the electoral system, but I'd like it to happen democratically, which is by a referendum. I hear nobody wants that, but at the end of the day, that's my opinion. I don't think that skipping it is going to hurt anything. I'm not going to recite Emmett Macfarlane's column, but he put a really good column out covering everything from constitutional law, all the way through on that.

Anyways, thanks for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Keating.

Okay, Mr. Hoeppner, go ahead.

[Dirk Hoeppner, As an Individual]

Hello again.

I'll be very brief here. There's just something I forgot to mention and you guys didn't have time to do so in St-Pierre-Jolys. I was contacted by Dr. Susan Roddy, who had conducted a town hall meeting in Brandon. I think it was at the University of Brandon in the riding of Brandon—Souris. I don't mean to put words in her mouth, but she did want me draw your attention to the report that she has submitted to you guys about that town hall meeting. I believe part of her reasoning was that she was unsatisfied with the town hall that was conducted or not conducted by her sitting MP. She just wanted to stress the urgency of her report.

I have a bit of an addendum. I think I've heard the comment multiple times before saying that our democracy has worked for 150 years and that we don't need to change it. That's often followed by a call for a referendum. But I have to question when women would have got the right to vote, had we had a referendum on it. That's all I have to say. Thank you.