We haven't taken a position on one system over the other.
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.
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.
7:45 p.m.
Member and Research Analyst, Council of Canadians with Disabilities
We haven't taken a position on one system over the other.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses here this evening. As the Manitoban on the panel, I would like to say welcome to everyone here, in our friendly city of Winnipeg.
Dr. Thomas, I was most interested in some of your comments about being skeptical about needing reform in our system. We've talked at other meetings about how we have a pretty good system in place, in terms of being respected by other nations in the world in regard to our electoral process. It doesn't mean it can't be improved, but it is recognized as a very good system. We all agree that there is no perfect system—that was your number one item, as I recall—and that problems exist in the principles and values. You look at changing some of those.
I got most of your points down here. I will get the rest out of Hansard. The legitimization of the process for politicians is the point that I would like you to expand on, as well as keeping the personal factor of the local member of Parliament. Personally, I find that to be very important with constituents. It doesn't matter who they are. When they come to my door, they are always welcome. Can you elaborate on what you meant there and how important it is to keep that part in our electoral process?
7:45 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
As I said, legitimacy is a contentious notion that has been the subject of debate among philosophers and social scientists for centuries, and I don't like it when we have shallow statements in the media that if you fail to get this approval rating on a particular project, somehow it is illegitimate, or that a referendum is the one and only way you can arrive at a legitimate outcome to a process like this. There could be multiple methods for deliberation and decision-making on a topic as important and sensitive as electoral reform, and a referendum could or could not be part of it. I am almost of two minds on that. Legitimacy, use the term carefully.
On local representation, I did research on how the MPs manage their incoming mail, and it proved to me that even though Canadians are often unaware of the names of their local representatives, when they have a problem they turn to them. I would not want to see that diminished. I could tell a wonderful joke about that, but I won't because the time is not here.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Chair, I will run the analogy for Dr. Thomas of members of Parliament here being like your insurance policy: you don't really want it, but when you need it, it is there.
7:45 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I am a north end Winnipeg boy. I grew up in the north end. My mother knew Stanley Knowles's wife, so I knew Stanley Knowles.
A constituent called Stanley Knowles, the great dean of Parliament, and said, “Stanley, I just bought new garbage cans. The first time the crew came by they dented them all. What are you going to do about it, Stanley?”
Stanley said something like, “It is probably a city responsibility. What are you calling me for?”
She said, “Well, I didn't want to start at the top.”
Sometimes people don't sort out jurisdictions very well in their minds. Anyway, I'll stop before I lose my credibility.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
I think there is another comment there. We had one presentation that indicated that maybe we should just make a change to PR, or other systems of voting besides first past the post, implement it for a couple of elections, and then give people an opportunity to have a say on whether they like it.
I noted you said that we don't have to really rush to do this reform for the 2019 election. Can you elaborate on that?
7:50 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I am trying to be fair and objective about this. I think it was a rash promise to suggest that this could happen before 2019. The government was slow to get going with this committee, and it was slow to make a compromise to ensure that all parties—not just official parties in terms of the House of Commons—were on the committee. They gave up their majority and that was a good gesture on their part toward compromise.
I just don't think it is feasible. You would have to hold a referendum by June 2017. It would have to be done under the current Elections Act. That means corporations could spend during the referendum. I just think it would be better to take the time and get it right. Then, I would say, have an action-forcing mechanism that four or five years from the adoption of this committee, or something like that, this committee be reconstituted so another parliamentary committee can do a review of what has gone on.
The New Zealanders went through it from 1993 and have been talking about electoral reform for more than two decades. It takes time to get public awareness and understanding of the issues.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thank you.
Dr. Thomas, we've had a lot of witnesses come to us and talk about the benefits of proportional systems. I don't know why, but I was a bit surprised with what I thought I heard you say, which was that first past the post was not so bad. Did I misunderstand?
7:50 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
It sounds contrarian almost, to be in defence of the status quo. I'm not an enthusiastic fan of first past the post. I think there are things that could be done within that system to ensure greater internal democracy within parties, including caucus democracy, and to make greater opportunities for regional voices to be heard in Ottawa. My Ph.D. was on the committee system. I'm a great believer that committees are the best forum for backbench members of Parliament to have influence, but there has to be permission, encouragement, and support from the governing party of the day.
There are other things to be done. I'm almost agnostic on which electoral system is best for the country. We could live with a number of them, and I don't think the electoral system is all that determinative of how Canadians feel about their democracy.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
You've touched on it, but this is where I was going to go with that. Can we do enough tinkering on the edges to deal with the issues we're hearing, the dissatisfaction, or do we need to slide down the path of moving to a different system? This is where you're not having a strong opinion on it. There are things like alternative vote. Today we heard about PR light, which brings in an element of the proportional system.
Where do we start moving? You say that there is enough of the other stuff we could do. We have a sort of majority system. Is that the kind of realm we should stay in, given that it has worked for us? Should we focus our efforts on tinkering? Where do we go?
7:50 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
If you do alternative vote, there will be a greater consensus among the electorate in 338 constituencies that the winner is really the winner, because they had to accumulate more votes. Admittedly, some of those votes were second preferences of voters whose first preference dropped off the list. Nonetheless, it does address it to some extent.
If you ask yourself how serious the problem is and you answer the way I do, that it's not drastic, not a crisis, and you look at the alternative vote model, then you could make an assessment. If some of the problems persisted, even under alternative vote, and you could link those problems to the electoral system, then you could go back and have a second look and perhaps go for some form of modified proportional representation. No one in their right mind recommends pure PR for this country. It's just not on the books.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
What constitutes legitimacy within a democratic system? It gets into systems and tinkering or fixing some of the other issues. Would you care to comment? I have another question we could go to, but if you have any thoughts on this question of legitimacy, we'd like to hear them.
7:55 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I have probably said enough to bore people completely on legitimacy.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
That's fine. Okay.
The final piece has to do with the brief that we had on compulsory voting. I thought it was interesting that you felt there was no compelling reason to go that way. There is lots of the material in the submission we had, but is there anything further you want to share with us on this point?
7:55 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I don't think there's much to add to that. It's a judgment call. My view is that voting is very important. It should be seen as a civic duty, and I think we can ingrain that attitude into the political culture more than we have now. I just don't think we're at a point where we should give up on the political process. In the last election, I think the turnout went up 7% or something like that, the highest turnout since 1993. A new leader, with new ideas, and some reaction against a former government helped that, no doubt.
Now I think it's up to politicians and parties to work to maintain contact with Canadians and get them returning to the polls and give them something more to vote for that they find interesting and exciting.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
First of all, thank you to the witnesses. We really appreciate your coming here tonight. It was the first time we'd really heard from representatives of the disability community. It was very useful for us, and we appreciate your being here to lay out those areas that require improvement. You're right, we have to constantly shine a light on what more needs to be done. It's just one of those things that we have to always be sensitive to and aware of.
Thank you for coming. Of course, you're welcome to stay for the open-mike session.
Now we're at the point that I know many in the audience have been waiting for with great excitement, I hope. The goods news is that we have many people who want to provide their opinion on this issue. We at the committee are determined to hear from everyone. We need your input for our report.
We're very excited by the turnout tonight, but I'm going to need your help. I'm sure you want everyone to be able to have their say. For that to happen, we need to respect the time limits that we've been using for this segment of our tour.
Essentially, every intervenor will have two minutes. When there are about 30 seconds left, I will raise my hand. It doesn't mean you have to stop at that moment; it just means that we're getting to the end. That's essentially the procedure.
We'd like some good, bold statements. That means we don't need a preamble to soften your message. We can take the direct hit, and so we're hoping for some good direct communication.
Also, the way we'll operate to make it go a little faster is that I'll call two names to start: Ms. Lamb and Mr. Cyr. If one of you could take one mike, and the other the other mike, when one of you leaves the mike after you've made your comments, I'll call another name, and that person can go to the mike and wait their turn so that the mikes will always be occupied.
Mr. Cyr is not here. Is Ms. Lamb here?
Is Mr. Terry Woods here? Perfect.
Ms. Lamb, you have two minutes to weigh in on this important issue for our democracy.
8 p.m.
Louise Lamb As an Individual
Thank you.
I'm tired of being forced by the present electoral system to often cast my vote strategically. Essentially, I have to cast a negative vote against the candidate or party that I loathe, rather than voting for the candidate who I think will best represent me and the constituency. That's the essence of the present system of first past the post. I think it's the essence of the very real cynicism and lack of interest.
I have children aged 22 and 26. I still have an eye on how youth voters are thinking, and I can assure you that there's a real danger when your vote really doesn't count. Small wonder why our Parliament is not truly representative in terms of gender parity and visible minorities. You're not voting for your first choice; you're voting against to defeat, to replace, another choice. You're sick of something, but you're not voting for what you want.
I appreciate Professor Thomas's remarks, but I think he's wrong on what causes people not to vote or not to be excited by the political process. There is a very high level of disengagement from the democratic process, and cynicism is permeating our political culture precisely because of the present system.
The issue of strategic voting was something that was very much a part of a town hall I recently attended in which Terry Duguid and Minister Monsef were present. I think I can say fairly that there was a significant majority of people whose main point was that first past the post needs to be replaced. There has to be a way to vote for, rather than against a candidate, to make your vote count.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much for that notice.
We'll go to Mr. Woods, but before Mr. Woods begins, is Mr. Shore here? Please go to the other mike while Mr. Woods delivers his comments.
Go ahead, Mr. Woods. You have two minutes.
8 p.m.
Terry Woods As an Individual
I agree with what the previous speaker said. I think that's an important thing that we must think about.
I think a couple of things that came up this evening are very pertinent. One of them that keeps bouncing up is credibility and whether or not people believe, and can believe, what politicians tell them.
This is a very bold first step that the government has made in keeping its promise of electoral reform, to try to address some of the apathy that exists right now among our electorate.
A comment was also made by Mr. Thomas that we don't need to rush into this. Maybe another committee...and this sort of thing. I think this is one of the things that tends to turn people off when it comes to deciding whether or not they can trust politicians, and whether or not their vote actually means something. They see endless debate going on, with little that they can see as concrete from it. I think we need to move forward with this committee and with its recommendations, and not get mired in lengthy debates as to what is best.
The other point that was brought up was whether or not mandatory voting should be implemented. The one caution I would have with mandatory voting—although there have also been some issues regarding accessibility—is that if you force someone to vote, but they still don't think their vote counts, then you're really forcing them to do something they don't believe in anyway.
While you may get more people out to vote, I think that people should learn that it is their responsibility to vote. You have to have a result.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That was two minutes even. That's good timing. Thank you.
Mr. Shore is next.
Mr. Marcel Gosselin, please come to the mike.
Mr. Shore, go ahead, please.
September 20th, 2016 / 8 p.m.
Henry Shore As an Individual
I think these proceedings, instead of being run by politicians, should be run by Elections Canada, which is an independent body.
I think that no matter what comes of this, the government in power is going to twist arms and have the report say what they want it to say.
I think this process should be put into a referendum, with however many alternative types of voting, and with the questions to be determined by Elections Canada. It should go to a referendum so that it's democratic and not decided by the government, which was elected by a first past the post decision.
In terms of apathy, I think one reason there's apathy is that there's no one worth voting for, especially with the so-called main parties. I know that in the last provincial election, there was no one I wanted to vote for. I ended up voting Green, because they spoke the most to what I believed in, but the three main parties did not, which is why I think there's voter apathy. Also, in the federal election, all the parties were targeting the so-called middle class. The young voters, millennials, a lot of them are in precarious employment positions and are living marginal lives in economic terms, and none of the major parties was speaking to them.
It's like Trump and Hillary Clinton, there's no one to vote for there. There is no good choice, so young people are staying home. If there were more of a choice.... Maybe it's a matter of no longer deciding MPs or party leaders through political conventions, but instead having a vote of some kind by the public.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Marcel Gosselin is next.
Jeremie Gosselin, please take the other mike.
Bonsoir, monsieur Gosselin.