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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Paul Thomas  Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Carlos Sosa  Second Vice-Chair, Council of Canadians with Disabilities
April D'Aubin  Member and Research Analyst, Council of Canadians with Disabilities
Louise Lamb  As an Individual
Terry Woods  As an Individual
Henry Shore  As an Individual
Marcel Gosselin  As an Individual
Jeremie Gosselin  As an Individual
Morrissa Boerchers  As an Individual
Charles David Nicraez  As an Individual
Alon D. Weinberg  As an Individual
Matthew Maclean  As an Individual
Glenn D.M. Morrison  As an Individual
Sandy Rubinfeld  As an Individual
Randall J. Proven  As an Individual
David J. Woods  As an Individual
Rosemary K. Hnatiuk  As an Individual
Shawn Deborah Kettner  As an Individual
Joseph Harry Wasylycia-Leis  As an Individual
Suzannel Sexton  As an Individual
Evan Jacob Krosney  As an Individual
Aleela Cara Gerstein  As an Individual
Eric Suderman Siemens  As an Individual
Judith S. Herscovitch  As an Individual
Ian Elwood-Oates  As an Individual
Gene Degen  As an Individual
Karl Taliesin  As an Individual
James Ro Beddome  As an Individual
Allan Menard  As an Individual
David Lobson  As an Individual
Dirk Hoeppner  As an Individual
Erin L. Keating  As an Individual
Shona Rae Boris  As an Individual
Niall Harney  As an Individual
Ann LaTouche  As an Individual
Andrew Park  As an Individual
Michael Bailey  As an Individual
Shauna-Lei Leslie  As an Individual

8:05 p.m.

Marcel Gosselin As an Individual

Good evening. I am really pleased to have this opportunity and to see you here. It seems to me that I have waited for this moment my entire life.

I have voted in every election for the last half-century, and my vote has never counted.

The only exceptions are the times when I was asked to give some of my tax money to the party I was supporting, but even that was taken away from me.

I'm fed up.

I'm surprised that I'm still going out to vote; I understand why some don't.

I really appreciate the comments made by Mr. Cullen and Mr. Rayes.

I heard what you said about the young people not going to vote. I say to myself: “My goodness, I used to be an educator!”. I think that if their votes counted, we could tell them to have hope that some votes will go here and others will go over there. Then we would have proportional representation.

Please, do not have a referendum. It will kill it. It will kill it.

I am convinced that you are able to make the right choices to achieve an outcome that will serve us well.

Please, make my vote count.

8:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Jeremie Gosselin, the floor is yours.

8:05 p.m.

Jeremie Gosselin As an Individual

Did you want to call somebody up?

8:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I have another name here.

Mr. Nicraez? Is there a Mr. Nicraez?

Great. Okay.

Mr. Gosselin, go ahead.

8:05 p.m.

As an Individual

Jeremie Gosselin

That was my dad.

Ten years ago, I found out about proportional representation, and I was blown away. This is important to me for two reasons. I grew up in a constituency where my voice didn't count under first past the post, and under an alternative vote, it still wouldn't count. The winning candidate had above 50%, so why should I show up, even with alternative vote? Alternative vote makes me cringe a bit, because I want to have my vote count. That's the first reason. For me, it's not necessarily about voter turnout or whatever else; it's about democracy. For me, democracy is when people vote, and here we have a chance of having a system in which votes can count. When you have just one candidate, okay, sure, some people will lose. But here we have a chance of having every vote count. That's the first reason.

The second reason is the fact that it changes the way governments operate. I want co-operation to be the mainstay of Parliament. Under proportional representation, it's something that you cannot take away from the system. Laws have to be approved by a government that has the majority of supporters. For me, that's also a fundamental part of democracy.

So those are the two main reasons I think proportional representation is very important. Alternative vote and first past the post do not meet these requirements, according to me.

I have just one more thing. Proportional representation isn't rocket science. Eighty countries have it. I think if we take the time to explain it to Canadians and talk about it, we will see the benefits of it.

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

I would call up Morrissa Boerchers. Am I pronouncing it correctly?

September 20th, 2016 / 8:10 p.m.

Morrissa Boerchers As an Individual

No.

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I would like to learn. I'm here to learn. How do you pronounce it?

8:10 p.m.

As an Individual

Morrissa Boerchers

It's “Bo-churs”.

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

“Bo-churs”. Okay, I'm sorry.

We'll go with Mr. Nicraez—

8:10 p.m.

Charles David Nicraez As an Individual

It's “Nic-arz”, actually. It's supposed to be Polish, but it's not. It's off the boat Polish

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Mr. Nicraez and Ms. Boerchers, please.

8:10 p.m.

As an Individual

Charles David Nicraez

Thank you. I'll try to be brief and as non-partisan as possible. I was the Green Party candidate for the Manitoba election in Wolseley and I got within 400 votes of winning.

Aside from the partisan stuff, I knocked on thousands of doors and talked with hundreds of people. I was able to get an idea of the hangover from the federal election, which was only six months previous. A lot of people felt that if they didn't vote for someone who was going to win, their votes would be wasted. In the federal election the whole idea was to vote out Harper. I believe a lot of people felt their votes were wasted because they had to vote out someone and didn't get to vote for someone. That was a persistent theme.

I helped Andrew Park, who is here, campaign for Winnipeg South Centre for the Green Party. We ran into so many people who said, “Oh, I'd vote for you, but we have to get rid of the Conservative candidate in this riding.” I have a little bit of perspective on that because I talked to so many people.

My second point, and I don't want to take up too much time, is that I'm leaning toward compulsory voting because we also force people to get drivers' licences. We use coercion as the government to force people to do all sorts of things, and perhaps doing so with voting wouldn't be so bad because then it would be part of the culture.

In a sense, politically, my background is more radical. I think we need to have a change in society and a change in the culture. If people were obligated to vote, then the voter turnout would be much more.

There are problems with that. I have a lot of friends who are aboriginal people, and they're sovereignists. They don't believe they're part of Canada, and there could be legitimate reasons they didn't vote. I think the majority of people should vote.

That's all. Thanks for listening.

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

I call up Mr. Weinberg. Is Mr. Weinberg here?

Ms. Boerchers, please go ahead.

8:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Morrissa Boerchers

Hi. My name is Morrissa and I'm here with Leadnow, a citizens exodus group. I'm in favour of proportional representation. I believe that every vote should count.

I'm from the rural riding in Manitoba of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, and my vote is never counted there. My vote will never count there, and I feel that is a shame. I've never been able to vote for the party that my feelings are most aligned with because I've had to vote strategically. I've never had a chance of having my vote count, and that is a shame.

I have a problem with people saying that our current system is working fine for us now. Maybe it is working fine for those people who are saying that, but as a young woman and someone who is perhaps maybe more progressive, I don't think this current system is working. I feel it's bad when 60% of the vote is not for the party that has 100% of the power. That is a big issue to my point of view.

Just as a note on engagement, it was really hard to find out about this. There are not many chairs available. I think if you want to get people involved in voter turnout and electoral reform, you have to try a bit harder.

I'm a young person who is fairly savvy with the computer and that kind of thing, and it was difficult to find you. It was hard to find out who the panel members are. I think there's a lot of lip service here, and I would like real change.

Thanks, guys.

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I would call Mr. Maclean to the mike.

We'll hear from Mr. Weinberg now.

8:15 p.m.

Alon D. Weinberg As an Individual

Thank you for having me speak here.

If you consider that the largest block controls the whole territory in every riding in Canada, what else works that way? Gangs work that way, where the largest block controls the whole territory. You can see the behaviour in question period over the last two decades. You can see the gangs are at play. Most Canadians are turned off by that, and I say it's the logic of the system that we currently have.

First past the post is a blank cheque for governments to dominate the other parties and Canadians through fake majoritarian rule. One need only look at the countless constructive amendments to the previous government's budget bill, Bill C-38, that were roundly voted down, one demoralizing whipped no vote after the other. You can watch the video of them sitting there all night. I know a few of you were there.

It's important to recall that less than a decade earlier the then leader of the opposition, Stephen Harper, also railed against such omnibus bills, which were then introduced under the Chrétien government and its own series of false majorities.

This bipolarity of decade-long swings between one party and another through our country's history is the direct result of an electoral system designed for two parties back in England a few centuries ago, and it's been toxic to the development of our democracy. This swing between one government with total control over Parliament and another breeds alienation, disempowerment, and disenfranchisement. It's an affront to the most noble visions that Canadians have for this country, the second-largest land mass on earth. We have a responsibility that is not being met by our democracy. It resembles instead the long heavyweight boxing match, with each trading decade-long blows, at one moment champ another moment vanquished. Heavyweight boxing often leaves the combatants bloodied, bruised, and brain damaged. That, I submit, is the state of Canadian democracy today.

What is the answer? The two dominant systems are majoritarian, represented by the alternative vote and various systems of proportional representation. I encourage everybody here to read carefully Fair Vote Canada's submission to the committee, which models three different models for a new electoral system, including a very innovative and new one that is rural-urban proportional. This is similar to what we had in Manitoba about 70 to 100 years ago, except with a proportional system in the rural area, which still would have a single member riding.

This is not a new process for Canada. In 2004, this was published by the Law Commission of Canada in Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada, presided over by Irwin Cotler. I could go through all the meetings that were held in 2002, in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Charlottetown, Montreal, London, Calgary, and on and on. This has already happened, and that commission recommended a mixed member proportional system.

I'll quickly read what it had to say about the alternative vote, and then I will finish.

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Well, you are over time, but—

8:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Alon D. Weinberg

All right.

It ends, “In light of current concerns, the alternative vote system is not sufficiently proportional to constitute a viable alternative to the first-past-the-post system.”

I, and maybe two or three other people—

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Sir, you're out of time.

I will call Mr. Morrison up.

Mr. Maclean, go ahead.

8:15 p.m.

Matthew Maclean As an Individual

First, thanks for having me today. I am a resident of Winnipeg South Centre and a researcher with the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I was asked to come here today, as our president in Manitoba, Kelly Moist, is ironically currently in Ottawa for meetings. She asked me to come here today and express support for change in the way that we elect our representatives.

There are two principles that CUPE believes need to be addressed in a new system: one, a local connection to the MP; and, two, about the same proportion of seats in the House of Commons as the proportion of votes that each party receives.

We believe the best way to make this happen is through a mixed member proportional representation. It sounds complicated, but it's not. It means one ballot with two votes. Your first vote goes to elect your local MP. With the second vote, you select a party. It would function the same way too.

With the first vote, locally elected MPs would be elected exactly the way they are today. They would function in the same way they do today as well. The second vote would go toward electing the MP from a list. These lists could be broken down by province or region so that MPs selected could be accountable to voters in that province or region. We suggest that about two-thirds of MPs should be elected locally, and MPs who are elected from the party lists should be given extra duties such as committee or regional work. Details could be worked out by mutual third parties, such as the electoral commission.

We believe this is the best system going forward. It's been used successfully in countries such as Germany, Scotland, Wales, and New Zealand. As has been mentioned before, it was recommended in 2004 by the Law Commission of Canada.

Finally, to reiterate, we believe that the mixed member proportional representation is the best system going forward. It's a system that's based on two principles: one, a local connection to the MP; and, two, proportionality. It's simple: one ballot, two votes.

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

[Applause]

I would call Ms. Rubinfeld while we listen to Mr. Morrison. Is Ms. Rubinfeld here?

8:20 p.m.

A voice

Yes, she is.

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Mr. Morrison, go ahead.

8:20 p.m.

Glenn D.M. Morrison As an Individual

Thank you.

I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for Professor Thomas's eighth point made about the importance of not yielding to populism. I disagree greatly with where he went from that, and so I too want to repeat the words, “Please, please, please do not have a referendum.” The political end of the spectrum that would look to create fear and confusion and to undermine the process would be given a voice by doing that. Nor do I want you to take this into the next election. You have a mandate. There's a strong voice for change. Please act upon that.

Secondly, I want to echo words spoken tonight by Mr. Sosa and Ms. May, that we should never have had the requirement for a picture ID. The vouching is fair, and I just echo the points that have been made tonight. It was a foolish and ill-willed injection into our system and should be removed.

Finally, I wanted to thank you and apologize for forgetting my third point.

[Applause]