Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 21st, 2016

[Grant Orchard, As an Individual]

Thank you.

There's an interesting proposal before you from the Citizens’ Democracy Forum, in Ontario, called single-member party proportional. In the U.K. it's DPR. It's similar to the voting system in Scotland. It's simple, easy to understand and implement, and it meets the principles set out by this committee. It continues with single-member constituencies and requires no change in existing ridings. There's no party list to pick from, and voting and counting is simple and quick. There is no change in the overall number of MPs and no need for gerrymandering of ridings. It works by two separate votes on a single ballot. One vote for the constituency candidate is now on a separate vote for the party. The party votes determine the number of seats each party gets in the House and which party gets elected. Like pieces of a pie, each party gets a portion of the total House seats and the members are accorded equal strength within their party's portion of seats.

For example, in the 2015 federal election, Liberals received 39.5% of the popular vote, which under PR-SMPP would be 133.5 House of Commons seats with 184 Liberal members. That would give each Liberal MP .72% of a vote. The NDP got 6.5 House of Commons seats with 44 members elected, which would give a weight of 1.1 votes for each of their MPs. Voting thresholds of 3% to 5% and/or the election of at least one MP to give a party standing in the House could be in effect. If a party reaches the threshold but does not elect an MP, its percentage could be negotiated to another party, or, as in the U.K. model, its leader could be given an automatic vote in the House. The leader would have a vote but no constituency seat. On non-party matters or free votes, each MP would be accorded one vote—one member, one vote.

Your committee is also dealing with electronic and mandatory voting. I'd recommend a big no to both of these. Electronic voting has no guarantee of the security of the vote. As has been amply documented in the U.S., it is susceptible to tampering and hacking. Paper voting is traceable and manual counting is more accurate and reliable. Mandatory voting is a shabby way to make our democracy appear better than it is, removing responsibility from our political leadership to make the elections and issues meaningful and interesting to voters.

One way of increasing voter turnout is to improve our electoral voting system, making elections fair and giving people more of a sense that their vote counts.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Paskewitz.

[Michael Paskewitz, As an Individual]

Thanks for having me here today. I'm here as an individual, not with a particular group.

I'm a big advocate of some form of proportional representation—MMP or STV. I don't have a particular preference for either. I'll leave that for the committee to decide.

Why do I support PR? First, I've voted in six federal and provincial elections and in none of them has my candidate won. I've voted for numerous parties represented here at the table. When will I be represented by a party of my choice?

Second, I want to see less toxicity in the House of Commons. There have been numerous studies showing that proportional representation encourages collaboration and less toxic discourse between parties. One unique example of this can be seen in the result of mixed member proportional. The centre-right Christian Democratic Union party in Germany is currently in a coalition with the German Green Party in the Baden-Württemberg state. It might be hard to imagine Canadian Conservatives and the Greens forming government. In fact, the Germans thought the same of their own parties only a few years ago. Yet, here they are finding common ground and working together.

Finally, I strongly believe referendums are not an effective way of engaging public opinion. Yes or no answers are not suitable for complex issues. However, if a referendum is chosen then it should be held after citizens have knowledge and experience with the new system so that we have the ability to meaningfully compare the two. Therefore, it should happen only after an election with the new system.

Thanks for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

We'll hear Darcy McLenaghen and then John Rae.

Go ahead, sir.

[Darcy McLenaghen, As an Individual]

I support MMP—one vote, one equal share in power. We need a voting system that doesn't distort the popular vote, which is not what we have right now. I've frequently voted for a party that I don't want because the vote for my first choice, the third or fourth most popular party, would earn me no representation in government. Strategic voting skews the exit polling numbers on party popularity in favour of the established parties and it gives them a false inflated endorsement and herds voters toward those parties, because no one wants their vote to be wasted. This creates inertia that favours established parties, stifling growth of less established parties. The system winnows out diversity of voices and cuts change off at the knees.

The elector must be given the tools to register their first preference for party representation untainted by compromises inherent in runoff balloting or strategic voting among local candidates. This means a separate vote solely on who your first-choice party is. The party must then be represented in the Commons and proportioned to its chair of that nationwide party preference vote by allocating extra seats after the local candidates have been elected.

The voting for local representatives must be a separate vote from the national popularity vote and it must not be first past the post either. Local candidates must be elected through some form of transferable vote, I suppose, so that each elected representative has at least 50% of the local riding's voter support.

I'm passionate about public policy, about building a better society, but even I have found myself so disgusted by the roulette wheel that is our voting system that I have been tempted a few times not to vote.

When we create a system that promises every vote will earn a share of the power, people will use it. This government got in on the promise to end first past the post before the next election. This contract is the foundation of this government's legitimacy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rae, and after Mr. Rae it will be Mr. Benjamin Dichter.

[John Rae, As an Individual]

Good evening, honourable members. Thanks for the opportunity.

My name is John Rae, I've been 41 years in the disability rights movement in Canada. I currently serve as first vice-chair of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. I understand you had a good session with some of my colleagues in Winnipeg last night. Tonight I appear as an individual to raise a number of topics.

I'll make three points. Number one, it is desirable that more Canadians participate by voting. I support that. However, I do believe the idea of mandatory voting would be disproportionately a problem for the disabled community, so I oppose it. What we do need, though, is to be more engaged in the electoral process. That requires additional amendments to the Elections Act to cover topics that are not currently included, things like mandatory requirement for accessible offices, accessible campaigning, all-candidates' meetings where sign language and interpretation will be the rule and not the rare exception, and so forth.

Point number two is a challenge. I have attended numerous meetings on the question of electoral reform and rarely, if ever, is the word “disability” even breathed let alone given any kind of serious consideration by those who are proponents of electoral reform. It is argued that a new system will bring more women into Parliament. It's hard for anyone to oppose that idea. I certainly support it. But if we're really talking about making our Parliament more representative of what our country looks like, then I challenge you, your colleagues, your research staff, to develop a system that will bring our percentage, which is 15% to 20% of the population, more in line in Parliament than we currently occupy.

Point number three. You who are currently temporarily sited can verify how you voted before you leave the poll. I can't. That directly discriminates against me. That's why people like me are so passionately supporting additional ways of voting, whether that be an electronic machine, online, or telephone voting.

Elections Canada has often asked me to prescribe which one I prefer. My issue is outcome, not so much approach. Any of those will do the job. Anything less than fixing that part of the discriminatory electoral system we currently have will simply continue barriers to the participation of persons with disabilities to this country. I submit in 2016, that is unacceptable.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Dichter and then Dustin Su.

[Benjamin Dichter, As an Individual]

Hello, my name is Benjamin Dichter. I am the Conservative candidate of record for Toronto—Danforth, and I am the founder of a little group called LGBTory. I am the big bad Conservative in the room.

For the past 10 years I've owned a business on the university campus. It's amazing how challenging it is to get young people interested in politics. We have a danger in changing our system, in which currently between 50% and 60% of the population are engaged. This room is great. You people are engaged. That's not the majority. Complicating the system is going to further disenfranchise younger people who are somewhat engaged and somewhat not.

As a final thing, I was invited here by a number of Liberal members who wanted to reach out to me to come and speak on their behalf. When we met, they were telling me about a bunch of videos they saw online on YouTube made by a friend of mine by the name of CGP Grey. There's a whole bunch of videos on electoral systems. What I can tell you about Grey, knowing him, is that he hates politics. He likes math. He likes systems. But he's not a political person. We need to get people more engaged, and complicating the system is not going to accomplish that goal.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We have Dustin Su and then Christopher Tolley.

[Dustin Su, As an Individual]

Hi, my name is Dustin Su. I live and work as a professional engineer in Willowdale. I'd just like to share some highlights with you of a coffee dialogue that my wife and I hosted 10 days ago with seven of our friends. We really feel the core issue we're trying to address here is the distortion of the federal election outcomes due to the first past the post voting.

We believe it's unacceptable for a party that wins less than 50% of the popular vote to form a majority government and implement long-term agendas that don't represent the values of the majority of the electorate. In a new system, we want election results where the proportion of seats a political party earns is in close proportion to the percentage of votes cast for that party; where the ballot and method of counting seats are easy to understand; and where local representation is maintained, where MPs are accountable to voters who elect them.

I guess the other major concern from our dialogue is with regard to public engagement, as the previous gentleman said.

I'll just bring up an Ipsos poll that was released on August 31. Only 3% of all polled—and I think about 1,000 people were polled—were actually closely following this public engagement, 3%. Only one in five were actually aware that the public consultation was happening. So 20% actually are aware of it.

We believe that the government could be doing more to promote awareness of the national engagement process, as education is critical for the new system to be truly legitimate in the eyes of the electorate. We recommend that, once the committee decides upon a new system, the government should invest heavily in public awareness and education and promote further discourse so the electorate fully understands the system.

I will say I disagree with the last gentleman. I believe Canadians are smart enough to actually be able to use a system that you propose. I also suggest utilizing the CBC as a centrepiece for political discourse—assign a media personality to be a champion of public engagement, and create a dedicated time and space on television and radio and online for public engagement, discourse, and education.

Thank you for your time, for allowing me to speak, and for studying this very important issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

Thank you for holding a discussion with your friends on this issue.

We have Christopher Tolley, then David Hwang.

Go ahead, Mr. Tolley.

[Christopher Tolley, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for taking the time to hear from me. We've heard some very strong arguments tonight. I'd like to put a very personal face on this.

My name is Chris Tolley and I was the candidate in Toronto-Danforth for the Green Party. One of the most exciting things about the campaign was, by the nature of our riding, our team was made up of mostly young people. In many cases, they were people for whom it was their first time ever being involved in a political process. In some cases, it was even the first time that they had voted. Due to their energy and their enthusiasm, they were able to raise a tremendous amount of support and outreach and information about our beliefs and our ideas.

However, in the last two weeks, there was a massive shift. There was a desire for change. A lot of our supporters said, “We believe in what you believe in, and we believe in your values, but we're going to vote for change.”

In a system that works, normally the desire for change and the desire to vote for your beliefs and your values would work hand in hand. However, since our system is broken, they actually butt against each other. It's done this so many times throughout history and it's hit everybody across the political spectrum. We need a system in which the desire for change, and the desire to vote for your values, and who you believe in, go hand in hand. At the end of the political process, I saw a group of young, enthusiastic people come out of the process disillusioned and disenfranchised, and that was heartbreaking.

I believe that mixed member proportional representation is a system that would allow the desire to vote for someone who you believe in, and who believes in your values, to work hand in hand with the desire for change,

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll hear from David Hwang, then Ben Ross.

Please go ahead, sir.

[David Hwang, As an Individual]

Good evening. My name is David Hwang.

I'm not with anybody. I'm just here as a constituent in Toronto, who wants a couple of things. First, I don't advocate for any system, because, right now, there obviously has to be more time. The system that is crucial to our democracy shouldn't be done with haste. It shouldn't be a campaign promise.

It should be done with the consultation of everyone. For anyone to say a referendum is basically consultation with an uninformed public, I take that as very insulting. At the end of the day, are we going to address people who don't speak English, for whom English is a second language? There are a lot of people who are new Canadians, and who don't vote because they don't know the system. And you want to complicate matters for my family?

I don't advocate for anybody. I don't advocate for any system. I advocate that everyone has a voice. Maybe it's not the voice that fits into my narrative. But let's be honest with ourselves, are we only advocating free speech and free votes because it falls into your narrative? And you're going to muzzle the people who don't fall into your narrative? That's a fallacy. That is wrong.

All I ask is that we have a referendum. Sure, you can have a referendum with every system, so let's have it with a really robust discussion, a great discussion. For people to say, it's going to take a lot of time, a lot of money. The last time I checked, a level of government was able to squander $300 billion. You're going to tell me that you prefer a wasteful $300-billion system over spending $30 million for a process that's going to change our system.

Tell that to the people of North Korea. Tell that to the people of China. Our democracy is very important. A referendum might not go my way, but I don't insult the electorate and say, you're stupid because my viewpoints are better. I don't think that way. I hope that people have the courtesy to think with free speech.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll hear from Ben Ross, then Tom Cullen.

Please go ahead, Mr. Ross.

[Ben Ross, As an Individual]

Thanks.

First of all, thank you all for your time and your service here today and for your professional service to Canada. We really appreciate the fact that you spend your lives being our voice.

I grew up—in a vague sense of the word—in a generation that grew up with a very concrete sense of distrust and futility, and real separation from the voting system of Canada. People in my circles who do vote, vote out of a sense of duty in a really fatalistic sense. We don't feel as if our vote means anything. I'm 32 and I've voted in every provincial and federal election that I was able to, and I have also never voted for a winning party. And I thought that would change when I moved to Toronto and I voted NDP, but that didn't work out.

To shorten it, I'm in favour of MMP. It makes the most sense to me. It speaks to the question of liking my local representative, but not liking their party, or wanting this person to be elected at the top, but I know this person here down at my level. From the beginning today I've heard single-issue parties being discussed as a dirty word—sorry if I'm going over—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's okay, you have another 10 seconds.

[Ben Ross]

Why don't we elect our issues instead of complaining that politicians don't talk about them? Because you do, but that isn't always the perception, and seeing is sometimes being in the public eye.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Tom Cullen and Jeff Braunstein.

Mr. Cullen.

[Tom Cullen, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I want to congratulate this committee on being one of the only committees—my understanding—in which the representation of the committee is proportional, so yay for you guys.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're getting a lot of positive reinforcement here. I like this place.

[Tom Cullen]

Maybe it'll give you a taste of what collaborative government is all about, that all Canadians want to see, not like some of the things we see in the House sometimes.

As many people have already stated, so many of us have voted one way only to get an MP of another party and literally not be represented, and not feel represented. Both the perception and the reality are vital. I think if anyone wants to ask Canadians about values, fairness would be one of the top values that every Canadian of any political stripe, gender, religion, whatever, would say they're for it.

Only a proportional system is fair. Fair is one syllable, proportional is four, stick with fair.

The other point is you want something simple and intuitive in the balloting experience, and not to confuse AV with ranked ballot; ranked ballot is a mechanism that can be used in all sorts of systems. I was in the shower thinking about how an MMP system would work on the candidates' side of the ballot, how I would be able to make sure I could express my preferences and not have to vote strategically even with MMP. The answer is a ranked ballot. You can do MMP with a ranked ballot on both sides of the ballot. I can make sure who I like least and who is my favourite. And I can even count to four and rank all four of them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Braunstein, and then Mr. Christopher Durrant.