Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 21st, 2016

[Zach Aysan, As an Individual]

Before I start, can I take a quick poll? Has anybody on the committee ever hacked a computer system? Nobody has. We have women, we have men, and we have no computer professionals—and one of the things we are debating is whether to include computers in our electoral process.

I own two software businesses. One of my clients is actually Elizabeth May. She doesn't know it. She probably doesn't know the business by name—it's Guestlist, but that is not the point. My other business has worked with the federal government. During my time there, I disclosed multiple security vulnerabilities of a very serious nature, including the census and aspects of our military apparatus, as well as those of allied countries. We are not at the point where we can trust the computer systems we build with something as important as our election.

If you are choosing electoral systems, please consider non-computerization. If you must computerize it, please note that there is a difference between an Internet computerized voting system and a non-Internet computerized voting system.

There are four types of attacks: fabrication, theft, surveillance, and denial. Fabrication is impossible to stop with Internet-connected voting systems.

Russia is interfering in the American election right now, and it will interfere in ours unless we safeguard this process. If you must have an electronic voting system, make sure it goes outbound only—so radio or UDP connection outbound—and make sure you have a mandatory paper ballot that goes into the voting box and can be verified by any observer who can request a physical count at any polling station. Even using techniques like statistical sample sets will not guarantee a fair election, because an attacker can observe what polling stations to hit by using complex statistical number systems.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for the benefit of your expertise. It is a very complex area, and it is interesting to hear someone who is well versed in technology say, “Wait a minute, don't go there right now.”

Is Ms. Danley here? No.

I would ask Mr. Deverell to come to the mike.

[John F. Deverell, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm John Deverell, a retired Toronto Star journalist, a national councillor of Fair Vote Canada, a member of the Green Party of Canada, and speaking entirely for myself.

This isn't the first time you've heard it, but the basic fact is that half the voters in Canada under the current first past the post voting system elect nobody. This is a travesty. This is not representative democracy. It is inexplicable, except as propaganda for hiding a very ugly reality, why anybody would actually call a system “representative democracy” when half the voters have placebo ballots that have no effect on the House of Commons.

Now, fortunately, at least three political parties in this country have appreciated this fact and have promised to make every vote count. That would be the New Democratic Party, the Green Party, and as of June 2015, the big breakthrough, the Liberal Party of Canada. Justin Trudeau stood, surrounded by applauding Liberal candidates, and said, “We will make every vote count.” That is wonderful. That is what we are calling the historic opportunity.

A great majority of the members of Parliament committed to make every vote count. That leads me to a question for the Liberals on the committee. Why in all the town hall meetings that people are going to, town hall meetings organized by Liberal candidates, are we hearing a heck of a lot of discussions about the pros and cons of first past the post and the possible advantages of the alternative vote, which is first past the post's sister on steroids? There's no reason to be having those discussions. The discussions should be about how to make every vote count. I really wish the Liberal Party was showing more leadership in that respect because that is what you and your leader promised.

For the New Democrats, we know that you are strongly in favour of mixed member proportional representation. The question is, working as an all-party committee, are you really flexible, are you really devoted to getting rid of first past the post, and therefore, are you open-minded to other ways that make every vote count?

For all of you, could you please put aside partisan obstructionism and get on with making every Canadian's vote count?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much, Mr. Deverell.

Mr. Showler, I guess, is not here.

Mr. Ben Trister, could you come to the mike? Is this the same Ben Trister that I knew many years ago?

[Ben Trister, As an Individual]

Yes. Actually, I was wondering about that myself. Nice to see you again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Nice to see you.

[Ben Trister]

It's only been, what, two or three decades?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Forty years maybe? No, 35, I think.

[Ben Trister]

Here I am.

My name is Ben Trister. I have had the pleasure of appearing before committees of the House of Commons and the Senate on behalf of Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and the Coalition for Secure and Trade-Efficient Borders, but it's my first time here as a retiree, and I thank you for the opportunity.

Electoral reform is, in my view, the most important issue facing Parliament today, because the results of our elections shape our policies on critically important and even existential issues, such as climate change. Our electoral system, of course, is the very foundation of our democracy. I've looked at the various systems in use in other countries and I've found them too problematic for our purposes.

One of the issues with the electoral reform movement in Canada is that the proponents of reform have not been able to come together behind a preferred system because there are too many problems with them and they keep fighting among themselves as to which should be put in place. If our so-called democracy geeks can't agree to support a single system, how can we expect Canadians to do so?

Being a concerned citizen, as well as a retiree with too much time on my hands, I decided to see if I could create a made-in-Canada electoral system for your consideration. After more than a year of work and with the help of my brilliant daughter Rachel, I filed my brief and my proposal with your committee this afternoon. Our electoral system has to be as easy as possible to understand and has to produce accurate representation. Complicated systems, though they may have some merit, offer too much opportunity for misunderstanding and misleading anti-reform campaigns. If Canadians are not presented with a simple system, they may reject it and think things are better with the devil they know, and we will have squandered a historic opportunity.

I call my system ordered proportional representation. Under OPR, votes are cast, just like they are now, one vote in their own riding. What would change is how the votes are used to determine the seat winners. All the votes would be counted across the country, and seats would be awarded to the parties based on their share of the popular vote. After the votes are counted, Elections Canada would create lists for each party, ranking their candidates based on the share of the popular vote in their respective ridings. The candidate with the highest share of the popular vote goes to the top of their party list and the lowest goes to the bottom. Say the House of Commons had 100 seats and a party won 50% of the seats. It would obviously get 50 seats and those seats would be won by the top 50 candidates on that party's list.

Under the current system, the distortion in seat allocation for the House is 21.5%. Under OPR, the distortion is reduced to 0.3%. OPR complies fully with the mandate of the committee and the five principles contained in the motion that established the committee. There are other benefits, including, but not limited to, seats that are more broadly distributed geographically within each of the national parties. The percentage of women elected would increase, the House of Commons would be made up of people who earned more votes on average than is the case under the current system, and Elections Canada could easily implement a new system. As you'll see from my brief, the entire process takes half a page to describe in detail.

I'd be grateful if you would carefully consider the proposal. You have it. I'd be pleased to provide you with any underlying data you might want.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

We could hear it again if you ever get your daughter to the mike.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll have Ms. Harrison and then Ms. Cox.

Go ahead.

[Erin Harrison, As an Individual]

Thank you, first and foremost, for having us here, and my thanks to the government and the committee for this consultation process. That's great.

My name's Erin Harrison. I'm the Canadian Labour Congress's regional director in Ontario. Today I want to speak about the Canadian Labour Congress's position. We represent 3.3 million members across this country. Our position has been democratically voted on, similar to what happens in Parliament. All of our positions have to be passed through our decision-making structures within the labour movement. I don't think it would be news to anyone at this table that, for a variety of reasons, we are not in support of the first past the post system.

Here's why: in the 2015 election, there were nine million votes that did not count towards electing a member of Parliament, who is supposed to express the voters' political opinion. Many people in the room today, I think, were saying similar things. Far too often a party is able to achieve a majority under this system, even though they don't get more than 40% of the vote.

Our current system also generates tensions in the House of Commons and causes people to vote for things they don't necessarily favour. It thus creates some form of strategic voting at times within political parties. In consequence, people in our country don't necessarily wind up voting for what they really want.

What we're asking for is that the new system have three principles attached to it. First of all, no party should be able to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons without winning a majority of the vote. Second, any reform should ensure that the number of seats the party receives is proportionate to its share of the popular vote. Third, reform should also take into account the importance of local representation.

I want to mention specifically that we are asking for a model of mixed member proportional representation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. That's good.

[Erin Harrison]

That went quickly, the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If you have one more small point to make, go ahead.

[Erin Harrison]

It's just that the way mixed member proportional representation works is actually two votes on a ballot, so it is changing the current ballot system, as I'm sure you're aware. I'm happy to leave my notes behind for more information.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks so much.

Mrs. Cox, go ahead please.

Then I would ask Mr. Brown and Ms. Whitfield, who will be appearing together, to come up to microphone number two.

[Mojdeh Cox, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to be at the microphone.

My name is Mojdeh Cox. I'm with the Canadian Labour Congress, but just like my tweets, these views are my own.

Canadians have an opportunity to choose a fair electoral system that could better engage citizens in the political process. The simplest way to achieve a more representative system is for Canada to adopt one based on proportional representation, and so I will continue with giving reasons why it's time for that change.

With proportional representation, people get what they vote for. So a party that gets 30% of the votes gets 30% of the seats.

We also understand that our electoral system is outdated. It's sort of the dinosaur of all things democratic. Parties with less than 50% of the vote can get 100% of the power, and that isn't fair.

Proportional representation gives voters more power to set the government's agenda. It encourages people to vote for what they want instead of voting for who they think can win.

Proportional representation does in fact force parties to work together to accomplish goals. Rather than working together, parties fight for a majority of seats, which exaggerates political division.

One of our major barriers right now is that people think their vote does not count. That is a huge detriment to our democracy. Instead of voting for their first choice, people will often vote for another party. In other words, it's strategic voting, which can be almost equally disastrous.

Abuses of power are curtailed with proportional representation, as one party rarely controls all of the power. Governments with proportional representation are more fiscally responsible. Accountability is shared across party lines, and the risks of mismanagement are more costly. A party that loses support is guaranteed to lose seats and, as a result, political clout. So we need to move toward proportional representation.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you so much.

Finally, Mr. Brown and Ms. Whitfield, go ahead please.

[Mark Brown, As an Individual]

I'm Mark Brown from Brampton North representing the Toronto and York Region Labour Council.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

At the Toronto and York Region Labour Council, we believe that every vote counts and it should count equally, but that's not how it worked unfortunately in the 2015 election.

More than nine million votes were wasted, and by wasted we mean that they were cast for a candidate who didn't win in our first past the post system. Therefore, the Prime Minister has pledged that 2015 would be the last year that an election is done with the first past the post method.

The Labour Council has long supported Fair Vote Canada in its effort to win electoral reform with proportional representation.

The vast majority of OECD countries elect their governments through PR, proportional representation, resulting in stable administrations that rule effectively.

There are different variations of proportional representation, but in 2007, the Labour Council supported a recommendation of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform to move to a mixed member proportional system, the details of which are in the document in front of you entitled Make Every Vote Count.

[Megan Whitfield, As an Individual]

I'm Megan Whitfield, equity vice-president representing workers of colour for the Ontario Federation of Labour.

We believe that a mixed member proportional system would provide the opportunity for political voices that speak for the interests of workers and their communities to be elected more often. It has also been shown that it increases both voter turnout and the diversity of winning candidates.

We believe that Canadians have had false majorities for far too long. It is time Canada moved to a more representative system that ensures every vote counts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you so much.

Thank you to everyone who participated. You were all very eloquent and extremely precise and concise. It really helped things move along smoothly and provided some good information for the analysts and for the committee. It is information that will obviously be seriously considered when the report is written.

To committee members, we'll meet back here at 6:40. I know it's not a round number, but 6:40 p.m. means that at 6:45 p.m. for sure we'll be off and running. I learned over the years that it's the best way to go. So we'll make it 6:40 p.m. for a 6:45 p.m. start, please.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, we'll get going. The meeting is officially open.

I don't know if some of you were in the audience in the late afternoon when we had a similar open mike session, but for those who weren't, each person who comes to the mike has two minutes to present their ideas and their opinions. Every time we have an open mike, I really count on all of you to help us get through this so that each person will have an opportunity to get their two-minute presentation in.

Do you have the updated list? No? I have up to eight. Okay, we have more. We'll start, and then I'll be getting the rest of the list shortly.

Thank you for being here. It's very exciting to be in Toronto and to have such a large crowd of people out talking to us about electoral reform.

We like to have two people at the mike. There are two mikes, one and two. While one person is speaking, the other person is getting ready to speak and waiting at that mike.

Ms. Sinclare-Waters, go ahead.

[Brynne Sinclare-Waters, As an Individual]

Hi. My name is Brynne Sinclare-Waters. I work in the post-secondary education sector, and I'm also a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, local 1281.

I grew up in a society that has become increasingly unequal. Canada's 100 highest paid CEOs make, on average, 184 times more than the typical Canadian worker. Far too much wealth and power is concentrated among a smaller league, while the rest of us are struggling to pay off debts and working in low-paying jobs.

Growing inequality is feeding disaffection with both our economic and political system. I believe that democracy must act as a counter against these trends, but today's political system is not servicing us well in this regard.

In my experience, even many politically engaged people who care deeply about growing inequality and are actively involved in making the economy more fair, for example, by advocating for a $15-minimum wage, often do not feel that engaging in electoral politics is worthwhile, and that's a problem.

A proportional system can help overcome this lack of engagement and support building a fair society where political and economic power is less concentrated.

Research shows that countries with proportional systems have considerably lower levels of inequality, and when systems become more proportional, inequality actually decreases. This is because when the system is more representative, more people participate and the government becomes responsive to the demands of a wider range of voters.

Experts have also argued that proportional representation can help limit elite control over decision-making. Providing more avenues for people's views to be heard in Parliament makes it harder for governments to ignore issues that are important to Canadians.

As a young woman, I am also encouraged that countries with proportional systems have elected 8% more women to parliament. Guided by values of fairness and equality, I encourage the committee to recommend mixed member proportional representation, which could significantly improve citizen engagement and the quality of representation while also providing elected representatives with a personal connection to their ridings and the issues facing their constituents.

Thank you.