Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 21st, 2016

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I wasn't, and I'm here.

[Donna Dasco]

Yes, and that's great that you're here, but for the most part those women were not. They were not running in winnable ridings for their parties. They were running in other ridings. The fact is that if you looked at the winnable ridings, you didn't see all that many women running. Our system is a factor and it is an important factor in this. We're looking at the opportunity now. The government has promised to change. They've promised to change, and that's why we're all here. What are we going to change to?

What I'm saying is that when we choose a change, or when you put forward a change, I hope it's a system that has some evidence that it's better for women than this system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're over time, but I'll give you a bit of time because you might have some interesting insights to give us.

[Laura Stephenson]

Professor Thomas and I agree on this issue completely. I don't think it's our electoral system that is necessarily meaning that we have fewer women in office. I do think it's the opportunity to vote for women that matters, and hearing from people like yourself who have made it all work and who have won is an excellent way of encouraging women. I do think that it's the more systemic issues that come forward.

The point about women not being in winnable ridings is pertinent to this because that has to do with the party incentives that need to be put forward so that more female candidates are on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you to our excellent panel. It was rivetting. I think you could tell that members were intensely interested in what you had to say. Thank you for being here, all of you.

Of course, you're welcome to stay for the public input session that begins now. We have a list of about 30 people who wish to make comments.

I'm appealing to people in the audience to help me ensure that everyone on this list gets a chance to share their views. All that means is that I'm asking that everyone limit their time to two minutes. If I have to rush things along at the two-minute mark, please don't be offended. It's just the way it is. We saw last night that people were able to get it into two minutes. What I said to everyone in the audience was don't worry about hitting us directly with your comments. You don't need a preamble to soften the blow. We can take it. If we do that, then I think we'll be fine.

We'll start with Mr. Wilfred Day, please. I'll have two people at the mike at all times, the person speaking and a person getting ready to go next. Mr. Day, go ahead for your two minutes please.

I'll call Mr. Henschel to speak after Mr. Day. Go ahead sir.

[Wilfred Day, As an Individual]

Thank you. Bonjour. I think you all have my package. I'm going to show you two ways proportional representation could work. This is a practical question. I was elected four times as a school trustee. I do know what voters want from representatives. I'm from Northumberland County. It is half small towns, like Port Hope, where I live, and half rural.

Please look at the MMP ballot from P.E.I. The top-up MPs are the party's regional candidates with the most votes. Next, I have two practical PR models. First—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Our translation seems to have been interrupted, and we have to proceed in two official languages. Are we good now?

Mr. Day, why don't you start from the top?

[Wilfred Day]

My first MMP map shows the ridings between the GTA and Ottawa as one region electing three regional top-up MPs and the 10 ridings in the bilingual Ottawa-Cornwall region with four regional MPs. The second MMP map shows 12 local ridings, each with one local MP, six local MPs from each region. Voters have more than one MP. A regional MP based in one centre would likely have additional offices, like Scott Reid used to have in Napanee, Perth, and Carleton Place, and like Scotland's regional MPs, who hold office hours across their regions.

The next pair of maps is for the new rural-urban PR system inspired by Sweden's system and by Jean-Pierre Kingsley. Fair Vote Canada announced this new model last month as an option for you to consider.

The first map shows how the ridings from the GTA to Ottawa become eight local ridings. The Reid ridings in Ottawa-Carleton become two regions, each electing four local MPs.

The final map shows the whole region electing three regional top-up MPs. For rural-urban you could use a simple ballot like Sweden's. Voters mark a simple x for local MPs. There is no list and no second ballot. Parties whose voters deserve top-up seats are filled from the strongest runner-up candidate in the most unrepresented district within the region for each party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Day. We appreciate that. We appreciate the succinctness of your presentation as well.

Now we'll have Mr. Henschel, and then we'll have Ms. McGrail come up next.

Go ahead, Mr. Henschel.

[Mark Henschel, As an Individual]

Thanks for inviting us all to speak to you today. In a 1991 opinion, firmly rooted in sections 3 and 15 of our charter, then-Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote, “Ours is a representative democracy. Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government…. The first [condition of effective representation] is relative parity of voting power.”

Democracy in Canada is predicated on equality. That's a human right, right? Equality requires inclusivity. You cannot get the one without the other. Everyone should get a rep they voted for. Every MP should represent the same number of voters. Every voter deserves a stakeholder voice in the debates and decisions that matter—those in our parliaments.

True accountability also depends on inclusivity. It is only voters who have voted for an MP who can hold that MP to account. No other voters hold that stick and no other voters are truly represented. Our charter may not tell us which system to use but it is crystal clear on the results an effective electoral system must deliver. It must produce equal legislative power for voters. That narrows the field dramatically. Indeed, it constrains us to a system very much like STV, with its equal high percentage mandates for every MP.

On the other hand, two-tiered party function systems continue to divide us from them and thumb their noses at our charter. Our MPs must be charter equals so that we can be equal.

Chief Justice McLachlin also observed, “the Canadian tradition [is] one of evolutionary democracy, moving us in uneven steps toward the goal of universal suffrage and more effective representation….”

Please take the giant step forward to equal, effective representation with STV for Canada. Thanks for listening, and thanks for asking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Henschel.

I would invite Mr. Scott Allardyce to come up to mike number two while Ms. McGrail speaks.

[Patricia McGrail, As an Individual]

Hi. Thanks for the opportunity. I want to mention that I feel particularly represented on this committee with Ruby Sahota, one of our MPs from Brampton.

I want to start with my bottom line. Canadians need and expect equal and effective votes, and only a proportional voting system will provide this. We look to you, our MPs, to provide the leadership to get this job done. Canadians have many concerns: job security, providing for their families, the environment, health care, and so on. However, we cannot move forward on those urgent needs until we fix the foundation of our governance. We must have a government that's working for us and not against us.

I have to come to show you what one of the privileged 3% who follow electoral reform look like. I don't know if I'm typical or not, but I hear a lot about us.

I'm a retired tax accountant. Until I went on sick leave, my days were occupied with work and taking care of my three children as a single parent. I voted against PR in the Ontario referendum because that's what I gleaned from the media that I perused over my lunch hours. Now I have plenty of time to wonder why my children will not have the same opportunities that I had. I wonder why there's still so much poverty in our wealthy country, why the gulf between rich and poor is increasing, why climate change remains such a threat, why precarious employment and disappearing pensions have become acceptable, why corporations choose to park billions offshore instead of supporting their communities with their tax dollars.

Working in a Big Four accounting firm, I learned something about the culture of large institutions. In my experience, two things matter: the foundation and the leadership. We cannot have good governance based on a foundation that divides Canadians into winners and losers, that was intended to preserve a master-serf relationship, that frustrates our natural inclination for collaboration and compromise, attributes that have served Canadians so well in the past.

Proportional representation is a small change that can change the culture of our governance, that can make it truly representative of and accountable to Canadians. PR makes other badly needed changes possible. PR is a basic civic right that we expect. Canadians need PR now because we have so many other urgent needs and concerns that must be addressed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Before Mr. Allardyce speaks, I would invite Allan Gary Shaul to take mike number one.

Meanwhile, Mr. Allardyce, you have the floor, sir.

[Scott Allardyce, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

My name is Scott Allardyce. I am the founder of the Canadian Disability Alliance. We are an advocacy group for people with disabilities. You can find us on Facebook. We have about 1,300 members across the country. We've existed since 2009. We don't support any political party and we're not opposed to any political party.

We've come up with five recommendations. I'll go through them very quickly. Even though I know the committee's mandate is to examine PR or other forms of electoral change, we would also like to impress upon the committee....

I think the previous panellists who were at the table with you talked about some of the barriers we face as people with disabilities. We would like to see the voting method changed to allow people to vote with other than the paper ballot. My recommendations, which I'll give to the clerk on my way out, spell out all the different examples we give.

We would also like Elections Canada to look at how polling stations are chosen to ensure they're as accessible as possible.

The most important thing is that we believe that Elections Canada should establish an accessibility ombudsman, so that when people with disabilities have difficulty in voting or difficulty at the polling place, there is a specific contact they can reach out to at Elections Canada to say, “Here are the problems and I couldn't vote” or “I felt uncomfortable in voting”.

Those are basically the recommendations we have.

I'd like to thank all the members very much. I think what you do is great. I know it's hard work. I wish you luck in your deliberations. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Allardyce. Personally, I think the idea of an ombudsman is an excellent one, because problems arise on election day. Right now, as I understand it, there's no specialized person you can appeal to at Elections Canada to act quickly in some situations.

Ms. Lacroix, if you could come to the mike, please, and Mr. Shaul.

[Gary Shaul, As an Individual]

I'm a recently retired Ontario civil servant. I here on my own behalf, but I'm also a national council member of Fair Vote Canada.

Working in the province, I've seen many governments come and go and many shifts in policy. I've seen how first past the post works at the provincial level. I've voted in every federal election, and in every election in my life, and I've never voted for a winner. I'm a perpetual political loser who found out later in life that this affects almost or more than half the voters in every election when we don't elect anyone. This results in a lot of democratic and practical issues when you have a government that cannot have cabinet members from certain regions of the country and when you have regions of the country that can have no opposition voices in Parliament. These are all things that are fundamental, in my view.

I'll go back, because I don't have much time, to this thing about voting for a loser in my riding every election. That's local to me, so I find it rich that people—I see this in the media, and we heard it today from the first speaker on the first panel—that somehow proportional representation is going to do something to that special bond between the constituent and the member. I've never had a member represent me, so what is it that I'm going to be losing here? I don't get it.

Voices Hear, hear!

It's a phony, disingenuous argument. Please don't fall for it. I appreciate the seriousness with which all of you from all parties are taking this issue. I implore you to continue to put your heads together and find that made-in-Canada solution that will lead to political equality, so that no matter where a Canadian lives, and no matter which party they support, their vote counts equally. Whether it's in opposition benches, or in government benches, they can see themselves reflected in Parliament and they can have local representatives and will have more local representatives than we have now, where half the voters have no one.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I would ask Norman Smith to come to mike number two.

Ms. Lacroix, it says here that you're also representing the Toronto clubs of the Canadian Federation of University Women.

[Sheila Lacroix, Canadian Federation of University Women]

I am representing approximately 900 women from six Toronto CFUW clubs. We are a non-partisan, self-funded women's advocacy organization, and we've been around since 1919. We have a national office, as well.

We are here in support of change from our first past the post electoral system. It results in false majorities, wasted votes, and strategic voting. Even the 3% that's come up in the discussion can be a significant number in a marginal riding, and there are marginal ridings in Toronto. It also creates adversarial election campaigns, which may be challenging for some, but they can be nasty, too.

Ranked voting in single-member ridings being another “winner takes all” is no better.

CFUW joins many other organizations in the Every Voter Counts Alliance in support of PR. We also stress that countries that use PR models routinely elect more women to parliament. This has been discussed, so I won't repeat the data.

What about Toronto, since we're here, and I am representing Toronto clubs? Toronto holds 7.5% of the population of Canada, according to 2011 census data, and Toronto is a perfect example of lack of proportionality. Torontonians have voted overwhelmingly Liberal and NDP in recent elections. In the former false majority Conservative government, the majority of the Toronto population was not represented in Ottawa.

As a result of the 2015 Liberal sweep, which is also a false majority, NDP and Conservative supporters are under-represented in Toronto. Toronto is a driving commercial force in Canada and a centre of innovation and diversity, like some of our other urban centres. All Canadians are affected by Toronto representation.

To the committee, we thank you for this opportunity, but we need fair representation from Toronto and government, which PR can deliver, and a higher representation of women in Toronto and across Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Lacroix.

I would ask Mr. Bednarski to take mike number one, and I'd ask Mr. Smith to share his views with us.

[Norman Smith, As an Individual]

Hi. Why do we vote? Why do we have elections? Some people would have you believe that it's to choose a government; in other words, the function of voting is to divide us up into winners and losers, which would be a few winners and lots of losers.

I would suggest to you that, even if that is what you think voting is about, our current system is not well designed for that purpose, because sometimes the party with the most votes actually loses the election. This has happened a number of times in Canada, in federal and provincial elections.

In fact, an election is not a hockey game. The purpose of having an election is to allow us to choose our representatives, and we are all entitled to be represented by somebody we actually voted for. To me, that is the definition of proportional representation.

Our current system does not do that for us, as has been pointed out. MPs get elected with 40% to 45% of the votes on average. Some of you get 70%. Some get elected with 26%. On average, 40% to 45%, which means that most of us are “represented” in Parliament by somebody we voted against. It's a screwy system.

Most MPs represent people who voted against them. When you're supposed to stand up for your constituents, which ones do you stand up for, the 40% who voted for you or the 60% who voted against you?

Proportional representation is sine qua non.

I would like to recommend to the committee that when you start your deliberations, do what the Ontario Citizens' Assembly and the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly did. Right away decide that, of course, we need a proportional voting system. Let's start with that premise and the rest of our deliberations will be about what sort of a proportional system we need, because there will be a thousand decisions to make about the bells and whistles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would invite Ms. Naureen Fatima Rizvi to go to mike number two.

Mr. Bednarski, the floor is yours.

[Michael Bednarski, As an Individual]

When I got here today, I heard Mr. Justin Di Ciano, a Toronto city councillor. He talked about considering the effects on ethnic groups, the elderly, and people with disabilities, when thinking about changing the voting system. He wants to keep the current first past the post system.

In a city like Toronto, with a visible minority population at around 50%, we have to look at the MPs in Toronto, where nine out of the 25, or 36%, of the MPs come from visible minority backgrounds, and of course they're all Liberals. I congratulate the Liberals on getting a decent number, and hopefully it will get better.

On city council, and Mr. Di Ciano is a councillor, only three of the 43 current councillors, or 7%, are visible minorities, and they were elected by first past the post.

If we want to keep the system, let's consider the effects on visible minorities and the numbers they may or may not get. I'm hoping that the committee will consider some kind of proportional system. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Michael Ufford, please go to mike number one, and Ms. Rizvi, the floor is yours.

[Naureen Fatima Rizvi, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.

My name is Naureen Rizvi. I live in Milton, in the Halton region. I am a mother of two: a little girl in grade 2 and a little boy entering senior kindergarten this year. I am also the Ontario regional director for Unifor. Ontario has 160,000 members of our 310,000. I was elected in my regional council to represent and advocate for our members and speak on their behalf on issues that affect them. This includes, of course, education, working on social and community issues, campaigns and solidarity, and participation in elections at all levels. That is why I am here today.

At Unifor, we see all of these components as part of our democratic engagement, and I want to share some thoughts with you today.

I am here today because I believe electoral reform is the single most important issue to be addressed in Canadian democracy, especially for the generations to come and for the young voters who are so disenfranchised by the current system.

The opportunity is now. It will be a long time before these conditions come around again. I am here to tell you that our membership is ready for change and expecting you to lead that change. All of our political parties, except the Conservative Party, have already concluded that it is time for Canada to join the majority of the civilized world by holding elections on a proportional basis.

In my community, in Milton, the political outcome of the last election does not reflect the real wishes of voters. The Conservatives in Milton did not win majority, yet they are in place. While actively campaigning during the federal election, I had many conversations with neighbours in the community who confirmed that they were forced to cast a ballot not for the person they wanted to vote for, but for the candidate best positioned to defeat the candidate they disliked the most.

Canadians deserve to have a system in place where they actively campaign, support, and vote for the candidate they feel would best represent them. The integrity of engagement in our electoral process needs to be restored.

We want elections that make every vote count and that make extreme false majorities very unlikely or impossible. We want more co-operation in Parliament and less partisanship. We want fewer reasons to vote strategically and more opportunity to vote for a hopeful, progressive future. We want more reasons for young people, and all those who have been alienated from politics, to engage and participate.

My union, Unifor, has deliberately avoided focusing on a detailed model to replace the FPTP. Our national convention in August of this year overwhelmingly endorsed electoral reform as a proportional system that allocates seats in every Parliament in a way that gives weight to every vote. We expect this all-party committee to reach a consensus or a majority to recommend a PR system that is understandable and explainable to our members and our community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

Ms. North, please take mike number two.

Mr. Ufford, go ahead.