Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 21st, 2016

[David Meslin]

The second one is a citizen's reference panel similar to Ontario—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Like a citizens' assembly?

[David Meslin]

A citizens' assembly. It's an amazing process. It was invented in Canada. People travel from all over world to Canada to see it. Again, it takes it out of your hands, it takes it out of the activists' hands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Got it.

[David Meslin]

Lastly, I brought some materials for you. If I could pass them to the Green caucus, with your permission, they could pass it around.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Everything that is passed around to the committee has to go through the clerk. You can speak to the clerk about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Hill.

[Gregg Hill, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the second chance to speak to the committee.

I'm a member of Leadnow. I'm also a member of Fair Vote Canada. I used to have a button, but I had to surrender it at the door.

Regarding the process of reform taking place in Canada, I see some ominous parallels with what was going on in 1997 in the United Kingdom when the Labour Party, under the leadership of Tony Blair, undertook in its election manifesto to replace first past the post with an alternative system. For those of you who know a little bit about recent British history, the Labour Party went on to a landslide in seats, not in votes. It was less than a majority, of course.

They did go to the extent of setting up a committee, well known as the Jenkins Commission. It recommended a specific system, as this committee will hopefully be doing in December, but then the enthusiasm for reform cooled among the leadership of the Labour Party. Even though the report was filed and there was some education and publicity done, they abandoned the project and walked away from it.

So my question is—and I don't expect it to be answered here today—can the committee give us their assurances, if not here today then elsewhere, that the same will not happen in Canada?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.

Ms. Lermer. Then Philip Pothen, and after that it's going to be Linda Fraser.

Ms. Lermer, go ahead, please.

[Anna Lermer, As an Individual]

Thank you.

The witness, city councillor Justin Di Ciano, asked what issues we're trying to address here. I don't think he sees any issues.

Since I turned 18 I've had the opportunity to vote three times, but instead of making me feel like I'm participating in the democratic process, it's made me feel quite disempowered, because I haven't been able to vote for my first choice, because I knew that my vote would be wasted in the riding I was voting in. So I do see an issue there.

I also don't see my voice or my identity reflected well in our parliamentary system. Is Canada the envy of the world, as Nathan Cullen said before? We rank 64th in the world in the representation of women. That's not very good, from where I stand.

Finally, pro status quo groups and individuals speak to the instability of proportional representation, but over the past five years, we've had a government that passed sweeping legislation, removing environmental protection, making our elections less fair, and making two tiers of Canadian citizens. All of this happened without the support of the majority of Canadians and without consultation, because the Harper government had a false majority and could do whatever it wanted with it. It's the same as the false majority the Liberals currently hold. I'm still waiting to see what they do with it.

This isn't what I would call stable. It's quite the opposite. We need a system that more closely aligns with the popular vote, because it would mean a slower and more representative shift in the makeup of our government.

We need a system that encourages collaboration between politicians. This is what we elect them to do. I don't think we elect politicians to make sweeping decisions without the rest of their colleagues on board.

We have a rare moment right now, as the governing party has made a clear promise to change our electoral system. That's never happened before. This promise was made by three parties leading up to the election, and the special committee consulting us is proportional for the first time. It's obvious from the stance of each of the committee members that although strengthening our democracy should not be part of an issue, it has highly partisan implications. Moving to a proportional voting system may not benefit your parties, but it will give more power to the voters—more power to me—and it will make the tone and culture of Parliament better.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I should mention that it's not permitted to take pictures during a committee meeting, only before the gavel comes down or at the end of the meeting. These are just the rules of House of Commons committees on Parliament Hill, and we're following the same rules.

We'll go to Mr. Pothen.

[Philip Pothen, As an Individual]

My name is Phil Pothen. I'm here to speak in favour of mixed member proportional representation. I oppose first past the post for all the reasons that have been expressed here so eloquently by the vast majority of presenters. Also, I want to emphasize that I believe that the ranked ballot would exacerbate the biggest problems of first past the post.

The problem with both of these systems is that they engender majority Parliaments that entitle the largest interests to effectively discount the others throughout the term of their governments. They can produce policies that pander to their own bases and to the marginal voter while essentially discounting the smaller interests.

Like a lot of your colleagues, and a lot of you, I'm a lawyer. In particular, I'm a land use planning lawyer. In almost every case, I end up advising my clients that it's better to strike a deal early on than even to win outright.

The best, most thoroughly thought-out solutions are those that are arrived at when all the parties are represented and have real bargaining power around the parliamentary bargaining table. That forces them to earnestly consider and accommodate each other's interests.

In the end, it doesn't help much if you win outright at committee of adjustment, because the opposing party is just going to appeal to the OMB, and your policy is only going to be overturned in the next election. Likewise, it doesn't help much if you come to some kind of consensus while some of the key, most effective parties have been excluded or under-represented at the table. If your solution isn't stable, you're going to have interests that haven't bought into it.

We need a system that gives all the parties a seat at the parliamentary table and real bargaining power. I think you will find that you can often find a solution that doesn't sacrifice your own interests and that can still accommodate the others'.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll have Ms. Fraser, and after that Ms. Pelham, please.

Ms. Fraser.

[Linda Fraser, As an Individual]

Hello. I'd like to thank you all for having this. This is wonderful.

I wanted to talk about Dave Meslin because I'm working with him right now. I didn't know he was coming.

I live in Whitby. I'm a retired teacher. In Whitby we're working on ranked balloting. It was Dave Meslin's bill that went through Queen's Park, through three readings. I went to all the readings, and because I live in Whitby we've started ranked balloting in Whitby.

One of the problems that we're having, that I'm having, with ranked balloting in Whitby is that it's very difficult to get in touch with the citizens of Whitby to talk to them about ranked balloting because city council runs most of what goes on in Whitby. City council is not really in favour of ranked balloting because they're stakeholders. Town council has stakeholders in this, because if Dave's bill is adopted by Whitby, then there'll be three spaces on my vote to vote for mayor. I can vote for this person for mayor, for this person for mayor, and for this person for mayor. Our mayor doesn't like that. He likes being the person on the ballot; he doesn't like having all that opposition.

It's really difficult because you're fighting with the people who are now on council, and they've been on council for a while, and the mayor, to get something that's going to take some of the vote away from them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are you saying you're in favour of ranked ballot yourself?

[Linda Fraser]

I'm in favour of ranked balloting for municipal elections because there are no parties involved, but I like proportional representation, and that's what you're talking about, provincial politics or federal politics. I like proportional representation.

There are a couple of final things I'd like to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Very briefly, if you can.

[Linda Fraser]

I agreed with everything Mike Schreiner said. If the United States had—sorry, it has gone out of my brain. I won't say it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's all right. You made some good points.

Thank you very much.

We'll have Judy Pelham.

[Judy Pelham, As an Individual]

Hi there.

I support proportional representation. I think that a mixed member system sounds like a good idea. I don't tend to think referendums are a good idea. I think online voting and mandatory voting need more reflection than I know anything about.

I want to try to offer some thoughts towards the value of proportional representation that maybe haven't been offered. I'm certainly not a political scientist.

The notion of a representative democracy, which is what we have, is bad. There are too many people in the country for everybody to directly run the country. All the representatives go to the House and they debate amongst themselves. In some sense, at the moment that the election is finished, it should be a time for all of the members to act in the interest of all Canadians. No decision should be made on the basis of the fact that a certain party has the majority; it should be made on the basis of the fact that it's a good decision for all Canadians. But that view is not a broad...that is, many people are much more cynical about what's going on in the House than that.

I'm sure that all of you who spend your lives working to do the best for Canadians understand that that's a difficulty. That cynicism that's out there is a difficulty.

I am in support of proportional representation because I know many young people need to see a new system. I see 20-something-year-olds come in front of me as a teacher every year. They need some impetus for change.

I agree with many of the points as to why proportional representation might be more fair, but the opportunity that we have here is to say that this is the way that not all geographic regions will be represented, but all ideas, conceptual spaces, will be represented. They'll go into the mixture, the compromise, that the House is supposed to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks so much.

Could I have Joseph Edward Schuchert? No.

Then we'll go on to Jeffrey Tighe and Martin Smith.

[Jeffrey Tighe, As an Individual]

Good evening. My name's Jeffrey Tighe. I'm a Toronto area lawyer. I want to speak tonight on why Parliament needs to seek a mandate for electoral change through a referendum. My paper on the subject is on the committee website, published on September 6.

Last week, Minister Monsef admitted that in her consultations she does not see a consensus among Canadians as to what electoral system they would prefer. Even if the majority of Canadians want change, it must be determined if they will accept the change that this committee puts forward over the old system. A new system should not be imposed on Canadians.

Some people have argued that there's no need for a referendum as the government and other parties campaigned on a platform of electoral reform. This position is tenuous given that it assumes voters only voted on this issue when, in reality, there were many issues and electoral reform was a very minor one during the election. Not every issue requires a referendum, but this issue goes to the very basis of our democracy and requires a direct mandate from the people.

The government did not campaign on any particular change, just change generally. It is anti-democratic to then translate that into a mandate to change the electoral system to whatever politicians decide. To have democratic reform while ignoring democracy cannot convince people that their vote really matters while you deny them a vote and you change the electoral system.

A recent Ipsos poll shows that 73% of Canadians want a referendum. Twitter and town hall meetings will not give groups that vote in lower numbers, like young people and new citizens, a greater voice than millions of them voting in a referendum. Some people have argued that a referendum is too complicated, and yet we have general elections where a dozen issues are discussed. Some people have argued that a referendum is too expensive or that there isn't any time before the next election.

A simple solution would be to have the next election under first past the post and hold a simultaneous referendum during the election on changing the system. Our democracy should not be held hostage by an artificial timeline based on a vague election promise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Smith and then Mr. Orchard.

Go ahead, Mr. Smith.

[Martin Smith, As an Individual]

Obviously, you are juggling a lot of different issues at the same time. I think there's one in particular that has an inescapable conclusion, and that's the subject of the referendum.

When we talk about a referendum, it's not just any old referendum. It has to be a fair and representative referendum. Otherwise, what's the point? The first conclusion that's inescapable on that subject is that it's impossible to have a fair and representative referendum before the reform.

You can see from previous reforms here in Canada and around the world that there can be reform. In the Brexit vote, for example, they managed to overcome the preference for the status quo, the strong power that the status quo holds, but the reasoning behind that was really xenophobia. It takes the wrong reasons to overcome the status quo power that systems have at the moment. You can say the same about the election in New Zealand. They were very resentful of the government at the time, and they voted for reform. Even in those two examples, the threshold was just met—51% or so.

There's no point in having any referendum at all before the reform. However, afterwards, it can make sense if there's a certain lapse of time that allows that status quo advantage to be nullified. One of the committee members mentioned that perhaps one or two election cycles should pass. I don't think that's enough. I would say at least one full economic cycle and perhaps, even after that, one more election cycle. That would give enough time so that the status quo becomes kind of a hazy question. The status quo after the reform: is it the 12 years or whatever number of years that we've been under the proportional representation system or is it the 150 years before that when we were under the first past the post system? At that point, it's possible to have a healthy and rational discussion about the benefits of each system.

This committee was constituted in order to foster engagement, national unity, and voter representation, and to eliminate cynicism, apathy, complacency... This is what a reform referendum does. That's another inescapable point: that we need to have a referendum if we want to validate anything that you do here, and that needs to be done after a certain time when the reform has been completed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you so much.

We have Mr. Orchard and then Mr. Michael James Paskewitz.