Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 21st, 2016

[Michael Ufford, As an Individual]

My name is Michael Ufford. I am a retired city planner for the City of Toronto, and I represent myself.

Good afternoon and bonjour.

I oppose proportional representation systems, and I would like to explain how PR fails at least three of the tests that your mandate mentions.

First is voter intention, which a lot of people say PR is better at than first past the post, but I would like to say that PR produces coalition governments. Coalitions, as you know, are put together in closed-door negotiations to divide up cabinet posts to make accommodations and sometimes even reversals in party policy or priorities. All this occurs after the election, when further input from the electorate is not possible. It is in this phase, the coalition creation, where the voter intention often goes wrong.

Germany, an MMP country, is currently governed by a grand coalition, which—the politicians will know—is where the main party from the right and the main party from left get together and run the country. Equivalent in Canada would be a government of Conservatives and Liberals together at the same time. The voters who voted Conservative end up getting Liberals; the voters who voted Liberal end up getting Conservatives; and the NDP gets its worst nightmare, probably.

The second test is undue complexity. The complex single transferable vote requires mathematical formulas and models to establish the quotas that are necessary for candidates to win, and to deal with the complicated transfer of votes from the winners and the losers, and so on. You have the Borda count, the d'Hondt method, the Hare quota, and the Droop quota.

A lot of people will say that it doesn't make any difference, because they are just bells and whistles, or details, as I was hearing. I am not a political scientist, but the political scientists all say that election results vary depending on which one of these formulas you use. I am not sure I would want to rely on a system that had that kind of variation.

Third is local representation. I think everybody agrees that first past the post is best at this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We have Ms. North and then Mr. Stewart, who will be represented by Ms. Karen Thriepland.

Ms. North.

[Bonnie Louise North, As an Individual]

Hi, I'm here from Barrie, Ontario.

I came for three reasons. First, I'm here to listen to the committee and see how this process works. Second, I want to convey to you the results of a town hall that we held in Barrie. I've handed these notes to someone who promised me they are going to get translated and given to you as a group, so watch for “Non-partisan ER Town Hall Discussion”. That's the title. Third, I'm here to speak for myself as an individual.

You'll be able to see the notes of the results of our town hall, so I just want to summarize. We invited people from about five different ridings, and those who attended the meeting came from three federal ridings that included people affiliated with the NDP, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Greens, and the Marxist-Leninists. We had members representing seven community groups including Barrie Pride, the Simcoe County Elementary Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Secondary Schoolteachers' Federation, Canadian Federation of University Women, the Canadian Association for Retired Persons, Fair Vote Canada, Fair Vote Simcoe County, and Environmental Action Barrie/Living Green. While we didn't have a lot of people at our meeting—we had 24—we sure packed a punch when it came to a broad spectrum of points of view.

What happened was that only one individual in the room spoke in favour of first past the post. Everyone else wanted some electoral reform and primarily some sort of proportional representation. I'm not going into all the reasons why people didn't want first past the post. I want to say, though, that once your committee decides on what we're going to do, people have to be educated. The media certainly aren't going to do it. There is no media representation here today. Elections Canada under the Fair Elections Act is not, as far as I understand, allowed to teach adults about our electoral system, so I'm not sure who's going to teach Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. North.

I would ask Mr. Kalevar to come up to mike number two while Karen reads Mr. Stewart's statement.

[Karen Thriepland, Coordinator, Logistics Services, House of Commons]

I'm Karen Thriepland, and Mr. Stewart asked to have someone read this on his behalf:

Hi, I'm Michael Stewart. I represent only myself at this committee and I am standing to voice a concern. Many of your witnesses have quite sensibly advised that a timeline for implementing a new system should not occur before the next election. I am concerned a hurried timeline would not allow for the required legislation Mr. Mayrand spoke of, proper design and implementation of the system or the much needed education program. I worry that we might get rid of one unrepresentative voting process and replace it with a rushed and flawed one. There are too many dependent moving parts to this, and they all have to go near flawlessly to achieve this protracted timeline. I would offer that is unrealistic. I also believe if this is rationally explained by dedicated men and women to Canadians it would not be perceived as breaking an election promise but as a sincere attempt to get whatever system is best right.

I hope you continue your important work.

Thank you.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I would invite June MacDonald to come up to mike number one.

Mr. Kalevar, the floor is yours.

[Chaitanya Kalevar, As an Individual]

Thank you.

My name is Chai Kalevar, and I come from planet earth. I hope that most of you do. My Twitter handle is planetrypatriate, so if you want to know what I think, you can follow that.

I think we have a problem here. I'm very glad that we have so many people here, but we also have so many empty chairs. Coming in and out, we have to striptease a bit. It's not exactly a friendly situation. Even to go to the washroom, we have to striptease. If you have to also go for food, it is doubled. So please try to make it more friendly for participation.

Having said that, participation is a problem too on election day, because people are too busy, they say. Well, if they're too busy, what we can do is have election day as a holiday. Why can't we do that? We have Labour Day. We have Family Day. We have this day and that day. Why not an election day holiday? That's the first suggestion for you.

Having said that, I will say that if we are going to have some kind of referendum, I'm very sorry to see that Ontario's electoral officer is not here. He should have made the point that Ontario did a shoddy job by having the election and the referendum on the same day, for heaven's sake. The election took away from the referendum. The least you should do is confirm that you will not let that happen. The referendum day should not even come close to election day. They should be a year apart or at least a good six months apart.

Second, I will say that since we have trouble getting the young ones involved, because they don't understand it, we should have good civic education classes in high school, which we don't have. Why can't we get that done? The federal government gives money to the provinces. Make sure that civics is a primary responsibility. After all, on election day we spend our tax dollars, so for election day we should be spending our tax dollars in a way that gets people involved, especially the young ones. As they say, if you vote at 18, you vote the rest of the time, so let them get involved.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Before I ask Ms. MacDonald to speak to us, I would invite Ms. Rowlands to come to mike number two.

Go ahead, Ms. MacDonald.

[June MacDonald, As an Individual]

My name is June MacDonald. I'm one of those rare breeds. I'm in a minority. I was born in Toronto. There are not too many of us.

I'm a retired college teacher of medical microbiology. About 20 years ago, I attended a talk by a woman named Doris Anderson. She said that women in European countries had better policies for women than we did. She said it was because they elected more women, and they elected more women because of proportional representation, or PR. I had never heard that. I had no idea that we voted differently from the majority of other democracies, so I got interested in this issue.

I am pleased that I am able to address you and that you are a committee based on how we voted proportionally. That is really very nice, but you're not proportionally based on demographics. If you were, six of you would be women. I think there are three. We need a few more. This is such an important committee, and it is an important committee for women.

It was mentioned that we're at 26% in Parliament and that the average for PR countries is 25%. I'd just like to point out that that is across almost 200 countries. It ranges from 63% to maybe 6%. It's a straight average. I think what Canadians expect and want is to be in the top 10 or 20 countries. The top 10 countries range from 63% to 41.5%. I think we should be at around 40%, considering the number of women in the workforce, their education, and their ability. We're really not using our human potential by not having at least 40% women in Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

So just to wrap up, is there a particular system that you favour?

[June MacDonald]

I like the European system where they have list PR, because that's most effective in getting more women elected. But practically speaking, I think mixed member would work better in Canada because we're used to single-member constituencies. As long as it's compensatory PR, it compensates for the disproportionality of first past the post.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you so much.

I invite Edelgard E. Mahant.

Ms. Rowlands, it's your turn now.

[Joyce Rowlands, As an Individual]

I'm Joyce Rowlands. I'm here representing myself. I am a Toronto resident and part of the same minority born here. I agree with the views presented by the Toronto city councillor who was the first witness here this afternoon.

I'm here to express my concerns about the committee's rushed process on an issue critical to our democracy. The level of consultation and citizen engagement is wholly inadequate from what I can see so far. Even a tiny largely homogeneous country like New Zealand conducted an extensive multi-year process of public education and consultation before holding a series of referendums on a new voting system for that country. If Canada adopts a new system it may be with us for decades, and therefore it deserves a more robust process.

I agree with a column in last weekend's Globe and Mail. Gordon Gibson urged the government not to wade into these “constitutional swamps”—his words. In his view, any change to our voting system is so fundamental that it should not be made by the government of the day in a rushed process but must be made by the people who are, after all, the owners of the Constitution, and it should not be done to meet an arbitrary deadline set by an ill-advised election promise. I say that as a lifelong Liberal. I think Canadians deserve better. I don't think this should be rushed.

On the question of electoral reform itself, I don't favour any system likely to promote the proliferation of small, single issue, or regional parties and the likelihood of perpetual coalition governments. Various systems of proportional representation may produce a House of Commons more reflective of the popular will, but do they result in better government? Coalitions often dissolve into political gridlock and result in frequent elections. Spain, for example, is likely to hold its third election in the space of one year.

I also believe that the possibility of a majority government is a good thing. Majority governments can make certain tough decisions that reflect the popular will that might be next to impossible with coalitions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks so much.

Ms. Sheppard, please come up.

Ms. Mahant, go ahead please.

[Edelgard Mahant, As an Individual]

I have three points to make, and I'll try to be brief.

Every international ranking of democracy places Canada among the top 10, but those top 10 also include countries such as Sweden and Finland that use proportional representation. My point is that not every electoral system is good for every country.

Can a large and diverse country such as Canada need single-member constituencies? That local MP provides a vital link to Ottawa that makes government visible to people in, say, northern British Columbia or rural Quebec. Larger constituencies would be completely unwieldy, say in northern Ontario.

France provides a good example of a country that found an electoral system that suits its geography and its culture. For decades, France struggled with unstable governments and proportional representation. Along came President de Gaulle. He divided France into single-member constituencies with an alternate vote. That suits France very well. It has had stable and effective government for the last 50 years.

My second point is the fact that a diverse society such as Canada needs local MPs and constituencies. I love elections. I love going to the office of a candidate and seeing people work together to elect a local MP. You have someone in a wheelchair making phone calls; you have young people rushing out to put up signs; and you have all different people with different abilities and ethnic backgrounds working together.

If you have a list system in Canada that is so diverse, it wouldn't be long before you had a Muslim list, a Sikh list, a women's list, or whatever list there is, and it would divide our society. It would be very dangerous. We have had such success in integrating diverse populations. That's my second point.

My third point refers to the issue we've heard so many times about getting more women elected. I think it's very important in a Liberal democracy that every vote counts, that every voter is theoretically equal. Therefore, it doesn't matter. A male MP can represent women; a female MP can represent men. People from different ethnic backgrounds can represent each other. If we started having quotas for women, maybe we should have quotas for indigenous people, and then maybe we should have quotas for visible minorities, then maybe quotas for people with disabilities. Before long we would divide our electorate into different little segments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Meredith MacFarquhar, please come forward.

Ms. Sheppard, go ahead.

[Linda Sheppard, As an Individual]

My name is Linda Sheppard. I'm here because I've been involved in grassroots politics for many years, as you can tell from my hair.

I've been very frustrated at how difficult it is to make change. It's as a result of that experience that I'm coming here today to advocate for change to a proportional voting system.

Like a lot of Canadians, until about 12 years ago, I didn't actually think much about the voting system. I didn't realize that we could elect a majority government with 39% of the vote. At the same time that I started to be aware of what kind of a system we were using, I also learned about countries that use a different system, countries that I highly respected for their social policies and for the fact that they did elect more women regularly, countries like Sweden, Norway, and New Zealand.

As you know, in those countries, if a party got 39% of the vote, they ended up with 39% of the seats, which means that there is a broad base of political views represented in the Parliament regularly, much more so than under first past the post.

But for me, like other women who have spoken here, one of the cruxes of this is that many systems in countries that use proportional voting regularly elect more women, and certainly more women than countries that use first past the post. I think that, since we're over 50% of the population, I want a legislature that's about 50% women. That's not unrealistic, and we can do it. I think the best way to get there is to start with a proportional voting system because that facilitates parties putting up more women candidates, and we will elect more women.

I ask your committee to recommend change to a proportional model to facilitate this change and many of the other positive ones that will result when everyone's vote elects someone to represent them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Ms. MacFarquhar.

[Meredith MacFarquhar, As an Individual]

Members of the committee, thank you so much for this opportunity to make a very brief statement.

The point I would like to speak to is that of a referendum, and I would like to explain why I question the need for a referendum. My first point has to do with the composition of this committee. When I look around the committee, you are members of Parliament who represent many parties. This is not a committee representing only one point of view. I think that's critical. The reason I think that's critical is that presumably in the course of your deliberations the diverse points of view of the Canadian population will come out, because you're not all of one mind. Hopefully, in representing the people you represent, the kinds of healthy debate and discussions that need to take place will be representative of what Canadians will be thinking and talking about.

The second point I want to make has to do with committee work. It is my belief that committee work is an effective way of doing business. Why? As a committee—and you are all being paid by us—you are our representatives. This is your job. Most of us have other jobs. We have families and so forth to look after. You also have families to look after, but this is your job. You have the time and structure to thoroughly investigate, to discuss and debate and hold consultation meetings such as this on the various models, so that the recommendation that comes forth for a new voting system for Canada can be an informed decision and not one based on uninformed opinion.

Thirdly, we can't have referendums on every contentious and complicated topic. I would then hold a referendum on abortion, on assisted end of life, and I could go on and on naming issues. Referendums are hugely costly and time-consuming, and it seems to me it would be much better to spend money and time on a carefully thought-out education campaign that makes clear the voting procedure and the reasons why the new system will ensure that every vote will count and be heard.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I guess Mr. Wheaton is not here anymore.

Mr. Flower and then Ms. Howarth.

Go ahead, Mr. Flower.

[Jason Flower, As an Individual]

Thank you. I'm extremely grateful that this committee exists, and that you are a voting member, Ms. May. This is hugely important.

I don't believe we are here to debate whether proportional representation is a more equitable, fair, and just electoral system, for it is that by definition and practice. Rather, we are here to debate whether we, as Canadians, are ready for such a system. For my part, I am, and to me it's overdue.

What I mean by “definition” is only about the terms of reference. “Proportional” is equitable and comparable to, by dictionary definition, i.e., one vote equals a more equitable or comparable representation. That's it. It's more equitable than the current system, not perfect—we don't need to be perfect, just more equitable—but more proportion of our votes being reflected in representation.

Acceptance by Canadians is dependent, not on a unified understanding of any given system prior to the adopting of a new system, but rather a more unified will towards a more equitable and comparable system in general.

We humans are both resistant to and equally adaptable to change. Referendums of provincial pro-representation failed in B.C. mainly due, in my opinion, to having to have a 60% majority to pass. Election rules of a normal first past the post system of 51% majority to win were arbitrarily changed for that referendum. Let's not make that same mistake here.

One last point I want to make, since we have been talking about various systems, is about the idea of members of Parliament, whether it's three, four, five, or even one in any given riding—whatever you come up— moving about. You would get Conservative members who are now in Northwest Territories talking to and representing constituents who are mostly native. Then they go and they represent people in Shaughnessy, and then they go to the Downtown Eastside. When you have members listening to and having to talk to various different people in the country, they're going to start to learn how to work with those people.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Aysan?

We'll start with Ms. Howarth.

[Sharon Howarth, As an Individual]

Thank you. I am representing myself, but I felt that I alone could not get my voice out, so this is why I am a member here.

In all the elections I was voting in, I realized that I was voting for somebody I didn't really like, because the third person was even worse. A neighbour explained to me how there are different voting systems—and I went “What?”—and how proportional representation works—and I went “Wow, okay, that sounds reasonable; the voter is at the top of the pyramid.”

Somebody gave me the studies on electoral reform. They are just unbelievable. There was one by the Law Commission of Canada, and it said, way back in 2004, that proportional representation was the best. Who else do we have to listen to, even though there are tons?

Then PM Trudeau and the Liberal Party promised, prior to the election, that it was the last one with first past the post, and that we would have every vote count. It had been my experience that my vote didn't count. The voters agreed. They brought them to power, and they brought out a lot of young people because they believed in those promises.

On this electoral committee, you represent the public, because you are now the popular vote, which is proportional representation. You have been educated by experts. How can we possibly offer that to the public? We can't. You are legitimately representing the public as you sit here now, as a committee structure. There are many important issues. There were women's votes and health care, and those were legitimate acts of Parliament. That is why this issue could be a legitimate act of Parliament to bring in the new voting system.

A referendum is $300 million, and it could be wasted.

People in the Liberal Party, you hold the power to fulfill the promise you made and to bring in a change to first past the post. Do not disappoint and discourage these young people who had faith in you. You actually hold the power. Please be brave and courageous, as you were when this promise was made.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Aysan, go ahead, sir.