Evidence of meeting #30 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was yukon.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kirk Cameron  As an Individual
Peter Becker  As an Individual
Gerald Haase  Green Party of Canada-Yukon
David Brekke  As an Individual
John Streicker  As an Individual
Duane Aucoin  As an Individual
Jimmy Burisenko  As an Individual
Linda Leon  As an Individual
William Drischler  As an Individual
Yuuri Daiku  As an Individual
Corliss Burke  As an Individual
Gordon Gilgan  As an Individual
Charles Clark  As an Individual
Mary Ann Lewis  As an Individual
Robert Lewis  As an Individual
Sarah Wright  As an Individual
Jean-François Des Lauriers  As an Individual
Richard Price  As an Individual
François Clark  As an Individual
Astrid Sidaway-Wolf  As an Individual
Shelby Maunder  Executive Director, BYTE- Empowering Youth Society
John McKinnon  Former Senior Adviser on Electoral Reform, Yukon Government, As an Individual
Élaine Michaud  Representative, New Democratic Party Yukon federal riding association
Donald Roberts  As an Individual
Michael Lauer  As an Individual
Lauren Muir  As an Individual
Colin Whitlaw  As an Individual
Brook Land-Murphy  As an Individual
Mary Amerongen  As an Individual
Samuel Whitehouse  As an Individual
Paul Davis  As an Individual
Michael Dougherty  As an Individual

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

John—I understand we're all on a first-name basis here in Whitehorse—you spoke of the imperative of having the buy-in of the broad Canadian public, no matter what system may be chosen or recommended by this committee or by the government when it receives this committee's recommendations. You mentioned the possibility of a referendum, although you hedged somewhat and pointed out, in your allusion to the recent referendum in the U.K., concern over narrow margins dictating large-scale change, if that's where your concern was.

How do you think the current government should go about obtaining the broad buy-in, when one considers how long and how entrenched the current voting system is? Some would say that Canada has done fairly well as a country under first-past-the-post voting. It's a pretty good country. We've done very well. I think most of us are enormously proud of the achievements of our country. If we are, as you well put it, to go into some kind of change from an imperfect system to another imperfect system, knowing that there is no perfect system, what would it take to know or be confident that a change is a legitimate change that has the support of all Canadians?

4:45 p.m.

As an Individual

John Streicker

That's a very good question. I would also say that as Canadians, even when we are faced with imperfect systems, we always strive to improve. I think of that as another Canadian value. At some point we got universal health care. I remember hearing my mother talk about the fights as that came in, but now I see it as rather well endorsed by most Canadians. That example tells me that it doesn't mean that if something has always been, thus it shall always be.

To come more directly to your question, Pat—Mr. Kelly—

4:45 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Pat is fine.

4:45 p.m.

As an Individual

John Streicker

I feel like I should give you guys the respect you deserve, because this is a great thing you're doing, and let me acknowledge that. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to your positions here.

I don't know if I have a clear answer on the way in which we should test the Canadian public. I feel our partisan differences coming out around this question. It is part of the challenge. I hope you make that recommendation, as you do...if you are to propose a system. Who knows? You may end up with a bunch of minority reports because you may not, as a committee, be able to reach a consensus.

What I would like to suggest, though, is that as you consider how that testing of the Canadian public goes, if it is a referendum—and that may be the best place to go—I hope you do it in a way that is not trying to prejudge which way you want it to go. That's to any of you; I'm not trying to talk to you specifically, but to you as a committee. I hope you don't have a sense of, “ Oh, I want it to go this way, so let's do it like this”. I really hope that the essence of how you pose that question is to test Canadians' will generally.

With regard to Brexit, you're right, it was the narrow vote, but it was also whether or not people were fairly informed about the system. Mr. Cullen asked Mr. Brekke—when Nathan asked Dave—about how we help people to learn these systems. They're not that complex. They're different. Canadians are smarter than that. We're multi-faceted. We can figure this stuff out. One practice round and we'll be away.

As we enter into this system, I hope that the public is well informed, because when you don't have a well-informed public, then you do not have the foundation of a democracy.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you very much.

Mr. Aldag.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Great. Thank you.

4:50 p.m.

As an Individual

David Brekke

I'd like to respond to that question.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Maybe Mr. Aldag will give you some time to respond to that.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Sure; feel free to respond.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thanks for taking the hint, Mr. Aldag.

4:50 p.m.

As an Individual

David Brekke

I'd like to encourage you to keep going for the referendum after the people have experienced a system. Then I think they are ready to decide this or that. Right now, before they'd even used it once, and I think they need to use it twice, because that's the motivation of their performance in their.... I'm sorry, I'm stuck for words.

While you're serving, I think you politicians look at what you have to do to get elected again. If you are looking at an electoral system like this PRP, I think you will be looking at collaboration, and showing collaboration, and functioning the way people would like to see their government function.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Mr. Aldag.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Thanks.

Mr. Brekke, I'll continue with you. I'm a first-time member of Parliament. As I came into the committee structure, I sometimes thought, you know, it's a pretty rigid process, and it doesn't really allow us to get into all of the details and conversations we need in order to share things around. I think today may be one of those victims of this structure in that we're not getting enough time to fully understand. Ms. Sahota had explained to me that she'd met with you, and you had this brilliant system, and we were looking forward to coming to Whitehorse. I think the time constraints have simply limited our ability to dig into it.

I have a couple of quick questions on your system. I haven't seen the brief. I'm sure you can answer my questions quickly and easily to help me understand.

For the number of candidates that would be run in each riding, if you take two existing ridings and collapse them, in the most simple term, would each party be running one person, or could they run two or more?

4:50 p.m.

As an Individual

David Brekke

One. Each party runs one candidate. It's just like a present riding, but—

4:50 p.m.

As an Individual

4:50 p.m.

As an Individual

David Brekke

No, not in my system.

4:50 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

So it would be one.

On the proportionality, going back to Mr. Deltell's example, if one party gets 60% and some party gets 5%, to make it proportional, does the 60% get the two...? Or I guess it's just the one seat. Where does the second one come in?

4:50 p.m.

As an Individual

David Brekke

In terms of where the second one comes in, when we pair those ridings, we have one riding representative that we are electing and one proportional representative for the electoral area.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Right; which you mentioned. Okay.

I've done a number of town halls on this. One of the messages I keep getting from my constituents is that whatever we do, make it simple and understandable.

4:55 p.m.

As an Individual

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

On the simplicity side of things, do you feel that yours meets that test of simplicity? Is it still simple to mark the ballot, and the complexity comes in when Elections Canada counts the ballot? Or would the voters actually have to understand the behind-the-scenes complexity, so that, if they're going to vote strategically or do other things, they actually know how the various points are being broken down—i.e., they rate first and last versus all five? Where is the simplicity in the system?

4:55 p.m.

As an Individual

David Brekke

It's giving equal value to votes. Voters can vote whatever way they want. They're giving a number for every candidate, but they don't have to give a choice for all candidates.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

On the voting side of things, it would meet that test of simplicity.