Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 26th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. I'll put my hand up.

[Jean-François Des Lauriers]

First of all, thank you very much to the committee for coming to Yukon.

I'm all for proportional representation, and I'm sure that in the end we will get a system that reflects the values of Canada and will be fairer than first past the post, but proportional representation is not a panacea.

I'll look at two different countries, Germany and Guatemala. Germany has proportional representation and they have a very strong democracy. Guatemala has proportional representation with a very good formula. They have national lists and they have representatives of different ridings. But if you look at those two, Germany has a strong democracy and Guatemala is a basket case. The big difference between the two is that Germany is quite an egalitarian country, whereas Guatemala is really a plutocracy. One big difference between these two is that Germany has public funding of political parties, like we had here in Canada for a very short time. It is the best element to equalize the playing field.

Now I'd like to address some of the comments that were made earlier in terms of the pan-northern aspect of proportional representation. I was the vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada for the north for fifteen years representing Yukon, NWT, and Nunavut. I travelled those three territories. I also had to be in Ottawa on a monthly basis. I know the north, and I know that there are differences between the three territories, but I think they're not insurmountable. Keeping the three representatives we have now and having one person to represent the north as a whole is not a bad idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Price and Mr. Clark, would you advance to the mikes, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Price.

[Richard Price, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

My name is Richard Price. I'm a professor of native studies at the University of Alberta. I've been living here for about four years.

I support proportional representation because I think it's a better system for our democracy than the current system. I think proportional representation overcomes the problems of first past the post. We often have a government elected with 35% to 40% of the vote, and this ruling party often has many more members elected than that percentage. If this ruling party governs as the Harper government did, seemingly only concerned to appeal to their own base of voters, this leaves the rest of us feeling very left out of the political process and any chance to influence new policies. This situation creates anger and resentment, and even, I would say, disillusionment.

I believe proportional representation develops a feeling among citizens to be more included in the political process. It overcomes the sense of not being adequately represented in Parliament, especially for those of us who tend to vote for smaller parties on the left, such as the NDP or the Greens.

In addition, under a new proportional system, more chance will be given to a person to vote for the party they believe has the best leadership and policies rather than compromising by voting strategically for the person most likely to get elected.

I had some experience observing the process of electoral reform in New Zealand while I was there on sabbatical in 1992, and in subsequent research visits. As you know, in 1992 and 1993 they had two referendums and they voted to change their system of election. Then they moved away from the first past the post to mixed member proportional.

Subsequently, in 2011, 57% of New Zealanders affirmed their support for this new system. In 2012 the electoral commission recommended even further important changes.

Thus, I believe that the New Zealand experience has been positive, and as we search for improvements in Canada, we could well learn from the experience of another member of the Commonwealth.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Clark, and finally Ms. Astrid Sidaway-Wolf.

[François Clark, As an Individual]

May I address you in French?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Absolutely.

[François Clark]

Thank you.

The first-past-the-post system has been in place in Canada for quite some time, and now we want a change. We want to adopt a proportional or mixed member proportional representation system.

People are afraid of change, generally speaking. That's to be expected given that change represents the unknown. We are used to the current system, which elects majority or minority governments. In the case of a majority government, the system works well. But in the case of a minority government, a coalition, it doesn't work so well.

As a teacher, I've been to Quebec City, Victoria, and Ottawa with my students. I'm sorry to say this, but when we look at the way MPs work in Parliament, it becomes clear that you aren't the best role models.

Our Prime Minister, who was also a teacher, almost surely never told his students that, when working together, they should work against one another and not listen to what the other person has to say. No way. As teachers and parents, we tell our students and children to work together in the spirit of co-operation and not against one another because that gets us nowhere. Conversely, by working together, we would get farther than we are now.

The politics we practice—and it's worse in the United States; we won't get into that—do nothing to advance Canada's political movement or Canadians' ideas. Given the statistics cited by other speakers, I think that, if we opt for a system that supports mutual assistance and adopt a proportional system, we will begin to think differently, in the hope that members will work together. They won't have a choice if they actually want the country to make progress.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Finally, we have Ms. Sidaway-Wolf.

Go ahead, please.

[Astrid Sidaway-Wolf, As an Individual]

Thank you. Hi there.

Thank you for being here today. I'm a new resident of the Yukon, so it's very exciting to part in a local engagement process.

I'm a teacher, and I'm nervous speaking in front of you, which is weird. I haven't had stage fright in a while. I teach students aged five to 18. I'm a social studies specialist. One of my goals is to engage students in every way as young as possible and as frequently as possible.

In high school, I actually was pretty sure I was going to be prime minister, but I eventually decided to be a teacher so that I could make a difference. Hopefully, I will be proven incomplete in my perspective and this will be a great example of making a difference at a higher level.

I've been pestering my friends, annoyingly, to vote since our first election when we could vote. I have been met with endless disillusion and apathy, as it feels like our voices are minimized or outright ignored. I know that's not necessarily the intent, but it certainly feels that way. Once I got a driver's licence I offered to drive people to the polls, but people would just be like, “Well...I don't know.”

The hope of electoral reform gives the opportunity for a revitalization of public engagement. I know that my friends and students are suddenly animated about the idea that our votes mean something. It's not just exciting; I believe it's the only way we can continue along the path of promises I make every day to my students, and our Prime Minister has made to us, that the voices of all Canadians matter.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

This has been a really been a great public input session. Everyone was so eloquent, thoughtful, and respectful of the time constraints. It just reinforces the view of all the members of the committee that this is a very great and special place, the Yukon. We're certainly enjoying our time here.

We're going to have a little break here. The members of the committee are going to have about a 45-minute break.

We have one more panel and then another open-mike session. Then tomorrow we're off to Victoria. We're going to continue on our travels talking to people about electoral reform and its wonders.

Thank you for coming out.

Members of the committee, we'll see you in a bit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could the members and witnesses please take their seats? We'll open the meeting and get going.

We have now our third panel of the day. We have three witnesses. They will be presenting for 10 minutes each.

We have with us Shelby Maunder, executive director of BYTE-Empowering Youth Society. Appearing as an individual, we have Mr. John Kenneth McKinnon, formerly a senior adviser on electoral reform to the Yukon government. From the Yukon Federal New Democratic Party Riding Association, we have Madame Élaine Michaud, a former colleague of mine and of a couple of members here on the committee.

It's nice to see you again, Madame Michaud. I didn't realize you were working and living up here. It's wonderful. I can see the attraction of wanting to live in the Yukon. It seems like a fabulous place.

We'll get going with Ms. Maunder, please, for 10 minutes.

[Shelby Maunder, Executive Director, BYTE- Empowering Youth Society]

My name is Shelby. I'm here on behalf of BYTE-Empowering Youth Society.

For those of you who are visiting the Yukon, BYTE is a by-youth, for-youth organization that has been invested in Yukon youth for nearly 20 years. Through our work, we aim to empower youth, have youth voices heard, and help youth create change in their communities.

We do this in a couple of different ways, one of which is through a campaign called Yukon Youth Want. We talk to youth in the Yukon about their vision for Yukon's future, and we typically do this around campaign time. We post those photos to our social media to try to show politicians what youth are thinking.

I was invited here today to speak a little bit about youth engagement. After several years of conducting this campaign, we know that the notion that youth are apathetic towards political and civic engagement is a myth. We see this every day in our territory, and there have also been some formal studies that prove this as well. I'm not sure if you guys have read the Samara Canada study, but it found that rates of formal political engagement among youth in Canada are actually much higher than among their older counterparts. The report also looks at other forms of civic engagement such as activism and volunteering for charities. Some of those participation rates among youth are much higher as well.

That leads me into a question many of you are asking: if youth are so engaged, why don't they vote? Probably nothing I'm going to say today will come as a big surprise, but I think there's a vicious circle of youth not voting because politicians don't speak to them, and politicians not speaking to them because they don't turn out to vote.

Turnout for youth contacted by political leaders was 15% higher than for youth who weren't contacted, so parties and candidates really have a direct line to improving the youth voter turnout. As well, youth are more likely to vote if it's easy—if they have the required documents, know when and where to cast the ballot, and can get there easily. It can be difficult for a lot of youth to prove their address, especially if they are in university or college or since they are moving around nearly yearly. In some cases polls might not even be accessible. I heard of a community that didn't have a polling station in their town, and people were expected to drive to a place an hour away to cast their ballot. A lot of youth are not going to be able to do that.

That brings me to the topic of electoral reform. I strongly believe in lowering the voting age. Young people pay taxes, and they are affected every day by the policies we're engaged in. In our territory, they are politically and physically engaged. They form social justice clubs at their schools. They raise money for issues that are important to them. As well, there's that study that proves they are engaged.

Additionally, voting is a habit. If we teach them to vote when they are in high school and there are fewer barriers since they have a permanent address and they have the school and their caregivers who are able to help them, we might be able to form their habits at a younger age and then increase their voter turnout as they move forward.

Another thing I would like to add is that youth voter turnout goes up when youth believe there's a big issue at stake and when they believe that every vote counts. I think we're all here today because we know the first-past-the-post system does not count every vote equally.

In closing, I would just like to say, as a representative of youth and also as a voter under 30, that as young people we want to be contacted by our politicians outside of election time. Aside from electoral reform, we want voting to be more than a transactional experience. We want to hear from our representatives not only when they want something from us. I think a way to engage youth in bigger voter turnout is to be there the other years of your term.

That's it for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. It was very clear and to the point.

We'll go now to Mr. McKinnon for 10 minutes, please.

[John McKinnon, Former Senior Adviser on Electoral Reform, Yukon Government, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, honourable members of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. As you know, we are meeting on the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün and Ta’an Kwäch’än first nations.

Thanks for coming to Yukon. Having been engaged over the years in various panels and commissions, there always seems to be one constant: it's just never the right time to visit. Yukoners at this time of year are, of course, busy preparing for the imminent royal visit, which begins tomorrow. Our many political junkies are either with us here tonight or watching the Clinton-Trump debate. Many of our sports fans, of course, are immersed in World Cup hockey. It's getting down to the last chance for Yukoners to get that moose in the freezer. The real burning question for Yukoners is whether they really have enough wood cut to get through the winter. My wife wouldn't come tonight, because she's busy getting those last lowbush cranberries in before the first snow falls. So the crowd you've gathered here tonight shows the interest in electoral reform in the Yukon, considering all these other options available to Yukoners on a night like tonight.

I concluded my report to the Government of Yukon as their senior adviser on electoral reform on February 1, 2005, by expressing my opinion that at some future point in Yukon history, the Yukon public would loudly and clearly let their leaders know that the time had come to examine electoral reform, and suggesting that any such initiative could only be successful with the total involvement of the Yukon government and all the Yukon first nation governments. The report also indicated that Mr. Dave Brekke, a former Yukon federal returning officer, was suggesting organizing and promoting a Yukon citizens for electoral systems change that could possibly herald the beginning of a Yukon first vote movement. I understand that you heard from Mr. Brekke this afternoon. These thoughts from a decade ago have certainly now come to some fruition in the Yukon.

You've also now heard from national and international experts on the some 300 different schemes of proportional representation that have been devised all around the world. The two most popular are the STV and MMP system. You'll be happy to know that I have absolutely no intention of trying to compete with their expertise in front of you tonight.

I would simply hope, not to take too much of your time, to offer some northern and Yukon perspectives that you will have to deal with during your deliberations. I have no problem with the proportional system of electing members to Parliament. I just at this time see no obvious solution to true proportionality in the large, sparsely populated Canadian ridings.

I have a few Yukon facts that you probably already heard sometime today. The voting population of Canada's three northern territories combined, containing over a third of the land mass of Canada, does not equal the voting population of many of the ridings all across our country. Yukoners elected the second ever woman to sit in Parliament, Martha Louise Black. Yukoners selected the first woman leader of a provincial-territorial party, Hilda Watson. Yukon MP Audrey McLaughlin became the first woman leader of a national political party; 76% of Yukon eligible voters voted in the last federal election, second only to Prince Edward Island at 77.4%; and over 75% of Yukon eligible voters have voted in the last 10 territorial elections. Yukon electoral boundaries commissions over the years have judiciously crafted districts that have sensitively accommodated communities of interest. This has generated high voter turnout that all Yukoners can justifiably take pride in and most other jurisdictions in Canada can only envy.

Let me quickly explain how Yukon's version of electoral reform has been a big part of Yukon's constitutional development over the years. In 1969 the territorial council and the commissioner journeyed to Ottawa to debate the formation of an embryo Yukon cabinet with Prime Minister Trudeau and the Minister of Indian and Northern Development, Jean Chrétien. Negotiations proved successful and the executive committee was formed, comprised of two elected members of council, two assistant commissioners, and the commissioner as chair.

In 1973 the Council of Yukon Indians presented their land claim, “Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow”, to the federal government. There remained, however, an impossible and impassable roadblock to responsible government for Yukon. Even though, quote, status Indians had been enfranchised in 1960, no first nation member had ever been elected to the territorial council.

To their credit, the federal government recognized that without sweeping changes to the Yukon Act, in order to create districts that could elect first nation representatives, this was not about to happen in the near future. However, sweeping changes to the Yukon Act finally happened in 1974. The size of council was increased to 12 members, and the commissioner in council was permitted to increase the size of council to up to 20 members. On April 18, 1974, the council gave final reading to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which, for the first time, asked the commission to take into consideration the demographic makeup of the Yukon in establishing new electoral districts.

The commission ended up recommending 12 districts where, for the first time, at least three of the districts comprised a majority of first nation voters. Boundaries were further adjusted with the Electoral Boundaries Commission report of October 28, 1977, which allocated 16 districts, at least five of which contained a majority of first nations voters.

The election of 1978 was the first held along party lines in the Yukon, the first to be run entirely by the Yukon government, and the first ever to elect first nation representatives from the Old Crow and the Kluane ridings. I've spoken to some of the principals on these commissions. Although all of them would maintain that they were never, of course, requested to gerrymander districts, they were totally cognizant that the progress of Yukon towards responsible government and a settlement of the Yukon land claims were important considerations in their decisions. It has been less than 40 years since the first first nations were elected in Yukon, and it should be recognized that the 1974 and 1978 electoral boundaries decisions forever changed the face of Yukon politics and Yukon elections.

I make these points only to give you some idea of how Yukoners have dealt with important electoral decisions on their own in the past, urging changes to federal legislation and then using the processes finally open to them to dramatically effect major reforms to Yukon government institutions.

In conclusion, I know that you have been looking at hybrid systems to overcome the problems of sparse populations in huge geographic areas in mostly northern ridings. These types of different ridings—some single member, still first past the post, and multiple member constituencies under some form of proportional representation—were rejected out of hand by the British Columbia citizens' assembly. The assembly members were against creating two classes of voters and two classes of members.

If I remember correctly, in the STV referendums in B.C., the northern ridings were the most outspoken against losing their first-past-the-post status, and voted strongly against the STV recommendation. It will be interesting for northern ridings to see how your committee attempts to reconcile this very obvious problem. I'm just not able to get my head around how any true system of proportionality can be fashioned for the huge, sparsely populated areas of our country. I think most would agree that the ranked ballot system is just tinkering around the edges of the first-past-the-post system. I don't think there is a true proportional system that doesn't require, for its practical application, multi-member constituencies. Is this possible in urban ridings? Of course. Is it possible in northern ridings? I just don't see, at this present time, how it can be accomplished.

Thank you for your interest in coming to our busy, beloved Yukon. You have incredibly important, meaningful, and difficult work ahead of you. I just don't think I'd like to be in my friend Larry's shoes on this one.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. Thank you for that historical perspective on Yukon political history.

We'll go now to Ms. Élaine Michaud.

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.

[Élaine Michaud, Representative, New Democratic Party Yukon federal riding association]

Thank you very much.

It's a pleasure to see many of you again, this evening. Thank you for visiting me in my new home.

Since I am representing the federal NDP here, I will be doing most of my presentation in English, but feel free to ask me questions in whatever language you want. I'll just speak French sometimes.

Like many Canadians and Yukoners, I believe our first-past-the-post system is outdated. Too often it makes people vote against what they don't want rather than vote for what they want. It also seems to fuel voter apathy by making Canadians feel like their vote doesn't count and that their voice isn't being heard with our first-past-the-post system where a bunch of votes are discounted. Of course, many of those Canadians ask why they should go vote if their vote will not be counted. Proportional representation, where every vote makes a difference to the outcome of an election, would make our Canadian democracy stronger.

Proportional representation can take many forms, many of which maintain regional representation, which is important in a country the size of Canada and most certainly very important in the north as well. As a long-time member of the NDP, I'm very proud to be part of a party that believes in constantly striving to make our political system fairer and more representative.

Back when I was still an MP and sitting alongside some of you, my colleague Craig Scott put forward an opposition motion in December 2014. It sought immediate and sweeping electoral reforms, calling for the current voting system to be replaced by the mixed member proportional system. Although his proposal wasn't adopted, it did meet with some support.

That shows how hard and how long the NDP has been working on the issue of electoral reform.

The NDP is a firm advocate for electoral reform that makes every voter count. We believe that proportional representation is the best choice for Canada and for Canadians.

This system offers Canadians the chance to truly make their vote count. Instead of a system that only requires a certain threshold of support to be met, whether it's a simple majority or a clear 50%-plus-one majority, proportional representation ensures that political parties with popular support are given a fair share of the seats in Parliament. It is not the case right now. It hasn't been in Canada since the foundation of this country, and it's definitely time for a change.

Proportional representation is a tried and tested voting method. Over 80% of OECD countries use a form of this method, including countries like Germany, Sweden, and New Zealand. Many countries that have proportional representation also have local representation, which is essential in a geographically large country like Canada.

Political parties working in proportional representation systems have learned to do something we all want to do more: work together and find areas of common ground.

The current system promotes partisanship. I saw that during my time in Parliament, and, colleagues, you no doubt still experience it on a daily basis. Oftentimes, defending a particular ideology takes precedence, becoming more important than standing up for the interests of Canadians. And yet that is the very thing parliamentarians are elected to do.

By voting for a party and a candidate, Canadians would also get to vote for their preferred local representatives instead of having to choose between local advocates and a political party, which is very often a hard choice to make.

Electoral reform is an important issue also for equality-seeking groups like women in Canada. Nancy Peckford wrote in a 2002 report for the National Association of Women and the Law that Canadian women would be well represented in a proportional representation system. Canadian women have fought for the right to vote and the right to run for office. We're still fighting for equality. Having a structural change in our voting system would give women a better chance of having their voice heard and being represented. Right now women are still under-represented in Parliament. Key decision-makers and elected representatives have not always been responsive to women's demands for political, social, and economic equality.

I would suggest that if there were more women in Parliament, we'd probably already have a national program for affordable day care. But we're still very under-represented, so there's still a lot of work to be done there. It's possible to have lists where you would include more women, so a more representative electoral system would result in greater numbers of women in office. As well, other jurisdictions with a proportional representation electoral model are more co-operative across party lines to achieve equality for women.

Proportional representation is a unifying principle among a variety of voting systems, so many countries require party lists to have equal numbers of men and women presented on the list. This is one kind of structural reform that is needed to promote women's equality. An important first step was done by the federal government by creating a gender-equal cabinet, but there's still a long way to go.

In conclusion, I just wanted to say a few words on ranked ballots, or alternate voting. It's been presented as a system that would be more fair and give Canadians a chance to be heard. But that's only on the surface. Ranked ballots are simply a variation on first past the post ballots, so even though ranked ballots ensure that one candidate needs a 50%-plus-one majority to win, the other 49% of voters are left without a voice in the new Parliament. We're basically very close to the situation that we're decrying right now. That's why ranked ballots, to me, and for the NDP, don't seem to be a solution. They only perpetuate the flaws in the current electoral system that people want to see changed.

With proportional representation, each party receives the same share of voices in a Parliament as the votes that people cast for that party, so it's fair.

Our current first-past-the-post system distorts the outcome of an election by giving false majorities to parties that haven't won the confidence of the majority of voters. This exaggeration of electoral results has created an unfortunate sense of voter apathy. With a vote under proportional representation, every vote counts, because your party vote is tallied whether your chosen candidate wins or not.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We will now move on to questions.

As you know, every member has a total of five minutes of speaking time to address the witnesses.

We'll start our round of questioning with each member having five minutes to engage the witnesses. If for some reason you're unable to answer a question because the time has run out, there's an opportunity to do so the next time you have the floor. I wouldn't worry about not being able to get your viewpoint out there.

We'll have Ms. Romanado for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank our three witnesses for coming out this evening. I know you're missing out on some spectacular debate, from what I understand, that's happening south of the border, but I think electoral reform is much more interesting.

I'd also like to thank the members of the public who are here this evening. Thank you for coming out in support of this initiative. I'd like to also acknowledge that we are meeting on the official territory of the Ta'an Kwäch'än Council and the Kwanlin Dün First Nation. We're delighted to be here this evening.

My first question will go to you, Ms. Maunder. You talked a little about the fact that the Samara report indicated that our youth are engaged. I believe they are, and I'm hearing that, in fact, here in the Yukon. There is a huge engagement of voters here. We're delighted to hear about the participation rates. You mentioned lowering the voting age. You didn't mention a number, and I don't know if that meant 16; I'm assuming it's around that age.

We saw a huge increase in the number of youth voting in the last federal election. What are your thoughts on whether this is a one-off or an indicator of things to come? With the increase in engagement, do you feel that if we are to in fact keep engaging with our youth, not just at campaign time, that we might actually see a trend where they're coming back to the fold?

[Shelby Maunder]

I do feel that in the last election a lot of youths thought there was a lot at stake. When they feel there's a lot at stake, they come out in bigger numbers. I'm not sure if that necessarily indicates a trend, so I'm not sure how to answer that question.

My thinking behind the age of 16 as the voting age is that we're talking to youth. They take a civics course in grade 10, and it can be bit meaningless when they can't put that into practice until after graduation. If they have a chance to vote while they're in high school, and they're engaged in their class, I think there's opportunity to increase the younger voter turnout.

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

Thank you. We have heard that from other witnesses as well. As you know, education is under provincial jurisdiction, but I'm sure in our deliberations in terms of the report there might be some recommendations in that regard.

Ms. Michaud, it's always a pleasure to see a Longueuil native. I represent Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, and I know that you were born in Longueuil. Welcome.

You talked about women in politics. As you know, the voting system isn't the only factor that influences a woman's decision to stand as a candidate. Two questions come into play. Is she going to run and is she going to win? I'm not convinced the voting system influences a woman's decision to run in an election.

The travel burden on members is an issue that has come up repeatedly. It's not easy for a Yukon MP to travel to Ottawa. Work-life balance, the lack of maternity leave, and the lack of child care on Parliament Hill for children under 18 months of age are all barriers that play into a person's decision to stand as a candidate.

Do you, as a former MP, think there are other steps we can take to convince women that they can build a career in politics?

Thank you.

[Élaine Michaud]

Thank you very much for the question.

You mentioned a number of systemic barriers that prevent women from entering into politics, barriers that we need to address. That's the case at every level of government. In a number of municipalities, if a woman has to go on maternity leave and misses three council meetings, she loses her seat. Those types of problems persist and certainly impede better female representation in politics.

Some of my colleagues, including Rosane Doré Lefebvre and Anne Minh-Thu Quach, have gotten around certain barriers in the House of Commons by bringing their newborns with them. Christine Moore, who is still a member of the House, lobbied for a nursing room. Steps are being taken to make it easier for women to access a career in politics.

If we were to adopt a mixed member proportional voting system where a vote could be cast for the party, which would produce lists with alternating female-male nominations, that, alone, would lead to better representation by women. Seeing greater female representation, many women would be encouraged to embark on a political career.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

It is now over to Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. McKinnon, some of the witnesses we had earlier today were discussing aboriginal representation and made reference to how the New Zealanders have dealt with this through the creation of specifically Maori seats. I'm aware of another jurisdiction, the state of Maine, that has a number of non-voting advisory seats reserved for specific Indian tribes, as they would call them there.

It sounds as if you have tried a different system that perhaps—correct me if I'm wrong—has some parallel with what the Americans have tried to do at the federal level in creating African-American majority congressional districts.

Would that be the closest parallel, or am I wrong in making that parallel?