Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 26th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. DeCourcey now, please.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you.

To the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council and Kwanlin Dün First Nation, mahsi cho for allowing us to be here and inviting us to take part in this conversation today. I'm particularly pleased to be here, having travelled the furthest, from New Brunswick, to join everyone here today. I had the chance to view some of the sites around Whitehorse with my colleague Larry.

One of the questions I was going to pose to Mr. Cameron was about maintaining the single district seats in the territories, but that's been answered quite adequately. I was just going to contextualize it in relation to the average size of ridings across the country being approximately 100,000 members. Even in my province of New Brunswick, we're below the average, but still at 75,000 members in a riding, give or take some. That puts it all into perspective. The question was going to be whether northerners would be okay maintaining that distinct single-member riding status if a proportional system were developed elsewhere in the country, but the answer that this is a pan-Canadian project, and northerners would see it as such, suffices.

Do you think there's still a way to properly validate the legitimacy of a proposal with Canadians? In your view, what do you think northerners, people in the Yukon, would want as a way to let Parliament know that they were in favour of a new proposal being put up against the current single-member plurality system?

I'll start with you, Mr. Cameron.

Thank you.

[Kirk Cameron]

Thank you for that question.

First let me comment on the fact that I'm also very clear that I don't speak for all Yukoners either, or for that matter any group across the north.

Your question is well taken, because I think it is important, at the end of the day, when you form your approach, to reach back out to Canadians, that you have some tool or some mechanism to gain receptivity across the country. I would say that includes the north. I like a multi-stage approach to this. I like an avenue where you could come back out and test the waters, not necessarily through a formal, blinding referendum or other form of voting system, but to test the waters so see where and how Canadians are happy with what you are proposing.

I believe, in the case of New Zealand, they took four models back out to citizens and said, okay, tell us which one you like the most and give us a sense of your views of the others. They got that more informal feedback first, before the formal question was put to citizenry around a single model, as in “Do you accept or reject the particular model that now seems to be your preferred approach?”

I like that. I think something of that nature would work quite well in Canada, especially given the diversity of regions that we face here in the country. You'd be able to get a good feel of where Canadians are coming from, depending on their region and depending on how they look at their place within this country.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you.

Mr. Becker, I want to give you a chance to answer the same question. As well, you made a couple of glancing comments on augmenting first past the post with preferential balloting. Maybe you want to comment a bit further on what you envision there.

[Peter Becker]

From any reading I have done that looked at serious systems—I'm perhaps not as well informed as some people, such as Mr. Dave Brekke—people knew a lot more about the systems after questioning and discussing the systems, and it always seemed to come down to a component of first past the post still being retained in those systems. I think there is a bit of fear. What is the leeway in terms of accommodating this profound need for electoral reform? I think the elbow room we have to accomplish this goal also has to do with how we are communicating it. I would just like to refer to my starting point, that since in the core area the first past the post would be retained—from all the systems I can imagine—we should speak plainly to the country about that, and say that first past the post will stay as part of electoral reform. The conversation and the preparedness for change might all of a sudden be much better.

So far Canadians don't have much of an idea of the details that are being talked about. We could, in an honest way and with some wisdom, actually help this discussion by having better-thought-out headlines of these kinds of discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Monsieur Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Fellow members, witnesses, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to say what a great privilege it is for me to be here with you today.

I'm a guy from Quebec City. I've lived my whole life there. Nevertheless, I would say it's always been not so much a dream—so as not to overstate things—but, rather, a secret ambition to one day come to the Northwest Territories or Yukon in Canada's north. And now I've realized that ambition. Long live democracy and long live Canada. It illustrates this country's strength, vastness, and power. Your being here today is a testament to this community's vitality. I want to express my utmost respect for my fellow member Larry Bagnell, who not only represents his constituents, but also takes on so much work and travel to represent them in Ottawa.

Mr. Cameron, you raised a question because of the quite good question raised by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Ste-Marie, about how we could deal with the fact that this is a big issue here. We could open the door sometime to having proportional representation, but it's quite difficult to have proportional representation where there is only one riding for one territory or province.

You said that Yellowknife and Whitehorse are quite different. This is not a scientific example, but this morning I woke up very early to enjoy the fact that I was here. I took in some tourism, but first and foremost, I spoke with people. I took a coffee break at a famous Canadian coffee restaurant and I chatted with some people. Those people were à la retraite from CBC—so, natural friends of ours, that you can believe.

I told them I was very pleased because in three days' time I would be going to Yellowknife. Geez, what did I say? It was such a great mistake. They said, “Don't compare Yellowknife to Whitehorse. It's incredible. It's more than Quebec City to Montreal.” Then we talked about the Quebec Nordiques and the Montreal Canadiens, the good old days. For a story it's funny, but it's the reality.

Mr. Cameron, I want to again ask you the question of Mr. Ste-Marie from the Bloc Québécois, which was quite accurate. How could you deal with the fact that you want to have proportional representation, even if you have only one riding in Yukon, one riding in TNO, and one riding in Nunavut?

[Kirk Cameron]

Thank you for the question.

I don't see it. Again, I would not want to create a structure...because in the context of proportionality, you want to connect in some way, and create some kinds of super ridings.... That's unless you create another 338 ridings and pop them over top of each of the...which I believe is bordering on ludicrous.

You want to build some kind of regionality in your structure so that you can create these super regions that then connect to that other list of individuals who then represent you in Parliament. I don't want us to be connected to B.C. I don't want us to be connected to the Northwest Territories. It's not that I have anything against them, but I don't want to have a situation where my member of Parliament is in Ottawa and somehow ends up in a caucus meeting of some kind—I can only imagine what that might look like—where he then has to go up against one of those proportional MPs and maybe that person is from Nunavut, Iqaluit, or Yellowknife. All of a sudden within the institutional structure you've created a new tension, a new battleground in which my MP has to defend my interest in Yukon against those of other particular areas of the north, which frankly have very, very different political, social, and economic agendas—very, very different.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Isn't it a clear indication that it's dreaming; that it's a situation that cannot pass the reality check?

[Kirk Cameron]

I don't think I want to play with that. I want to leave it as it is now, where we have a member of Parliament who represents us in Ottawa in a way that truly reflects the Yukon and does not reflect any other super connection with some other region in the country.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Okay, so how do you think it can apply somewhere else in this country to have proportional representation?

[Kirk Cameron]

My sense would be that let's say you created an area or a region that was Vancouver proper, a greater Vancouver area. And I don't recall how many MPs represent the greater Vancouver region, but it's—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

But you know, there are differences, and I know what I'm talking about, as I've been in politics for around the last 10 years. I've been elected four times. I'm close to my people, and people are close to me. For everybody here it's exactly the same thing. I'm not better than anyone else; everyone is close to their people.

If you cut the link between the people and the MP, well, as far as I'm concerned, you've cut a huge part of democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

We'll have to go on now to Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here today.

I'm trying to figure all this out, because everyone has a slightly different opinion, and that's what we've been grappling with as we've been touring the country. I have a question for all the panellists.

Would you feel that it is okay to have one system of voting for some parts of the country and a different system of voting for other parts of the country under this system that Kingsley has proposed, and one that you think would be okay, Mr. Cameron? You would still be voting under first past the post, while other provinces in the country would then be moving on to a proportional system, perhaps have a split ballot, be voting for a party and a local candidate. Do you think that would seem fair to the people of Yukon?

[Peter Becker]

Very briefly, I think it would not be fair. I think if there is going to be a proportional component, Yukon should be part of it. It will take some detailed changes throughout the contest, but the spirit of the principle should be the same. For example, I disagree with some of the comments that I heard here. Let's say a proportionally elected list candidate: there could be one list candidate for three northern territories, and that would perhaps result in a slight increase of numbers of MPs, but only slightly. It would not create chaos. And no, this candidate is not a problem, because he's not purely representing Yukon, Nunavut, or NWT.

I can give one very powerful example, because I spent half my life in a first-past-the-post mixed proportional system. One of the most excellent projects on a global scale in the last 25 years came from a list candidate from the Social Democratic Party in Germany. Hermann Scheer initiated the renewable energy source legislation, passed in 1999, which became the model for renewable energy in China, Denmark, and many countries. This was widely accepted.

Excellent people who come in as a list candidate are looked at and judged by different agendas and represent communities very well with somewhat different aspects from the first-past-the-post candidate from Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories. They're just throwing this out wisely; we may have one proportional representation counted out for these territories. From half of my life experience, this could work very well.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Cameron, you were referencing earlier the struggle that the candidates may have trying to represent all across the northern region versus maybe the struggle between the local candidate and that candidate. Do you think, under the system proposed by Mr. Becker, that would exist as well, or do you think that could be worked out by having that one proportional or two proportional candidates?

[Kirk Cameron]

Thank you.

I still go back to my point. I think each of the three territories is quite distinct in our connection to Canada. I like Kingsley's idea of these two different ways of cutting it across Canada. I go back to my earlier point, which is that we need to look at this as a national question, not as any regional question.

I recall a couple of elections ago a new ministry was put in place in Ottawa, and there was this great question of who was going to get the northern minister in the new cabinet. I remember a certain individual was appointed Minister of Health, I believe, from Iqaluit, from Nunavut. Of course Yukoners were all incensed about how it was possible that they could be represented at the cabinet table by somebody that far away.

That was really a visceral reaction to the fact that the north is just so big. It is a vast territory, and each of the regions is very distinct. I think there's more of a homogeneity if you were to look at a number of ridings in Montréal, or in Vancouver, or in Calgary than to think that somehow Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut would have that same sense of common cause, common interest. I just don't buy that.

Thank you.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Haase, do you have any comments about fairness, or...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please be very brief.

[Gerald Haase]

I agree with Mr. Becker. I don't see a problem with having a couple of proportional representatives across the north, group the three territories into a super riding. We would still have our own MP, plus a couple of other MPs. I think the extra expense is worth it. And in this new spirit of cooperation that proportional representation would yield in Parliament, I think our differences could be overcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Monsieur Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses joining us today as well as those who have gone out of their way to be here for this important discussion. This is a fundamental debate that will have an impact on our democratic quality of life.

I'm very glad to be in Whitehorse today, my first trip here ever. This morning, like Mr. Deltell, I took advantage of our visit to go for a long walk and take in the incredibly impressive landscape.

I represent a riding in Montreal, probably the polar opposite of yours. My riding is home to 110,000 people who live in an area that spans 11 square kilometres.

I was going to ask a question along the same lines as those of Ms. May, Mr. Ste-Marie, and Ms. Sahota. In other words, I was going to ask about the Kingsley system and two possible ways of distributing seats within the federation. You provided a rather thorough answer, aside from the nuances still needed in terms of an MP representing a possible northern super-riding.

You could say the committee's mandate is to achieve proportionality, but its mandate is actually to replace the first-past-the-post system. One way of doing that is to combine ridings so that four, five, or six MPs represent a larger area.

Obviously, no one here is considering merging Yukon or the Northwest Territories with anything. That would be totally ridiculous. Don't worry. In Montreal or Toronto, however, that would work quite well. Voters probably wouldn't even notice.

Mr. Cameron, without setting aside seats for first nations people or the Innu, what can we do to improve voter turnout among those communities and encourage more of their members to stand as candidates? I'm referring to a system that resembles the current one. Do you have any ideas in that regard?

[Kirk Cameron]

That's a difficult question.

First of all, this is a bit of geography. It is 440,000 square kilometres for Yukon—I don't know if you knew that—as compared with your 11 kilometres.

That goes back to the point that Mr. Kingsley raised in his presentation to you about this whole notion that Canadians must be able to see themselves in their representatives and the system by which they choose them. I think that's at the very heart of where I come from as well. I believe he very articulately stated that to you.

Right now, in many respects, and in many parts of the country, first nation and aboriginal people do not see their connection to the institutions of government in the country. I think we're light years ahead in Yukon because so much of the premise behind the land claims and self-government agreements that we have negotiated here in Yukon are about co-management and about the reflection of identity inside institutions of public government that have been set up under those treaties and documents.

A good example, and I happen to sit as a federal representative on it, is the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. There's a very elaborate process through which federal, territorial, and first nation governments appoint or recommend appointments to that body so that it is truly an independent, co-managed structure in the Yukon territory that does all environmental assessment for all parts of the territory, whether federal, territorial, or first nation lands. That's a big deal, because now, if you can imagine, first nation citizens may not like what that body does in terms of an environmental assessment, but at least they see their connection to it. They know there are people they can go to and complain to who are there in every respect representing their interests, or in some respects. We have the water board, which has its own jurisdiction as well, set up in a reflection under the land claim agreement.

So many of the aspects of land and resource management in the territory find their way to connect the aboriginal interests and identity to the institutions of public government. I think we need to drill into that as to whether it's possible at the parliamentary level as well.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Haase, you said proportional representation would be the most beneficial system for the Green Party. You are partly right. As I see it, it's the system that would be most beneficial for democracy overall.

The current system is especially unfair. On average, 38,000 votes were needed to elect every Liberal member, 48,000 votes were needed to elect every Conservative member, 78,000 votes were needed to elect every NDP member, 82,000 votes were needed to elect every Bloc Québécois member, and 603,000 votes were needed to elect every Green Party member. That's particularly inequitable.

I'd like to hear you comment on how a more proportional system would also be more equitable for all voters. It would ensure a fair expression of their voice to Parliament.