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.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Unfortunately, we have to move on to Mr. Kelly.
You can save that answer for the next round. It's just that we are over time, and we have to go to Mr. Kelly. I'm sorry about that.
Mr. Kelly.
September 26th, 2016 / 3 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Likewise, I am here in Whitehorse for my first time in the Yukon. It's my pleasure to be here. My only regret is that I will be here for such a short period of time that I won't be able to see the sights and enjoy the beautiful scenery, but I certainly hope to come back.
Perhaps I could return to you, Mr. Cameron. At the end of my colleague Mr. Deltell's questions, we were heading toward what I am trying to really get a sense for, the importance you place upon some form of proportionality. If I understand you correctly, you do not want to see proportional representation applied to the territories, in recognition of the unique character of each of the three territories and the fact that the small population size of each territory certainly does not warrant the addition of new seats, given that each territory is substantially represented for its population when compared with any other part of the country, with the exception perhaps of Prince Edward Island.
Is this something that you think is very important for Canada? There are some circles where it may sound like, well, proportional representation is good for other people, but not good for us. There may well be urban voters in the southern parts of Canada who are also attached to a neighbourhood and to the connection with members of Parliament and would feel unrepresented if their local member were not indeed a local member.
3:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you for that.
I have an idea; I'm always good for those. It could be quite simple. Maybe springboarding off Mr. Kingsley's idea of two separate ways of cutting this one, why don't we just add one MP to each of the three territories? That will give us a better reflection in Parliament as three distinct parts of the country. Then the proportionality question can be dealt with for the rest of Canada. We'll just take an extra MP for each of the three. How does that sound?
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Well, it sounds like something that might play better locally here than elsewhere.
Do you favour, then, proportional representation outside of the territories, or do you feel comfortable that first past the post, especially in the case of the Yukon, where you have your own member, addresses the needs of northern communities that you explained very well, which was very beneficial for our committee to hear?
3:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you for that. I really do wish to say that I look at this as a national question. I do not look at this as regional or Yukon-specific, even though I am fiercely defensive of the interests of the Yukon. When it comes to the question of representation in Parliament, I think generally there is a disconnect between the popular vote and the way that translates into seats in Parliament. Yes, I believe some form of proportional system would get us closer, so that most, if not all, Canadians could see themselves more appropriately reflected in the breakdown of seats in the House of Commons.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Okay.
Maybe I will switch to the first point you raised in your address, about the business of looking at online voting. Many Canadians would perhaps intuitively think that a very large riding would lend itself well to that, with the ease of being able to vote and reducing the burdens of travel. You raised the technological and connectivity issues.
Perhaps I will ask each panellist to quickly give his thoughts, because I am not sure we explored that fully with each panellist.
3:05 p.m.
Green Party of Canada-Yukon
Online, yes: only online, no. I don't see any reason to throw something that's working out the door.
3:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I agree with the two other panellists.
I would just like to expand for a moment, because we are a little stuck with the proportional aspect: are we going to give the north another MP or not? The other question was how to increase first nations representation, which is also important. Maybe the two overlap, and then they become easier to solve. If there is one extra MP for the three northern territories, for example, with 24% first nations and first nations majority in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, there is a very high chance to actually have another first nations member of Parliament if we have that component.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thank you.
It is a pleasure to be back in the Yukon. I had the opportunity to live in the Northwest Territories prior to division, and also a number of years in the Yukon. I was just reflecting how when I lived in the Northwest Territories, I took my holidays one year and drove to Inuvik. Anybody who lives in the north knows what that kind of journey entails. I also had the privilege of managing a number of Parks Canada locations in the Yukon, and have been from the Chilkoot Trail through to Old Crow. I don't have the same sense of appreciation as all of you do, but I have experienced a lot of the land, and it is magnificent. I am glad to be back.
As I was listening to your testimony and your thoughts about electoral change, I realized there are population changes and geography changes. We talk about how all the territories can really wish for is to retain what they have now, and there wasn't a great reception of the idea of adding another member of Parliament for each of the three territories, but we can dream big, and we can ask. Who knows where that might go?
Mr. Cameron, when you were talking, I liked your idea of not having to focus specifically on territorial proportionality, that it can be achieved on a national basis, but in your comments you are talking about voters having to choose, not parties for the choice. Were you actually referring to the idea, in a proportional representation system, of open list versus closed list? Is that what you meant? Were you talking about the kind of list, as a proportional representation thing, or something else?
3:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I was assuming that a list would be created that would connect super regions, if you will, super constituencies across the country. In the case of the north, I am suggesting that because of the differences among the three territories, a north list would not be one that I would want to see put in place to determine how we would select those additional list MPs, if you will.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay. Where I'm going, and it may be contrary to that, is thinking about whether you could actually have these national lists for proportionality. There are terms like “zippered lists”, where you do male-female to ensure gender balance. Could you just slide northern representatives onto a national list so that if a party doesn't do well and they get to bring in people from their list, the north could actually get an extra seat that way? It raises the challenge of which territory gets on there. Maybe you alternate from election to election.
I just wanted to clarify that. I'm trying to see if there is any legitimate way of getting you guys an extra seat that Canadians might buy.
3:10 p.m.
As an Individual
So we'd be represented, then, once every three governments, every three elections.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
As you say, I'm trying to find something. Is that better than nothing, or what is the solution?
The other thing I wanted to throw out to all three of you, before I run out of time, is simply this. As we look at this, I think values need to guide a lot of what we are doing. The northerners are a particular breed. Are there any particular values you would like to throw out to us? As you've heard, many of my colleagues haven't been here before. As northerners, what values would you like us to consider in the design of a new electoral system?
Mr. Haase, do you want to throw out anything that comes to mind? Then we will just go down the table.
3:10 p.m.
Green Party of Canada-Yukon
I would say that openness is a value that people feel in the north. A lot of people feel it when they arrive in the north for the first time, certainly in the Yukon. What that means is....
It is certainly an individually felt quality, and I am finding it very hard to describe. I guess I am drawing on personal experience here. In rural and northern areas, it is much easier to meet people, talk with people, and engage in conversations with people of different political stripes.
I think that is the quality that I would look to in the north, an openness to engagement. We have to be adaptable, and with this openness comes adaptability.
3:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I think we got dangerously close to it earlier in some of the questions and conversations we had. I think it is about innovation, thinking outside the box, and stretching the boundaries, so that we think about questions like we spoke to on city council, who shared employment, those kinds of things. Why don't we think outside the box when it comes to many of the challenges of identity that connect not just Yukoners but also Canadians to Parliament?
3:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Inclusivity is important; intercultural versus multicultural tolerance; and the foundations of our country, which are ethics- and ideas-based versus religion-based or single language or race or skin in terms of other cultures. That also speaks to the point of closed and open lists, which I believe can be combined.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
Thank you to the panel. It was the first opportunity we had to really think about how the north, and particularly the Yukon, would fit into this exercise of electoral reform. It has been very interesting to hear your informed views and insights on this matter. Speaking for myself, I have a much clearer understanding of how things would work, given the population and the unique identities, which you really brought out as a theme and which it is good to know.
Before we go to the next panel, we will have a small break of let's say four minutes. Four minutes means five, but we'll say it's four and we know it's five.
Thank you.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
For those in the back of the hall, we are resuming the meeting.
We'll now move on to our second panel. We have two witnesses, Mr. David Brekke and Mr. John Streicker for 10 minutes each. Each panellist will have 10 minutes to present.
Both of you will speak, and then we'll have a round of questions. Each member of Parliament will be able to engage the witnesses for five minutes, including questions and answers. If you don't have time to provide the answer within that five minutes, there's nothing preventing you from providing it the next time you have the floor. Not to worry, there will be an opportunity to share your views.
We'll start with Mr. Brekke for 10 minutes, please.