Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 26th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[John Streicker]

Okay. I will leave it there, but yes, I think about those things a lot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. DeCourcey, please.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

John, I'll let you finish your thought in a moment.

I just want to clarify this in my own mind, so that I can reinterpret it for others when I try to explain your model, Mr. Brekke. In first past the post, the popular vote is easy to understand, as it's reflected through the percentage of Xs on a ballot. The Condorcet model takes vote share as a percentage of the points earned, as a share of the totality of points available, to determine what the popular vote is.

Is that the clearest way to articulate that?

[David Brekke]

Yes.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Wow. Every once in a while I get it right. Thank you so much. It's a real neat and innovative system to reflect upon, and something new to me as delivered as part of today's conversation.

Mr. Streicker, go ahead and finish your thought.

[John Streicker]

I do think that there is a choice we face here, whether or not to push or pull a system where we seek a diversity in our decision-making bodies that reflects the diversity within our communities. I do think it's incredibly important that we get more female representation, more first nation representation; well, I'll use the word indigenous, because in the north it's not all first nation. You will figure that out as you go across the north.

I don't know; part of this question, for me, comes back to the Senate. We had an idea about what the Senate was supposed to do, and clearly things are afoot with the Senate. I don't know where it's going to land. I don't know what you will eventually choose for Canada. As soon as we start to open up those questions I get nervous, because then you could change some things around, such as the number of seats in the north.

I'll come back to this point about the extra seats. Just ahead of this meeting, Dave and I met, and we sat down to discuss the system. He said he was going to put a pitch in for one more proportional seat per territory, and I said “Good luck”, not because I don't wish him good luck, but because I think you would have a challenging time proposing that. I think if you came to a system that was more or less there but had, as its one need, a few extra ridings for the north, you might get away with it.

But wherever you draw the line, the north isn't defined by the 60th parallel. That's the territorial definition, but that's not northerners' definition. I would not go to Old Crow and say that I live in the north. I'd be very careful there. It's a relative definition. So it's a very hard line. I would defer to Mr. Cullen as well, who has to deal with this issue.

Because of that, it's challenging to add those seats. I can appreciate that three is a modest number given that we just added 30, but I would be worried if we opened a can of worms.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Chair, do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have just over a minute.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you.

You spoke about the importance of the role of this committee. Just to paraphrase, you effectively told us not to rest on our laurels, to work hard, and to deliver something.

This is one step in a process of presenting an electoral reform option to Canadians. How do you feel we are best positioned to help, in whatever way we can, legitimize some level of reform for Canadians, given that this has to go to Parliament and needs to be validated in a certain way?

[John Streicker]

It also needs the endorsement of Canadians. Look at what happened with Brexit. That is a country divided at the moment. Whatever system you put forward, you're going to have to find some way to check with citizens about whether this feels right or not. I don't know whether that's a formal referendum or not. I'm not trying to propose one way or the other. I do think you need test some system.

The challenge will be that if you get down to three or four different systems, and one of them maintains the local representation for ridings like the Yukon—I don't want to just say the Yukon, but “like” the Yukon—and then you put that into the mix and put it out there, it could easily lose against those other ones.

The thing I'm asking you not to rest on your laurels about, or not to be overly partisan on, is to watch that when you get down to those choices, you've done your best to try to maintain that local representation in all of the systems you propose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Deltell, you may go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, welcome. I'm very pleased to talk to you.

First of all, Mr. Streicker, I want to pay you all my respects. As you said, you're here as a non-partisan citizen, but you have been a member and the president of your party. Congratulations. It's important to have people work hard for democracy and for what they believe is good for the future of this country; even if we disagree on 90% of the issues, it's quite interesting to see you. I pay all my respects to Madam May too.

I have one quick question. You recognize, and I appreciate your frankness, that the actual system is not perfect and that what you propose is not perfect either. So why do we want to change something non-perfect with something non-perfect?

[John Streicker]

It is my sincere hope and belief that there is better. It has to do with this concept that when the first-past-the-post system was created in a two-party system, more or less, in a place where it would take you a month to get from this riding to Ottawa or more, and through several means of transportation that would take you outside of the country before you got back, people voted locally. They really did. It was a local decision. The news came late about the First World War to the Yukon. It took time. The thinking, the culture, was very local.

Now we have created a culture where we are connected not just as Canadians but globally. As we do that, people are becoming disenfranchised, because they don't believe the overall representation in Parliament reflects the overall vote. For better or worse, people have begun to identify that “popular vote” means something. That is why I think an adjustment to the system....

I'm not opposed to first past the post in many ways. It's simple. It's immediate. You can see it happen. There are aspects of it that I think are good, and I'm not trying, necessarily, to throw those out. For example, in Mr. Brekke's system, you could take it and say—not that he would necessarily like that—that we'll use first past the post within that first seat, and then we'll use a second vote on a party system, maybe preferential. I don't know, but it's possible to have a blend. When I say a blended system, I believe first past the post is definitely a part of that.

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

But you have to recognize also that overall, since the beginning of the 1920s, when we had more than two parties in Canada, we had 29 elections. Of those 29 elections, in 28 of them the party that received the most votes formed the government, except one time, in 1979, with the Joe Clark government. The Honourable Erik Nielsen was a minister at that time. I want to pay my respects to this Yukoner.

[John Streicker]

Well, I'll just say, sure, why don't we use first past the post; if we're going to use a referendum, then let's use first past the post and say proportional or not. Give it a straight call and give it 50 plus one, and then okay.

It's not that I'm opposed to it when we're in binary choices. I understand our history. I recognize the challenges you face as a committee to make a proposal back to Parliament, which then goes and makes its own decision, which has to yet go and check with the citizens. It is a difficult process. The reason I'm encouraging you is that I am here to speak to you, and you have a significant role.

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

It's quite interesting to have all the reasons and all the propositions on the table.

Mr. Brekke, I have a quick question.

I was left disappointed during your initial presentation. In your example, you said there would've been three riding members: one Liberal and two Conservatives. As for the three other seats, I didn't catch what the final outcome would have been.

From your experience, if we were to apply your system to the 2008 example in the Ottawa region, what would the final outcome have been? How many Liberal, Conservative, and NDP members would there have been?

[David Brekke]

There would have been two Conservatives, one Green, two Liberals, and one NDP.

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

Well, okay. One Green with 8%, and 39% Conservative only two ridings. You call that equity?

[David Brekke]

Yes. How many unrepresented votes did those other parties have?

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

Can you explain why having 39% represented by two members is fair compared with having one member with 8%?

[David Brekke]

Sorry, run that by me again, please.

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

According to your system, the Green member gets 8% of the votes, and the party is entitled to one member. The Conservatives get 39%, in other words, five times more, but are entitled to just two members. You see that as a fair system?

[David Brekke]

That's two out of six. Yes, I think they're fairly well represented by comparison—

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

Is it fair to have one member for 8% and two members for 39%? That sounds fair to you?