Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 27th, 2016

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

In that situation, you could hold them accountable and not vote for the same person come next election. But how about accessibility to your local member? Many people have a really hard time accessing their member as it is. When you grow a riding to that size, I can't fathom how members would be able to get to all their constituents.

Also, how do you decide which member goes where? Maybe you could spread them out so that it would work, but who decides that? Wouldn't everybody just run to the city centre and set up shop all in the same place? How would we avoid that happening?

[Craig Henschel]

We talked about this extensively. When you group districts together and have a multi-member district, instead of being able to be elected with a small plurality of 30% or 40% of the voters and leaving 70% or 60% or 50% of voters unrepresented, in an STV election in a three member district, only 25% of voters maybe are not going to be represented. There are many more voters the candidates have to campaign for to get votes from.

On the difficulties of getting an MP to help you out, the constituency services part of it right now, if there are more MPs to choose from, finding one should be easier. If there is a choice of MPs, that's fantastic for voters, especially if there are different issues that need to be addressed. If it's an immigration issue, a business issue, or a family services issue, if you have different MPs with different specialties and different concerns, that's much better for voters.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Sure, and they belong to different parties, which is enticing as well. However, if the person is 20 miles away or even further, it still becomes quite a task for someone to get out there because it's so far.

[Craig Henschel]

That's a very interesting question. We discussed it on the assembly. Shoni Field, an assembly member, looked at Ireland and their multi-member districts, and she plotted out everyone's home who was a TD, a member, in Ireland in the district. She found that they're not all clumped together in small centres. They're all spread out because they have to get votes. They're desperate for votes and they have to really spread out to get them. So you can't be from just one neighbourhood or one city.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I've heard that as well. Part of me would like to believe that everyone would take their own territory, but part of me also fears there would be a lot of competition for certain areas and demographics.

Going along that line of competition, what would the election look like under an STV model? We've been talking a lot about our politics and looking at the U.S. debate last night and seeing how everything has become so confrontational. Under an STV-style campaign model—I'm trying to picture it in my head—wouldn't it actually add to the competition? You'd have intra-party competition as well as competition with other parties. Everyone would be trying to knock each other off the ballot, because everyone would be in competition, essentially, at that point.

[Craig Henschel]

There are two aspects to that. The assembly members really like the idea of more competition, and Canada is paying more attention to voters to get the vote. We also recognize that, because of the preferential ballot, if you want to get elected, you can't say horrible things about the other candidates, because you may need their support. You might need support from their followers. The tenor of elections, the tone, should improve even though the competition increases.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, I'm very pleased to be here. I can assure you that I'm in one of the most beautiful cities in the country. I know what I'm talking about: I'm from Quebec City, the most beautiful city.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

In fact, it's not me saying that. It's Madam May, a personality well known and well appreciated here, who said that in Quebec City. I just wanted to recall that. Mr. Reid said exactly the same thing. I'd say we have a consensus on that—

[A voice]

I say it's Victoria.

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

—even if I was surprised to see so many palm trees around here. I asked, “Is this Canada or not?”

First of all, Mr. Henschel, what is interesting with you folks is that in British Columbia you have had a good experience with a referendum and also with the new electoral system. There are only three provinces—P.E.I., Ontario, and British Columbia—that have had this experience, so it's a great opportunity for us to learn from you.

Mr. Henschel, you were very concerned, to say the least, about the supermajority after the last referendum, but on the other hand, you seem to be a bit open to having a referendum. Am I right?

[Craig Henschel]

The only purpose of having a referendum is to not have electoral reform, unless you can clearly define a way to educate voters about the choices and options that are put before them, and I don't see how that's possible. That's exactly why the citizens' assembly was created. We spent 11 months learning about the system, hearing from the public, and deliberating.

If a way to convince voters to read and learn about electoral systems can be found, then perhaps that would work. Otherwise, voters are going to just take what the campaign spin is on the different questions.

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

If you are not open to having a referendum on one of the most important, if not the most important, institutions in our democratic system, which is the way to elect people.... Everything else belongs to that electoral system. International affairs, the leader, the prime minister, and the cabinet: everything belongs to the way we elect people. This is the most important and most precious institution in any democratic system.

If it's not important to have a referendum on that issue, what is important to you to have a referendum on?

[Craig Henschel]

Well, what's not important to me to have a referendum on is human rights—

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

At all? Not on any issue?

[Craig Henschel]

It's not important for me to have a referendum on what I consider to be a human right. I consider it a human right to be represented in government. I think voters have the right to representation. I think we all have a right to have a say in the laws and policies that affect us.

I don't think that thinking about having a referendum to include women in the franchise to vote would be acceptable, or that the Chinese would have a vote, or that the indigenous people would have a vote. I don't think it's acceptable to say that we need to have a referendum to see if we're going to give the rest of the population, the rest of the 50% of Canadians, representation. I think representation is a human right.

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

If you know what is good for people, why not ask them what they think about that?

[Craig Henschel]

Well that's exactly what the citizens' assembly was. The citizens' assembly was the legislature unanimously asking voters what the best system was and in a way that they could respond in an informed, deliberative way.

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

How many people participated in your assembly?

[Craig Henschel]

There were 160 randomly chosen voters, a male and a female from every district and—

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

Is that 150?

[Craig Henschel]

It was 160.

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

There were 160 people who participated in the assembly, and you said that this is what the people thought was good for them.

[Craig Henschel]

Absolutely.