Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 27th, 2016

[John Amon]

May I just make one brief comment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, but we're pushing it.

[John Amon]

It disturbs me in observing the audience that the only people who have been derided through boos or comments are people who have taken the view opposing theirs, and I would expect better from the people of Victoria and the islands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Kathleen Gibson.

[Kathleen Gibson, As an Individual]

Thank you so much for being here and thank you for being proportional.

I'm in favour of a proportional representation system that I trust you to come up with for Canada that takes our geography into account, and a referendum after the fact, probably after two election cycles.

I want to make a couple of points.

We've heard very little tonight about the important work that people in government do on the legislative and policy side. There has been a lot of talk about constituency work. What's really interesting is—I know because I'm a policy wonk—a lot of work is done in committee. Well, here you are as a proportional committee. Bless your hearts. I hope it's working well. What a difference it would make in our government if all committee work was done with a proportional blend.

The issues that confront all of us nationally as government and as people are very significant and very large. I would hope that if a PR system delivers a balanced committee approach to legislation and policy, that, for instance, government might be able to push back on things like the trade agreements, where friends of some parties have put the arm on government. I would hope you would have the collective will and power to push back.

I've been to three meetings, and I went to one of the meetings that the minister was hosting. She has a slightly wider scope, I think, than you do. She's talking about possibly ranking those five principles that you're going to use to judge the validity of the system you proposed. I think it's a terrible idea to have five principles as your guidepost, and for anyone to suggest ranking them. Could you maybe have a little chat with her, and ensure that doesn't happen?

We thank you for your work. We're watching. We're going to read your report when it comes out in December. We know the moment of truth will be when it goes to cabinet, and we're going to follow it every step of the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We hadn't heard about the ranking of principles. We'll certainly look into it.

Madam Natasha Grimard.

[Natasha Grimard, As an Individual]

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good evening, Ms. Grimard.

[Natasha Grimard]

My name is Natasha Grimard. I am a student at Pearson College. Our group is made up of several students from across Canada. Tonight there are students from Quebec, Alberta, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. There are students at the college from every province in the country. Tonight I am speaking on their behalf.

We do not agree on many things in politics. However, there is one thing that we do agree on, and that's the fact that we don't want a referendum on this issue. We believe a referendum, especially before trying a different voting system, would be a waste of money and would set a bad precedent, frankly. We think people would be less interested in trying a new system, since they would have a poorer understanding of it.

This stems mainly from the fact that very few people, especially very few young people, actually feel included in politics. Ultimately, I don't believe and we don't believe that a referendum would help the cause in that regard.

[Some voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You may continue.

[Natasha Grimard]

I will continue my remarks on that.

I'm going to put a question to the audience.

How many of you voted in the last election? Interesting.

How many of you are for a change in the system?

You have before you a group of people who take part in Canadian politics.

What are you going to do to include people, especially young people, who don't feel included right now?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Give my regards to Désirée McGraw. I know her well.

Mr. Jordan Reichert.

[Jordan Reichert, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada.

I am urging you to move towards a proportional representation system because to me and to many people, the measure of a democracy is in its inclusivity. Right now, animals are sorely excluded from the democratic process. I'm not saying that I want to give animals the vote. I don't trust my cat or dog with that. However, I do want to empower MPs to represent their interests. This is about more than just proportional representation; this is about proportional interest in how people think and feel about animals in our society.

If I ask people here if they thought we should strengthen protections for animals, how many people would put up their hands? Quite a few, probably the majority. But right now, as it stands, with the first-past-the-post system, when a government has a majority, as they do, and with lobby groups having the power that they do, their power can influence people to say, “Well, sure, if I ask most people if they think we should have stronger laws or make it easier to prosecute people who are cruel to animals, they would say that yes, of course, why wouldn't they want that?” Yet there are lobby groups that have the power to influence government beyond the interests of the people, and that's not right. We need to work on changing that.

The Netherlands, Australia, Portugal, and Germany all have animal parties elected to their Parliament. There's no reason we can't do the same here because, with the current issues that face us environmentally, social justice issues, health care issues, and economic issues, if we do not include animals in the way we construct and consider our policy, then we will all bear the consequences collectively.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Wolf.

[Harald Wolf, As an Individual]

Good evening.

The disadvantage of coming down the line is that I have to keep my two speeches in my pocket.

You don't want to be praised for being here, although we wanted to do that, so I'm going to turn the table a little bit and maybe challenge you a bit.

I think one of the things that's become evident in the room is that part of the problem—it's not just the electoral system—is we're trying to strengthen democracy, and part of the problem with democracy is the overbearing influence of the parties. If you guys can carry forward this proportional representation and make your decision based on the information you receive, make the decision based on the experts that have come forward and the public that has come forward rather than voting your party line, then I think you will be able to take this forward, take this back to Parliament, and be able to implement it legitimately without going to a referendum.

If we go to a referendum, it will be back into the dirty politics of electioneering, where we bring in fearmongering, who has the most money, and who has the best election machine. We don't need that. We want to put our trust in you and the Parliament that we've already elected.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Etkin, go ahead, sir.

[Jack Etkin, As an Individual]

It's always a pleasure to come to events like this where you can hear the public speaking, because that's what democracy is supposed to be all about.

I support proportional representation because I think it'll give us a better country, a better society. We'll have less poverty, less homelessness, and we'll have better health care. We won't have genetically contaminated foods being sold. I think those are the kinds of things that proportional representation will give us.

I just want to mention the idea of a referendum. The weight of supporters of a referendum is the Conservative Party. Given eight years of what Stephen Harper did to this country, including destroying our environment and running the biggest deficit in Canadian history, all of it without a referendum or ever the suggestion of one, it's funny that they should want a referendum on this.

The other big supporters of a referendum are Canada's corporate-owned media. They don't want a referendum, because right now the corporations have so much power with first past the post that the last thing they want is a change. Our media is owned by the Shaw family, the Rogers family, and the Thomson family, Canada's richest family, who owns The Globe and Mail, CTV, which is owned by Bell Media, and the CBC, which is controlled by somebody who also doesn't support proportional representation. These are the people who are pushing for a referendum, and we can see where their interest lies.

Thank you all very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Coccola.

[James Coccola, As an Individual]

Thank you.

My name is James Coccola. I'm a member of the Victoria Labour Council, and I come here today to speak about the position of the Canadian Labour Congress.

We hold the position that it is time to change our voting system, and the system should be proportional representation. First past the post consistently fails to accurately represent the votes cast by Canadians. Our system is outdated and distributes power unfairly. Studies of elections in countries that still use first past the post show that fewer women and candidates from minority backgrounds are elected. We need a system that encourages participation, and that system is proportional representation.

We believe that electoral reform must adhere to three principles: one, no party should be able to get the majority of seats in Parliament without getting the majority of votes; two, any electoral reform must be based on proportional representation; three, any electoral reform must consider the importance of local representation. This position of the Canadian Labour Congress was adopted at a convention by thousands of delegates.

Quickly, I've been told for my entire voting life that my generation, my demographic, doesn't care, that they're not engaged, that they're not representative. I don't agree with that. I know a lot of people my age who are very involved and very engaged.

Consider what we know about voting for a moment. We know that if you go to a poll and cast a ballot, you're more likely to go the next time. Imagine if you go and vote and you realize your vote didn't count. Then maybe you go back again and the same thing happens. Well, you start to get discouraged. As soon as you don't vote in one election, you're less likely to vote in the next election.

While I don't agree that youth are apathetic or they don't care, I can understand why some people don't want to vote. It's because they don't feel that it matters. Change to our voting system would help to alleviate that myth.

I strongly urge this committee to make a very strong recommendation for proportional representation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Merle, go ahead.

[Bronwen Merle, As an Individual]

I am Bronwen Merle from Pender Island, and I'm an ardent supporter of PR. I'd like to thank you for your honourable work.

It is no small matter to routinely appropriate the voices of others. There were nine million voices who were silenced in the last federal election alone. First past the post is a rigid and antiquated system, with all of its attendant baggage. Created in a bygone era to serve the narrow interests of the leaders of our parent nation, it frequently yields false majorities.

I do not want my country to continue to complacently shore up falsehoods while simultaneously and perversely deluding ourselves into believing that we are engaging in democracy. We are not.

This weakens us all. A false inflation for the winners, demoralization for the actual majority of voters, it is a form of sanctioned elitism. True democracy values everyone. Let us extend our circle of respect and inclusion, look around at each other and say, “What you think and feel really matters to me. It matters enough that I will willingly transcend party protectionism with the intent to uplift each other into full sovereignty, a sovereignty that can only be honoured by full and honest representation.”

I believe this is a moral imperative, a human rights issue, and one that is crucial to the maturation of our nationhood.

There will be a death rattle and birth pains. No system is perfect. However, the moment has arrived. Let us believe in each other enough to jettison our current voting system, a false and cruel one. May we have the courage and compassion to become equal partners in an engaged and liberated citizenry. How lovely, how nutritive, to cross this new threshold together and reinvigorate our beloved Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Thrift, go ahead.

[Kym Thrift, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity.

I like to use one analogy to explain my viewpoint. Everybody here has been to school at some point—elementary school, high school, university—so most people are familiar with the grading system that applies there. When I think about the last election, I understand that over 51% of the votes cast did not go toward electing an MP, so over nine million Canadians put their vote in the ballot box, and that vote did not go toward somebody who would represent their political viewpoint. By most grading systems, that's a complete tragedy and a failure, an F grade.

When we look at it in that context and understand that, we might think that if 51% is so bad, maybe that's the only system we have. I don't need to repeat the comments of everybody here, but there are many other alternatives that offer a much better chance at a better electoral system. Personally, I think that proportional representation would result in the votes being translated and represented in a much better way.

I also think that regional representation is another thing that is critical. It is something that people have brought up and that some people who are critical of proportional representation also bring up. I know there are a lot of smart people you're going to hear from, and there are a lot of creative people in this world, so I do not believe that it's beyond this group to come up with a system that is proportional and also has regional representation.

I think it's well within your mandate, and I think it's well within the opportunity and the ability of the group to do that. This is a really important opportunity for you to move forward with an equal, effective, and empowered electoral system.

I think the gentleman who spoke just prior to me at this mike put it really clearly: people want to feel empowered and know that their vote matters. If you remove all the party lines beyond that, I think that's fundamentally what everybody wants when they're thinking about going to the polling station, so please consider that as part of your deliberations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Brooks, go ahead.