Evidence of meeting #31 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 referendum.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Interestingly, I believe that was the case until 1972.
I was told it might be earlier, until 1968.
We can discuss this later.
Go ahead, Mr. Holloway.
7:50 p.m.
Gregory Holloway As an Individual
Thank you.
It's perfectly clear and has been since long before this meeting that there's an enormous passion and wish to move to some kind of proportional representation system. We all observed the struggles that we have listened to today, trying to make things work with MMP and STV. I want to try to think outside the box about some simple, cost-effective alternatives. Generically, the name is weighted voting. Now that can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people and I have to try to be brief. I'd like to explain background, motivation, and so on, but there isn't time. I'm just going to give one example.
I go to the poll and I get a ballot. The ballot contains a list of candidates and asks a simple question: Which one do you like? Now I would ask a second question, which you can consider or not, as you like, which is: Here's a list of parties; which party do you feel represents your point of view? I go to that poll and I see a candidate's name whom I've always admired, Jane Doe. She happens to be affiliated with the purple party, but that doesn't especially matter to me, because maybe I'm a pretty simple-minded voter. I'm for Jane Doe so I'll vote for Jane Doe. Let's suppose the rest of the people in my riding happen to agree and Jane sweeps the riding with 40,000 votes. Okay. A computer records that number of 40,000 and puts it into a little slot.
At the same time, other candidates have not succeeded, and in other ridings other purple candidates have not succeeded. Where another purple candidate has been defeated, or where someone else who didn't get the candidate they wanted happens to say, “I kind of like that purple party”, we gather up the weight of purple party votes and store that number away. We bring back the total number of votes that have been defeated in their selection of a candidate but have said “Gee, I kind of like this purple stuff”, and we divvy that out among the elected members of the purple party. Jane Doe, who got 40,000 votes, gets another 30,000 and goes to Parliament with 70,000 votes.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
7:50 p.m.
As an Individual
We did correspond a little. I am very pleased to say that you heard something like this—
7:50 p.m.
As an Individual
—but with this important difference of not just counting up members, and there were questions.
I'll tell you what I'll do. I won't say anything more about this. I would like to, if I have any seconds remaining, sir.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes.
You are the second person who has raised that possibility.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Essentially, if I understand it correctly, and I'll be corrected by my colleagues, you would have the same number of MPs in the House, but if the popular vote distribution didn't reflect the share of seats a party had in the House—let's say their share of seats was less; let's say they had 30% of the seats in the House but 40% of the vote—the individual vote of MPs would be worth a little more than one, so that when people voted—
7:50 p.m.
Robert Mackie As an Individual
Thank you. My name is Bob MacKie. Years ago when there were Progressive Conservatives, I was president of the Langley—Abbotsford Riding Association. I understand the Conservatives not wanting a majoritarian voting system that would appear to favour the Liberals. Personally, I'm lucky. I voted for and got a great representative, Elizabeth May.
In 2008, almost a million Canadians voted for a Green Party representative. Not one of them got that representative. In our last federal election, for all parties, that was true for nine million Canadians.
There was a time in Langley—Abbotsford when you could have elected a mailbox if it was a Progressive Conservative candidate. This is not good representation.
I am vice-president of Fair Voting BC, and I believe that in a representative democracy the government has a duty and an obligation to all Canadian voters to ensure fair and equal representation.
Duverger's law in political science states that majoritarian voting systems drive us toward a two party system, which I particularly fear as I watch the U.S. election.
Canadians cannot honestly be expected to know the impact of changing the voting system, and they should not be asked to make that decision without knowing.
A simple practical solution is to try out a made-in-Canada proportional representation solution, such as the rural-urban PR voting model. We could then have a referendum, or better, do a $1-million survey and save $299 million.
I'll finish with a passage from Arend Lijphart's book Patterns of Democracy, which has particular meaning for me because I grew up in Lachine, Quebec, and I vividly remember how close we came in 1995 to having Quebec separate from Canada.
In the most deeply divided societies...majority rule spells majority dictatorship and civil strife rather than democracy. What such societies need is a democratic regime that emphasizes consensus instead of opposition, that includes rather than excludes, and that tries to maximize the size of the ruling majority instead of being satisfied with a bare majority: consensus democracy.
Consensus democracies have multi-party systems and proportional electoral systems.
To the committee, I will say that I know your work has been exhausting. I hope you will all be in our history books or Wikipedia.
7:50 p.m.
A voice
He had to catch the ferry back to Salt Spring Island.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
We have Ms. Sharon Gallagher and Mr. James Gallagher. Go ahead, Ms. Gallagher.
7:55 p.m.
Sharon Gallagher As an Individual
I guess I'm speaking in a different direction. I personally don't feel like my vote never counted. I happen to be in a riding in which my vote didn't count for the MP. My MP did not represent the party. My vote had the same chance of counting as anyone else's, and I feel that my riding has spoken, and I am part of that team and that community. I'm not going to sit on the couch and pout because I didn't get the one I wanted. I had the opportunity to bang on doors, rally support. I don't think of sitting back and saying, “You have to choose what I want or I'm not represented.” In fact, I didn't know that my vote didn't count until a bunch of groups starting telling me my vote didn't count. I'm really trying to understand this. I've done a lot of work on this, and I still think the old system works just fine. It promotes people getting involved and getting off their seats, and convincing people, and becoming aware of the issues.
I think that the mandate of this committee is just to come up with a viable alternative to first past the post versus...I don't think it is necessarily to come up with a solution.... “Viable” is the word I'm saying. What if you can't find a viable solution? Do you have the option of saying, “Sorry, there isn't a viable solution”? What we have is good.
I realize that you're going to have to come to a consensus, and I'm not exactly sure.... I worked in the government my whole career. I understand algorithms. I understand consensus. I have been on big committees and sometimes the solution isn't the best solution; it's a watered-down compromise. I urge you to stand for what you believe in your heart and do the right thing.
8 p.m.
James Gallagher As an Individual
Yes, I'm the other half. As a retired school teacher I'm here to—surprise, surprise—be educated. To be educated requires a good listening ear, and that has taken place tonight. I appreciate the panel here for your work, but also for coming together to put this meeting together tonight.
As a Canadian born in Canada, and as a status first nation, I appreciate the opportunity to even vote on these kinds of decisions. It's complicated, very complicated. I would like to see it simplified immensely so that the average person could understand what they are voting for in a referendum, and as a result we would have excellent information from the voting public, from the Canadian citizens, as to which direction to follow.
Overall, I give thanks to this particular country. My wife and I have travelled to various countries, to India, Africa, Israel, and other places, and every time we come back we are almost in tears to come back to Canada. We appreciate this country so much. I just ask that we not mess with it. From a standpoint of being thoroughly educated—as an educator, I can say that—we need to know what we are voting for.
Thank you.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much, Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. MacKinnon, the floor is yours.