Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 27th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Samuel Slanina]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Hunter Lastiwka, go ahead.

[Hunter Lastiwka, As an Individual]

Hello, committee.

How are you guys?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good.

[Hunter Lastiwka]

My name is Hunter Lastiwka. I'm here at the young age of 15. I go to Stelly's Secondary School out here on the peninsula. I know Ms. May very well.

Over the past few months, I've been working on a project that is trying to engage, empower, and educate youth from grades 9 to grade 12, so that as they come into voting age, whether that is 18 or 17 or 16 going into the future, they are prepared and understand what's going on. Along this process, I have come into PR and explored other options, and I started connecting it to youth nowadays and how the youth are going to affect our voting system into the future.

Going up to my peers in high school, as well as friends who have graduated already and are not attending post-secondary, and friends who are attending post-secondary, I explained how PR would work or how first past the post works, and other different systems. Every single one of them has said that they would vote 100% under proportional representation. They feel that their vote would count most under proportional representation, any type of proportional representation. This stood out to me a lot, and I figured it would stand out to you a lot.

Overall, I would like to point out that I would like youth as well as young voters in Canada to have their opinions heard and greatly considered through this process.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Roger Allen, the floor is yours.

[Roger Allen, As an Individual]

I speak against first past the post because this system is fundamentally unfair. Here are some reasons.

A vote of 40% can and often does produce 100% of the power. A vote in one riding, a swing riding, counts far more than a vote in a safe riding. Overall voter turnout is reduced under first past the post because voters in safe ridings feel that their vote is wasted regardless of who they vote for. Psychological factors often play a role in first past the post because voters may favour a minor party but vote strategically for a viable major party that represents the best chance of preventing the election of a party they oppose.

Eventually, with first past the post, Canada will evolve into a U.S.-style, two party state with its attendant faults.

Smaller parties are severely discriminated against in first past the post since voters feel voting for a minor party is a wasted vote. For example, is it really fair that a party can get 10% of the vote and less than 1% of representation in Ottawa? Furthermore, remember that under any system other than first past the post, that minor party would probably get far more votes.

I speak now in favour of any system other than first past the post, although my personal preference is for MMP. Obviously, not all people can be satisfied after an election, but surely it is clear that proportional representation, for example, satisfies far more voters than first past the post. The criticism that a system other than first past the post tends to result in minority governments with less power is misplaced. If that is the case, then I say good.

What most voters want is a government that will or has to listen to other points of view and come to a consensus. After all, nobody wants a Conservative, a Liberal, an NDP, or Green Party policy all the time. With proportional representation, there are checks and balances, unlike in first past the post where a blank cheque is more or less issued.

Far more countries have a system other than first past the post and have a much higher voter turnout.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Scott.

[Donald Scott, As an Individual]

Thanks very much. I'll get right to it.

One of the things I'm interested in is the effectiveness of government and how government can make decisions. One of the criticisms that people have of PR systems is that it's more complex, that it takes too long to make decisions. Yet that doesn't bear out in fact. When it comes to tough decisions—and I'll take climate change as an example—not one first-past-the-post country has made any progress. That's where all the deniers are. They've gone backwards instead of forward.

The only nations that have really made progress are the European nations that are under PR systems, and that's because you have more than two voices. You have a multiple of voices and you have to give them consideration. Most voices gain credibility in the general public so the government can move forward.

On the other hand, when it comes to war, who are the initiators? U.S., U.K., latterly Canada, France as a majoritarian system, and Australia is always jumping in right behind the U.S.—all these are first-past-the-post systems. I think that tells us an awful lot about the strengths of a broader-based system than first past the post.

With respect to the referendum, no referendum is required. Look at your Constitution. The parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution. My experience with referendums goes back to the French language issue in Manitoba, where I was an MLA at the time. We had just passed a law to be able to bring in the campaign's referendums. What was the first thing issued? Some 75% of Manitobans voted to take away French language rights. These constitutional rights were reaffirmed shortly thereafter by the courts. That's the ugliness. Going through that was one of the ugliest experiences of my life.

We all like to think if we get elected that they're voting for us, but an Ipsos poll of a couple of years ago found 74% of the people voting for the party with 24% of the candidates.

I would propose a mixed member proportional system, but I think we need a cut-off on the lists, and I would suggest a five- or six-point cut-off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, that sounds good.

[Donald Scott]

I would just ask you to look back to 1991 and 1997, where you'll find two Globe and Mail editorials supporting the move towards proportional representation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's interesting. I didn't know that. Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Barker.

[Martin Barker, As an Individual]

Thank you for hearing me speak. Just a little disclaimer: I'm Martin Barker, and I was the candidate for the Conservative Party in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I would first like to put to rest a little fallacy. I did not get elected, but I still feel represented by Mr. Mr. Alistair MacGregor. Maybe he doesn't hold my views, but I have no problem debating him and I have no qualms about going to him with problems.

On that note, you are represented regardless of the percentage of people. I was a baby voter and not really engaged at all at the time of the Charlottetown accord, and that was a referendum. At that time, I had no idea about politics, but I became engaged in the referendum. I contacted the government to find out more information, and they sent me a little video, a little fluff piece. I was so angry, and when I looked further into it I became angry about everything. I voted against the Charlottetown agreement, but that referendum engaged me in politics. It made me the kind of pseudo-politician I am today.

I think about our government in Canada for 150 years. I know some people disagree, but it has been growing. We've overcome some great problems and issues and the country continues to get better, regardless of who's in power. I think we should take great care about deciding to change our system. It's very easy to stuff the room with partisans. That's not reaching the people of this country.

If we want to engage the people of the country, Canadians, we should have a true debate, one that's in the papers, one that's maybe myself and other politicians discussing what's right and what's happening. Canadians will be engaged. We want greater engagement in Canada, so let's have a referendum.

I'm hearing a lot about mixed proportional, and I don't begrudge the discussion on voter reform. I think it's great. I personally support the system we have now. But if we're going to have legitimate change, it must be with a referendum. I think Canadians deserve to have a voice and a proper say in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Shari Lukens.

[Shari Lukens, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Coincidentally, I also was a candidate in the last federal election, a woman. I stood for what I believed in. I was the Conservative candidate for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. Thank you for being here.

There is always a winner and a loser, and it's just how you get there. Having been a competitive figure skater for 30 years of my life, it was the person with the most points that won the trophy, and it's still that way today.

Regardless of your choice of voting system, please exercise democracy and hold a referendum. Friends with whom I've spoken regarding changes to our electoral system for the most part are not aware of these meetings. Canadians care about having a voice in this process, and many would like to see a referendum on the issue of electoral reform.

Canada is one of the most respected democracies in the world, so my question is, if the government truly cares and respects what Canadians think, why is it looking to change the way we vote without giving Canadians a say through a referendum?

People talk about democracy. Democracy is having a referendum and allowing Canadians that are eligible to vote to vote on what system they believe is best for them.

I find it very concerning that our Parliament, which has 338 seats, and a majority Liberal government which was elected with less than 40% of the vote, is wanting to sole source the decision. This means that because the Liberals have a majority government, they have enough seats, and therefore votes, to pass whatever voting system they want regardless of what the majority of Canadians want.

In the most recent Ipsos poll, 55% of Canadians approached about electoral reform wanted a referendum. They want a say in how they would elect their next MP. They do not want elected MPs, people in power, telling them how they are going to vote. If the government is truly listening to Canadians, it knows Canadians want a say and they want a referendum

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Shari Lukens]

Full disclosure, I'm from Alberta, and we were so happy when the Canadian Wheat Board went down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a subject for another town hall.

Ms. Patricia Armitage.

[Patricia Armitage, As an Individual]

I'm grateful to speak to you directly on this issue. It's one that's been troubling me for a long time.

I studied political science at university many years ago, and I am also a refugee from Alberta. I spent many elections in Alberta being frustrated because no matter which party I seemed to vote for, I always seemed to vote for the wrong one. I have voted for pretty much every party. I vote for a member, not the party so much, so to me it's really important.

Proportional representation, to me, is our opportunity to actually make people feel like their voices are going to be heard in Parliament. As much as you can say that if I were a Conservative and there was a Conservative government in Ottawa, but I didn't have representation here, that doesn't make me feel any better because my issues here are very different from what they were when I was in Alberta. Therefore, regional representation to me is extremely important. We need to have a voice at the regional level for people of many different parties, not just one.

That's the reason I want proportional representation, and despite what Ms. Lukens says, I'm not convinced that people necessarily want a referendum, but I would be prepared to go for a referendum after the fact. Give it a chance for two or three elections and then ask the people whether they're content with the situation as it is. If you ask them blind and say you want to change the system for something else, if they don't really understand it, they're going to run back to what they know. I think that would be very discouraging.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll hear from Katherine Armitage.

[Katherine Armitage, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm also a political refugee from Edmonton, Alberta. I'm a relative newcomer to British Columbia. I came here to finish my political science degree, and I take courses from Dennis Pilon, who I'm sure has appeared before this committee. I'd like to share a bit of a story with you guys.

In 2002 we had a provincial election. This was during the Klein years, so I'm sure I don't need to say how it all went down. During the election, Edmonton voted almost completely for the Liberals. My MLA was Conservative and he was voted out. The next day he went on a radio show and said that we in Edmonton had voted for the wrong party. He said that we had voted for a party that was not going to be represented because in the legislative assembly the Conservatives were forming the government, and we should have voted Conservative to get our positions known. We were told we were voting wrong.

This is what first past the post does to us, because with regionalization, we don't get our say. We have governments that are completely incapable of working with each other. It fractures communities, and it fractures cities.

I want proportional representation of some kind, and I don't care how it is. We do not need a referendum. And I'd love to see 16-year-olds be able to vote.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I didn't see Georgina Kirkman. I assume she's not here.

It's Suzanne Wilkinson and John Amon. Is Suzanne here?

Okay, Mr. Amon.

[John Amon, As an Individual]

Any proposal to change Canada's current electoral system must be endorsed by the majority of Canadians before it's implemented. The only democratic way to enable Canadians to express their preference is through a referendum, and that includes the option of maintaining the status quo.

Canadians must be informed about how, under any proposed alternative voting system, electoral districts would be redrawn, ballots would be counted, what the minimum voting percentage threshold would be in order to be elected, how many candidates might run in each riding, and how local representation and accountability would be maintained.

The word “reform” implies making things better. It may very well be that the majority of Canadians are satisfied with the current system and see no need for improvement. That has certainly been the message when at least provinces proposed reforms, which were subsequently rejected by their citizens through a referendum, including in B.C. Although proponents of STV champion STV and point out the first referendum as an indication of full support, the reality is that in the second referendum, when the citizenry was well informed, over 60% of the people voted against it.

My personal preference is to maintain our current electoral system. It has served us well for over 100 years and most often has provided the stability and predictability of majority governments, which is a major strength of our political system.

My second choice would be a system that would be a runoff election or a preferential ballot. Proportional representation would be my last choice.

Proponents of proportional representation perpetuate the myth that any vote that is not for an elected candidate is a wasted vote. That's simply not the case. I have voted in every municipal, provincial, and federal election since achieving the age of majority. I have voted for members of the NDP, the Progressive Conservatives, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Party. Some of these candidates were elected and some were not, and not once did I feel that my vote had been wasted.

The reality is that democracy is about majority rule while respecting the rights of the minorities, and our current system does that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.