Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 27th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll tell you that I had one, but it was a big one. It was as big as I could have it. I rented a big auditorium. I sent letters to all the high schools in my riding and to history, political science, and economics professors at the local community college. I advertised it in the paper and in my householder. It was pretty successful.

I don't think we have time to go down the whole table, but that was my experience, and I was happy to do that town hall.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Teuwen, go ahead, please.

[Thomas Teuwen, As an Individual]

I would ask the Chair to indulge me for just one moment because I would like to compliment this committee. I think this committee has done an amazing job, so far. I've been watching it online, on CPAC. The process that I'm experiencing here tonight is a process which, quite frankly, makes me proud to be a Canadian. I have never in my life experienced such dedication. You all got up at four o'clock or so this morning to be here.

[A voice]

It was three o'clock.

[Thomas Teuwen]

It was three o'clock. There you go. To me, that matters a lot. It matters because it gives me a sense, for the first time in my life, that people in government care. That is the bottom line in terms of changing our electoral system.

Our electoral system is over 100 years old. We wouldn't practice medicine by a system that's over 100 years old. We wouldn't drive cars that were over 100 years old. We wouldn't do a lot of things in our lives that we did 100 years ago, so why do we cling to an electoral system that's clearly out of date and clearly out of touch with the way that Canadians feel today?

I also believe that proportional representation, for example, in some form of consensus-based governance, is better for business, because what we have now are false majorities that have ideologically driven policy swings that go back and forth on the pendulum, and that makes it difficult for business to plan long term. You don't know whether the science is going to be supported or not. You don't know whether the alternative energy industry is going to be supported or not. For me, that's another important aspect.

I believe that the whole process of what you're doing at the committee is important. I'm thankful for the process, and I look forward to the recommendations in December.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dixon, go ahead, please.

[Theodore Dixon, As an Individual]

I would like to, first of all, compliment everyone on being here.. Regardless of what system we come up with, make it simple. I was involved with the Green Party here in B.C. in obtaining the signatures on a petition that got the referendum started in the first place. What I had to do was go into great detail to try and alleviate the concerns of the people whose signatures I was trying to get on the page that was in front of them. I had to go to great lengths to explain it, and there were times when they would say that it was way too complicated.

Make it simple. If you do that, the acceptance rate will be much higher.

I would love to see some reform come through. We've had enough of a system where we determine our governance by the principles of a horse race. That has to stop. This is 2016.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Putt, go ahead, please.

[Katherine Putt, As an Individual]

Thank you very much to all the committee members.

I would like to speak in favour of proportional representation. I feel strongly that if we don't change our voting system, we are going to see increasing apathy and decreasing voter turnout. This is a real danger to our democracy, and this doesn't mean only for young people. Many of them are passionate about creating a better world, but they want to put their efforts where they know they can have some effect. That's true of everyone.

I also want to comment on the danger and injustice of a system where a government formed with less than a majority can govern as if the rest of the population didn't count. This is the system we have and it's flawed.

The current system also tends toward polarizing the political debate and toward two main parties, making it harder for less mainstream ideas to find expression in Parliament. This also leads to strategic voting, something which causes people to deny their beliefs and preferences, and produces a false indication of voter sentiment and support.

Last, I'm not in favour of a referendum for such a complex issue. Look at all the time the B.C. Citizens' Assembly spent in their deliberations.

I think the opinions of Canadians are being gathered through this committee process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rosser.

[Michael Rosser, As an Individual]

Thank you.

First of all, I would like to say that I'm in favour of this process because all of my votes at the federal level have not counted. I had to move to a riding that had a candidate that represented me in order to have my vote count. Only one time has my vote ever counted in a federal election.

In general terms, I think a lot of Canadians are dissatisfied with the system because we see too much money in politics, and we see elections being too much about personality. I would like to see them be more about issues and less about money.

There is so much bickering, partisanship, and grandstanding in the House of Commons, it's no wonder Canadians are turned off by the political system.

I think this could help on all of those counts.

I will draw up a suggestion of keeping it simple by voting for a political party, and then there would be a list which each party had that would be taken proportionally from the province.

I'd like to see compulsory voting, with a bit of carrot and a bit of stick. For example, you should be rewarded with maybe $5 on your taxes when you vote and have a $25 penalty if you don't.

Perhaps we could vote electronically or by mail-in ballot. That's done in other places.

I know in Switzerland they vote by mail-in ballot every few weeks, and they deal with many issues consequently. Switzerland has the only system like that that I'm aware of. They also have a committee they are ruled by. They elect the committee and they elect a chair.

That's it. I would like to see voting strictly for a party, and then the parties have an electoral list which their entire membership must vote on by a single transferable vote.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Levey, it's your turn.

[Shelagh Levey, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm not going to take two minutes, but I am going to make a preamble. I want to thank you all for taking on this difficult job, and I want to thank you for doing it over the summer. It wouldn't be so bad if we lived in Hawaii, or even Spain, but you've given up a Canadian summer, and that's particularly impressive.

I'd like to speak to a referendum. Yes, I wanted a referendum. It sounds democratic, but then I began to talk to people, my friends, my family, neighbours, anybody who would discuss proportional representation. I found that they all wanted to get into the 21st century and move on and have a fair vote, but they didn't know much else. Although they were for proportional representation, when I asked about a particular strategy they'd like, there was a blank. In fact, one or two didn't even know what we have now. So I don't see how a referendum would work. I, for one, have changed my mind. I am prepared to accept the recommendations of this committee, particularly my MP's, who is so non-partisan and works so hard for her constituents and for the country. I would accept anything she tells me, and I can tell you I'm not usually a follower.

I wish you all the luck in the world, and I'm not in favour of a referendum.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Who's your MP?

[Shelagh Levey]

I'll let you guess.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Ferguson.

[Stephanie Ferguson, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I would like to start by stating that I am strongly in favour of a proportional voting system. Watching the hearings of this committee has given me hope that we can finally update our system to a proportional one. I worry, though, about these calls for a referendum, which seem intended to kill this opportunity for change and force Canadians to keep wasting their votes for the sake of partisan politics.

I have first-hand experience of a national referendum on changing the voting system through the 2011 U.K. referendum on the alternative vote. The result was 68% for no, which kept the status quo, and 32% for yes, which would have changed the system. I worked for six months as a campaigner for the yes side of the vote. Let me explain that I would not support the alternative vote for Canada. It is still a majoritarian system that fails to address most of the problems with first past the post. I repeatedly encountered people who supported electoral reform but would not vote for the AV system because it was not proportional. The campaign itself was also problematic.

People vote in referendums based on the information they are given. The yes campaign messaging was weak and largely failed to explain the system itself. The no campaign's core messaging strategy was to create fear around change and to spread misinformation about the AV system. They said it was too complicated, that it would cost too much and took too long to count, that it unfairly gave some people more votes than others—all complete myths. There is no reason to think that the same tactics wouldn't be used in a campaign here in Canada.

Referendums tend to favour the status quo, and both sides of the campaign can introduce messaging that can be counterproductive, misleading, or simply false, and a referendum is not the only way to lend legitimacy to a change in the voting system.

I urge you to focus on those methods now and in your recommendations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Farmer, go ahead.

[David Farmer, As an Individual]

My name is David Farmer, and I'm grateful to be here. It's a wonderful opportunity for an exchange of ideas. Let me say right from the start that I have been frustrated for many years with the first-past-the-post system. It polarizes the country and all too often makes it impossible for people to be properly represented. It also has a more subtle effect which I experienced in our own riding. I voted for my MP and I'm very happy with her, so you probably think I shouldn't be complaining. I complain because we have one member of Parliament for the Green Party and many supporters of the Green Party across the country who are somehow not represented. With the immense problems that face us now—the urgency of the climate issues, God knows what else, pipelines and so on—we really need fresh ideas and we are excluding them with the first-past-the-post system.

I believe proportional representation of some kind is absolutely necessary. We've waited 150 years for it. I think it's time to move ahead. We have some wonderful evidence of how much the public would like that system. I was impressed with Diana Byford's account of what they had done. What a wonderful contribution to our society. So there's good evidence. Ms. May tells me there are many other reports that are available that almost universally support proportional representation.

On that basis, good luck to you. I think you know where we want you to go. We look forward to the results.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Adriane, you don't remember me, do you? I used to work for Clifford Lincoln.

[Adriane Carr, As an Individual]

Oh, did you? What a dear person he was.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

And I'm certain he still is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please go ahead, Ms. Carr.

[Adriane Carr]

Thank you.

My name is Adriane Carr. I'm an elected councillor in the city of Vancouver. I'm speaking to you because in 2002 I was working on B.C.'s recall and initiative act, the proponent of an initiative to establish a mixed member proportional representation voting system in British Columbia. I have details about this in a brief, and I'm happy to hand those in at the end.

I wanted to focus on what I learned through my conversations with literally thousands of people in every corner of this province in the collection of 98,165 signatures—I still remember—with the help of about 4,000 other canvassers.

What I learned was that number one, people are extraordinarily frustrated with the current voting system, and it's led to such dismay that in many cases they don't want to vote.

Two, they liked the MMP system for these reasons: It's simple to understand. They liked the idea of just two votes, and some talked to me about this. As opposed to ranking a list of many candidates, two votes seemed very simple: a vote for the party, and a vote for their individual representation. They really liked that their party vote would achieve representation and they really liked the fairness of the outcome. I think fairness is a Canadian attribute.

I want to note that a ranked ballot or alternative vote ballot does not achieve proportionality, and I urge you to make sure you're clear about that. Also, you may not know that an STV system needs at least five—they say even seven—members in the riding to achieve proportionality. Five is sort of a minimum, and five would be like Yukon, Nunavut, the northern halves of all the provinces. It's something for you to consider.

I recommend, in conclusion, an MMP system because it is fair, proportional, and the votes count toward representation. I urge you to make it simple. I believe you can use the same electoral districts. There's no need for riding redistribution. Simply use a top-up system, either through lists, or some people have suggested to me by looking at those members of a party who weren't elected but got very high votes.

There's enough room in Parliament with your $3-billion renovation to create those extra seats. This is a chance for change. Please, I urge you to do proportional representation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Robinson, please give us your views.

[Joan Robinson, As an Individual]

I've been a returning officer for several elections, and I have been involved in provincial and federal judicial recounts. Most recently, I was returning officer for a province-wide mail-in preferential ballot. I participated in printing the ballots, sending out instructions, counting the ballots, and calculating the results. It was a nightmare. That was one ballot in the province. There are over 50,000 polls federally. I predict that if you wanted to do any kind of different voting count you'd have to sequester the vote counters, for one thing, and it would likely take you two or three months to get the final results.

I'm also going to comment, being a former school teacher, that now the schools have this system that everyone who goes into a sports meet gets a ribbon. There are no losers. That's not real life. We get out, run for Parliament, run for something, get the most votes, vote in the best person, and unbelievably, someone has to be a loser.

We don't need a referendum. We don't need to change our voting system. You have other things to deal with in our Parliament. If you want every vote to count, then make sure that everybody that can vote does votes. That's how to make your votes count.

In closing, I must say how disappointed I am in one of your committee members, who was my former MP, who has spent the entire day on her cellphone. Oh yes you have, and there are obviously a lot things that interest you besides listening to us.