Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 27th, 2016

[Colin MacKinnon, As an Individual]

It's nice to see you all here in Victoria so we can come and present things and talk.

I'm a Canadian and New Zealand dual citizen. I've spent quite a bit of time in New Zealand, in fact the last two MMP elections. I've also studied political science, and I understand the German system. I want to make a good case for you to consider MMP. I feel that it has been sidetracked today by STV, and I feel that a lot is lost by not getting into MMP and that is that second vote.

The first vote...and that's why the Germans brought this system in. They wanted to have a local vote with a proportional system. That local vote is important, and you're getting that, but let's not put too much importance on it, because that second vote is the one that gets you power. There are constituencies that are not land-based constituencies over the whole country, whether they climate change, whether they be LGBT, whether they be handicapped people.... The Greens in New Zealand have a handicapped person in Parliament. She is part of a list. She is about eighth on the list.

Consequently, you'd have good interests, and you don't just have interests that are coming from background people. They have town halls. All the list MPs have town halls.

All I want to say is, why did the New Zealanders in 2011 reaffirm MMP after 15 years? It was because they feel they have so much more power over their politicians.

I think that's what we need. I hope you look at my papers.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Taylor.

[Ned Taylor, As an Individual]

Hi. My name is Ned. I'm 17, and I was born and raised here in Victoria.

I speak to you today to raise awareness for the unfair voting age we have here in Canada. Our voting age is unfair simply because 16- and 17-year-olds are fully capable of voting. In our laws we recognize that 16-year-olds are capable to drive, and 17-year-olds are capable to be sent to an adult prison and join the military, yet our laws don't recognize that both 16- and 17-year-olds are fully capable of voting. This is not fair.

If I, as a 17-year-old, can join the military, fight, and die for my country, but I can't vote who's running my country, there is clearly a problem there.

I say to all members on this committee, please, when you're talking about electoral reform, talk about the voting age. I want to personally thank Elizabeth for doing exactly that.

As I close, I want to say a quick word to the Conservatives. Canadians don't want a referendum. We had one, and it was called the 2015 election, so please stop playing political games.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Mora, go ahead.

[Pedro Mora, As an Individual]

To update the electoral system, which is the subject of the discussion tonight, we must consider at least two related perspectives. First, what are we choosing? Second, how are we choosing whatever we're choosing?

The “what” has been, for almost 150 years, limited to which political leader we choose. That's called elections. The “what” has not been on specific issues, like free trade agreements, military interventions in foreign countries, support for Israel, and other relevant issues. We the people don't have access to participate in that decision-making. Very often we find that governments make decisions that are not exactly or not even close to what the majority of Canadians want. Several polls attested to that during our intervention in Afghanistan. People said they didn't want to send our soldiers there to fight. The government went on and did it anyway.

How we make choices is the procedure, the rules of the game, the arbitrary consensus of a majority. What makes a majority? Is it 60%? Is it first past the post with 20%? That is one side.

The other side is how we vote on issues. When we Canadians realize what the issue is when we vote, when we realize that this is far more important than which political representatives we elect, then and only then will we be on our way to direct democracy. We will then be busy legislating our own rules rather than just debating how to give our power away to politicians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Bradbury.

[John Bradbury, As an Individual]

In 2013, Mr. Trudeau was quoted in the National Post as saying, “I do not support proportional representation because I believe deeply that every member of Parliament should represent actual Canadians and Canadian communities, not just political parties.” He continues to hold this view.

The problem is that the only alternative to first past the post or proportional representation is ranked balloting. Mr. Broadbent has roundly criticized this position this year saying, “Simply put, ranked ballots in a federal election would be like First Past the Post on steroids—even larger false majorities, results even more outrageously torqued and even more unrepresentative of the popular will”.

According to ThreeHundredEight.com, a non-partisan polling website, the Liberals currently enjoy about 49% support. They project that should an election be called today under first past the post, the Liberals would win 252 seats; under proportional representation, they would win 173 seats; under ranked balloting or alternate voting, they would win 279 seats.

We've also been told that suggestions arising from this committee are only suggestions, and that the government is under no obligation to implement them. Mr. Trudeau might just as well have told us we could vote for any party we like, as long as it's Liberal. The only way Canadians can be sure of getting the electoral system they truly want and not some Trojan Horse disguised as representative electoral reform is to have a referendum.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Bradbury.

Mr. Skinner.

[Derek Skinner, As an Individual]

Good evening. My name is Derek Skinner.

I want to talk to the legitimacy of the present first-past-the-post system.

I came to this country in the 1950s, and over the past 60 years I've watched it degenerate from a magnificent country of personal opportunity to a third-rate resource for adjacent superpowers. This is being facilitated by our outdated, British, first-past-the-post electoral system which enables either a Conservative or a Liberal government, if they have a majority, to facilitate the so-called new world order on a step-by-step basis. In recent times this has led to the Liberal Trudeau senior, in 1974, handing control of Canadian monetary supply over to a cartel of international banks; followed by Conservative Mulroney bringing in the first free trade agreement; followed by the Liberal Chrétien endorsing the North American Free Trade Agreement, which floated the first investor protection clauses. Most recently, we had the Conservative Harper doing his best to implement the North American union under a corporate umbrella. This Tweedledum and Tweedledee charade has to stop , and it must be replaced by a genuine democratic process that includes different voices representative of the number of votes cast.

Thankfully, Mr. Trudeau junior, with his Liberal majority, has responded to the growing public concern by promising to implement a reform to our electoral process. We believe this should be a system of proportional representation. We urge Mr. Trudeau to not fail in his promise to the Canadian public so that we can join the majority of nations that work well with a system of proportional representation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. White, please.

[Alexis White, As an Individual]

Thanks, everyone, for being here today. We really appreciate having the opportunity to speak to you directly.

I have to agree with one of the experts who spoke today and said that the referendum is not the way to achieve electoral reform, but quite the contrary. After following the ER committee meetings over several months, it's become quite clear to me that Canadians really need a more democratic consensus electoral system like proportional representation just to make sure that when we vote it will count and that at least our voices will be heard. With the present system that's not happening. We end up massively protesting different things that are happening, and even then we're ignored.

We really feel confident that you here today will be well educated and well equipped to make a really sensible and sound recommendation for all Canadians. We're counting on you to do that.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Is Sean Murray here? He's not here, okay.

Ms. Cooley, please.

[Nancy Cooley, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

I am a supporter of a proportional system. I'm also a strong believer in representative democracy.

I think this committee and the government has the authority and the mandate to change the electoral system, and I do not think that a referendum is required to change the system.

I think if you want legitimacy for a change in the system, it would be extremely wise to have a referendum on the system after two elections. The reason I say two is that you have the first election to get the bugs out of whatever the new system is, and you have the second election to have a smooth election. Then people can vote in a referendum with clear understanding and knowledge, and most importantly, experience of the system. I think asking people to vote in a referendum on a system that they don't have any experience with is simply not productive.

The second point I would like to address, which I have not heard raised here tonight, is the question of the percentage of national vote or regional vote that would be required to top up or create elected representatives off a list.

As somebody who has a political science background, one of the things that worries me the most about straight proportional systems is that they can, in a lot of circumstances, give weight to extreme views and very small parties far in excess of their numbers and their representation in the country.

I would like to strongly advise you to look at a base of 10% to 12% as the minimum to be considered. I recognize that is high according to some systems, and I know some people think it's an anti-Green suggestion. That is certainly not my perspective. I happen to be in Ms. May's riding and consider myself extremely blessed to have her as my MP.

I think if you designed a system that removed the need for strategic voting, then you would see a Green Party vote well above that, or at least at that 10% to 12%. I don't think it's a barrier to any of the parties that are running today.

I have two other quick points.

I would like to underline Mr. Duncan's concern about the size of rural ridings. As somebody who has lived in two rural ridings, it is a major issue. I'm sure Mr. Cullen is well aware of the fact that at least in interior British Columbia there are many times in winter when you literally cannot move around in a riding.

My last quick point is that I'm terrified of electronic voting. There is no secure electronic system. If you want to go to something more convenient, please consider a mail-in ballot.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Murray, go ahead.

[Sean Murray, As an Individual]

I have three things to say.

The first thing is that I'll agree with the young man before that the voting age should be lowered to 17 for the same reasons. For me, 17, and for 16, maybe we'll think about that later.

The second thing I want to emphasize and make sure of is that no matter what change we make, if you win your seat in your riding, you keep it. You won't be arbitrarily displaced by some mechanism.

The third thing is that, ideally, if the Green Party has support from 2% of Canadians, it should have 2% of the seats in Parliament. We need to create some sort of handicapping mechanism to make that work somehow. The details would have to be worked out. If 2% of the population votes for the Green Party, then 2% of the MPs should be Green.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Black—

[A voice]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I was advised by my member of Parliament to come here this evening, early, to get on the list to speak. This list was compiled in the afternoon and was probably long before 6:45 this evening. I would like that to be take into consideration if there are people who don't show. Maybe they can get together with the clerk....

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What's your name, sir?

[A voice]

Cliff Plumpton.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Mr. Black, and then Mr. Slanina.

[A voice]

You didn't say when the list was cut off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm going to consult and get back to you. Go ahead, sir.

[Francis Black, As an Individual]

I want to say a couple of different things.

One is that I've had the experience of having the candidate I voted for get elected, and then in the very next election having to go and campaign against that very same candidate. That's happened to me a couple of times. That's when I quit. I no longer belong to any political parties, because I've just given up on being betrayed.

I don't see how any electoral change is going to change that, but I still favour some electoral change. I like the mixed proportional representation system myself. That's what I would support.

One thing I will say about the current system is that it is honest. When I was a member of a political party, I would do things like volunteer as a scrutineer. I've done it several times for no pay and no benefits at all. It was an interesting experience. I found that the members of other political parties were professional. We worked together. We even did the lists for each other, though we were miles apart, supposedly. We took it as a service to democracy, and I think that's an important thing.

One of the things I'm very concerned about as a former scrutineer is voting machines. Some of the systems that you're proposing involve the use of voting machines. As we saw in 2000 in the United States, and again in 2004, some very hinky things can happen with voting machines, and some very bad people can get elected. Therefore, I'm very concerned about that.

I support a post-referendum. I think that is a very good idea. It's an idea that I've heard here, and I think it would add legitimacy to it. I don't think that this is so complicated an issue that a pre-referendum is necessary, but a post-referendum would be a really good idea.

The other thing I would like to ask you to consider is a negative option ballot. A negative option ballot will work in any electoral system, and it's based on my own personal experience of not really being happy with some of the promises and things that politicians are saying. There's often a candidate that I really don't want to see get elected, and I would really like to ask the returning officer for a negative option vote, which would take away a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, Mr. Black, I think that's a great way to end. You can't do better than that, sir.

Mr. Slanina, go ahead, sir.

[Samuel Slanina, As an Individual]

Hi there. I really appreciate having a chance to speak to my members of Parliament.

I would like to speak from personal experience. For the past 10 years or so, I've felt very betrayed by our system, and at times I've felt like giving up.

Do we live in a democracy or has our democracy been taken over by a dictator?

I'm really heartened to see that even though the current Liberal government has the same type of false majority the previous government had, at least there is effort to do what you promised us when you were voted in. I really appreciate that.

I felt very sad when my young daughter, who is in her twenties, went to vote for the first time. I think it was in the election before last. She was all gung-ho. We're in Saanich, and she was really happy that she was going to be able to vote for Elizabeth May. Unfortunately, we were a couple of blocks outside of the riding, and so she wasn't able to.

I had to explain to her that if she wanted to vote for these types of principles, she would have to have to vote strategically, because we have to make sure that the votes are on the side of the issues we're interested in, such as the environment, and so on. We're not going to get that if the vote is split three ways, where 60% of us want something, but the guy with 38% gets in despite the fact that the majority of the people want what the two other groups want.

I think that speaks very much to the issue of minority governments. A lot of people pooh-pooh them, but I think some great things have happened in Canada as a result, like our Canada Health Act, and as Nathan Cullen referred to earlier, our social safety net, and so on. A lot of really wonderful things can happen in a democracy when we get much more collaboration, and people are forced to do that when they have minorities rather than majorities. I think this is a good thing for Canada, and it might be facilitated by proportional representation. Lots of the countries that have this and indeed most advanced democracies like it.

I really like the idea of not having a referendum until we are a couple of times in, so that people have a chance to experience it. In my experience talking to people, most of them have no clue. When I ask people if they saw the leaders debate the previous day, they say that they were too busy watching hockey. Unfortunately, that's the level that most people are at.

I'm really grateful, and I hope that you do have multi-party support for doing what you're doing and reforming the—