Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 28th, 2016

[Timothy Jones, As an Individual]

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak.

You should have a handout which I've made up, and is in both languages. The first page shows the five ridings in the Fraser Valley, one of which I live in, and it shows the results of the 2015 election. The coloured portion of each chart represents the votes that succeeded in electing a member, and those other areas with the white sections show those votes that failed to elect anyone, not active votes. You can see from the material there that 44.2% of the votes actually actively elected, and 55.8% of the votes failed to elect anyone.

Turning the page, I chose to amalgamate the five first-past-the-post ridings into one multi-member district, and set a single transferable vote threshold. I found that I could elect two Conservative MPs, two Liberal MPs, and one New Democrat MP. You can see from this that we have a proportional result arising simply from the fact that we changed to a multiple member district. Because there are five members in the district, the competition between candidates is significant. Candidates are inclined to represent their voters very strongly.

The single transferable vote is a representative system. Because of the multiple winners, they each have a direct mandate from their voters and are responsible to them. The increased competition for seats loosens the party control over the MPs and increases choices for voters. STV is proportional. It's representational, primarily, and proportion follows naturally in this system. No additional compensation is needed to secure the proportion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. I think this visual is very powerful in terms of making the point about STV, and I thank you for distributing this. It's useful.

Mr. Anderson.

[Maxwell Anderson, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, I'm surprisingly going to propose to you that your committee add an emphasis on deciding which voting system politicians would like.

To begin, the biggest problem is that half the voters do not have the representative they want in Ottawa. Any PR system would improve on that. Another big problem is regionalism, such as the shortage of opposition members from the Atlantic region and of government members from the Prairies. Any PR system would solve that.

Among the family of PR systems, the experts most commonly favour mixed member proportional. Fair Vote Canada's version, called rural-urban PR, would give excellent results. Another version, Sean Graham's dual member mixed proportional, is closer to our present system.

I will also mention a primitive version of STV we are submitting to the committee, called neighbourhood shared voting. Neighbourhood shared voting is exactly the same as our current system, except that the ballots which have not helped to elect the winner are shared out among the neighbouring ridings using two simple rules. Computer simulations of the last five elections show neighbourhood shared voting produces PR and fixes the regionalism problem.

The three PR systems I've mentioned have minor differences in terms of sorting out nominations and servicing constituents, and they will produce virtually the same results once members get to Ottawa.

Therefore, I believe the committee should recommend whichever PR system you feel would be most liked by the politicians and voters. I emphasize the need for the politicians to like the system because that is crucial to attracting the best candidates.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Hutcheon.

[David A. Hutcheon, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, and committee members, my name is David Hutcheon. I am a co-author of a brief proposing change to a version of mixed member proportional that has one single vote and no lists. If you haven't already read our 3,000-word submission, I have a shorter version in the from of a 17-syllable haiku available on request.

I wish to make two brief comments.

First, I view alternative voting and closed party lists as cures that are worse than the disease, and I would vote against them if offered the opportunity.

This brings me to my second point: a referendum is necessary, but not necessarily a referendum. The voting system has a huge impact on the success, even the survival of political parties. It may be impossible to convince the public that a change was made or opposed for anything but partisan advantage. Public acceptance may require a referendum. The kind of referendum should be something akin to the Prince Edward Island multiple choice, with the result to be serving as guidance to the politicians afterwards, the government and opposition. That may mean you don't make the 2019 deadline. If that happens, it's still better to do the job right than to try to meet some artificial deadline.

Thank you for your attention and thank you for all your hard work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, sir.

Lesley Bernbaum, could you come to the mike, please.

We'll ask Ms. Munro to speak for two minutes.

[Krista Munro, As an Individual]

My name is Krista Lee Munro. I live here in the west end, in the federal riding of Vancouver Centre. I'm a public transit bus operator in the city and am an elected representative and activist in my union, Unifor. My union work includes education, working on social justice and political action, including work on elections and electoral issues.

I'm here today because my membership is ready for electoral reform. At our national convention in August, delegates representing over 300,000 Canadians voted overwhelmingly to support change to our electoral system. We don't want to have to counsel our members to vote strategically in the next federal election. We want change.

I'm not going to offer my opinion on what form of proportional representative voting I think we should use. It's not an area I know a lot about. I'm not a political scientist.

What I am is a bus driver, and in this town bus drivers do know a lot about referendums. I hear every day from people who voted yes in our transit referendum and people who voted no in our transit referendum. Both groups of people are unhappy. Referendums don't work for complex issues. It won't work for this.

Unifor doesn't want a referendum or other process that will make proportional voting impossible at the next election. I don't want a referendum. I have here a loonie I got in my change earlier today. It commemorates 100 years of women having the vote in Canada. I'm not going to get into the big asterisk that should be asterisked, that not all women got that vote until 1960, but what I am going to say is if that referendum were called in 1916 or 1917, or 1949 or 1953, or any of the other times select groups of women were granted the right to vote, it would not have passed. It would have taken years and years for those voting rights to be granted. We don't have years and years. This opportunity is once in a lifetime and may never come again.

A large majority of MPs elected in our most recent federal election stated they were committed to electoral reform. They were elected with a clear mandate to eliminate first past the post, to govern. The Canadian people have already voted on this issue.

Again, I and Unifor are calling for a new electoral system where we maintain a local representative, where our politicians are elected proportionally to the votes they received, and where every vote counts.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Just a moment, please.

I would just remind people to not speak too quickly for the benefit of the interpreters. A normal pace is fine.

Go ahead, Ms. Bernbaum.

[Lesley Bernbaum, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, an impassioned bus driver is a tough act to follow. We have to appreciate our bus drivers.

I have a slightly different point of view.

I've listened really well today. This is the first one I've attended, and it's been really interesting. I can appreciate the tough challenge you all have.

However, I feel strongly that ultimately, the decision on changing essentially how we vote, our democratic system here, has to be made by the people, has to be made by Canadian voters, and not simply politicians. We've heard that. We can't have political parties making decisions as to what the ultimate picture is going to look like.

Now, I don't have an opinion for you on what I think is going to be best, whether we stick with the current system or adopt something else, but I'm concerned—and I've heard it today—about the timeline for your process. I think people do need to be informed. People need to be educated, and we have to have a chance to have that dialogue.

I would like to make sure that the cart, so to speak, is not put before the horse. I feel that having a referendum of some sort—and the challenge will be what question to ask people—is the way to go first. I'm not necessarily in favour of presenting an alternative and then asking people to say if they like it or not.

What would be really terrific is to ask people if they wish change or would they like to stay with the current system, and if they wish change, to ask what change would make the most sense.

That's the bottom line. The national collective voters' voice must count and come first, and from my point of view, that means to do some kind of referendum. I highly urge you to consider that and not allow the timeline to interfere.

Also, don't make budget an issue. The government spends money. If the process is needed, let's do it, but let's do it right. I've heard people say that. We can do it well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

If Mr. Forster can take mike number 1, we'll move on now with Mr. Mills, for two minutes, please.

[Maurice Mills, As an Individual]

Hello. I'm Maurice Mills, second vice-president of Unifor Local 114. I won't enumerate the seven questions we were asked to ask ourselves.

Electoral reform is important to all Canadians. In the last several elections, a party that got 37% of the vote formed a minority government, and a party that got 39% of the vote formed a majority government. The result is that 60% of the people who voted have no power in Parliament.

This system dates back several hundred years, to a time when the majority of the population was illiterate and did not vote. Decisions were made by an elite class that held all the power. The only strength to this system is that it is old, and the majority of voters understand how it works. In a time when the majority of voters can not only read and write but are also computer literate, the system needs to change. An educated population is not satisfied with a winner-take-all system. The majority of voters want to vote for a candidate who represents their beliefs and see those beliefs represented in Parliament. Canadians have demanded proportional representation.

One of the negatives about the first-past-the-post system is strategic voting. Ironically, the Liberals formed a majority government in the 42nd Parliament because of strategic voting. There was a significant movement in 2015 to stop Harper. Voters were encouraged to vote for the candidate in the riding who was most likely to defeat the Conservative candidate, regardless of their political affiliation. Many whose political beliefs are more closely tied to the NDP or Green Party voted Liberal in order to defeat the Conservative government. The Liberals would do well to remember that works both ways.

One of the reasons the Liberal Party was the strategic candidate of choice was Justin Trudeau's promise that in the next federal election, every vote would count. Every vote will count only with proportional representation. In the 2015 election, the Liberals got 54% of the seats with 39% of the vote, and 100% of the power.

Democracy works best when every vote has an equal voice. The whole of Canada should be represented, not just the interests of the governing party. The present system does not give every MP equal opportunity to represent the constituents or those who voted for a second party or a defeated candidate. The only way to ensure that every vote counts is through proportional representation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Forster, for two minutes, please.

[Ian Forster, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I'll save some time, because what I was going to say is very similar to what Mr. Jewell had to say.

I think it's really important to allow proportional representation. There seems to be a very simple way to do it, perhaps simpler than his method, and this would be if people go to vote and they vote one person who's a member of a party, and when they all get together and sort themselves into their parties those parties have votes that are based on the proportion of the election that was most recently held.

In other words, he used the example of the Green Party, and one person in that case would have the same proportion as the number of votes that they had. One difference that I might add is to have two votes. One would be the name of the people in the riding and one would be the party. Then you would have the choice of voting. They don't have to be the same.

At the end of the day, you would have the person who had the most votes who would be elected in that riding, but when they assembled together in Ottawa, it would be based on the result of the parties at that time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Open list is what you'd like to see.

Mr. Grinshpan.

[Myer Grinshpan, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, my fellow Canadians.

I would like to explain why changing the electoral system without a referendum sets a dangerous precedent. Without a referendum, we will provide a catalyst for the breakup of Canadian Confederation.

I remind everyone that in the 1995 Quebec vote, the separatists lost their drive by 1.16%. I still remember the words of a prominent separatist who proclaimed, and I quote, “the next time we get in power, we will separate unilaterally.”

If this government changes our current system without a referendum, this will give the separatists a dangerous precedent that they can unilaterally separate without consulting citizens. The Wild Rose Party will use the same principle to break Alberta away from Canada. This process of unilateral change is illegitimate without a referendum.

I respectfully demand that every Canadian have an identical opportunity to have their point of view counted. This view goes back as far as 1948. When Newfoundland decided to join Confederation, it was done by a referendum. Remember that our Canadian Confederation has survived many obstacles in almost 150 years. Are we ready to cause the breakup of our great experiment in coexistence?

Remember, united we stand, divided we fall. Do not accept the argument that we are a strong Confederation. If we break with legal precedence, one mistake can get this Confederation to fall apart. Are we ready to watch the breakup of Confederation and break up our great country?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Huntley, please.

[David Huntley, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

I'm a professor emeritus of physics at Simon Fraser University, and a member of a small group of citizens called Burnaby/New Westminster Citizens for Voting Equality.

We've been working on getting electoral systems in place at several levels of government over the past nine years, systems that are fair to the voters. The basics are very simple. Every voter should have the same legislated power. I want you to put that into your mind. Every voter should have the same legislated power. If anyone doesn't agree with that, you're going to have to come out and tell me who should have more legislated power than others. I don't think it can be done.

The most important function of a member of Parliament is voting on legislation. An MP cannot vote yes to a bill with the right hand, and no with the left hand. An MP cannot represent everyone in his or her electoral district. In practice, an MP only represents about half the constituents. From this it follows necessarily that an electoral district must have several members of Parliament, multi-member districts.

There are about 50,000 actual voters in an electoral district. What we need to do is to form groups of 50,000 voters who have similar ideas, similar values, and each group to elect their representative, each group to elect their MP. This can be done with suitable ballots on which the voters indicate their preferences.

The best known system for doing this is STV. Voting in it is simple. The ballot has a list of candidates and the voter ranks some of them first, second, third, etc., as many as they want. The counting system is designed to accomplish the objective. STV is a candidate-centred system that gives the voters the most power. Thoughtful and popular independents can readily get elected without great expense.

It gives a party MP the power to exercise independence from the party since, if ejected, he or she can be re-elected as an independent. In these respects STV is superior to MMP, which is a party-centred system.

STV was the voters' choice in British Columbia in 2004.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll hear now from Ms. Milner.

[Gail Milner, As an Individual]

My first concern is the lack of publication for the hearings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The lack of what? I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

[Gail Milner]

The lack of publication for the hearings. I had to go looking, and the people in this room are those who went looking. Anyway, I acknowledge that it's not the committee members' territory, so you're not at fault in that, but I'm just disappointed.

Forty years ago I remember explaining to my then eligible-to-vote daughter about the split vote and what happens, and trying to get that through her head. Now, 40 years later, my granddaughter will be eligible to vote for the first time in the next federal election.

I am not a member of any political party, so I'll probably misquote Jack Layton who said something to the effect that if we wait until we have everything perfect, we won't get anything done, so try to go with what we have.

This committee represents Parliament. You're getting so much more information than I am able to comprehend, a lot of the public is not able to comprehend. I have to trust you. I do trust you. I trust that you're going to work together, that you'll come up with consensus, that there will be give and take, that you will recommend to Parliament, hopefully on a non-partisan basis, what you feel is best. Make the recommendation to Parliament, have a free vote in Parliament, and then have Elections Canada educate the public.

Speaker number four stated not necessarily a referendum. I'm actually against a referendum for a lot of reasons that you have heard before, but if necessary have a referendum, but not this or that. Give a choice at least.

Good luck and thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

Mr. Tunner, it's your turn.

[Alex Tunner, As an Individual]

My name is Alex Tunner. I'm a retired engineer.

The first-past-the-post system has three problems. One is false majorities, where you often elect a candidate with 30% of the vote and sometimes even 28%. It has a relatively poor proportionality, which is point number two. Point number three is the question of lost votes.

Why not start by thinking about the objectives and values a reformed system should have? I have a paper, which I've left at the front desk, and have listed eight, but you can pick the ones you want. Once you've set your objectives, only then start focusing on the kind of system. I find that the discussions are often meandering. We have some new ideas, but a lot of the discussion meanders around AV, PR, MMP, STV, and so on. In regard to my multiple objectives, let's devise a system that balances these objectives.

In order to give this scheme a name, I've called it balanced voting. How about a made-in-Canada system that doesn't necessarily replicate what is going on elsewhere?

Objective number one is democracy. As Mr. Loenen said, it should be a candidate-based system. I'm not keen on having unelected party backrooms make up voting lists for us.

Majority rule is important. My idea of a balanced vote has two different aspects to it. One is at the riding level, where we'd have a first choice and a second choice. I don't think a third choice is valid because it may not actually be a proper choice. In the second step, you take the riding results to do what's called a proportionality check. The proportionality check takes the losing candidates from the ridings and lists them in decreasing order of their per cent vote, and there's a formula for selecting, at large, top-up candidates from the list.

Everybody has run the gauntlet of constituency contests—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are you able to give this to our analysts?

[Alex Tunner]

Yes.