Evidence of meeting #32 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 votes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That would be helpful, because it's a bit easier to grasp in written form at that level.
As an Individual
It is in written form.
One final thing I'd like to say is that I consider this system that you have going here pretty good, because Parliament is pretty close to being a citizens' assembly. This is an honest, well-meaning group.
As an Individual
Let's collect the myriad of information that's been written over the years and let you be the chef in the kitchen who makes an omelette out of all the ingredients you have. There's no point in looking for unicorns.
Jason McLaren As an Individual
Thank you to the committee for coming all this way across the mountains to hear us.
I have three things that I'd like to tell you with my two minutes.
First of all, I've been voting since I was 18, and never once has the person I voted for been elected. Last year I held my nose and voted strategically, and even that person didn't win. That's 22 years of wasted votes. I figure I have about 10 elections left in me before I line up at that big polling station in the sky, and just once I would like my vote to count. Proportional representation can make that happen. Canada has about a 50% rate of wasted votes. Other countries that use PR have about a 5% rate. This is something we can do.
Second, I've felt left out of the divisive politics of the last decade at the federal level, and so have many of my contemporaries. We've had a minority of voters elect a false majority government that didn't do a good job of engaging with people who disagreed with it. The result was many laws and policies that made voters angry at the government. I would rather have a system where coalitions that may disagree with each other work out compromises that everyone can live with. Proportional representation can do this too.
Third, regarding a referendum, in the last decade I've voted in four provincial referendums, in Ontario and in British Columbia, and it turns out that they are a terrible way to make political decisions. They are polarizing; they provide a lot of misinformation, and they're just a way for politicians to avoid making tough decisions. Many of you promised to change the voting system. We elected you as representatives, and now you have our permission to make our votes count.
Thank you.
Gavin McGarrigle As an Individual
Thank you.
My name is Gavin McGarrigle and I live in Surrey, British Columbia. I'm a father of two children, ages 9 and 13. I'm also very active on transit issues and in my community of South Surrey—White Rock, I have a little bit of experience representing people in this province. Unifor represents about 27,000 people in British Columbia, and I'm the B.C. area director for that. I also have a bit of experience with referendums.
The fact of the matter is that power does not like change. To those who are arguing for a referendum, just be honest with Canadians. Tell everyone you don't want the system to change and that's why you want a referendum.
We've already had referendums here in British Columbia, and the fact of the matter is, a majority have already voted to change the voting system. In 2004, a majority of people in a majority of ridings voted to change the system, but because the politicians messed around with it, it required a supermajority, and it didn't pass. A few years later, there was another referendum. It was divisive.
Recently, you heard about the transit referendum. In that referendum, I served as the labour co-chair for the largest coalition that has ever been put together in British Columbia history, the Better Transit and Transportation Coalition. I can tell you for a fact, from being on the inside, that there is no way you can talk to people about all of the different projects and the nuances that you're hearing about here, in a referendum. It doesn't make sense.
Canadians have already voted to change the voting system. A majority of the parties have already said they want to see some system. The parties that won power and the Prime Minister clearly said that this would be the last election for the first-past-the-post system. That's what needs to be done, and that's what this committee needs to do. Take it back and put in the voting system, and don't give in to those who just want to keep things the same.
I don't want my 13-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son to stand up and say that they're not going to vote because it doesn't make a difference. We want more people engaged in the electoral system, not fewer.
Thank you very much for everything you're doing, and don't listen to the entrenched interests.
Liberal
Richard Prest As an Individual
Good afternoon.
I believe we have what we call a consensual democracy. I think that's what people want. The biggest threat to that democracy is corporate power. Corporatocracy, where money actually replaces the power of the vote, is not a functional democracy.
Attempts to undermine the law, regardless of motivation, are detrimental to the social order. One refusal to enforce the laws we have amounts to lawlessness. One person or an official can make law without justice through a process that is not the law at all. That is a dictatorship. Tomorrow, you may cry for the enforcement of these laws you refused to follow when it was to your benefit.
I think the real issue is what you get when you vote. They come up, and promises are made but never meant to be kept. That's what we get.
The two permits that were issued, including today's, are a prime example of that. We have a tremendous number of people against some of these projects, and it's understandable, but there's no bite to our vote. We elect these people, and then they just do what they want.
That is my point. I think we should think about what exactly we are getting, because we're on the hook for everything. We are the gold standard. We are the silver and the gold of this country. We pay for everything.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
Ms. Brown, the floor is yours for two minutes.
Valerie Brown As an Individual
I'm going to make 100% of us happy by being very short.
I have spent the last three months doing an online survey of all ages across Canada, and the consensus that I was able to conclude was that we must have a referendum that will also include at least three of the most simple aspects of electoral reform. They must be simple so that people are willing to understand them and vote on them.
Thank you to this wonderful committee for your work and your effort.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much and thank you for your kind words.
Mr. Keith Poore, you have the floor for two minutes.,
Keith Poore As an Individual
First, I'd like to thank everyone on the committee for travelling to Vancouver. I know it's a bit of a trek from Ottawa.
I'm a 26-year-old. I've gone through three elections. I've voted in only two. I couldn't get to the polling station in time for my first one, so I missed out.
The problem I had with going to the polling station the second and third times is that I didn't feel as though the candidates actually represented me. There was a candidate in the neighbouring riding, in Toronto Centre, that I felt represented me, and I wish I could have voted for that person. If we had multi-member ridings, I would have been happy voting for someone I wanted to vote for instead of either strategically voting, thinking about strategically voting, or voting my conscience while knowing I wasn't going to get what I wanted, a representative in Ottawa who would represent my point of view.
If we continue down this path of staying with first past the post or even if we switch over to AV, that will continue to happen. As a young person, I know this is resonating with other young people. I may not be represented in my current riding because the options are limited or the opinions are not stated or shared with the current candidate pool. I wish that we would move to a proportional system or move to a multi-member riding with a proportional system, and that way everyone's vote would be represented and the young generation could ensure that they would be represented in Parliament.
Thank you.
Bijan Sepehri As an Individual
I'm here because after having voted in every election I've ever been eligible for, I don't think first past the post has served us well. Some people have said it has served us well over the years, but I disagree. The system has been obsolete for nearly a century, since more than two parties have been on the scene.
More than two parties is the reality of the political scene. It is never going to go back to being just team red versus team blue. I think everybody needs to take that into account. I think the system must take that into account. Quite frankly, first past the post, of all the examples you've been given—and I'm sure there are dozens—is the worst of all possible systems. Even AV, a majoritarian system that it is, is preferable to it, but my own personal inclination is for a mixed member proportional or STV.
The main reason I'm here is that I've seen government after government after government with absolute power that they do not deserve. Quite frankly, a minority of votes should never be getting a majority of seats. I realize that each of you sitting here in the committee was elected under this system. This government and the previous one were elected under this system, but I think it takes a bit of self-sacrifice by our parliamentarians for the good of the nation. Get rid of first past the post immediately and decisively, and then have your further discussions or votes, whatever it may come to, about what replaces it.
Thank you.
Liberal
Alison Watt As an Individual
Bonjour. Good afternoon, everybody. I want to thank the committee for the work it's been doing over the summer.
For many years the first-past-the-post system has resulted in the election of governments that are supported by a minority of voters. By all measures, millions of votes don't count in elections. They're wasted votes, having no local or national impact. My own vote hasn't counted for decades. Then there are people who don't vote because they know that their vote can't possibly count.
My right to vote, as guaranteed in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is infringed upon by the current first-past-the-post system. My right to vote is negated by the fact that my vote doesn't actually count for anything. Therefore, I am being denied meaningful participation in Canadian democracy. If we go on denying millions of Canadians meaningful participation in the democratic process, particularly young Canadians, why should they believe in it? Why should they support it? How could they possibly trust it?
We urgently need to change our voting system to a proportional system that has local representation, and I personally prefer MMP or STV. I believe these changes would produce a more collaborative and effective Parliament.
Let us have proportionality in our electoral system for 2019, and—we haven't heard anything about this today—a reduction in the voting age to 16. Thank you.
Grant Fraser As an Individual
Good afternoon.
I live in Vancouver East. The first response I got to the request of my MP, Jenny Kwan, to be kept informed of the progress of this special committee, was to be told about the NDP proposal for electoral reform.
Please, stop lying to us about who you represent after the election. It's the parties not the constituents.
I think there are four problems of varying degrees with the work you're doing.
First, the Liberal position, that alternative vote is their preferred choice, is so bad that it has the possibility with some voter demographics of being worse than first past the post. Brilliant. That's a fine example of why not to trust Liberal politicians.
Next is the NDP proposal for MMP. I don't discount MMP completely, but most models are problematic, and that is certainly the case with the NDP concept.
If I had to choose between these two ideas in a referendum, I would almost certainly remain a proud non-voter, which brings me to point number three, a potential referendum. It is a bad idea. It would heavily rely not only on easily misinformed people who are unaware of how voting systems and governments function, but also large groups of people who support the electoral option that favours their party of choice.
The only idea worse than a referendum would be problem number four, leaving it in the hands of the 12 biased individuals with conflict of interest written all over their work to make a non-binding recommendation to a group where the power to make law undemocratically stems from less than 30% of registered voters and less than the number of people who, like myself, are so fed up with your processes that we opt out rather than condone your system.
Instead, what should be done? Simply impose a working system. Nothing is perfect, but it must contain three elements: use a ranked ballot, apply the Condorcet criteria, and ensure a large degree of proportional representation.
The Liberal and NDP proposals fail on two out of those three concepts, and the pathetic Conservative strategy to aid retention of the status quo fails on all three. Thank you.
Benjamin Harris As an Individual
Thank you for letting me speak today.
Canada is a constitutional democracy. While there is no constitutional precedent for how to make a decision on this matter, I find it strange that our electoral system is not defined in the Constitution and that the current party in power can change our electoral system.
There is a spectrum of political philosophies that exist in this world, often defined by left and right wing. In looking at the historic leadership in Canada, there is a definite movement back and forth—left to right, right to left, blue to red, red to blue—and this is a very consistent trend. This historic balance between political philosophies is good.
In this country, we have two major left-leaning parties and one major right-leaning party. Pure proportional representation would likely lead to continuous left-leaning politics. Just because one side of the political spectrum is not popular does not mean it ceases to exist. A balance between left and right makes Canada strong and politics healthy. Having one side of the political spectrum in power for too many consecutive years has historic precedent for being dangerous. The interests of society become greater than the freedoms of the individual.
Another concern of proportional representation is the creation of too many minority governments that refuse to work together. Nathan Cullen says that electoral reform has been in process since 1914. But what happens when there are 20 political parties represented that refuse to work together? No legislation would pass, and stagnation can agitate citizens.
I also have concerns about the function of the electoral reform committee. To paraphrase Mr. Cullen, he said that forming seats on a committee based on first- past-the-post proportions to reform first-past-the-post elections doesn't make sense. Also, having this meeting in a riding that voted 56% for one political party doesn't represent the wishes of all the citizens of this province.
I heard today that these meetings have had tremendous public turnout, but even if one million people came through that door today for all 12 publicly open electoral reform committee meetings, it would only represent 33% of the Canadian population.
To quote Marc Mayrand, "not a single government, whatever the majority is, should be able to unilaterally change the rules of election”. I believe that a constitutional democracy should pursue democracy to make changes as important as this one.
For the future of the prosperity of this country, this issue should be dropped or at the very least be put to a referendum. Also, saying that citizens can't learn electoral systems 101 is frankly a little bit insulting.
Thank you.
Colin Soskolne As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members for being here and for being so receptive to such a diversity of views. I hope that I can contribute out of reactions to four points that I've heard.
My name is Colin Soskolne. I'm a professor emeritus in epidemiology, which is the science that underlies the formation of rational public health policy, so I'm coming from that vantage point.
In public health sciences, we have a discipline called health promotion, and we use social marketing and health promotion techniques through focus groups. You might think of employing focus groups as a quicker way of getting feedback from large constituencies.
The principle of transparency is something that I've placed a lot of weight on, and I refer here to Dr. Kam's position about the trade-offs that he was talking about. If we were to ask ourselves the question, in anything we do, as to whose interests are best being served, then I think we all agree that we want to serve Canadians' interests best, not those of the elected politicians of the day. If we ask what the trade-offs are for each, the pros and cons of each of the different options before us, that makes each option more transparent to the public and I think that could be very helpful to give people insight because it is a complex area.
Regarding surveys or phoning people, Mr. Canseco made a point, if I heard him correctly, that his surveys were accessible or the people who participate in his surveys are people who have access to computers for online participation. I submit to you that in the old days of doing surveys, only people who had telephones were accessible to participate. This is hardly representative of the larger public. We have to be careful on that point too, just to be cautious.
The final point I'll make is that I haven't heard any word about compulsory voting in this conversation. I'm just wondering if that isn't worth including at some level.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It is part of our mandate to look at that, and it comes up from time to time, but it hasn't been a central topic.
Thank you very much.
I'd also like to thank everyone who took the mike. We're going to suspend now until 6:30 p.m. We have an hour and I'll see all the members back here at 6:25 p.m.