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.
9:15 p.m.
As an Individual
There were two letters in The Globe and Mail a few years ago, during the past Parliament, not the current one. One talked about the number of bloody fools there were in Parliament. The other letter in response said that well, there are bloody fools in the electorate and they deserve to be represented like any other group.
Thank you.
9:15 p.m.
Ellena Lawrence As an Individual
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'd also like to give a shout out to everyone who came out and wasn't able to get off work at 3:30 the way I was to come out and talk. I know that especially a lot of young people were unable to talk in this hearing.
I'm 24. I've had the privilege of voting in two elections. My vote has never counted. My vote will never count because of where I live. That breaks my heart. Our system is broken. Fifty per cent of the people who voted in the last election do not have proper representation in Parliament. That makes me extremely scared and sad, because we are facing issues as a nation that are going to be hard and complicated and long to fix. If not everyone's voice is at the table, not everyone will be represented. The number of aboriginal, immigrant, and women representatives in Parliament right now is inadequate considering what our society looks like.
I believe a proportional system would give us an opportunity to rectify some of that lack of diversity. But I do urge the committee to make sure that the process is legitimate. I do urge you to have a citizens' council, because this is a complicated issue and I don't think a referendum will work well unless you're willing to invest a lot in education. I spent over 20 hours prepping for a 15-minute presentation that just skimmed the surface on the different electoral systems for the youth town hall last night. I'm pretty sure people left with more questions than answers.
This is not something a quick referendum can fix. I think a citizens' assembly with lots of consultation and education is the right way.
Thank you.
9:20 p.m.
Stephen Bohus As an Individual
Thank you very much. My name is Stephen Bohus.
I first wanted to point out that because of the geography, because of where I live, I really don't have a voice. It doesn't matter if I vote, if I stay at home, if I vote for the incumbent, if I vote for someone in opposition, or if I spoil my ballot. The reason is that I live in Vancouver East. Vancouver East is a party stronghold, and my vote doesn't make a difference because of my geography.
For my vote to make a difference, I believe that a true proportional representation system is what we need. We have to leave the system of first past the post, which I never consented to, move away from the system from the middle ages to a system of PR.
I believe that any system of PR would be excellent. A single transferable vote would be excellent. Let me suggest that we look at some of the examples in European countries and some of the EU parliaments where they use a list system. In a list system, a minimum threshold for Canada would be to divide one by the number of seats in the House of Commons. That's about 0.3%. If a party receives 0.3%, they get one seat. I think if it's 0.6%, they get two seats and so on. That's proportional: one vote and one representative. It's fair.
How can we do this with a list system? I'll give you one example. If you take five ridings, put them into one and make one super-riding balanced for population, every party puts forward five candidates, nominates five candidates in order of preference. When a voter votes for a party, the first party that receives 20% of the votes will have the first person on their list receive a seat. If party B receives 20% of the votes, they get a seat. If an independent receives 20% of the votes, they also get a seat. That way you get the top end.
At the bottom end, any party that gets 0.3% meets the minimum threshold and gets a seat, and then you would use mathematical formulas to balance for geography and different parts of the country.
9:20 p.m.
Paul Keenleyside As an Individual
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and honourable members.
Let me tell you a story about multiple member ridings. I'm very much against multi-member ridings. This riding that you're in right now used to be called Vancouver—Burrard, and it was a two member riding at the provincial level. Just over in another part of Vancouver was another two member riding, Vancouver—Point Grey. What used to happen is that the candidates used to be nominated, and then they used to be elected in pairs. In other words, two MLAs from the same party were elected to the constituency. That worked up until 1988 when there was a by-election. What happened after that is one of the candidates who was elected in 1986 stayed, and the other one who left was replaced by an MLA from another party. Now the problem with these multiple member ridings is that you will never, and I will repeat this, you will never get all of the MPs from the same riding from different parties working together in the same constituency office.
For example, we have five people over on this side of the table. Let's consider that as a fictional riding. They will not work in the same constituency office. You will have four of them working together, but the fifth one will not, and that will create confusion for the voters. Who do they go to for help? Who do they go to for assistance? They will go to the MP of the party of government, but which one?
Then you have a problem of ego. You have a problem of one MP trying to get ahead of the other MP within the same party, so that's a big problem. It will cause a lot of trouble at the party level because, I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I've seen it from every party, and in some cases, the local riding association can't even handle a simple nomination meeting. I've seen it.
With that, ladies and gentlemen, please join with me and all Canadians by saying, Mr. Trudeau, give us that referendum.
9:25 p.m.
Dave Hayer As an Individual
Thank you very much.
My name is Dave Hayer. Actually I'm a former MLA from the B.C. assembly from 2001-13. I was involved in three different elections, and I won all of them by more than 50%.
I can tell you I never had any issues that 100% of the voters, the constituents, supported. There are people who are happy with the government policy, people who are not happy with the government policy, and people who are neutral.
When I was an MLA, we had two referendums on electoral reform in the province of British Columbia. The first one was in 2005, and we had set a limit of a minimum voting of 60% in order to pass the referendum. The first time, 58% said yes and 42% said no. Since it was so close to 60%, the premier at that time and the assembly members decided to have a second referendum to see if people really wanted to change. So in 2009 a second referendum was held. At that time, only 39% voted yes, and 61% voted against it. At least people had the right to say why they wanted it.
The reason they wanted to have a referendum and they wanted the change was that in 2001 when we won the election with the Liberal as a majority, we won 77 of 79 seats. But to have a good democracy, my personal belief is that you must have a good opposition in order to keep everybody in check. But in the second election in 2005, the results changed, because the Liberals went down to 46 seats and the NDP to 33. Therefore, people were not so keen about changing the voting system.
I have met with many people from different parts of the world. They have different electoral systems. No one is always happy with the electoral system, including ours and other ones. All I say is, if you really want to have a change in our democratic system, please have a referendum and have the majority of the people vote for it across Canada. Otherwise, you will be changing our democracy without having a democratic system.
People are smarter than politicians. They can understand and they will vote for the right system, as long as you educate them and make sure you provide enough information.
Thank you very much.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much for sharing your direct experience with those two initiatives.
After Ms. Lockhart, we'll have our former colleague from the House of Commons, Andrew Saxton.
Go ahead, Ms. Lockhart.
9:30 p.m.
Elizabeth Lockhart As an Individual
Thank you, committee, for this opportunity to speak.
I'll say at the outset that I disagree with anyone who characterizes this process as democratic reform. Whatever reform results from this process is anything but democratic. It is the antithesis of democratic, in fact. Sure, you're consulting with Canadians about values they would like to see in their electoral system, but you're not consulting, and indeed have no intention of consulting, with Canadians about the process that you'll eventually propose. There won't be a referendum. A referendum would make it democratic.
Whatever option or alternative the committee proposes, there's one option that you won't be proposing, that you're not even allowed to consider. You're not going to even give it any merit. That's the current system. Forcing the committee to propose anything but first past the post is unnecessarily prescriptive. It's not democratic, and it's not Canadian. Whatever we think about first past the post, it should be, in my submission, something this committee should consider or should be allowed to consider.
To be genuinely consultative, the committee must conduct a national referendum on one or both questions. First is whether Canadians actually want a change to the current system. Second is whether Canadians want to adopt the system that's ultimately proposed by the committee. That might amount to democratic reform.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that asking Canadians about the values they think are important or inviting Canadians to tell you they feel compelled to vote strategically is actually democratic reform.
I'm aware that the committee has invited each member of Parliament to conduct town hall sessions in their respective constituencies, and to provide a report to the committee by the middle of October. I've attended several town halls, during the summer, I might add, when most people were away. In one case, a total of 187 people attended the town hall in a riding of 88,000 voters. Few of those 187 people were under the age of 60, and few had English as a second language. So whatever report results from that riding town hall will not be reflective of the majority of those constituents' views.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
9:30 p.m.
Andrew Saxton As an Individual
It's nice to see you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for coming all the way to the west coast to be with us tonight.
Thank you for all the work you are doing for us.
My name is Andrew Saxton. I'm the former member of Parliament for North Vancouver. I'm not here tonight to advocate for any particular system. I'm here to advocate tonight for a legitimate and defendable process.
I want to remind the committee, because nobody seems to have brought this up, that the Chief Electoral Officer came out with his report today, in which he said that a simple majority of parliamentarians should not be enough to change our electoral system. He suggests a special majority of 75% of MPs or a national referendum should be the standard. He goes on to say that no party or government should be allowed to change the playing field without widespread support.
Every single jurisdiction in Canada that has contemplated making this change has decided to take it to a vote of the people. This is a strong precedent. To go against this precedent would be to go against the decisions of these democratically minded provinces.
But don't take my word for it. Here's a quote: “Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada...”. Who said that? It was the Honourable Stéphane Dion in 2012.
Some people have said we should leave it to our MPs because we've elected MPs to make tough decisions, and this is just another one of those tough decisions. But it is not just another one of those tough decisions. This is a decision that directly affects the future of how those MPs are elected.
In the private sector this would be considered a conflict of interest. In fact, those people would have to recuse themselves from even being part of the decision.
Some people have said that the cost is prohibitive, but a decision of this magnitude should have no price on it. If changing the system is such a good idea, then it shouldn't be too difficult to convince Canadians to agree.
I want to conclude by emphasizing that the only defendable process, the only process that could not be challenged, would be to allow Canadians to decide for themselves how they want their system to change.
Thank you.
9:35 p.m.
Tamara Jansen As an Individual
Good evening. My name is Tamara Jansen and I'm from the Langley—Aldergrove area. I, too, am a child of an immigrant, as is my husband. I can say along with the other person who said it that Canada is an amazing place and we're very thankful to our grandparents for choosing in the 1950s to come to Canada and make this their home.
We've had some amazing opportunities. In 1991 we took over the family farm with two employees, my husband and I, and when we retired we had 200 employees. Canada has given us incredible opportunities and for this reason I am very passionate to preserve what makes Canada such a great place.
I have been going to different town halls. I went to the first one with MP John Aldag in Cloverdale, because I didn't know if there was going to be another one. I found it unfortunate that for the first hour and a half I felt like I was being lectured about PR. I found that a bit disconcerting. But I was able to say something, so that was awesome. Then, of all things, there was another one held only five minutes from my house. It was held on the very last sunny Saturday of the summer. My kids were at the lake, so I thought, well, we're bored and we could do something, and Justin wants us to be there, so we did go to that one as well.
It was interesting. Again, we had a lecture for about an hour and a half on what made PR the right thing to do. Interestingly enough, a young fellow came up to the mike and turned around and he pointed at me and said, “I know that lady. She's a Conservative.” It didn't bother me at all, because I think this is a wonderful opportunity to preserve what makes Canada a great place.
I have to say, from what I can tell, the statistics on PR show that it encourages single-issue parties and coalitions that are sure to cost taxpayers more and get less done. As a business owner, the last thing on my Christmas wish list is a bigger government and more taxes. Also, after 150 years of democratic voting, the existing electoral system has precedent and precedent matters in a country built on rule of law.
I would love to encourage you to let Canadians not be considered too ignorant to vote in a referendum.
Thank you.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
9:35 p.m.
Les Pickard As an Individual
Thank you.
You've been tasked with developing a new electoral system for the country. I ask you to please consider the possible negative consequences of the proportional representation system. Under that system it's easy to look at what the House of Commons would look like right now, based on the past election. For example, the Green Party would have more than one seat, which I think would be a good thing. However, this new system is going to be in place for possibly 50 or 100 years, so I think it's important to look at what could happen in the future, something that we may not even visualize now, based on the nice people we have in government currently.
I was in Israel last year when Netanyahu was forming his coalition. I know this isn't Israel, but you never know what Canada might look like in 50 years. Israel, in my opinion, is now held hostage by right-wing extremist minority parties. Whatever system we have, I would like to make sure that it doesn't allow coalitions that would include extreme parties that might lead us in a direction we don't want to go.
Thank you.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
9:40 p.m.
Marc Schenker As an Individual
Thank you.
I want to say that I consider myself a pretty average Canadian. I think Canada is a great example of a western democracy. Therefore, I think it's only right to have something as critical as changes to our electoral system decided by a referendum. I want a referendum.
It's extremely disturbing to me when Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, who won only 39% of the vote, which isn't even close to a majority, think they have some sort of mandate to unilaterally push through changes to our electoral system, without a referendum and with only some public consultation.
Furthermore, all the polls asking Canadians if they want a referendum or not unanimously show that a majority of Canadians always want a referendum on any changes to our electoral system.
Here's an example. An Ipsos poll from last month, just this past August, shows that 55% of Canadians want a referendum, while a Global News poll from this past May shows that a stunning 73% of Canadians want a referendum. In light of these numbers, the only decent thing that the Trudeau Liberals really should do is capitulate to the will of the majority of Canadians and agree to a referendum, period.
As a millennial—this is more of a personal note—I'm totally disillusioned in and disappointed by the insistence of Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party on changing our electoral system without a direct vote. This runs counter to their so-called sunny ways disposition and approach in last year's federal election. The way I see it, Trudeau and the Liberals, after a year in power, now are just trying to make a shameless, naked power grab by potentially fixing the electoral system to their advantage. I completely reject that. That's why I want a referendum: so that all Canadians can make a direct decision on the changes to our electoral system that have been proposed by the Liberals.
Thank you very much.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
9:40 p.m.
Ben Cornwell-Mott As an Individual
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I first want to say thanks to all of you for being here. It's pretty late and you guys are still paying attention, so that's really good. I have a lot of respect for what you guys do. I'm going to dive right in.
The electoral reform committee has been given less than six months to provide recommendations to change our electoral system, the one we've been using for well over a century, for 150 years, I think.
While I'm deeply concerned about the pace we're going at and also about how many Canadians can be consulted in this time without having a referendum, I'd like to highlight a few other issues.
First, by focusing on these replacement voting systems right from the start of the process, we're breaking down the question to Canadians in terms of what electoral system best benefits the party they support, really, instead of first trying to establish what Canadian values are and what we want in an electoral system. When the primary question of the committee becomes so politicized because of its mandate, the legitimacy of its recommendations obviously comes into question. That's going to cause a lot of Canadians to feel even more disenfranchised with the system they have. If the reason we're doing this is to engage voters more, let's be clear: this is undermining that goal.
Second, while some of the proposed reforms will have the desired effect of better representing voters' intentions on a macro scale, there is a negative effect associated with those options. I really don't think they address the greater cause of voter dissatisfaction, which is that people's views don't really match the policies of any one political party. Voters are forced to whittle down to a single decision their opinions on hundreds of issues and on the candidates. I know that most of my friends plug their noses when they go to vote because they don't really like any of the parties, strategic voting aside. Even political leaders and party leaders have trouble agreeing with every one of the policy decisions of their parties.
I don't think any of the proposed solutions really address this fundamental flaw in our system. I'm afraid that without letting voters express that type of viewpoint with the ballot, disenfranchisement is going to continue to be a problem.
To conclude, I'd encourage the committee to really review its timetable. Even though the deadline to implement changes for the next election is coming very close, we still have three more years in the current term to actually pass a law. Please take the time to broadly consult Canadians and come to a conclusion.
Thank you.
9:45 p.m.
Jacquelyn Miller As an Individual
Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Speaking for myself, I've had a very active involvement in electoral politics.
First, a friend of mine hosted one of the sessions recommended by your committee with a group of friends last week. It was very informative. We spoke about all of the issues, but most importantly, I want to talk about lowering the voting age to 16. We had a group of about 10 people speaking about this, and about one or two were in favour of this before we discussed it at length, and then afterward everyone changed their mind to be in support.
The key argument that persuaded them was that if we lowered the voting age to 16, while people are thinking about learning how to vote and while they're in the learning environment, the learning environment will accommodate itself to inform them, and they will take on a practical education approach, which will get more people voting.
The current electoral system does not prioritize young people. It prioritizes property owning, older people, who are wonderful people, but young people and renters also need a voice. We need to lower the voting age to accommodate them, to change that structure, and to encourage greater voting participation rights overall.
Aside from that, I want to speak to the fact that during the last federal election, I was an organizer for the Green Party of Canada. I was involved with many volunteers, and as many people are asking you to make every vote count, I want you to make all active plural participation count as well. I worked with hundreds of volunteers and active participants across the province, and they all put their blood, sweat, and tears into it, and hearts were broken.
The feeling that their huge amounts of time that they put into their passion for the party that they believed in, that matters. I want you guys to hear that on behalf of the hundreds of volunteers that I worked for, many of whom have been in the room today, a number of whom have spoken, but a number of whom didn't. They're hard-working citizens. I want you to hear them.
September 28th, 2016 / 9:45 p.m.
Hans Sloman As an Individual
I'm 22 years old and I am from Germany. I grew up there, and was originally born here. So I did see and experience, vote and participate in the German system as well. It's not as hard as people make it look. That huge ballot is not something I've ever seen before. I don't know where that's from, maybe Berlin. But either way, even in the German system some people feel there isn't enough representation, and even we have protest votes. But you vote for a protest party; you don't just not vote, because there's always something that you can find in the system to voice your opinion.
Earlier we heard about the threats of extremist parties gaining public medium. Of course, if you have an opinion that is in the populace, and they can voice their opinions then, yes, you would have also extreme voices being heard. But they can be squashed and addressed in a proper forum. However, as we saw in Britain when the ruling elite, the politicians, got too out of touch with their populace because there wasn't that representation, we can be quite surprised when all of a sudden the populace behaves much differently from what we would have expected, based on their just not knowing what they actually wanted. In Germany right now, for me, that's scary. There is more right-wing party activity than normal, than when I grew up. But it's not random.
Here it can be fake. It can be blown out of proportion, like the example that was given earlier about what happened in Quebec. It would be really representing what's going on and the opinions of the voters at that particular time, and that means we need to educate. It shows us where we have to do the next work.
So, please move on to a representative system so that all voices can be heard and don't get lost as in the current system. They're either wasted or not heard. Thank you.