Electoral Reform Committee on Sept. 28th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

David Matthews.

[David Matthews, As an Individual]

Good evening, everyone. My name is David Matthews, and first I'd like to thank all members of the committee for committing their time to this important electoral reform process.

I believe the first-past-the-post system must come to an end, simply because it's not democratic. When you have a system in place where a ruling party with less than 40% of the vote can unilaterally sign off on a so-called free trade deal negotiated in secrecy, a deal that will have a profound outcome on the people of Canada, a deal that was not part of the party's electoral platform, you have a major problem.

The alternative must be simple to understand and understood to be democratic. In my view, that alternative is proportional representation. It's easy to understand that if your candidate is elected, he or she will be a member of Parliament. Also, it necessitates greater consultation and collaboration among the members of Parliament to get business done, which is sorely lacking at this time.

While proportional representation may not be perfect, it's a whole lot better than what we have now as well as the current alternatives. It should be decided by referendum.

This should be just the first step. There are so many other areas that need to be explored. Based on my experience as a canvasser for a party over many years, I can tell you that education is critical.

I trust that this electoral reform process is not just another smoke-and-mirrors initiative by government, undertaken just so they can say they have consulted with the stakeholders and rammed through as a predetermined outcome. We have all been down this road so many times before, federally, provincially, and civically.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. MacDonald.

[Jana MacDonald, As an Individual]

Good evening. My name is Jana MacDonald and I consider myself an average Canadian. I am here not to present argument or evidence. I am here tonight to present my plea.

My Canada is a community and all that this word invokes. As Canadians we value a unique balance between individual autonomy and collective responsibility. My Canada is diverse, not divisive; inclusive, not exclusionary; and collaborative rather than combative.

During the previous government's rule, it became apparent that exclusion and division could be fostered by a false majority government that represented a minority of Canadians. Perhaps we can thank the former government for reminding us how first past the post can be applied at its worst.

Many of the expert witnesses who have presented to the committee have thoroughly outlined the shortcomings of first past the post. It is an electoral system that fails to ensure that all votes are equal and hence fails to deliver true representative democracy. It's now time for change.

I want an electoral system that ensures that most Canadians are represented, ensures that all Canadians can vote their conscience and be confident that their votes will elect a government that represents the median voters and the median views of all Canadians. I want a government that reflects my Canada, a government that's collaborative and consultative, that includes women and minorities in proportion to the population, that engages citizens in the political process, and that is committed to the development of stable and long-term policies. All this is possible with proportional representation.

I believe that the intersection of the best of Canadian culture and a PR electoral system will ensure that the political, social, and economic advantages that PR offers can be provided in the Canadian context. With a system of PR we can all achieve a kinder, gentler democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Dolezar, please.

[Dana Dolezsar, As an Individual]

Hi, my name is Dana Dolezsar.

I want to thank you for allowing me to speak today, and I particularly want to thank the Leadnow community for informing me of this event. They also sent me the link to the survey, and I did complete the survey. I sent it to several of my family members and friends who unfortunately had not heard of it at all, nor did they know about the event. I feel that there's a bit of an oversight there and that bringing people out to things like this needs to be pushed further.

I chose to speak because I'm 26 years old and I do represent a lot of voters under 30. I voted in the last election, and before I voted I watched the debates. I talked with my family, my friends, my peers, and my co-workers, and unfortunately, what I heard from a lot of them was that they were upset with the voting system and they weren't going to vote. My response to them was that unless they were standing there with a sign that said, “I'm not voting because...”, then nobody would know why they were not voting. I think that means you're giving away your vote to the winner, and that's not an effective system either.

Many people begrudgingly said, “I know the party that I want to represent Canada is not going to win in my riding, so I'm going to vote strategically”, and they encouraged me to do the same. I didn't like that at all and I had to do my research. I discovered that my particular riding had either been NDP or Liberal for the past five years, and I felt confident voting for the Green Party, which was the party that I felt best represented Canada and my priorities for this country. A lot of my friends couldn't do that and didn't do that, but when they watched the debates, and they heard what Trudeau and the Liberal Party had said, they were confident that the first-past-the-post system would be finished after this election and that in the upcoming elections, we would have a new system.

I feel that the number one reason young people are discouraged from voting is not only because of the first-past-the-post system, but because we're witnessing politicians not following through on their commitments. We have heard this commitment being made, that the system is going to change and that this was the last election in which we would have a first-past-the-post system. Even if we have a referendum, and I have not made a decision on whether I feel a referendum is necessary, it needs to happen clearly and quickly before the next election.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Carter, go ahead.

[Dave Carter, As an Individual]

I recommend a mixed-member proportional system for federal elections. The MMP system balances the need for regional representation and the need to have a fair and accurate reflection of voters' political preferences. The MMP system should be designed with approximately one-third of the MPs elected by party ballot to ensure proportional representation. Our current first-past-the-post system fails to meet the most basic principle of democracy, namely, the right to fair representation. I give the following example to illustrate this point.

In the 1993 federal election, the Progressive Conservative Party received 2,186,000 votes and won two seats. During the same election, the Bloc Québécois received 1,846,000 votes and won 54 seats. This sort of distorted election result serves no one's best interest and results in an unstable political landscape that is subject to volatile swings. Please remedy this by replacing our outdated voting system with one that is accurate and proportional. Regarding the concerns of extreme views being represented by small parties, I believe it is better to have these views represented so they can be debated openly, rather than having them suppressed where they will grow in alienation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Shank, go ahead.

[Gordon Shank, As an Individual]

Hello. I'm Gordon Shank from Burnaby. I'm a parent and a small business owner. I also come here representing 457 people from an industrial association mainly involved in biotechnology and green energy. This includes 12 people, like myself, who are of first nations descent.

I want to start and finish with a warning, and the first one is that this brief speech contains the word “trump”, so please strap yourselves in.

Democracy is really the heart and soul of Canada, and it's a rare item that is the highest common denominator of all Canadians, but we do have some flaws. The current administration doesn't have a clear mandate with 39% support of voters—and maybe in the mid-teens in terms of all Canadians—who elected a government on a basket of election planks, for example, strong opposition to change, yet, that could be trumped with a much stronger desire for legalized marijuana.

As for solutions, who knows? But it needs to be rigorously debated, and we need a social licence. It also should be decided by Canadians, not our political proxies. Therefore, I and we, our group, advocate a referendum with a very high quorum to validate it, or alternatively, a clear and detailed plan to be presented by each party for the next federal election.

My last and ending conclusion contains a warning. I would caution you to be very leery of any unintended consequences. Very poignant examples of this may be the U.K. Labour Party, with an increased voice for anti-Semitism, or even in the Green Party of Canada, with an increased voice in BDS advocacy. These haven't had a positive effect on either party.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Zahavi, go ahead.

[Rod Zahavi, As an Individual]

Good evening, everybody.

I will start on a personal note. I'm a Canadian Israeli who first got to vote in the past election. We voted, had dinner, and by dessert time, there was a winner. In my country, in seven years, this has never happened, and, by the way, the threshold has been going up and up and up, and by now it's about 5%. My point is no system is perfect, but boy, this is risky business. I'm just leading in to what I have to say.

The electoral system of the nation has far-reaching impacts on the democratic rights and representations of its citizens, but to an even larger extent casts an everlasting effect on the culture, values, and stability of a nation. It just does. If it is important enough for us Canadians to elect our leaders every four years within our existing election framework, it doesn't seem reasonable that altering the framework itself, a much bigger, long-lasting decision, can be decided without the democratic participation of all Canadians. This is why we must have a referendum on this issue where all Canadians, and not just the nice people in this room, can have their say.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I give the floor now to Mr. Norman Franks.

[Norman Franks, As an Individual]

Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. I have two points.

First past the post has served us well for nearly 150 years. It is simple, and it is easy to understand. Please don't change it.

Using versions of proportional representation can generate unintended consequences where a single-issue party can receive enough votes to secure a few seats and find themselves in a position of extracting commitments from a coalition partner that may be good for that single-issue partner but not good for the country. A preferential ballot system would be a self-serving agenda cloaked in electoral reform.

If a changed electoral system is put forward, that proposal must be put to a referendum so all Canadians can have an opportunity to approve it or not. Anything less will truly disenfranchise large blocks of Canadians who will have no say in changes to the fundamental democratic process of electing their federal representatives. No electoral reform committee and no Parliament can make changes so basic to Canadian life without committing to a referendum.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Paulsson, you have the floor.

[Erik Paulsson, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for hearing me. I am a local film and television producer. I'm also a Generation Xer. Many of my friends are millennials. In speaking with many young people, what we've all heard a lot is that many feel disenfranchised, and the vast majority of young people have stated that they want some form of proportional representation.

In addition to this, having gone to many different town halls around electoral reform, I know that this is also echoed by most people. Most people want some form of proportional representation.

Also, in Canada people are used to electing a representative. We like to have a representative. Therefore, mixed member proportional representation is the system that will make the most Canadians happy. It is actually a fairly easy system. I really like the idea that you can vote for a candidate and a party, because you might want to vote for two different people. This gives you a lot of excellent options.

A lot of people have said that what's happening right here might actually be just a ruse—I'm not sure—and that the Liberal government is actually planning to put forward their own agenda and not listen to the people by putting forward the system of alternative votes, the ranked system. I want to point out that under a ranked system.... Currently, the Liberals have 40% support and 54% of the seats in the House. According to statistics, if there were a ranked system currently, the Liberals would have probably around 66% of the system, which would greatly skew in their favour and is kind of why they want that system.

Therefore, I want to make it clear that if the Liberal government does decide to put that through, it will make a lot of Canadians very angry. I do hope that you are going to listen to the vast majority of the people here.

I want to add one last thing. If we are going to have a system that is mixed member proportional representation, we could actually introduce a ranked ballot within the election of a candidate. This system brings in both strategies, because it would prevent an extremist or a very unlikeable candidate from getting elected. Thirty-three per cent of people might vote for one candidate while 67% may actually despise that candidate, yet they're representing them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Erik Paulsson]

My choice is an MMP system with a ranked ballot for candidates. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Now it's Jerry Chen's turn.

[Jerry Chen, As an Individual]

Ladies and gentlemen, today we have seen a debate not between electoral reform and its alternatives, but between the consideration of the opinions of average Canadians and its alternative.

There are two issues that have been presented today that I wish to push back on: first, the claim that we do not need a referendum; and second, the claim that a supposed system predicated upon proportional representation is fair in any meaningful sense.

I would like to start by addressing the first issue, and I'm going to make it clear that we need a referendum. Why? Let me explain.

Fairness and justice are a huge part of Canadian culture. It would be a grave mistake to allow Liberal bureaucrats to simply institute electoral reform without first consulting with Canadians. Canada is one of the most stable and admired democracies in the world. Any change to what our vote means needs to be done with the consent of the people and needs to include an option to maintain our current system. If you call yourself a supporter of democracy, then you believe in voting on an issue as fundamental as this.

Regarding the costs of the referendum, if we can afford, under the Trudeau government, to renovate 24 Sussex Drive, we can afford to hear from average everyday Canadians.

Now I have just a simple note regarding proportional representation. No, it isn't fair. Communities understand what is best for them, and it is our duty to stand behind the decisions of those communities, yet regardless of whether you may agree or disagree, that won't matter without a referendum.

It is clear that Liberal bureaucrats already have their minds made up. The rest is just an act. Nothing they hear between now and an announcement will change their minds, yet let us hope that the committee before us today hears the voices of millions upon millions of Canadians and calls for a referendum.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Now we have Mr. Whiteford.

[Brian Whiteford, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I would like to welcome you.

I'm going to present in English; I speak French like a Spanish cow.

I worked on the Hill for a great many years and I worked also in the Senate, so I really appreciate the stamina, and the length of time that you've been here, and the deliberation that you're doing. So kudos to you. I know the hard work that goes into it.

I have a caution, though, before considering biplurality majority systems. I think it should be understood that the number of House of Commons seats assigned to each of the provinces and territories is a matter separate from the electoral system. There is no reference to an electoral system in any part of the Constitution Act. Each system has its own properties, its own strengths, and its own weaknesses, and with more than 15 political parties in Canada and a strong sense of regional identification on the part of many voters, the major parties have generally aimed at accommodating rather than exacerbating regional and linguistic differences.

It is within that context that consideration of any alternative to the present electoral system take place, weighing in the balance the respective capacities of the various electoral systems to ensure continued inter-regional and interlinguistic accommodation, and to enable those who have previously been outsiders in the electoral system to become full participants. Voters must be educated that pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity. It is dialogue, an open challenge of ideas, give and take, criticism and self-criticism about everything, speaking and listening, and that reveals both common understandings and real differences.

Dialogue does not mean everybody at the table will agree, but everybody needs to understand that pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table with one's commitments. I submit that Parliament educate the voting public on the benefits and drawbacks of each choice, and ensure that a clear, well-defined referendum takes place, and not a long drawn-out campaign like the “neverendum” of the yes-no vote of the early nineties. I also suggest we look at compulsory voting.

Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Graham.

[Duncan Graham, As an Individual]

My name is Duncan Graham and I'm a retired geography teacher and very active with a worldwide organization that's intent on democratizing the United Nations. There's a proclamation we have in this context that also applies to my ideas in Canada, that we are a rich mosaic of ethnicities, languages, and culture, but we are also the brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind. So you might keep that context in mind when I'm for proportional representation, but against the idea of a national referendum.

A few quotes came to mind when I thought about being able to talk to you. There's one of Churchill's where he declared of democracy that's it a pretty poor system; the only thing going for it is it's better than anything else. We all know that one. There's another saying, though, that isn't as often quoted. He mentioned, on the other hand, on the values of democracy, that his despair was increased every time he talked to the average voter.

These thoughts came to mind with not having a national referendum.

The other visionary idea that I would propose for thinking outside the box is that the four candidates in a constituency should all go to Ottawa—Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green—and in Ottawa they would vote according to the percentage of the vote they got, so that every vote would really count. Instead of quadrupling the number of constituencies, the size of the constituency could be quadrupled. There's no mathematical problem with it, but that's thinking outside the box and probably far too visionary for your intellectual—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Actually, if I may intervene there, I think what you're talking about is weighted voting. We've had a couple of presentations on that. It's an interesting idea.

Please wrap up now.